This seems to be part of a type of brand marketing where a brand claims it has invented something, but the only thing that ever exists of significant economic value is the attention raised by the promo video / article. Not the thing/service.
I love these types of videos because they create this fiction of how design happens, where people sit around a table with drawings and or come up with beautiful mock-ups (the motion sickness glasses is a good example). Often, a lot of design decisions are super obvious and don't require a lot of sweat and collaboration to come up with, but in videos they're made to appear very difficult as it presents better. And other things are super messy, but you're not going to show that as it's hard to communicate.
Yeah a lot of this is a very very cleaned up, performative version of design process. It's like its own subgenre. Original thinking is wild, feral, messy, often solo tho heavily influenced by the context around you. None of that presents well.
However I bristle at the idea that core design decisions are usually super obvious, even when the end results are. Not sure this is even your point so forgive the tangent if not, but this issue is my particular hill to die on, it's 100% the single biggest gap in understanding that I see between those that regularly engage in original creative work vs those who do not.
People see something obvious and say "That's simple, I could have come up with that!" But that's all hindsight, like saying "I could have bought bitcoin in 2010!" It's not even wrong, it's answering an entirely different question of capability, not probability.
The question is would you have come up with that, were you tasked with the problem and put in the same context? I'd estimate for most great-but-simple inventions, it's not many people who could plausibly say that, because so much of what we bring to bear on problems comes from our own histories and unique perspectives & influences, not to mention talents and predilections.
This distinction between could vs would is core to understanding creative output, especially the ideas that are the simplest to use or understand. The delta between understanding vs coming up with there is often vast; simple things are often the hardest things of all to conceive.
I'm in total agreement regarding some designs that seem obvious later but really took several iterations to reach. There's definitely hindsight bias when a design works so well that it feels obvious.
My point was more that I've seen product demos where parts of a product were presented as having been pored over painstakingly when in reality it was decided on day one that it would work that way. However, because it's a prominent feature, it feels cheap to show the reality, so I get that for demos there's a bit of storytelling that goes into it so the audience feels like it was a revelation.
For UX that I've designed myself, I have definitely found that a lot of the great ones required a ton of iteration and almost "courage" to go against my initial bright ideas and look at things from a different perspective. It often required taking away elements that I thought were absolutely required at first but later realized made more sense to go without. If someone were to look at the final result, they would definitely think "Well, obviously that's how it should work." But more likely they'd have go through a similar journey that I did to come up with it if they hadn't seen the solution.
In a way it's like finding out how a magic trick worked. It's only obvious in retrospect.
A magic trick is a good way to put it, especially for laypeople. I see your point and agree, it's always hard to know going in which ideas you're going to one-shot (and be slightly embarrassed about having one-shotted) and which only come from the courage to kill early darlings and continue down the road of uncertainty.
We're fortunate if we even get that latter opportunity, given most want to take the easy path and cargo cult someone else's idea. The thing I've noticed is that the hard path to continue the exploration often gives the cargo cult answer but with a nuance or two for one's context that make all the difference. I'm curious if you have experienced that as well.
> People see something obvious and say "That's simple, I could have come up with that!"
That's the problem with user interface design as a career. It takes a lot of effort to create simple to understand and simple to use design, and then when users see them, they see it is simple and think it must have been easy to do. Most programmers tend to make programs for themselves and other technical people and has horrible design. The classic corollary example I like is when Apple came up with MP3 players and marketed as 'It can hold 1000 songs' instead of the current marketing at the time 'It has has 1GB of storage'. Technical folks would not be satisfied with 1000 songs becuase they would be doing back of the math calculations on how low of a bitrate you have to get, in order to fit 1k songs in a given space... while the other 95% of the population doesn't want to do any math, and if even if they did, they don't know.. or at least back then, didn't know what a GB was, or how many megabytes an MP3 consumed....
Indeed. UI/UX is actually a pretty shitty career unless you are good enough to regularly pull rabbits out of your hat. At the low end it's just drawing boxes and using someone else's tricks in a system that isn't even the codebase. At the mid end you get the codebase and might occasionally solve interesting problems, but you'll rarely get the recognition and influence equal to its value. Only at the high end do you start getting the rewards, but they tend not to last very long because people quickly adapt to seeing your solutions as obvious.
It's why designers, and creatives more generally, try to cultivate a mystique around themselves, even(/especially?) when they're only mid. The truth is creative work is a lot more playful than it is mysterious, but play is not valued, only mystery is. This leaves many creatives stuck in tension between their internal and external identities.
Any innovation benefiting cyclists and coming from the auto industry is a way to move attention away from the fact that cars are the most dangerous thing on the road.
Jokes on them for the wasted resources. If they don’t intend to market, I hope someone will. Where I live cyclists use ANC headphones all the time, and I’m tired of the near misses.
Student cyclists that ignore the rules and wear ANC (or even large headphones) should be fined more often.
Why is significant economic value the metric for success?
Skoda publishes the research and design openly (no patent, no product for sale), to solve a real problem (increase in bike-related accidents from noise cancelling headphones), to ensure that the safety outcome can be spread as quickly and easily as possible.
We should be celebrating companies that open source material findings related to safety, not lambasting them for not exploiting it for maximum value.
it feels disingenuous to lump this in with most of the other items you listed.
i think the slightly less cynical interpretation of this is that it's not marketing, it's an employee morale booster.
some skoda employees got to have fun with this. just like the amazon engineers got to have fun building drones for a while. letting the engineers out to play every now and then is cheaper than just giving raises. the shiny marketing videos gives the people who worked on the project something to show off to their friends.
i can't imagine the actual marketing value here really does anything for the company.
Coincidentally, I bought a 12v car horn yesterday with the intent of wiring it into my ebike's power supply with a little button on my handlebars.
Not because of other cyclists or pedestrians wearing (anc) headphones but because modern cars are so heavily sound-proofed they don't hear a bicycle bell anymore. A recent incident with an inattentive taxi driver in a brand new EV nearly flattening me prompted me to want to pursue this.
I'm still waiting for my cheap AliExpress dc-to-dc step down converter but otherwise I have everything I need and I think it should work. The horn module itself is definitely loud enough: I connected it to a 12v power supply at my desk and jumped out of my chair.
I'm very sceptical of their claims that ~780Hz is in some way special, especially the way they represent it graphically. Playing a frequency sweep while wearing WH-1000XM3 headphones, I don't notice any particular drop-off there.
Near where I live, heavy goods vehicles are fitted with reversing indicators that make a "cshh cshh cshh" sound i.e. pulsed white-noise. White noise like that is the hardest for ANC to cancel. Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Wt1_51EVA
In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.
Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
In the scenario presented (London, mostly not segregated bike paths), the solution is for the cyclist to ride in a way they're not endangering pedestrians.
There's even a fairly recent UK law (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-change...) that more or less says in a collision, the "stronger" road user is at fault unless proven otherwise. That applies to car v. cyclist as much as cyclist v. pedestrian.
Seems to be some misunderstanding of what bike bells are for here...
A bell is helpful in a situation where a pedestrian is not aware of an approaching bike. The bell informs the pedestrian of two things:
1. That there is an approaching bike.
2. Roughly were the bike is approaching from.
The hope is that the pedestrian will then behave in a predictable way to allow a safe pass by the bike. In almost all cases the pedestrian will be able to simply continue doing what they were doing before they heard the bell.
If a pedestrian can not hear bike bells, for whatever reason, that is not a problem. They can just stay consistent with the centreline of the path/road/way. They then have a responsibility to shoulder check when shifting from side to side.
I think it's time for some sort of a safety standard for a sound frequency to be reserved exclusively for alarm/alert use and that ANC systems have to let through.
It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.
Is there an interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where using this bicycle bell to circumvent the computer system used in your headphones for active noise cancellation would be a federal felony in the United States?
Through acoustic testing, the research team identified a narrow frequency band – a “safety gap” – capable of penetrating ANC headphone filters. This range lies between 750 and 780 Hz.
Building an entire product around EQ crossover frequencies (which are not standardized or regulated in any way) seems a bit risky to me. Those are things that could change at any time, as could the shapes of the EQ curves themselves. there are fads in engineering design like anything else and in this wholly digital era they tend to cycle and proliferate faster because increased performance (or at least hte temporary consumer perception of such ) is only a software update away. People are extraordinarily susceptible to placebo effects in the audio realm (probably because most people prioritize their visual sense), so just moving EQ crossovers around or making them dynamically adjustable is an easy path to consumer buzz. You see this all the time with pro audio plugins.
Next challange: Place a camera in front of the bike that scans approaching pedestrians. Calculate their head position and trajectory. Use directional speakers and focused sound beams to focus the ~780Hz sound towards the head(s) of the pedestrian(s). Now that you are not bothering the environment as much, you can increase the volume as well.
After 10+ year biking in Amsterdam I never use my bicycle bell. Instead I try to predict their trajectory and steer around it, way more predictable because everyone responds differently
People use their ears to navigate traffic (as non-car-users) much more than they realize. There's a reason kids need to be drilled in "look both ways before crossing the street" - you can hear that there's no car coming, what's the problem? There's a reason electric cars need to make that strange noise so you can, in fact, hear them coming. Absolutely a headphone user, with not only ANC to reduce external noises but loud music to mask them, is missing a primary sense for navigating traffic. Absolutely these things increase accidents from minor (someone walking into the path of a cyclist on a multi-use path, oblivious to bells and callouts) to major.
But can that bell penetrate loud music? How many people really walk around with ANC headphones just as a "cone of silence" device?
This bell would be illegal in Denmark, where our laws clearly state that you are only allowed one signal giving device and that any signal giving devices attached to vehicles (including bikes) can only produce one constant sound.
Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.
People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.
It's almost hilarious that such efforts are spent on bicycle bells while emergency vehicles are featuring deafeningly loud alarms to penetrate the sound isolation of cars.
Cool idea. But bizarre that they worked with Deliveroo. Bike bells were designed for a time when cyclists travelled at speeds where you could safely get out of the way.
Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.
But delivery riders for delivery platforms commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Platforms have the GPS data. They must know.
They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
It's hard for me to understand why people choose to walk around in public wearing headphones. I'm aware that it's incredibly common, but you put yourself at risk of theft, accident, and of course the mild hearing loss that accompanies _any_ frequent headphone usage. In the case of both theft and accident, you cannot hear your assailant coming, and miss the queues that would otherwise keep you safe.
I've noticed some trains are playing extremely loud announcements (Elizabeth line for example) which makes me think they're trying to penetrate headphones and earphones
Guess why I wear noise cancelling headphones on trains? Because of the excessive announcements!
(I mean seriously excessive. Because in the UK the answer to everything is to create another announcement or poster)
It is amazing they openly shared their findings [0], but one thing I am missing is what this design would cost if put into mass production. To the biggest layman possible, it reads like while the design is clever and would be more expensive by virtue of more materials/size alone, it's not impractical, but maybe someone more informed on this type of manufacturing can correct my ignorance. If that's the case, hopefully we'll see these designs on the market soon as even with music+ANC, I have found certain sounds to be able to easily penetrate through when listening, though that is purely subjective and I don't have my music earbleedingly loud...
I have noticed I can make a less sharp sound with my bike bell by ringing it a certain way. I use this to let pedestrians know I am coming but that they don't have to jump out of the way.
603 comments
Examples:
- Samsung safety truck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GNGfse9ZK8
- Citroën motion sickness glasses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aco63dlq_WE
- Amazon Prime Air https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AVVTBmtDdo
- IBM Smart Ads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbEMVdzXiCY (implies they created lots of ad posters, but they only made 3 posters for this video)
- Lexus Hoverboard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFf7Meqkim8
I wonder if there is a term for this. "Vaporware marketing"?
However I bristle at the idea that core design decisions are usually super obvious, even when the end results are. Not sure this is even your point so forgive the tangent if not, but this issue is my particular hill to die on, it's 100% the single biggest gap in understanding that I see between those that regularly engage in original creative work vs those who do not.
People see something obvious and say "That's simple, I could have come up with that!" But that's all hindsight, like saying "I could have bought bitcoin in 2010!" It's not even wrong, it's answering an entirely different question of capability, not probability.
The question is would you have come up with that, were you tasked with the problem and put in the same context? I'd estimate for most great-but-simple inventions, it's not many people who could plausibly say that, because so much of what we bring to bear on problems comes from our own histories and unique perspectives & influences, not to mention talents and predilections.
This distinction between could vs would is core to understanding creative output, especially the ideas that are the simplest to use or understand. The delta between understanding vs coming up with there is often vast; simple things are often the hardest things of all to conceive.
My point was more that I've seen product demos where parts of a product were presented as having been pored over painstakingly when in reality it was decided on day one that it would work that way. However, because it's a prominent feature, it feels cheap to show the reality, so I get that for demos there's a bit of storytelling that goes into it so the audience feels like it was a revelation.
For UX that I've designed myself, I have definitely found that a lot of the great ones required a ton of iteration and almost "courage" to go against my initial bright ideas and look at things from a different perspective. It often required taking away elements that I thought were absolutely required at first but later realized made more sense to go without. If someone were to look at the final result, they would definitely think "Well, obviously that's how it should work." But more likely they'd have go through a similar journey that I did to come up with it if they hadn't seen the solution.
In a way it's like finding out how a magic trick worked. It's only obvious in retrospect.
We're fortunate if we even get that latter opportunity, given most want to take the easy path and cargo cult someone else's idea. The thing I've noticed is that the hard path to continue the exploration often gives the cargo cult answer but with a nuance or two for one's context that make all the difference. I'm curious if you have experienced that as well.
> People see something obvious and say "That's simple, I could have come up with that!"
That's the problem with user interface design as a career. It takes a lot of effort to create simple to understand and simple to use design, and then when users see them, they see it is simple and think it must have been easy to do. Most programmers tend to make programs for themselves and other technical people and has horrible design. The classic corollary example I like is when Apple came up with MP3 players and marketed as 'It can hold 1000 songs' instead of the current marketing at the time 'It has has 1GB of storage'. Technical folks would not be satisfied with 1000 songs becuase they would be doing back of the math calculations on how low of a bitrate you have to get, in order to fit 1k songs in a given space... while the other 95% of the population doesn't want to do any math, and if even if they did, they don't know.. or at least back then, didn't know what a GB was, or how many megabytes an MP3 consumed....
It's why designers, and creatives more generally, try to cultivate a mystique around themselves, even(/especially?) when they're only mid. The truth is creative work is a lot more playful than it is mysterious, but play is not valued, only mystery is. This leaves many creatives stuck in tension between their internal and external identities.
AFAIK it's only available in a few very specific places (seemingly for good reason).
and in IE at https://www.skoda-accessories.ie/ie/en/p/bicycle-bell/SK-000...
There is a Czech shop listing for the old bell at https://eshop.skoda-auto.cz/en_CZ/bicycle-bell/p/000050305C
Presumably the new bell will eventually appear among the other items at https://eshop.skoda-auto.cz/en_CZ/cycling-accessories/c/cycl... and in their bike order catalog PDF at https://www.skoda-auto.com/services/bikes-cycling
Student cyclists that ignore the rules and wear ANC (or even large headphones) should be fined more often.
Skoda publishes the research and design openly (no patent, no product for sale), to solve a real problem (increase in bike-related accidents from noise cancelling headphones), to ensure that the safety outcome can be spread as quickly and easily as possible.
We should be celebrating companies that open source material findings related to safety, not lambasting them for not exploiting it for maximum value.
it feels disingenuous to lump this in with most of the other items you listed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWV8irg64oM
some skoda employees got to have fun with this. just like the amazon engineers got to have fun building drones for a while. letting the engineers out to play every now and then is cheaper than just giving raises. the shiny marketing videos gives the people who worked on the project something to show off to their friends.
i can't imagine the actual marketing value here really does anything for the company.
Not because of other cyclists or pedestrians wearing (anc) headphones but because modern cars are so heavily sound-proofed they don't hear a bicycle bell anymore. A recent incident with an inattentive taxi driver in a brand new EV nearly flattening me prompted me to want to pursue this.
I'm still waiting for my cheap AliExpress dc-to-dc step down converter but otherwise I have everything I need and I think it should work. The horn module itself is definitely loud enough: I connected it to a 12v power supply at my desk and jumped out of my chair.
Near where I live, heavy goods vehicles are fitted with reversing indicators that make a "cshh cshh cshh" sound i.e. pulsed white-noise. White noise like that is the hardest for ANC to cancel. Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Wt1_51EVA
In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.
Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
There's even a fairly recent UK law (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-change...) that more or less says in a collision, the "stronger" road user is at fault unless proven otherwise. That applies to car v. cyclist as much as cyclist v. pedestrian.
A bell is helpful in a situation where a pedestrian is not aware of an approaching bike. The bell informs the pedestrian of two things:
1. That there is an approaching bike.
2. Roughly were the bike is approaching from.
The hope is that the pedestrian will then behave in a predictable way to allow a safe pass by the bike. In almost all cases the pedestrian will be able to simply continue doing what they were doing before they heard the bell.
If a pedestrian can not hear bike bells, for whatever reason, that is not a problem. They can just stay consistent with the centreline of the path/road/way. They then have a responsibility to shoulder check when shifting from side to side.
It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.
I think the solution is nice for sure, but solving the wrong problem.
Building an entire product around EQ crossover frequencies (which are not standardized or regulated in any way) seems a bit risky to me. Those are things that could change at any time, as could the shapes of the EQ curves themselves. there are fads in engineering design like anything else and in this wholly digital era they tend to cycle and proliferate faster because increased performance (or at least hte temporary consumer perception of such ) is only a software update away. People are extraordinarily susceptible to placebo effects in the audio realm (probably because most people prioritize their visual sense), so just moving EQ crossovers around or making them dynamically adjustable is an easy path to consumer buzz. You see this all the time with pro audio plugins.
(of course, there's also the locomotive horn, but the equipment required is a bit impractical - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTQSWtK65PE)
But can that bell penetrate loud music? How many people really walk around with ANC headphones just as a "cone of silence" device?
How this would be enforced is a different topic.
Bit cringe marketing though.
When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.
People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.
Hey, we just solved 90% of the accidents.
Pretty cool though!
Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.
But delivery riders for delivery platforms commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Platforms have the GPS data. They must know.
They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
Guess why I wear noise cancelling headphones on trains? Because of the excessive announcements!
(I mean seriously excessive. Because in the UK the answer to everything is to create another announcement or poster)
We need to stop the arms race
[0] https://cdn.skoda-storyboard.com/2026/04/Skoda-DuoBell-Resea...
A loud voice travels very well through car windows at short distances, even for big soundproof vehicles.