Heads-Up Displays for Motorcyclists

An anonymous reader writes "An NYT article describes a new invention by a former racing driver to incorporate displays in the visors of helmets used by motorcyclists. A GPS receiver in the helmet is used to calculate position and speed of the wearer, and presumably in displaying route guidance. I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident."

Comments

Great

[iamdrscience]

As if riding a motorcycle wasn't dangerous enough, soon somebody's going to be watching a TV show in their helmet while riding around.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

.. as opposed to yacking their head off on the mobile phone instead of concentrating on driving, checking mirrors and so such. Motorcycles would be a hell of a lot safer if they would just outlaw cagers ;)

Re:Great

[Hellasboy]

most of the dangers to motorcycle riders isn't them getting distracted themselves but by people in cars not paying attention.

Re:Great

[Kilka]

This will be fox networks newest reality tv show. I can just see it, vehicles mysteriously getting in joe motorbikers way!

-Kilka

Re:Great

[finkployd]

Actually the most common danger to motorcyclists is alcohol. The majority of bike accidents do not involve cars, read the Hurt Report.

Don't get me wrong, moron cagers are a danger, but this whole 'down a few beers and ride into the sunset' thing my fellow bikers have such a fixation with has to stop.

Finkployd

Re:Great

[Kingstrum]

Actually, they can watch a 20 year-old movie that did it first:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0086443/

Haven't seen it in years, but was pretty good and Fred Ward got off to a good start. Always wanted the helmet he had (pop-up compass, magnifier, etc.)...aaahhh, the future seems to take longer and longer to get here.
Kingstrum

Re:Great

[Lord Kano]

Don't get me wrong, moron cagers are a danger, but this whole 'down a few beers and ride into the sunset' thing my fellow bikers have such a fixation with has to stop.

If enough of them keep on doing it, don't worry; it will stop, soon enough.

LK

Re:Great

[galbro]

Exactly. The ones who need a "heads up" is the clowns driving cages. Particularly those that make left turns in front of you.

Re:Great

[Goth Biker Babe]

Actually the most common danger to motorcyclists is alcohol. The majority of bike accidents do not involve cars, read the Hurt Report.


Probably in the US but not over here in the UK. One of the biggest rides locally ends up at a coffee shop that sells a great Hot Chocolate. All of my biker friends know that bikes are lethal enough without being under the influence. And that's confirmed by the fact that I have never heard of anyone I know being done for drunk riding.

Re:Great

[finkployd]

Personally (and I'm sure this will start an arguement with someone around here) I think it is primarily a factor in the US due to the "Harley Mentality". I mean, HD themselves sents up "beer tents" at their functions. That, and going on a group ride that hits several bars is a tradition.

Finkployd

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the morons that ride between cars down the centerline to pass, the complete idiots tailgaiting a car on a bike, or the utter dipshits that floor it up to 100mph or pop a fricking wheelie on the highway?

the great part is that stupid motocycle riders dont live long.

Personally I think that every crotch rocket should require a IQ test to buy it... as it seems that most that ride those have an IQ of about 30.

Re:Great

[Shoten]

From the Hurt Report...

Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile.

Read the report yourself, before you start preaching, with the baseless expectation that it will support your own idiotic assumptions. BTW, that line is the first and foremost conclusion of the report, and the third sentence in the whole thing.

But that only addresses your second statement, being "The majority of bike accidents do not involve cars." Let's deal with the first one regarding alcohol, "Actually the most common danger to motorcyclists is alcohol."

Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

Hm. Almost half...definitely enough to point out that drinking on a motorcycle is still a bad idea, but definitely not most either. See above, under "read the report yourself." I've seen too many fellow riders take stupid risks because they falsely believed them not to be among major causes of accidents, and guys like you who purport to be informed are a big part of that problem.

Re:Great

[IM6100]

There is also a Harley-Davidson branded beer.

Re:Great

[ChicagoBiker]

The Hurt Report is complete horseshit and has been used over and over again the last 30 years to try and force helmets on riders heads. All it does is support the theory that people get hurt in motorcycle crashes. Well no fucking kidding.

The number one cause of injury in motorcycle accidents is motorcycles being ridden by riders who have not trained themselves how to ride. Inexperience and ignorance are why get people hurt on motorcycles.

If the government and it's citizens want to make a law regarding safe motorcycle use, require all license applicants to take a 6 week motorcycle safety riding/training course as offered by the MSF.

Support your local A.B.A.T.E chapter or other Motorcycle Rights Organization.

Let those who ride decide!

Re:Great

[digitalsushi]

A guy who worked here put it best: There'd be a lot fewer accidents if all of our cars had 8 inch spikes sticking out of the steering wheel.

Re:Great

[finkployd]

The Hurt Report is complete horseshit and has been used over and over again the last 30 years to try and force helmets on riders heads.

You opinion of the Hurt report aside, what is your beef with helmets? Is it the "government shouldn't be telling me what to do" angle or the "helmets don't matter for safety anyway" angle?

If the government and it's citizens want to make a law regarding safe motorcycle use, require all license applicants to take a 6 week motorcycle safety riding/training course as offered by the MSF.

I totally agree, and I'm lucky in that in my state (PA) the MSF course is completly free (paid for by the state, from the $10 they charge for the permit and whatever they charge for license renewals). I've heard that in many states it is hundreds of dollars. A good first step would be offering it for free to everyone.

Finkployd

Re:Great

[supabeast!]

My last employer was a startup working on defense contracts. Most of our employees either came from the military or large defense contractors, and were used to doing their work on whatever cruddy old desktop systems the IT staff tossed on a desk, none had ever had a new/fast/powerful computer, and we exploited that by providing high-end laptops for every employee; literally buying the most expensive VAIO model on the market-and those things had 15-inch screens. To these government geeks, a nice laptop was like candy, a very nice extra job benefit. That changed when they realized how heavy the damned things were, but I digress...

Anyway, one guy had a long commute-45 minutes minimum, sometimes over two hours, every day. He was also a horrible driver, one of those flaming assholes who won't wear a seatbelt, disables his airbag, ignores red lights and stop signs, all at twice the speed limit in a Ford F150. While trying to find time to view all of the extra features in the nine-disk LoTR:FoTR DVD set, it occured to him that he could use his laptop to watch movies while driving. He even got an FM adapter to play the sound via the stereo system.

Re:Great

[ChicagoBiker]

You opinion of the Hurt report aside, what is your beef with helmets? Is it the "government shouldn't be telling me what to do" angle or the "helmets don't matter for safety anyway" angle?

There's a number of beef's with helmets. First on my list though is that it has in the past and still today been determined that for ordinary traffic driving helmets are unsafe and impairing to the operator. Hence why it is illegal in all 50 states to operate a passenger car, bus or truck while wearing one!

Then there's the "government telling me what to do angle", which probably is tied for number one. I mean, what's next, you must wear a good thick coat in the winter? The helmet law apologists always site the reduction of injuries and public health care costs as a reason for mandatory helmet use, well, the flu certainly costs the public enough money every winter in hospital visits by the uninsured, should we mandate a hat and gloves law?

Helmets are a good idea sometimes, but mainly on the race track, where extreme risks are taken and unforeseen accidents will happen because of the limits being pushed. In everyday use, I'd prefer to choose when "I" feel it's a good idea. Because in a lot of cases it's not, and can even be a hindrance. In downtown urban traffic, I'd rather take the risk of not wearing one than suffer the sensory impairment that comes with wearing one. And I most certainly do not want to be forced by my government and health care cost reduction lobbyists who don't understand what it's like to ride a motorcycle to don cumbersome, uncomfortable and even dangerous (depending on the situation) equipment that impairs my ability to enjoy my sport as I see fit.

The key to safety for motorcycle riding (as with other things) is good preparation of skills, practice and experience in riding correctly and how to stay safe and avoid accidents. Not just slapping on as much armor as you can and flailing off wildly into the sunset hoping the suit holds up when you (inevitably) crash into the wall, or car, or truck, or bus!

Re:Great

[silicon not in the v]

First on my list though is that it has in the past and still today been determined that for ordinary traffic driving helmets are unsafe and impairing to the operator. Hence why it is illegal in all 50 states to operate a passenger car, bus or truck while wearing one!

I am concerned for you, so that is why I want to talk about this helmet issue. There are two factors to consider when talking about motorcycle accidents, and you are focusing on only one--particularly the one that is generally less important.
There are 1) The potential to be in a wreck, and 2) Survival/injury potential in a wreck. When you mention helmets being "unsafe and impairing", you are focusing on the significance (about a 1 out of 10) of the vision/hearing impairment, as opposed to the significance (about 9 out of 10) of a helmet's ability to keep you alive in an accident.
There are not many cases where a helmet causes significant vision impairment. If it does, maybe check some other helmets because most are wide enough in their visor opening to give you almost all of the peripheral vision you can use. It doesn't feel as open as no helmet, but that doesn't constitute much risk. The biggest thing you should think about is what share of accidents can you really avoid by a 1 or 2 % increase in peripheral vision? A patch of ice on the road, a little gravel or sand in that turn you go into, the car coming toward you that turns right in front of you(just happened to a guy I know). A lot of accidents are caused by cars just not seeing the bike. Many more by the rider not having the know-how or time to respond to a situation. There are probably very few where it was because the rider couldn't see because of his helmet.

The thing is, most motorcycle riders will be in at least one accident at some point in their riding careers. Do you want that to be your only one because you die or are disabled? Instead, I ride with people who wear the protective gear--helmet, jacket, chaps, boots--and many of them have been in accidents and been OK because they were protected.

If I could summarize my most useful advice here short and sweet, it would be please wear a helmet at night at least. Bikes are practically invisible to car drivers then, and it's extremely dangerous.

Re:Great

[rossifer]

Actually, contrary to those pushing for helmet laws, the Hurt report does not support a conclusion that all motorcyclists should wear helmets.

Instead, the Hurt report supports a conclusion that those who would choose to leave their head unprotected are the same ones most likely to end up in a serious motorcycle accident.

Forcing a helmet on someone stupid enough to choose to ride without one isn't going to change anything but allow for an open casket at the funeral. Under the minimal helmet is still the same unskilled, gotta-prove-something attitude that made that type of person "overrepresented" in the first place.

IMHO, of course. *ahem*. As for supporting ABATE, well, I'm fairly happy with the reduced injury and fatality rates associated with the helmet laws here in CA. Especially among those riders without insurance, whose medical care would ultimately be paid by me. If they were to pass a law which allowed hospitals and doctors to refuse to care for helmetless riders without insurance, I'd definitely support repealing the helmet laws. But since that's not going to happen for lots of reasons, ABATE just doesn't have a cause I'm interested in.

I do agree with your remarks about motorcycle training making a real difference, however. I also feel that all motorcyclists should be required to take the ERC every 5-10 years to renew their license.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Great

[ChicagoBiker]

Again, a helmet in some cases is a good idea, I'm not disputing that. "I" don't think it's a good idea in certain cases *for me* and I'm not too keen on letting you or the federal government make that decision for me. You're information is a little skewed too, but I'm not going to pick it apart because it can all be summed up in one statement: MOST motorcycle accidents with tragic outcomes are because of two things; not doing anything to avoid the accident or not being prepared enough to even know what to do to avoid the accident. Of course, there's a third case, and that's the unavoidable accident, but there's usually nothing that can save anyone from this. Having an oncoming car take your lane to pass around a curve on a two lane highway and hit you head on has only one outcome and a helmet and all the training in the world ain't gonna save you from that.

It's been studied numerous times and has been discovered for years that in most cases (like 80%) that when presented with the inevitable crash situation the rider does nothing to avoid the collision and does even less to survive the resulting crash. They just sit there. Stare forward at the impending doom and crash. And these riders are almost always people who have never taken a rider training class or safety course.

The #1 type of motorcycle accident as you mentioned is the infamous *I didn't see the motorcycle, left hand turn in front of the rider*. In almost 80% of these accidents there are no skid marks from the motorcycle, there is no evidence of avoidance steering, and the injuries sustained show that the rider did nothing to prepare for impact. They just sit there, stunned, and crash.

I have yet to enter an intersection in the 15 years I've been riding and NOT been 100% prepared for that car with it's turn signal on facing me to actually go ahead and turn left right in front of me, and as such, I'm almost always 100% ready to steer left, right, stop or prepare to launch off the bike over the handlebars if it happens. My eyes are always trained to look for movement on both sides of the road and from sidewalks, driveways, my mirrors and in front of me. I've taken the rider safety course twice, these skills were taught to me there. I've ridden with people who have never taken it, they're usually more tuned in to their radio controls or birds in the sky than the woman who just lost her shopping cart on the supermarket driveway 50 yards in front of us heading for the street or the tire roll of the left hand turner at the intersection we're approaching.

In a crash situation, you're right, a helmet will protect your head from contact with objects. The name of the game though is not to crash. As you said in your message, there are very few motorcyclists you'll meet who have had *two* major crashes. You usually only get one shot at this. Knowing how to avoid an accident and knowing how to make it through one is what will keep you in the wind, just donning a helmet doesn't even cover 1/4 of the preparation though and there are way too many new and even older riders out there who think that's all they need and they'll be ok. They're wrong. As well as the public and government and lobbyists who don't ride trying to put one on every head out there when instead they should be sending them to training classes to teach them how to ride instead of just forcing a piece of fiberglass on their head and telling 'em to have at it.

Re:Great

[ChicagoBiker]

If they were to pass a law which allowed hospitals and doctors to refuse to care for helmetless riders without insurance, I'd definitely support repealing the helmet laws.

Ok, and with that thinking I will support you 100% just as soon as they at the same time stop treating people with AIDS who have unprotected sex and/or not treating homosexual men and IV drug users, and people who don't maintain a healthy diet, and black people with sickle cell (or hell, all hereditary diseases, we'll stop those prone to it from breeding) and last but not least, smokers with cancer. I will then support you in your cause to ease the public healthcare burden.

FREEDOM has it's costs and consequences, and we all share them in this society, even the ones some of us don't agree with.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude: I have on my shelf the helmet I was wearing when I went down at 30mph+. Skidded, face down, across the pavement. The helmet is worn down from the chin to the cheek. If I wasn't wearing a full-face, I wouldn't have a face. I'm not the prettiest guy out there, but I kinda like my face the way it is.

YMMV, but I ain't never gonna ride without one...

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude:

Same story, but went down at 50 mph. First I hit the curb on the median hard enough to crack my skull (but not the helmet), then I slid on face, arm, legs, etc. for a good stretch.

I kinda like my face. I'm glad I was wearing a helmet that saved it for me.

Re:Great

[FFFish]

Let those who ride decide!

Only if those who decide to not take rational protective measures -- ie. helmet, gloves, body armour, boots -- don't cost me a fucking penny in health care costs, either through my health care tax dollars or insurance premium increases.

Re:Great

[cedhed2]

While most motorcycle accidents (like most car accidents) can be avoided by paying attention, planning an escape route, and flat knowing how to ride, shit happens. Even the best rider in the world can have a stupid moment or get into a situation where they react incorrectly. Or even have a major mechanical failure (it happens even to the best maintained bike). Then the name of the game is survival. You'd be surprised what you can live through with the right gear. I've seen racers highside a bike at 120 mph, slide into a barrier, and survive. Shure they broke their legs or had a minor head injury but they lived to race another day. I've personally had three decent wrecks. One caused by my transmission locking up at 40mph on a 3 month old motorcycle. Most sport riders have had at least one if not more. And the stunters seem to wreck every other day. Yet most live to do it again (and again, etc). Even a small parking lot goof can be potentially fatal to an unprotected head. Fall down at a stoplight and smack your melon on a car fender and you could be on your way to a hospital or the morgue. And helmets aren't much of a safety hazard, peripheral vision is barely affected with a well designed helmet (and not affected at all in most beanie types) and hearing can be helped once you are going faster than 30mph or so. At that speed the wind noise is enough to significantly reduce hearinig capability and after about 10 minutes your hearing will be impaired for the next few hours. Helmets block enough direct wind noise to help this significantly, leaving you better able to hear in traffic. And many touring riders wear ear plugs at highway speeds for additional noise reduction. The thing that gets to me about all of this is how you protest laws requiring helmets as reducing your freedom and enacting government control. Yet at the same time you have no issue with the requirements for brake lights (in most cases) turn signals, a specific motorcycle liscensce, and actually propose more intervention and control in the form of mandatory advanced rider training. I guess I just don't get it. I've watched and participated in this debate for a few years now and I'm going to level with you. This entire fight is about looks. Most of the badass bikers and squids don't like the way they look with a helmet. It interfears with their dangerous and devil may care attitudes. This is why they own a bike and they'll be damned if the govt is going to turn them respectable. They've seen too many bad biker flicks where the hero rides off into the sunset hair flapping in the breeze (most real bikers know enough to wear a bandana so the wind doesn't remove theirs). And for that we are willing to sit back and watch as countless newbies and RUB's kill themselves on our freeways and surface streets? There were 6 motorcycle fatalities in my town this year. All but one would have survived if they had had a helmet on. Unskilled rider or not.

Re:Great

[cedhed2]

While most motorcycle accidents (like most car accidents) can be avoided by paying attention, planning an escape route, and flat knowing how to ride, shit happens. Even the best rider in the world can have a stupid moment or get into a situation where they react incorrectly. Or even have a major mechanical failure (it happens even to the best maintained bike). Then the name of the game is survival.

You'd be surprised what you can live through with the right gear. I've seen racers highside a bike at 120 mph, slide into a barrier, and survive. Shure they broke their legs or had a minor head injury but they lived to race another day.

I've personally had three decent wrecks. One caused by my transmission locking up at 40mph on a 3 month old motorcycle. Most sport riders have had at least one if not more. And the stunters seem to wreck every other day. Yet most live to do it again (and again, etc).

Even a small parking lot goof can be potentially fatal to an unprotected head. Fall down at a stoplight and smack your melon on a car fender and you could be on your way to a hospital or the morgue.

And helmets aren't much of a safety hazard, peripheral vision is barely affected with a well designed helmet (and not affected at all in most beanie types) and hearing can be helped once you are going faster than 30mph or so. At that speed the wind noise is enough to significantly reduce hearinig capability and after about 10 minutes your hearing will be impaired for the next few hours. Helmets block enough direct wind noise to help this significantly, leaving you better able to hear in traffic. And many touring riders wear ear plugs at highway speeds for additional noise reduction.

The thing that gets to me about all of this is how you protest laws requiring helmets as reducing your freedom and enacting government control. Yet at the same time you have no issue with the requirements for brake lights (in most cases) turn signals, a specific motorcycle liscensce, and actually propose more intervention and control in the form of mandatory advanced rider training. I guess I just don't get it.

I've watched and participated in this debate for a few years now and I'm going to level with you. This entire fight is about looks. Most of the badass bikers and squids don't like the way they look with a helmet. It interfears with their dangerous and devil may care attitudes. This is why they own a bike and they'll be damned if the govt is going to turn them respectable.

They've seen too many bad biker flicks where the hero rides off into the sunset hair flapping in the breeze (most real bikers know enough to wear a bandana so the wind doesn't remove theirs).

Re:Great

[ChicagoBiker]

and actually propose more intervention and control in the form of mandatory advanced rider training. This debate can go on forever because as another section of your post points out it's a matter of personal opinion, but I'll comment on the above:

One forces education and offers knowledge, the other forces physical conformity and modifies my personal being.

Having the government tell me to go learn how to do something before allowing me to do it is one thing, telling me I *will* wear, change, add, modify or enhance myself while doing it is another thing altogether.

Re:Great

[finkployd]

Not just slapping on as much armor as you can and flailing off wildly into the sunset hoping the suit holds up when you (inevitably) crash into the wall, or car, or truck, or bus!

Agreed, but someday it is very likely that I may encounter some gravel, or possibly leaked antifreeze on a slow speed turn. I would prefer that not be fatal as it does not take much of a blow to the head to kill. Even avoiding that, I prefer not to end up having gravel dug out of my ass (or any body part, I'm not particular).

So no, a helmet will probably not save me in the event of a 65mph smash into a minivan that pulled out on front of me. It will probably just turn a lethal head injurt into a lethal neck injury. But it will make a world of difference in a slow speed wreck, which is probably more likely to happen anyway.

Case in point, my first bike was a Ninja 500. I had it for 11 days and 6 miles before a soccer mom in a minivan came up behind me while I was stopped at a stop light. The light went green, I began to proceed into a right turn onto the road, she gunned it to go straight (later claims she "forgot" I was in front of her). I'm knocked down, bike is totaled (bent frame, broken handlebar, scraped fairing, exaust, etc). My head smacks off the pavement, but thanks to the equipment, I didn't get hurt at all. Equipment is no replacement for good sense, but it can sure come in handy when you are put into a situation that good sense wouldn't help (unless you consider not getting on the bike in the first place ;) )

Frankly I don't find a well made full face helmet impairs my senses at all, in fact it improves my vision simply because my eyes are better protected and I don't flinch every time a bug embeds itself in my face. (arguably I would eventually get used to that, but no thanks). Even if that bothered me, I would just switch to a half helmet or something.

All that said, I am not an advocate of helmet laws because like you said, the government shouldn't really be forcing me to do something just because it is safer for me. Taking that arguement to its extreme would make quite a few sports and hobbies illegal and that is no good. But for me, I will always wear one for the reasons I have outlined above.

And yes, I have ridden without and I did not find it to be any more liberating, nor did it improve my experience. I guess maybe for me riding is fun enough that I don't notice any difference whether I wear a helmet or not, so I might as well wear one.

Finkployd

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going state facts from a report please state the correct facts. The first item listed in the Hurt report http://www.magpie.com/nycmoto/hurt.html is as follows: 1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile. Here are a couple other facts listed there: 6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents. 7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

Re:Great

[cedhed2]

So are you against most states without helmet laws' requirement for some form of eye protection Or the laws requiring a person with impaired vision to wear corrective lenses before they are allowed to drive/ride? Or what about laws requiring you to wear pants? They are definately modifying your being and forcing conformity. But we have gotten to the root of the entire thing. This is not about safety, this is not about control (or else any requirements would be questioned), this is about fashion.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Fink, you might want to re-read the report.
According to http://motorcyclelawcenter.com/pages/stats.cfm 's list from the Hurt Report
"Approximately 75% of motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle -- usually a passenger automobile" i.e. contrary to your statement, the majority DO involve cars. Of the 25% that DO NOT involve cars, 41% did indeed involve alcohol.
Also, on the whole speed thing, the Hurt Report has 29.8MPH as the median pre-crash speed, which says to me that while you do hear stories of people killed going 100, a lot more are killed going what is generally considered a safe speed.
And for yet more! http://www.motorcycle-accidents-lawyers-attorneys. com/motorcycle_accident_stats.html also mentions (more facts from the Hurt Report)
[quoting...]
15. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic was the predominating cause of motorcycle-car accidents. The driver of the other vehicle did not see the cycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.
16. The most frequent impact configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight ahead and the car making a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.
17. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle's right of way and caused the crash in 2/3 of the cases.
[end of quote]
Now I'm not a mathemetician (nor do I play one on TV), but 2/3rds of 75% (mumble, mumble ... carry the 6 ... square the ... uh ... mumble) means to me that half of the accidents during the study were the fault of an automobile driver.
BUT to specifically address this article, look to: (yes, yet another quote)
28. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident
Which is why I would need to be soundly convinced that a heads-up display would help riders. What drives me nuts when I'm on a bike is watching all of the distracted drivers wandering all over the road, so I end up having to pay extra attention. Having data scrolling up my visor (or whatever) and potentially distracting me doesn't sound like something beneficial.
-Steve

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

How is wearing a helmet unsafe? Because it restricts one's hearing? So, what exactly can you hear over your bike noise at 60mph w/o wearing a helmet? I cannot hear cars behind me (I do have rather good hearing) at 35mph on a freakin' road bike (the pedal kind) going downhill. All I hear is loud white noise.

If they're so unsafe, how come they work out great for bike racers?

Of course, how many people in bike crashes actually die from traumatic head injury alone, instead of infection from massive roadrash, internal injuries, blood loss from severe limb damage, etc.?

I guess watching bike races on TV, it seems that most bike racing wrecks are slideouts, and the rider slides across the tarmac and grass and manages to get back up. Not too many are the endo-superman-tumbling ragdoll calamities.

I think more people would wear helmets if the insurance companies simply refused to cover someone, at fault or not, for not wearing adequate safety equipment (i.e., leathers, boots, helmet). Who needs laws? You're fucked by your insurance company anyways if you get in an accident, let them go the whole way.

To each their own.

Google Link

[Ryan Stortz]

Article
Brought to you by my sexy subscription! Get yours today at http://slashdot.org/subscribe.pl

Re:Google Link

[Graff]

Even better, go to a news site that doesn't require you to jump through hoops in order to view their site. Here is the exact same article (NO registration required) found at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Re:Google Link

[Ignis Flatus]

Oh please, say it isn't so! You don't mean to imply that /. is whoring out link placement to subscription-based news services, do you?

Re:Google Link

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the point. The subscription he was referring to was his Slashdot subscription, not a NYT subscription.

Re:Google Link

[Graff]

No I didn't miss his point, he posted two links. One was to the Google form of the New York Times link, the other to Slashdot's subscription service.

The New York Times makes you jump through hoops to read their site so I instead posted a link to a another news agency that does not do this. I'd rather have people go to the no-registration Seattle Post-Intelligencer so that it gets the ad revenue rather than the registration-required New York Times.

Re:Google Link

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you for the non-login required link

Funny fact of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Hospitals call motorcycles, donorcycles.

Only teenagers and lucky macho-idiots ride donorcycles.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[spacecowboy420]

I've always called them murdercycles. But they're fun.

Death, but not the hurtin' kind.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have you know that I beat my wife into submission regularly, but I'm still not stupid enough to ride a donorcycle.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[ShadowBlasko]

Best thing I have ever heard them called, (at least, in regards to smaller faster [usually japanese] motorcycles) was:

Darwinian Accelerators.

Still laugh at that one.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[O]

And poor-ass 20-somethings who like getting 50MPG, < $30/mo insurance, and much cheaper college campus parking permits.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Anti_Climax]

Hospitals call motorcycles, donorcycles

When I had my motorcycle accident last week (last friday) I heard both Donorcycle and Murdercycle used by the ER staff.

Only teenagers and lucky macho-idiots ride donorcycles

As for people trashing the idea of riding a bike, while you have the possibility of getting in an accident because another driver is not paying attention (or in my case was too old to be on the road) if you drive within the law, stay off the damn sport bikes that have no business anywhere but a track, pay attention to what you're doing, and wear a helmet, you can ride with relative safety.

I'm 21, drove nothing but motorcycles since I've been able to have a permit @ 15.5 years, and loved getting between 60 and 70 Mpg. Believe me, you don't ride a 250 nighthawk to try to look cool or race people, and if that's why you ride a motorcycle, you might as well give up your keys.

For those interested, this was my first accident. I t-boned a chrysler at 40mph, with no helmet on. I was lucky and limped out of the ER 2 hours later with only some staples in my knee and an interesting circular wound to my abdomen from my handlebars. My head didn't touch anything until I came to a rest on the side of the road after getting bounced off her windshield. Had my head impacted anything a helmet would have been more than adaquate to prevent damage.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[syrinx]

heh, excellent. i'll have to remember that.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Alan Partridge]

...and not making it to become 30-somethings.

I'm sure riding around on a cruise missile would be a fucking good laugh, too.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Linux Ate My Dog!]

Perhapsyou should wear one, then.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[OldCrasher]

As the medical community has knocked me off my motorcycle twice (A doctor from Southhampton General, and a trainee Doctor in Sheffield) and the doctors in Peterborough treated me like sh*t after I had been run down by an Army corporal, I for one have no time for these knife wielding butchers, we care to call Doctors.

The medical community gives motorcyclists a tough time. I say if you become a doctor you treat people that are sick and banged up; that is your job. Screw the complaints just do your %$#@ing job.

I program computers, I don't bitch when someone comes to me with a bug! That's my job. We choose the jobs we do.

I ride motorcycles and try to avoid the numbskulls that drive all those steel boxes still thinking they are sitting in an EZ-boy and playing the PS2 game "Commuter killer."

Am I angry when I hear people like you refer to Motorcyclists in this manner, damned sure I am. And if you want one of us aged, knarled, damp, cold, hunting for red blood, motorcyclists to give you an idea of how we feel, don't move from that spot!!

Riding for 24yrs
Programming for a living for 22yrs

Re:Funny fact of the day

[4l4n 94r7r1dg3-ph34r]

4l4n 94r7r1dg3.. y0u 5w34r1ng l1k3 7h47 15 n4w7 b3c0m1ng 0f s0m30n3 0f j00r 0bv10u5 1n71ll3c7u4l 5u93r10r17y..

f0r 7h4t... 7h3 h4x0r1ng...

PH34R M3, 4l4n 94r7r1dg3, PH34RRRRRR!!!!!

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit! How did your helmet come off? Did someone sabotage the chin strap? Were you carrying a passenger and they undid your helmet and yanked it off in a panic just before the collision? Do you regularly ride in traffic without a helmet, gloves, leather jacket, pants, and over-the-ankle-or-taller boots?

If the latter, then you're invincible, and by invincible I mean that you probably have a few more years of riding before you're dead or gagging on your own saliva while being spoon-fed by someone who cares or is getting paid for it. Even so, I support your right to not wear a helmet if you don't want to. Cheers, and keep the rubber side down, live to ride, ride to live, etc.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Riding without a helmet....you sir are an idiot. I have riden longer than you have been alive little one (21 years HA)I ride both touring and supersport machines. You entire trashing of motorcycles shows that you dont know diddly about them or how to survive on one. Should you make it to 40 look me up then we can discuss it...til then your like so many others a poser and a wanna be. Sure i ride and i ride hard at times...i always spend the money on the gear and equipment. I put my machines on tracks on a regular basis, but a 250 can get you killed just a quick as a ZX10R or Hayabusa. Its the rider that makes the difference. Not just skill at handling the machine but also skill at knowing whats around you at all times, and when not to be in a certain place. again...look me up when you've learned to ride.. BTW a lot more people are injured and killed every year on CRUISERS then on sport bikes. The major reason is lack of skill and understanding of the physics behind the motorcycle and the controls. If it was the speed that killed people then motogp would be filled with death it is not. In fact most serious levels of motorcycle racing is quite safe. but then again why would anybody listen to a dumbass that t-bones a car at 40mph with NO HELMET ON. Did you have gloves on? Did you have long pants, and boots on? or was it the usual no helmet / no gloves / flipflops or tennis shoes!! jeez.....and more importantly real motorcycles (and i dont mean Harleys) arent intended for little boys or geeks :P

Re:Funny fact of the day

[timeOday]

Ha-ha, not me!

I declined the organ donation elective on my license!

Sorry suckers, may as well resuscitate me cause you can't have my guts.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[timeOday]

As a biker, I can tell you motorcycling is the ultimate Darwinian Accelerator... because chicks dig bikers!

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with the sportbike comment. I ride a 2002 ZX-6r, and that thing is a blast to ride. I don't think that it's any more dangerous than any other motorcycle out there. Sure, I'm tempted to do the occational wheelie, but that's not nearly as dangerous as the people running red lights, and cutting into my lane.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[magarity]

and an interesting circular wound to my abdomen

Circular wounds should only be described as "interesting" when they're in OTHER PEOPLE'S abdomens, not one's own.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

the best part about that post is your username

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

>I t-boned a chrysler at 40mph, with no helmet on.

Umm Wtf? why weren't you wearing a helmet?

>if you drive within the law, stay off the damn sport bikes that have no business anywhere but a track, pay attention to what you're doing, and wear a helmet, you can ride with relative safety.

Yes your right you should always wear proper gear and pay attention. However I own a bike I'm sure you'd qualify as a super sport (R1) and I routinely break the law (average cummute speed 85mph). It's not really a question of blindly obeying the law it's more of the conditions are safe for me to speed then a I speed ...if they are not then I don't. I belive the word is control. As in control your right wrist from whcking the throttle open all of the time and don't be a wanker. Just for the record I'm 36 havn't owned a car in 10 years. Own four bikes and commute 400 miles a week over a dangerous mountain road in all weather. I know what I'm talking about don't tell me what to ride I will exercise my own judgment on whats safe.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[carlcmc]

No, the job of doctors and health care providers is multifactorial. some aspects are treating health conditions, some aspect are preventing health conditions.

Forming opinions based upon limited number of individuals does not necessarily represent the whole. And no my job is not just to "do" the job and shut up and not say anything. I get tired of dealing with people that obviously do not listent to the counsel given to them. If we tell you to stop banging your head against the wall and you keep up doing, at some point my empathy and sympath for dwindles away.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[whittrash]

Just so long as the road rash doesn't scrape off a tatoo. That almost happened to my brother.

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Anti_Climax]

Should you make it to 40 look me up then we can discuss it...

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding Anonymous Coward in the phone book...

Re:Funny fact of the day

[monstermagnet]

Congrats on living!

Accidents can be weird in how your body flies around. A roomie once got hit head-on by someone hydroplaning over the double-yellow line; he went up, over, did a complete rotation and landed on one leg [got a greenstick fracture, walked away]. Though he was wearing a helmet, it was completely superfluous.

He described the entire thing as being "in slow-motion."

I helped recover what was left of his bike. His knees had bent the handlebars and rotated them 180deg; the front wheel was under the oil pan. Yikes!

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Bryan Ischo]

Amen, brother.

Bryan Ischo, Cupertino, CA, 2002 Honda CBR600F4i

Re:Funny fact of the day

[Jon Abbott]

you can't have my guts.

We've come for your liver!

motorcycle advancements

[pheared]

Bart: "I could sure use that flying motorcycle now."
Frink: "You had your chance!"

It's only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

...before the cops start using this to issue speeding tickets.

Re:It's only a matter of time

[jared_hanson]

That's why you should always wrap your fancy new GPS helmet in tin foil. Then the only one who can punish you for speeding is God herself, as she sends down a lighting bolt from the heavens. Bonus points at judgement time as well for wearing lighting attracting headwear.

Troll?

[OverlordQ]

Hurm, Detecting attempt of the cloaked url vulnerability in IE, luckily it doesn't work.

Re:Troll?

[Killjoy_NL]

One of the reasons I use Mozilla :D

reminds me of the movie timerider

[ubugly2]

i always wanted that bike and helmet

Re:reminds me of the movie timerider

[throbbingbrain.com]

The bike is a 1982 (?) Yamaha TT500 with many modifications. It was really ahead of it's time: Long travel suspension, front and rear disc brakes, etc.

Watching it tumble down the cliff at the end always brought a tear to my eye until I noticed that it's not the same bike. No mods and a duct-taped seat. I wonder where the rear one is today?

Now that helmet rocked. HUD, zoom, range finder, night vision, powered visor. Awesome, except whoever made the prop obviously has never used a full-face street style helmet in hot weather. I hope that thing included air conditioning.

Re:reminds me of the movie timerider

[Artifakt]

Mike Nesmith is a big fan of bikes. With his involvement in the film, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he kept it after the production.

lame

[Anonymous Coward]

that shitty collateral damage did this 2 years ago. It was lame then, and it's even lamer now.

If inventors want to take tips from arnold schwarzenegger movies, couldn't they invent something useful like killer cyborgs instead?

Interesting..

[irokitt]

Does it run Linux? And specifically, will it run Gentoo?;) Seriously though, wouldn't a HUD distract a motorcyclist? I know it probably would distract me if one were put in my truck...

Re:Interesting..

[Lord Kano]

Seriously though, wouldn't a HUD distract a motorcyclist? I know it probably would distract me if one were put in my truck...

Fighter pilots don't seem to mind.

As long as it isn't laden with ads picked up through a wardriven WiFi internet connection, I don't think it would be any more distracting than guages and mirrors.

Speed, heading. distance to next object and possibly temp would be great.

LK

Re:Interesting..

[Beowulf_Boy]

Pontiac Grand Prixs have had a HUD option since 1988, some Nissans came with them in the early 90's, and corvettes have had them for the last couple of years.

I have yet to hear of an accident caused by it.
It is focused so you don't have to change your eye's focus.

Re:Interesting..

[IM6100]

I'm sure a lot of safety design goes into the HUD a fighter pilot uses. Here, there will be commercial interest in providing 'features' to sell a particular HUD product, which have nothing to do with navigation or safety.

Re:Interesting..

[Artifakt]

I'd want a system where I coud easily pick and choose what gets displayed and how. Maybe start with just tach and speed (in digital of course), with a small font size.

Re:Interesting..

[alexpage]

I've had enough trouble with Gentoo crashing when I've been stationary, let alone travelling at 70mph!

If I had to have a mainstream Linux distro running on my helmet HUD, it'd have to be Debian/stable. But then it wouldn't support the video adapter... guess I'll have to have plain-text again!

Same speed?

[iReflect]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident.

Umm... Wouldn't it be aproximately the same speed that the motercycle was going when it crashed?

Re:Same speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since a rider a bike aren't reall strapped together, the speed of the bike and the rider changes once they seperate and start sliding. Consider if the riders head doesn't impact until a curb in a corner after sliding 50 ft or so.

Re:Same speed?

[Catharz]

Umm... Wouldn't it be aproximately the same speed that the motercycle was going when it crashed?

Somebody here (Melb, Aust) hit a car and flew over the railing to fall on a freeway below. At that point, I think they were going just a little faster than the speed of the bike. Until they suddenly stopped.

The real disturbing data would be on g-forces at the time of impact.

Re:Same speed?

[amper]

No, it wouldn't. The math is easy, so figure it out for yourself.

Re:Same speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

but how fast is that?

Re:Same speed?

[cgranade]

Momentum is conserved, specifically:

(copy into OO.o for pretty print, btw)

p_i = p_f newline

m_i v_i = m_f v_f

Since m_f is much smaller than m_i, it follows that v_f must be much larger than v_i. That is, that the cyclist goes much faster than the cycle.

Re:Same speed?

[Dr. GeneMachine]

No conservation of momentum here, dude. We are talking about inelastic collisions. So, energy is conserved and you have to subtract the deformation energy the bike takes from the total kinetic energy to get the kinetic energy and thus the new speed of the biker. Will still be faster than the bike, though.

Re:Same speed?

[Quino]

Collisions?

Maybe we're picturing something radically different here. I see a bike and rider going at the same speed. 1 accident later, the bike is stopped and the biker is continuing to fly past at the same original speed he was riding at (actually, probably less if he hit his legs on the handlebars on the way forward).

The only law that applies is that bodies in motion tend to stay in motion (biker and bike) unless acted on by another force (car stops bike, and later, wall/pavement stops biker).

The biker surely doesn't "accelerate" as result of the collision ...

BTW: *momentum* is conserved in inelastic collisions, *energy* is not (though I don't think either apply to the "post-crash, biker-speed-in-the-air physics problem " -- it's simply the speed at which the accident happened).

Re:Same speed?

[slashnull]

It's not really the speed that kills you, it's the sudden stop(heavy and uneven deceleration of the body) that does you in.

Re:Same speed?

[canavan]

No, since the asphalt would be expected to be about parallel to the trajectory of the cyclist, so that would be an upper bound for the speed at which the had scaps along the road. Additionally, GPSRs are notoriously bad at calculating vertical speeds, and they sample only roughly every second, so there's not much to be learned in this regard. One would need acceleration sensors to gather any meaningful data.

Re:Same speed?

[theonetruekeebler]

The helmet will accelerate towards the ground at 9.8 m/s^2, so if it is about 2.2 meters off the ground, about 6.6 m/s.

Helmets are designed to protect your head from three things: the elements, the impact against the ground, and the slide along the ground. No helmet will protect you if you decide to go into a tree headfirst at road speeds.

Re:Same speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider that necessarily he'd be going slower by that time, or will he be accelerating while sliding?

Re:Same speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably wouldn't work even if the helmet were traveling faster than the bike. GPS receivers calculate average speed, and probably not at intervals short enough for great accuracy.

Re:Same speed?

[KurdtX]

"I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident."

Umm... Wouldn't it be aproximately the same speed that the motercycle was going when it crashed?

Well, technically (and this is slashdot, so...) no, since the pavement is parallel to the direction the rider was (primarily) moving in. The "great speed" of which your head hits the ground doesn't have to be that much, as 15mph (4 minute mile - about as fast as fit person will run (over a short distance) ) will knock you out pretty good (unless you're Homer Simpson). I've seen stuff on TLC talking about the guys who try for the land speed record on bikes, and of course some of them crash; however despite going 200mph+, as long as they don't tumble during the crash they can generally make another try as soon as their skin grows back.

And it's not really the force your head hits with, but more the torque on your neck, as most deaths/blackouts happen as a result of damage to the spinal column in the neck (either twisting or snapping forward/backward). C'mon, the Special Ops guys in the movies don't bludgeon prople over the head, they snap their neck because it's much easier to kill someone that way.

Re:Same speed?

[amper]

No, you're all still wrong. The only case where one would impact the pavement at the same speed of travel prior to crashing is if one were travelling in a direction perpendicular to the pavement. A similar situation might occur if one were to hit a vertical wall, but that's not what the original post was asking.

Obviously, none of you ride motorcycles, or you would know this.

When falling off a motorcycle, one's head falls approximately 5-6 feet (to keep the math simple, obviously different bikes/people have the rider's head at different heights). This equates to a vertical vector of about 13 mph., which is why helmets are designed/tested at this speed of impact.

The horizontal velocity vector plays, relatively, a very, very small part in the damage caused to the head, assuming that the rider is wearing a helmet--not that I want to turn this into an argument about helmet-wearing/laws.

Re:Same speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... make sure to add in acceleration due to gravity

Re:Same speed?

[tgrigsby]

C'mon, the Special Ops guys in the movies don't bludgeon prople over the head, they snap their neck because it's much easier to kill someone that way.

(Still laughing and wiping tears from my eyes)

Ok, so let me get this straight:

a. Colombian mob...
b. Russian mob...
c. Iranian terrorist... ...henchmen are holding my...

a. ...family...
b. ...parish...
c. ...child's school bus... ...hostage in return for...

a. ...a fueled 747...
b. ...14.3 gazillion dollars...
c. ...the release of political prisoners... ...and I decide to go "lone wolf" against the wishes of...

a. ...the police chief...
b. ...the commanding officer...
c. ...my in-laws... ...and rescue them. So I sneak up on them by...

a. ...dropping through the ceiling on a rope with a hands-free mike...
b. ...painting my face so I blend in with the wallpaper...
c. ...tip-toeing... ..., come up behind the bad guys, and --

-- ready for this? --

Twist their heads as if to say, "Hey, look at that!" And they drop dead instantly! As if by magic! Messrs. Smith and Wesson had it all wrong! How my chiropracter manages to not kill all his patients is a matter for wild conjecture! It's quiet, effective, and guaranteed! And if you order "How To Knock Off Bad Guys" right now, we'll thrown in this BEAUTIFUL set to Ginsu knives! Be an Army of One! Operators are standing by, have your Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Diner's Club, Chevron, or library card ready!

vibration?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this just attaches to the outside of a helmet, it probably won't catch on. No way I want more windnoise or extra vibration on my head. If it was integrated in a helmet it would be sorta nice. On the track it would be rather usefull to keep a eye on the rpms easier. A gear readout to go with that would cover most/all of my needs while riding.

Re:vibration?

[Mark Imbriaco]

If you read the article (and look at the pretty pictures), you can see that it is indeed integrated into the helmet itself and not just strapped onto the outside.

Re:vibration?

[stinkynathan]

I would think the display would be very unobtrusive (ie: at the corners of your field of view).

I see a tiny market for these. Of the few helmets on the road I see, even fewer are full-face with visors. Of course, I'm in South Dakota, where helmets are not required.

Oh, and if you're on the track, odds are you know damn well where your rpms are... :)

later,
nate

Re:vibration?

[SemperUbi]

Something like this would really have to be integrated into the material of the visor as a kind of semi-transparent display with variable opacity. Man, I'd love that. Just glance up to the upper left corner of my visor and see a pale '75 MPH' display that doesn't obscure the view. Cool.

I can't see it working as an externally-mounted device at all, for the reasons you brought up -- there's just too much wind noise at speed. And while a gear readout would be nice, it's hard to imagine fitting a manual transmission with something that'd display the gear electronically. Guess it's possible though.

Re:vibration?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't REALLY ride... do you. I've been riding
sportbikes for nearly ten years, and any idiot can
remember what gear he's in.

As for the SPEED KILLS argument, if that were the case, accident statistics wouldn'nt have gone DOWN when the US raised it's limits. Speed dosen't kill, mistakes do.

Re:vibration?

[CaptainBaz]

On the track it would be rather usefull to keep a eye on the rpms easier.

Ok, hands up everyone who thought he was talking about linux!

Re:vibration?

[phayes]

Mark you're mistaken...

If you take another look at the picture in the article you'll see that the HUD is NOT integrated into the helmet, but just screwed/glued onto an existing helmet. Thats why you have that little arm that drops down over the outside of the windscreen. The system will not be able to be integrated into the inside of a helmet until they can find a manufacturer that is willing to redesign a helmet & expanded the foam to take into account the thickness/ridgidity of the HUD composants.

That little arm looks like a nice whistle & really fragile as the arm has to pop up when the windshield is opened.

Until someone integrates a HUD INSIDE the helmet, as windnoise & robustesse are my major product selection criteria (after security of course), they can keep it.

Re:vibration?

[Uerige]

It is possible. Many motorcycles have LEDs to show which gear your'e in.

Re:vibration?

[flappinbooger]

Finally a good use for Bluetooth? Or is that tech already buried and gone...

If I was a bike rider and needed a helmet like this, I'd want as much of the hardware on the bike for obvious reasons, and to have a wireless connection of just the display data going to the helmet.

Of course, this assumes that the hardware would be at all bulky, perhaps we've come to the point where everything needed would be as much mass as a wireless receiver!

Re:vibration?

[msheppard]

Do you get the idea here?
1. It won't vibrate - it's attached to the helmet. The rider of a motorcycle tends to be the part that vibrates the least. The bike is what vibrates.
2. RPMs/Gear info : This is all from the bike. The point of this device is it uses GPS to get it's info and wouldn't need any wires or connection to the bike.

M@

Re:vibration?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch.
> Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Is? I've never seen any wolves or sheep while voting. "May be compared to", I think you mean. These trite analogies are less than worthless.

Re:vibration?

[Anonymous Coward]

o/

Re:vibration?

[Fishead]

My 1983 Honda Sabre 750 has an LCD Matrix display in the centre of the instrument cluster that shows the gear and any error messages (Fuel, temp, battery, etc). VERY nice to have. Incorporating that into the HUD would be slick.

Re:vibration?

[Fishead]

You ever stick your head out the window of your car doing 75mph? If the HUD is external to the helmet, it is going to vibrate and wistle/roar like crazy.

Re:vibration?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.datatool.co.uk/productB.asp?ProductID=2 34

Simple and clean and lightweight. If you're getting other data shouldn't be a big deal to add to many current motorcycles.

Re:vibration?

[Fjord]

wouldn't need any wires

Urg. So it's battery powered? That would suck. I would rather have it draw power from the bike and get the extra info.

Otehrwise, bluetooth could be used to transmit RPM data. Mods to the bike would be needed in that case. I guess the good thing about this is that you can buy the helmet regardless of what bike you have.

Re:vibration?

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with the attach to the helmet thing. It would have to be inside and display on the inside of the visor or something. As for it being useful - I dunno. It would have to be something more useful than speed/rpms/gear to me. When you have ridden for awhile you just know what gear your in. If you dont, the firt time you go from 4th to 2nd by mistake and the back tire skids out from under you it will remind you to pay more attention to things like that. I put a wicked flat spot my first battle ax racing rear by doing just that on my first bike. Luckily I didnt put it down.

As for an rpm readout, if you cant feel what your rpms are and KNOW when your getting into redline - you shouldt be trying to ride a track at redline rpms.

Re:vibration?

[BluedemonX]

Another sabmaggot? Rock on.

Proud 83 Magna V45 owner........

Re:vibration?

[Bryan Ischo]

For more anecdotal evidence, all motorcyclists wear helmets, and I'd say 90% of those that I've seen are full-face (with visor). And CA surely has *alot* more riders than South Dakota.

I would really go for this technology if it integrated into the helmet (rather then being stuck on from outside).

Re:vibration?

[Bryan Ischo]

I haven't been riding for quite 10 years (more like 8) and I must be an idiot because I don't count my gears as I shift up or down. As a result I often try to shift up to 7th (there is no 7th). Usually if I'm cruising at a "common" steady speed (one that I have mentally associated with a certain 6th gear RPM) I will know (for example my CBR600F4i runs at about 7,000 RPM at 80 MPH indicated in 6th), but more often than not, I don't. I just shift up when I need to and down when I need to, I don't keep track of what gear I am in otherwise.

I have tried to train myself to count as I shift up and down to get into the habit of remembering what gear I am in, but the habit has never stuck ...

Re:vibration?

[Bryan Ischo]

Whoops, sorry for the typo, I meant to say that "*in California* all motorcyclists wear helmets" ...

Re:vibration?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had trouble addapting to riding a twin on the track only. I've always ridden I4's previously and the whole twin not feeling/sounding a lot diff took a bit of getting used to. Oh and it's a NT650 Hawk so it's not like there is a lot of power anyways.

answer to how fast

[svnt]

i'll tell you at exactly what speed a motorcyclist's head hits the pavement. say they're travelling at 120kmph. his/her head hits the pavement at 120kmph. now if you want to talk about force, there's still no need for gps.

Re:answer to how fast

[ctxspy]

Wow..

120,000kmph... What's that... 120,000 miles per hour?

On a less sarcastic note, here's a clue for everyone discussing the gps data /impact blah blah blah:

1) GPS sucks. It takes a long time to calculate speed, not a fraction of a second.

2) Let's say I am heading at 100 mph horizontally. then i magically fall of the bike. My head will not hit the ground at 100 mph. If I do a low-side, we're talking minimum initial impact. If you do a high-side, it's significantly higher, yet still not likely to reach anywhere near 100 mph. The problem is when you hit non moving obstacles like trees, guardrails, houses, etc... Or get run over by cars.

Re:answer to how fast

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, eevn if the bike is going 120, the actual speed of impact is often just the speed one gains in falling the four or five feet to the ground (beleive it or not), which is enough to kill (also, beleive it or not). The forward speed doesn't mean much unless you hit something in that direction (not unusual, perhaps). Hitting something at 120 mph would likely leave nothing but a red stain, and that isn't usually the case. Its that pesky fall (and any resulting rolling resulting from the slide) - thats why GP racers actually sometimes walk away from 100mph-plus get-offs.

Re:answer to how fast

[gassendi]

Only if the "pavement" is vertical. Down here we call those walls.

Re:answer to how fast

[Methuseus]

It's amazing how few people don't know simple science, saying that in real world situations no impact is totally elastic or inelastic, and a part of an object that separates from the whole will not be travelling at the same velocity as the whole object was originally.

get a life

[Anonymous Coward]

for someone who's never left the safety of their redhat environment, you guys SURE know a lot about motorcycle safety. get your license, get a bike, crash it, and then you can give everyone else advice. i've been riding my whole life and i still have 100% functional bodyparts.

Re:get a life

[Methuseus]

Hear hear. I don't personally ride, but I know that a bike can either be a very useful (and very safe) tool, or an ultimate instrument of death when put in the wrong hands. That said, if I had the money, I would probably own a bike, if only for the gas savings.

Re:get a life

[princewally]

I've been riding for almost 10 years, and I am all original, working equipment.

I've spilled my bike three times. The first two were when I went on a cross country trip 2 months after I got my motorcycle endorsement. They happened slow enough, that at the end of it, i was standing up over my bike.

The last one had me doing barrel rolls down the highway. I hit some gravel in a really inconvenient place. I felt the bike getting ready to flip, so I left. That hurt, but the bike still worked good enough to get me home 100 miles away.

Re:get a life

[digitalsushi]

i have a feeling that slashdotters have a higher frequency of motorcyclists than the general public. why do i guess that? motorcycles have the hacker element to it, if you look. they're not mainstream, they require a working knowlege of the machinery to keep it running on a weekly basis, and most of all, to respond to your allusion of linux advocates (those people in their safe little redhat environment who've never been outside), I surmise this crowd has a much greater understanding and thus respect of physics, making some facets of motorcycle safety nothing more than common sense to them. So either way, slashdotters who ride motorcycles, or slashdotters who stay nerded up in their parents basement, are likely to understand motorcycle safety, be it first hand experience, or just using their head and applying a little common sense.

SportVue link with images - Motion Research

[Esterhaus_48]

Motion Research - SportVue

Re:SportVue link with images - Motion Research

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats the oldest clip-art i've seen in my life.

HUD

[Ty_Webb]

Quite the morbid commentary posted beside the article there, but the Chevy Corvette Z06 already possesses HUD-capabilities - speed, current gear, etc. Helmets would be a nice next step, but incorporating it into more cars would be nicer.

Re:HUD

[irokitt]

Isn't there some SUV out there that has a little night vision display on it? AFAIK, that's the only other display like this.

Re:HUD

[John Courtland]

There are a lot of cars with a HUD, even some late 80's Olds Cutlasses had projection style HUDs.
Corvettes and Cadillacs had them since the early 90's I believe, maybe even before.

Re:HUD

[zero_offset]

The reason more cars don't have HUDs is... yep, PATENTS. GM owns the patents on the most economical approach, a reflected LED. Many years ago I owned a Grand Prix GTP and I loved the HUD.

I'm tempted to cut up the dash on my Viper and try to build one myself. It would be fantastic for road racing...

Re:HUD

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Isn't there some SUV out there that has a little night vision display on it? AFAIK, that's the only other display like this.

Oh great, now the soccer mom's will be driving around at night with there lights off!

What do doctors call motorcycle riders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Organ donors.

Sad but true. Get yourself a car.

Distracting

[g-to-the-o-to-the-g]

I've had some experience with motorcycles, and it sounds to me like this would just be a distraction. It may be real neato and stuff, but in a practical sense it may be a safety concern. Putting the display in the driver's helmet reduces the field of peripheral vision available (when focusing on the display). How about designing a display mounted on the motorcycle instead? We're familiar and comfortable with gauges already. This would reduce distraction, and increase safety.

Re:Distracting

[irokitt]

Perhaps they could build something into the windshields some bikes have. A little less distracting, since motorcyclists depend on their concentration (the only thing protecting them during a collision is their shirt).

Re:Distracting

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree; anything that distracts from the motorcyclist's peripheral vision is dangerous. More attention needs to be directed at the ergonomics of motorcycles.

What really needs to improve is the visibility of motorcycles and motorcylists and the awareness of automobile drivers. I rode a motorcycle in the US and now work in Naples, Italy. Even with the horrible driving habits of the Italians, there are fewer accidents (that I have seen anyway - I need to look up the statistics) involving motorcycles and motorscooters since the Italians actually pay attention!

The excuse that far too many automobile drivers use in the US is "I didn't see him", which clearly shows that the driver was distracted or "filtering out" everything that wasn't an automobile.

Re:Distracting

[Mark Imbriaco]

Perhaps a button on the handlebars to toggle the HUD in the helmet would be appropriate. It would allow the rider to get the information when he wants it, but not be distracting all the time. It would definitely be an improvement over looking down at a gauge cluster, I would think.

Re:Distracting

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. It's bad enough dealing with the blissful asshats who don't do head checks before changing lanes because they're holding a cell phone to their left ear; having to watch out for fellow bikers who are wearing visual distraction helmets will only add to the motorcycling task list.

Re:Distracting

[Anonymous Coward]

> The excuse that far too many automobile drivers use in the US is "I didn't see him", which
> clearly shows that the driver was distracted or "filtering out" everything that wasn't an
> automobile.

Or lying.

There was a study done a few years back where they put a bunch of motorcycle cops in civilian clothes on civilian motorcycles, and had them keep track of how many times each day some shithead cager tried to kill them.

They also had a bunch of uniformed cops on police motorcycles do the same thing.

The results were striking. Across all types and configurations of civilian bikes, there was a consistent effort on the part of car drivers to kill them. The uniformed bikers experienced nearly no such incidents.

If you're on a motorcycle, everyone in a car is trying to kill you. If you understand that, you'll stay alive a lot longer.

Re:Distracting

[scotch]

The same experiment can probably be performed with cars (unmarked versus squad car); people are more careful around cops. Plenty of people try to kill me as I drive my car (I be sure to return the favor). Maybe the difference is more striking with motorcycles, though.

Re:Distracting

[Methuseus]

If the only thing protecting you is a shirt (no helmet, no ultra-durable jacket, no thick pants and heavy boots) then you deserve what you get if you happen to be in an accident.

Re:Distracting

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had some experience with Motorcycles (12 years of riding), and some with HUDs (99 Corvette has an excellent HUD on the windshield). The placement of the the HUD in this article is at the top/center of the helmet visor. Assuming you're not tucked behind the windshield of a sportbike (in which case you would be looking thru the top center of your visor) this is both out of the way of any useful "peripheral data" (with the possible exception of Highway Patrol aircraft) and more quickly acquired than the instrument cluster. I'm not disagreeing with your comment about a windshield mounted display, I just don't forsee a safety/distraction issue.

Re:Distracting

[GothChip]

I disagree. As a learner car driver I find one of the hardest things is keeping track of the road, speedo and side mirrors at the same time. After moving my head it takes a few seconds to refocus on the road (probably not actually that long but feels like).

When looking in the rearview mirror I just flick my eyes and my attention immediately reverts back to the road. I'm sure I would find it a lot easier if information like speed/revs was shown on a HUD on the windscreen.

Re:Distracting

[Anonymous Coward]

dont forget the turboboost, airbrakes and missiles Streethawk anyone? :)

Re:Distracting

[PorkNutz]

How about designing a display mounted on the motorcycle instead?

We have that already, and what is distracting is having to look down at the instuments when your going 75Mph on a busy freeway.

This HUD will be awesome as long as it is unobtrusive. From the pictures, it looks like it's not directly in your feild of vision, it'll be just about like your Hud in an FPS game. Sweet!

Re:Distracting

[theonetruekeebler]

Or better yet, a way to switch modes. Even in the corners, a little dot that comes on at my shift point would be helpful. Maybe even a small digit for my gear indicator. Most racebike instrument clusters already have a programmable shift light; moving it up to the helmet would hardly be a bad thing.

Re:Distracting

[Nexx]

Indeed, I have various equipment manufacturers to thank for my cousin's life. It still took him 3 months to recover from his accident, though.

Re:Distracting

[Nexx]

It's apparently a case of "easy to learn" vs. "easy to use". Actually, I tend to not look at the instrument cluster. I have it adjusted so I can "see" the needles moving from my peripheral vision (that's why I *loathe* digital-only dashes).

Also, as you get better at driving, you start getting a sense for your speed anyway.

Re:Distracting

[SmallFurryCreature]

I think the point is here that the helmet comes seperate from the bike. No installs needed on the bike. Else why use gps to get the speed. Surely the bike knows.

Re:Distracting

[TheMidget]

Also, as you get better at driving, you start getting a sense for your speed anyway.

... and you are getting a sense for the known cop hangouts, i.e. the only places where you need to know your speed...

Re:Distracting

[princewally]

If you're on a motorcycle, everyone in a car is trying to kill you.

In my experience, the best way to avoid this is to drive faster than everyone else. Pass them quickly, leave them in the rearview.

Re:Distracting

[samdu]

With the caveat that I obviously haven't tried this system, my initial impression was COOL, followed almost immediately by "My god that would be distracting." I'd be willing to give it a shot on a track to see how it works, but in traffic I have a feeling that this would be deadly. If you need a display to tell you when to shift while street riding - you probably should be riding. ANd the only time I've ever really needed a speed display is when I caught glimpse of a cop in the distance.

Re:Distracting

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep a stock of plastic milk bottles halfway filled with sand on hand. When I see a motorcycle racing up behind me in the next lane I lob it out right before he passes.

Re:Distracting

[princewally]

And I keep a bag of pennies handy when I'm on my bike to throw over my shoulder at tailgaters.

Gotta love watching a lexus drive through a shower of pennies at 80 mph.

Re:Distracting

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

No it does not reduce the peripheral vision. Thats why they use them in fighter planes! They do need to intergrate them into the visor more completely. And it would be a GOD send for track use as well.

Re:Distracting

[Anonymous Coward]

never ever want such a thing in my helmet ! Need maximum imput for my own sensors (eyes). Big rpm-gauge is sufficient, switching indicators or speed not so interesting (he, in Germany we have Freie Strassen fur freie Burger!)

Re:Distracting

[the_consumer]

I don't know about that. If you have to check your gauges, you're already distracted, and not looking at the road. If you have a button on the handlebars that lets you turn the hud on and off, you'd no longer have to look away from the road while riding to check your speed or fuel level, and you can shut it off once you've gotten the information you need.

In any case, what's the point of mounting a display on a motorcylce when, as you stated, we already have gauges and are used to them?

Re:Distracting

[Polo]

My bikes have always had the instruments COMPLETELY outside the field of view of a full-face helmet. I see this as a negative thing because you have to physically rotate your head down so that you can glance at them.

Putting them in your field of view but mounted on a motorcycle would be impossible on all but the most full-dressed motorcycles with full windscreens.

I think helmet-mounted displays are the future.

Given that, I would worry about the use of this when your helmet visor fogs - you don't want to reduce your already limited contrast with side lighting. Maybe a handlebar mounted toggle switch would help, or some way of embedding it in the visor so it couldn't sidelight the rest of the view.

Thinking about improvements, I've always wondered about the motorcycle controls, especially on dirt bikes. It's always physically strenuous and (needlessly?) challenging to work the controls while maintaining your body position.

For instance, you can't use the back brake without your feet on the pegs. It's hard to maintain a contant throttle position when the bike is going over whoops (your body is pitching back and forth, but you have to hold while keeping the throttle steady). Shifting gears up and down is harder at certain bike angles and requires a foot on the pegs.

I wonder if different (maybe electronic) controls could help all these problems, maybe allowing better control during a wider range of scenarios...

Re:Distracting

[fnj]

The excuse that far too many automobile drivers use in the US is "I didn't see him", which clearly shows that the driver was distracted or "filtering out" everything that wasn't an automobile.

Or, duh, just maybe, duh, it shows that it is harder to see a guy on a motorcycle than it is to see a car.

Re:Distracting

[fnj]

> The excuse that far too many automobile drivers use in the US is "I didn't see him", which
> clearly shows that the driver was distracted or "filtering out" everything that wasn't an
> automobile.

Or lying.

Or, duh, telling the simple truth.

Re:Distracting

[Phattypants]

I've had some experience with motorcycles, and it sounds to me like this would just be a distraction.

Ya know this could be a strong selling point! In the event of an accident, any distraction prior to Rapid Deceleration Syndrome is a welcome distraction indeed! :)

Re:Distracting

[butane_bob2003]

I ride a big downhill mountain bike around, people in cars are definately trying to kill me. You have to follow the rules to avoid a painful collision, but I usually don't. I also don't when riding motorcycles, the temptation to white-line it through traffic jams is irresistable. With overcrowding and everyone in the states owning 2-3 cars and SUVs, traffic sucks really bad unless you can white-line through it on a bike. I would like to start carrying an M72 recoilless rifle around so I can take out all the H2s and other oversized SUVs that are polluting the roads, but this would probably get me in trouble with the law. Maybe they can integrate this HUD into a control system for guided missiles or a Vulcan auto cannon. Then I could mount a Vulcan on my side car...

Re:Distracting

[Anonymous Coward]

> Then I could mount a Vulcan on my side car...

Or a small tactical nuke stolen from a Russian sub.

Re:Distracting

[gillbates]

I've been riding motorcycles for several years, and I don't believe I'd have any use for this device.

First of all, a motorcyclist can tell about how fast he's going by the wind noise and drag. The rpms can usually be felt through the seat of the pants, if not heard.

One of the biggest appeals of motorcycling is the fact that the rider "feels" the road and speed. A rider who has been riding for a while only checks the guages periodically to make sure everything is o.k. with the bike. Most of us driver according to drag and sound - the wind drag we feel tells us how fast we're going, and the sound of the engine tells us when to shift. It is this "freedom" from constant guage checking that enhances the experience.

Re:Distracting

[butane_bob2003]

Wired to a biometric implant to self destruct in the event of my death?

An Augmented World

[pbug]

I am waiting for the prices to go down in the glasses version of this type of technology. That would allow me to not only added data wile I am riding but when I am walking down the street. Imagine you can pull up your date file an impress her with all the stuff you remember about her. Also you can have that poem there for you to recite that will rock.

Re:An Augmented World

[doubtless]

With this kind of solution to getting gals, one will forever be a typical geek and just having to self-help in the sexual satisfaction department for life. /me ducks

Re:An Augmented World

[Grizzlysmit]

I am waiting for the prices to go down in the glasses version of this type of technology. That would allow me to not only added data wile I am riding but when I am walking down the street. Imagine you can pull up your date file an impress her with all the stuff you remember about her. Also you can have that poem there for you to recite that will rock.

If you Recite a poem thats prewriten by some one else, I'm firmly of the opinion it will backfire on you, I firmly believe that only the person who wrote the poem should use it that way, only for them will it rock, for anyone else it will stink!!!

Re:An Augmented World

[ryanvm]

Imagine you can pull up your date file an impress her with all the stuff you remember about her. Also you can have that poem there for you to recite that will rock.

Greetings - I am from the future. I brought with me a picture of you on your first date using this technology. Unfortunately you can see that your date has left the table.

Re:An Augmented World

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on slashdot this would be moderated as "Interesting" instead of "funny" ....

Re:An Augmented World

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the pr0n you can get after she decides that you are a dumbass!

Re:An Augmented World

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for the glasses version too. I could be dating a girl right now but I'm choosing to wait until I have technology needed. Sure, others might choose liquor and drugs to augment reality but that's too primitive for my liking. My previous attempts to store notes and poetry with marker on my forearms have miserably failed due to smudging by my sweaty hands.

interesting concept, but..

[tomphaedrus]

I use a motorcycle as my primary form of transportation and I have never had a problem checking my speed, odometer, RPMs, etc, simply by glancing down.

Personally, I think I would find it MORE distracting to have all that information in the "periphery of one eye". I'm always looking as far ahead as I can at road conditions, intersections and a million other things. The last thing I want is my vision obstructed

I really don't think this will be a boon to motorcycle safety...maybe if there were a switch on one of the handle bars that would flick the information on/off. That feature seems crucial, yet very difficult to package when you have no idea what bikes your consumers own, etc.

Re:interesting concept, but..

[oaklybonn]

The switch on the handlebars would be key. There are times when you *know* that you've got a safe few seconds to glance around. It would be nice if you could be looking forward at that point (instead of looking down at a map on your tankbag, for example) since during that time you *know* its safe to look down, Bambi over there *knows* its time to jump in front of you and cause $3k damage to your front end.

Friggin Bambi.

Re:interesting concept, but..

[hackstraw]

I really don't think this will be a boon to motorcycle safety

Well antilock brakes are no boon to automobile safety, but try to buy a car without them. For those that don't know, antilock breaks on average have no difference in minor colisions, but they increase the likelihood of you dying in a serious accident.

The reason is that minor accidents are, duh, minor where most of them involve a car hitting another one in front of it, and these are probably about 90% of all accidents. However, antilock breaks at higher speeds, especially when involving a curve, can lead to the vehicle overturning, which is the most dangerous situation to be in a car. Even other safety features like seatbelts and airbags have little benefits here. Its much more difficult to flip a car without antilock breaks.

So why are they waiting on tollbooths?

[orthancstone]

You can calculate average speed based on the distance between two tollbooths and the time it takes someone with a tollpass to go through them...yet I know they don't in some cities. Why not is what I wonder? (and this doesn't need GPS...)

Re:So why are they waiting on tollbooths?

[child_of_mercy]

Actually they're bringing this in in parts of Australia.

Automated or random checking of all motorists is considered an unwarranted search in some legal systems.

Re:So why are they waiting on tollbooths?

[Altus]

because everyone would stop using them and they would have to hire more tollbooth operators again... not to mention the money wasted on installing these systems.

Re:So why are they waiting on tollbooths?

[orthancstone]

I doubt lots of people would stop using them. After all, most people who own them probably don't even get to drive the speed limit due to rush hour traffic slowing them down.

Seriously

[dandelion_wine]

Motorcyclists already have to pay closer attention things on the road -- and the conditions of the road itself -- wet leaves, potholes, puddles -- than those on four wheels. Is putting more -- continually -- in their visual frame a good idea from the standpoint of safety? (and yes, all the cracks about why-are-you-on-a-motorcycle in the first place stand, but there's a difference between risking death and egging it on)

You know the way an interior light in a car is distracting at night because the reflection of things within the car obscure your perception of those outside? I'd feel safer sparing a glance to an instrument on my bike than having it in my face at all times. The helmet already narrows my visual field as it is.

Re:Seriously

[asb]

Yes it is.

If, for example the speedometer and engine warning lights were in the HUD then the rider wouldn't have to take her eyes off the road to check them. Think about it for a second. The fighter pilots use it succesfully and damn if they don't have more things in their mind than motorcyclists.

The difference to the interior light reflection is that the reflection is on the wind screen but the HUD looks like it was outside the car closer to the objects the rider already looks at. It's "advanced enough" to me so someone else has to explain how exactly it is done.

Re:Seriously

[ChangeOnInstall]

Motorcyclists already have to pay closer attention things on the road -- and the conditions of the road itself -- wet leaves, potholes, puddles -- than those on four wheels. Is putting more -- continually -- in their visual frame a good idea from the standpoint of safety? (and yes, all the cracks about why-are-you-on-a-motorcycle in the first place stand, but there's a difference between risking death and egging it on)

You've hit the nail right on the head. But the real problem with heads up displays is their use in combat aircraft. I mean, come on, the workload of an F-15 driver is high enough as it is. Can you imagine how difficult it might be to operate such a beast with the blinking lights of a HUD right in your field of vision?

Seriously though, the point of the "heads-up display" is right in its name: you don't have to look down at instrumentation. I wouldn't worry about the "distracting like an interior light in a car" effect that you suggest...the display on these things will be unobtrusively lit (or no one will buy them).

I'm seriously sick and tired of the "this new technology is a dumb idea and here's my baseless argument to support that opinion" posts on /.

Re:Seriously

[finkployd]

f, for example the speedometer and engine warning lights were in the HUD then the rider wouldn't have to take her eyes off the road to check them. Think about it for a second.

You would still have to defocus then refocus your eyes. Frankly if it were something I could switch on with a button on the handlebar, maybe I'd consider it. Always on? not a chance. I think something like this that audibly told you the information at the touch of a button would be more useful and safe.

The fighter pilots use it succesfully and damn if they don't have more things in their mind than motorcyclists.

Yes but the vast majority of the things they are worrying about are related to their insturments, not what is going on outside their window (it ain't like top gun, most kills are done out of visual range). Whereas motorcyclist are primarily worried about all the obstacles and bad drivers immediately in front of them.

Finkployd

Re:Seriously

[dandelion_wine]

Ever hear of "big sky theory"? Not a lot to run into up there.

Even if you could somehow fix the focus problem, as the poster below points out, you would still be obscuring what little visual field I have in a full-face helmet (and catch me wearing anything else). We're talking about a constantly shifting background. Wherever you put the HUD display, it's in front of what is empty space one second, and the nose of a deer the next, or a pedestrian not looking where they're going, the nose of a car or bicycle. If I have to constantly veer my gaze just to see what's behind my new, completely-in-front-of-me blind spot, that's not only a hassle, it's dangerous. Think about that for a second.

Re:Seriously

[dandelion_wine]

My mis-ordering. As the poster above points out. My bad.

Re:Seriously

[asb]

Whereas motorcyclist are primarily worried about all the obstacles and bad drivers immediately in front of them.

And where is the HUD display? :-)

But all in all HUDs are not new technology. They've been used in luxury automobiles for years and they've been succesful. Car drivers also have to deal with other drivers, obstacles in the road and weather. It's not like we are thinking "I've got a ton of steel around me so I don't have to avoid crashing". Driving is cheaper if you don't have to fix your automobile after every drive :-).

Re:Seriously

[dandelion_wine]

I mean no insult, but on a motorcycle you simply cannot afford to space out the way you can in a car. There is just way too much to risk. I really do not think the average driver on the road could safely operate a motorcycle for any length of time, not because they couldn't grasp the principles of driving one, but because it takes discipline to keep scanning for danger. A poster below lists many of the things you need to watch out for -- many that a car-driver would laugh at. My instructor used to race for Honda, and this guy is saying: watch out for wet leaves, wet paint lines on the road, any kind of wet. These are not things one need concern oneself with in a car. Uneven pavement/streetcar tracks? Danger. Tennis ball rolls out? Danger. Friggin squirrel? Possible danger. Not to mention the near-invisibility of bikes on the road to most cars, if they're not constantly changing speed and position to keep you watching them. It really is a different story.

I used to laugh when my gf would want to go for a spin in rush-hour traffic. It's so fun - so relaxing! Yeah... maybe as a passenger!

Re:Seriously

[scotch]

I'm seriously sick and tired of the "this new technology is a dumb idea and here's my baseless argument to support that opinion" posts on /.

Me too, but you have to admit sometimes the neighsayers are right and the new technology or idea is crap. Not in this particular case, imo. I'm still waiting for the cell phone fad to die.

Re:Seriously

[Methuseus]

I thought a HUD was made to be transparent. Stupid me I guess.....

Or maybe you can't see through something transparent.

I fully believe that if you tried it out for a day it would be second nature to you. I could be wrong. But you could also be wrong. We don't know who's wrong til you've tried it, my friend.

Re:Seriously

[Methuseus]

What cell phone fad? Cell phones are extremely useful.

That said, I believe there is a time and place for using them. Don't use them if it will be annoying or rude to others, and definitely do not use them while driving, especially if using a motorcycle (haven't seen anyone that stupid..... yet).

Re:Seriously

[dandelion_wine]

Very true. My initial impression is that any kind of shadowing would be distracting when things are moving fast and I have to be able to identify whether a flicker in the corner of my eye is on the road or on my visor...

But I'd certainly be willing to try it out for a day. In light traffic, anyway. And I am not totally immune to the cool factor. :)

Re:Seriously

[dmszero]

So why not place something like this in the bits of your field of vision obscured by the helmet? instead of having to tilt your head down to read the speedo, you just glance down at the helmet overlay which is beside your right nostril.

now, the cool bit would be to get it to only come on when you glance down so it doesnt distract you.

just a random thought..

dms0

Re:Seriously

[scotch]

The cell phone bit was a joke. It's funny, laugh.

Re:Seriously

[richie2000]

The helmet already narrows my visual field as it is.

Unless you have a very restrictive helmet, I've found it's the other way around. In a car, you have lots of stuff narrowing your field of view while my helmet only restricts a little of my peripheral vision. Moving my head also moves those restrictions around, revealing stuff behind them. In a car, they are fixed (A, B and C posts, roof, neckrests and passengers all restrict your field of view).

I thought of one thing I'd like this HUD to be able to do, thanks to your interior light analogy: I'd like it to dim. A knob somewhere or a light sensor so the HUD is more or less barely visible at all times but not glaring in my eye. When I ride a car at night I like to go Black Panel - dim the dashboard almost all the way down. I can still read the gauges, but they're not blinding me in any way.

Re:Seriously

[PorkNutz]

RTfa and look at the pictures.

The display is not directly in front of you. It is up and to the right a bit and appears to float out in front of you. All you have to do is glance at it. You don't even have to change the focus of your eyes.

It does not create a blind spot directly in front of you. On top of that it is semi-transparent.

Re:Seriously

[Nexx]

I thought fighter HUDs were focused so they'll be focused on your eyes when they're at infinity?

Re:Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

neeeeeigh.

ho ho ho!

Re:Seriously

[Aarron]

If, for example the speedometer and engine warning lights were in the HUD then the rider wouldn't have to take her eyes off the road to check them

HUD's display the item in the distance in your periphery, the dashboard lights appear underneath you .... in your perifery. Nothing extra is gained from the HUD.

As for displaying speed, I only do that in two scenarios;
1) Law enforcement (speed camera, or a cop car)
2) Entering a town limit.

I dont need a display telling me I am doing a sensible speed to make sure I dont hit deer or turning cars. I make sure I practice that emergency stop every now and again so I know my stopping distances not in feet and inches, but in bike lengths (It does help that I have done 30000 a year in all weathers for the past 8 years).

OK so what about our race team, well if it could display "PIT IN" all across his vision then it may be worth it. However a pit board does the same job and doesnt weight anything. Im afraid this is just another pointless gadget. Cool, but pointless.

On a more worrying note, I also think this gadget is dangerous. Not because of what it does, but because of where it sits. Both times I have crashed (both less than 30mph), I headbutted the bonnet of the car that pulled across in front of me. My visor cracked down the center each time (to show you the force involced Is a box acting as a pressure point really such a good idea !

--

Re:Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing I would consider a bit useful is projecting a piece of the rearview right in front of me (yes, the real bad drivers come from behind when standing at a stoplight); but I don't want anything in my view. Whether I look at it or not, it is taking my attention.

As to rpms, kmhs etc. you don't need this gadget. Any little experienced rider knows when to gear up at the sound of the revs. kmhs neither; you drive the speed you consider appropriate and safe for the conditions you are currently in.

Read Keith Code's a Twist of the Wrist ;)

have fun riding...
xander

Re:Seriously

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

I have, last weekend on a dirt road. I'm riding back with my buddy, and this kid pulls out of his driveway in front of us without looking, and proceeds to slow down at every intersection (we're already around 20 mph max). He then makes another turn without looking, and in the middle of a turn pulls out a cell phone and starts talking. Not a headset, a fucking handset.

So now this moron is operating a road bike on a dirt road with one hand. Based on his attention to what he was doing, I give him no more than 15 minutes after we passed him before he ate tree, signpost, or truck.

Re:Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

The helmet already narrows my visual field as it is.

Bullshit. If you actually rode, you'd know that any decent helmet does NOT limit your visual field at all. Not to mention that everyone who survices motocycles accidents has basically said, "Yeah, I saw him, couldn't do anything about it."

Re:Seriously

[IM6100]

Since he was using a handset to talk on a cell phone, I have to assume he wasn't wearing a helmet.

I hope the organ donor van got to his body in time.

Re:Seriously

[DroidBiker]

Fighter pilots also tend to have a lot more training on their equipment than motorcyclists.

I'm kind of split on this issue. Not having to take my eyes off the road to check speed, rpm, location, etc would be nice, but having it constantly in my field of view would be distracting. It would also take a LOT of getting used to.

Re:Seriously

[rossifer]

You would still have to defocus then refocus your eyes.

Focusing at a different depth is substantially better (less disruptive to your attention) than changing the entire field of view from the road to the dash instruments and back again.

Also, the focus change isn't as extreme as you might think. A HUD uses optics to project the image into your field of view. Those optics can provide an apparent focal distance of whatever they want. The HUD's used in fighter planes put the focal plane at the same distance as the current target, or at infinity if there is no target.

This system, while not having the luxury of knowing exactly how far away you're looking, could just put the HUD focal plane at common traffic distances (as a guess: 100 ft/30 meters) and you'd never notice the moment it took your eyes to focus on the speedo and then back on the brake lights that just lit up in front of you. Certainly less work for your eyes than transferring from the road scene to the 2-3 foot distant dash and back...

Regards,
Ross

Re:Seriously

[the pickle]

fighter pilots use it succesfully and damn if they don't have more things in their mind than motorcyclists.

I'll betcha a hunnert bux a fighter pilot has never had Bambi run out in front of him whilst he was doing Mach 2 over the Iraqi desert...

But yeah, your point is a good one. I think this would be useful on bikes as well.

p

Awesome, peruse /. while....

[TheWart]

You ride your bike! "Officer, I wasn't going over the speed limit, but I was reading a reply, and this guy linked me to the Goat man!!!"

Re:Awesome, peruse /. while....

[Stone316]

What, were you trying to accelerate into the image displayed in the HUD? Sorta like a rabbit chasing a carrot tied to a stick.

In that case, the officer should just put you out of your misery!

You already have a HUD

[orthancstone]

You just have to look down a bit for your HUD...in which case, don't you consider that just as unsafe since your focus isn't on the road?

Re:You already have a HUD

[Galvatron]

You just have to look down a bit for your HUD

Isn't that what makes it a HUD, that you don't look down? Indeed, isn't that why the term "heads-up display" was coined, to contrast it to instrument panels that you had to look down to read?

That being said, I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post. Having information displayed on a helmet overlay seems like a great idea, it means the motorcyclist won't have to look down to get information, and more space is available to display a greater variety of data.

Re:You already have a HUD

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Instrument panels technically are HDD's. Heads Down Displays. I could see the benefit of a HUD on a vehicle, it would make it much easier to target objects (and people)with your remote controlled roof-mounted machine gun. Dont have a remote controlled roof-mounted machine gun? That's not my problem.

Re:You already have a HUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not really; a numerical or graphical display that's you can always see from the corner of your eye would be a lot safer (even if you do have to re-focus, which I don't think you would) that having to look down, refocus, look up, refocus. Even when not focussed you can take in information if you're looking in that general direction.

I had this same idea a while ago using bluetooth and a small LCD display, but never got around to patenting the damn thing ;) Or building it.

Re:You already have a HUD

[awtbfb]

... isn't that why the term "heads-up display" was coined...

Actually it is head-up display. You only have one head - raunchy jokes aside. Here's a sample pointer. The singular use is also used for Head-Down Displays.

On a safety note, there has been a lot of work on HUDs in automotive settings. Some benefits have been found, but they are accompanied by some rather nasty problems that can appear if the HUD and the imagery is not designed properly. Automotive settings are not the same as aviation due to shorter focal lengths for road scenes, more visual clutter, and higher likelihood of unexepected events. Pilots also tend to be better trained than drivers.

Re:You already have a HUD

[Zoshnell]

So THATS what HDD stands for! I was wondering why I had to keep my hard disk drive in the car and why it was telling me when I ran out of gas!

Safety Angle?

[Tensor]

This would probably increase the usage of Helmets, if only for the coolness factor of a HUD.

Other ideas:
- The helmet should also play mp3 and display the song at the bottom or top each time it changes (tho this could be distracting, and the RIAA would oppose it ;)
- 0 Lux camera to superpose picture at night to improve visibility on highways and blacktops. But with enough intelligence to supress the flaring of incoming vehicle
- SMS !! So you can get localized spam from nearby stops and restaurants (joke)

BTW: no bikers i know would even want to know/care the speed and deceleration of their heads hitting pavement. I believe the whole point of riding a bike is not to crash ;)

Re:Safety Angle?

[anonomouse]

BTW: no bikers i know would even want to know/care the speed and deceleration of their heads hitting pavement. I believe the whole point of riding a bike is not to crash ;)

Yeah, but the helmet manufactuers may find it useful. Also your doctor and insurance agent. G-force measuring earplugs, anyone?

Re:Safety Angle?

[cs0nro]

This would probably increase the usage of Helmets, if only for the coolness factor of a HUD.

People who don't wear helmets (or lids as we call them over here) get exactly what they deserve.
Evolution is something that happens to the weak, and there is a reason for that. I still cant belive that there are people out there that stupid, well perhaps I can after all.

BTW. I ride a GPZ 500 (slow and small) and a ZZR 1100 (1100cc 172 mph) and no I don't look down at any speed above 80, you travel to far in that time.
To the chap on the 650XS nice 1970's bike. Not to knock it but it probably does 65-70ish on dodgy brakes. You cant really compare that to one of the newer Jap pocket rockets.

I do however think that there is a place for the HUD - just as there is a place for bike to bike radios. I recently sized my engine while travelling at some speed and any prior warning to that would have been nice :->

As to the big sky theory, I like it. No pot holes/cars/lorrys/bees (dont ever get hit in the face by a bee at speed - visor up, didnt do that again) in the sky. Anmy fighter pilots out there who are bikers ?, what's your take on this.
So, its time to try it and see.

----------

Re:Safety Angle?

[dubiousmike]

The helmet could also:

- Cut your hair
- massage your scalp
- screw HUD, feed you information directly into your brain Matrix style

Re:Safety Angle?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for that one, saved me my rant...but i wish to add a few things.

I like the idea sounds great and over the past 7 years have ridden a number of bikes, from 50cc mopeds to (and it was only once) an 1800cc 'wing

I also ride a large capacity Kwakers (ZZR1200 and ZRX1200 lawson replica) and again above 80 and looking at the speedo is not an option.....without a death wish. Having said that living in a city 20 isnt often an option!! Both of these you dont need another thing in your face tellig you what you are doing when there is a perfetly good tach and speedo there if you *really* have to know

Still an HUD while a cool idea is never going to be a *real* viable prospect, unless Vemar are going to manufacture another one of their crazy dual visor lids (they do 2 sweet lids one which is fighter pilots' lid style and another which is based on the ROOF Daytona - both have a second tinted visor inside a clear one - great in the UK where visor tints are illegal, but riding a 195bhp supersport in your jockeys is fine.....d'oh but i digress) or even an 'at a glance' button on the 'bars so you can flash it up - think sinclair digital watches of the past...

OTOH a proximity scanner would be great - one that tells you when moron in an SUV is about to kill you (moreso now that Hummers have taken off here in manchester) Or (and I apologise for the rant ) an array of (directional) emps to disable said suvs but even more the absolute motherfragging tw@s who insist on using mobile phones whist at the wheel...

now that would be sweet..

In short - great idea, fantastic execution, very cool but not even remotely practical, especially as most of us 2 wheel types have got 2 1/4 second speedo glance down to a tee if we need it anyway (and due to being short in years I have only been riding 7 years)

Motion Research / SportVue

[ay2b]

This seems quite useful to me. I haven't used many HUDs, but I know that when riding I prefer to glance at my GPS's spedometer rather than my motorcycle's spedometer, because it's easier to read quickly.

The device described in the article is the SportVue made by Motion Research. It's basically a GPS and HUD which attach to your helmet. If it can provide me with a spedometer that I can read while keeping my eyes on the road, that will make my rider safer, and I'll buy one. The article also claims that it'll provide additional information such as gear position & shift indicators, which means that it must also somehow tie into the bike. I am curious to see how that works. The brochure (pdf) doesn't cover that.

Re:Motion Research / SportVue

[gassendi]

If you have a digital tacho, that should be fairly easy. The gear position would be trickier. I suppose it could be calculated from data about the bike's gearing, RMP and road speed, but that would be different for every bike. Some Suzukis used to have digital gear indicators between the tacho and speedo, so that would work. I don't know of any modern bikes that still have them though.

Seems like a good idea . . .

[Bagheera]

Having my bike's speed/performance information floating "in space" in my field of vision would be rather cool. Since the guages on a bike are inevitibly located low in the rider's field of view (practically 'down' on a sport bike in a tuck) this could be a real nice addition to the bike.

The only questions I'd have about it (having read their site, but not the NYT article) would be how much does it weigh, and how does the off-center mounting of the display affect the helmet's aerodynamics? If it's designed to inetgrate with the bike's instrumentation (tach, oil pressure, temp, gear position, etc.) it seems there must be some kind of connection between the bike and the display, which makes me think it would be practical to move the GPS unit to the bike and off the rider's head.

Helmets are heavy.

Weight is bad.

Now, if I could get a good headset, a 2M or 70cm antenna, and portable VHF radio to integrate with the VFR, and this . . .

Organdonors

[pt99par]

Will this increase or decrease the number of organ donors.

seriously:
Sounds like a heads up display would disturb the line of vision for a motorcyclist. I think they will need the best view they can have without any disturbance. I am not a motorcyclist myself but when i drive a car i dont look at my current speed very often becouse i regulate it to the surrounding traffic.

Yes but...

[Anonymous Coward]

will it protect you from killer squirrels

I don't have goatse!

[RLiegh]

Thanks for helping me test out my copy of IE. It so happens that instead of a gaping anus, I got a factual and unbiased slashdot article.

Keep up the good work!

why gps?

[BigBir3d]

Sounds like a great use for bluetooth. Transmit the actaul info from the bike (most bikes are becoming EFI equipped) to the rider. Of course it would have to be configurable... do I want speed/gear/rpm today, or do I want rpm/gear/temp, etc.

I wonder how well the display works when the visor gets foggy, and can it be turned off at speed?

Re:why gps?

[thparker]

Transmit the actaul info from the bike...

Motorcycle speedometers generally have a far greater margin of error than automobiles. They tend to be very optimistic. I'll take more accurate GPS info, thanks.

Re:why gps?

[BigBir3d]

So instead of one data source, you want 2? GPS is crap for speed info anyhow. And a motorcycle speedo is fine at LEGAL speeds. I used to sell Kawasaki's and that dealership had the service contract for the Tucson Police Department bikes. A test was done of all 1998 models, comparing speedo vs radar at speeds up to 75mph (Interstate speed limit in AZ). Greatest error was 4mph, on a Ninja 250 at indicated 60mph. GPS has its uses, HUD for bikes aint it.

Re:why gps?

[thparker]

So instead of one data source, you want 2? GPS is crap for speed info anyhow. And a motorcycle speedo is fine at LEGAL speeds. I used to sell Kawasaki's...

No, I want one accurate source, but I'll take a second if the first sucks. Your Kawasakis may have been great, but BMW has notoriously optimistic speedos. YMMV.

GPS has its uses, HUD for bikes aint it.

Probably true. I wasn't arguing for HUD, I was arguing against the suggestion that a HUD should use Bluetooth-transmitted data from the bike's speedo. That just seems silly to me.

Re:why gps?

[BigBir3d]

Probably true. I wasn't arguing for HUD, I was arguing against the suggestion that a HUD should use Bluetooth-transmitted data from the bike's speedo. That just seems silly to me.

Why silly? This is what bluetooth is designed for; short range, low bandwidth, data transmission.

BMW's with their shaft drive should have more accurate speedos than any other brand of bike... if they chose to.

Re:why gps?

[thparker]

Why silly? This is what bluetooth is designed for; short range, low bandwidth, data transmission.

Yes, of course that's what Bluetooth is for. But back to what this thread was actually about -- speedo data.

You think it's great, I think it's crap. Let's work through the logic here. If we agree that I think the data is inaccurate (I do, honest), can we agree that it would seem silly, to me, to use a sophisticated short-range wireless technology to transmit said inaccurate data to my helmet?

BMW's with their shaft drive should have more accurate speedos than any other brand of bike... if they chose to.

That's probably true. But in case you don't ride BMWs, I let you in on a secret -- they've made their choice, and it is NOT in favor of speedometer accuracy. I think they've gotten a little better (my '95 required three speedo replacements), but I couldn't say for sure.

tp

Re:why gps?

[BigBir3d]

You think it's great, I think it's crap. Let's work through the logic here. If we agree that I think the data is inaccurate (I do, honest), can we agree that it would seem silly, to me, to use a sophisticated short-range wireless technology to transmit said inaccurate data to my helmet?

I am sorry, but you can not use the argument that bluetooth is sophisticated, when your preference is GPS. You know, GPS requires a network of satellites, bluetooth is a low power pair of transceivers. One is far less complicated, and cheaper, than the other.

As for BMW's, the first street bike I rode was a early 80's R850, I think.

Disturbing...

[AtomicDog]

"I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident."

I guess that's one way to look at it!

This being slashdot, at least I know there are the tinfoil jokes to look forward to.

No 'murdercycle' reference?

[gmhowell]

With witty lines like that, I can't believe the poster refrained from making reference to 'murdercycles'. Helmets are largely a nonissue WRT motorcycle safety these days. They are 'safe enough', provided they are worn. (I'd like to ride in a state with helmet choice, but I'd always choose a lid.)

There are three issues that overwhelmingly appear in motorcycle fatalities. The first is alcohol. Alcohol use BY THE MOTORCYCLIST is the number one rider controllable factor in fatalities. Eliminate alcohol, and you eliminate 25% or more of motorcycle fatalities and accidents. That is why Harley does its customers a disservice by providing beer tents at events. Because of the number of factors a rider must juggle, the effects of alcohol are more readily apparant on bikes than cars.

The next issue is ignorance by other road users, primarily passenger vehicle operators. Nope, bikers aren't getting squashed by semis, they're getting squashed by SUVs and minivans. I've long been a proponent of tougher licensing standards in the US.

And the final issue is rider skill. Riders who are self taught or taught by friends and family are over six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That's why the MSF came into being. Yes, I'm an instructor, no, I don't speak on their behalf.

The value of HUDs, particularly WRT driver/rider safety at highway speeds found in the US (where this inventor is located) is of questionable. Lack of access to engine and/or vehicle statistics doesn't even appear in any accident statistics. Sure, this is a neat toy, but judging by the writing by the AC submitter, I think he's just pissed at having been passed by even the most mundane of motorcycles.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm an instructor

No wonder. Nobody except DMV stuffedshirts call car drivers "passenger vehicle operators". Geeez, is it so hard to use english that most people use.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nobody except DMV stuffedshirts call car
> drivers "passenger vehicle operators".

He's an MSF instructor. He doesn't work for the DMV.

First read.
Then think.
Then - and only then - talk.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. It makes no difference.

All people in authoritative positions (like instructors) like to dazzle people with their use of extra-syllable jargon.

It's counterproductive.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[kuroth]

> Whatever. It makes no difference.

In your opinion.

> All people in authoritative positions

mmm, generalizations.

Wait, I have one for you: Generalizations are always valid. Yupyupyup.

> like to dazzle people with their use of extra-syllable jargon.

You're "dazzled" by that phrase? I'll try to be extra cautious if I need to jingle my keys or point my laser pointer at the floor.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[gmhowell]

Guess again troll: I'm a part timer. My 'stuffed shirt' DMV uniform is a t-shirt and leather jacket. 'Passenger vehicle operators' is more accurate than 'car and light truck and SUV drivers'.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[aXis100]

I see far more motorcycles darting dangerously between traffic on the freeway tha I do regular cars. Considering there are umpteen times more cars on the road, this is disturbing.

It's riders like those which give motorcyclists a bad name.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[theonetruekeebler]

Look, just because he's too polite to call car drivers clueless, selfish, negligent, dangerous fucking assholes, does not mean he works at the DMV.

And yet again I've responded to an AC.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[theonetruekeebler]

The attitude I see in car drivers towards motorcycles taking advantage of their vehicles' superior acceleration and maneuverability is almost always along the lines of "How dare he, when I'm stuck here?" Yes, a bike can outaccelerate your car, probably by a dramatic margin. That means a motorcyclist can find and take advantage of a hole in traffic much more effectively than can a car. Cars do move in and out of traffic in the same manner as motorcycles, but they do it so ponderously that it hardly draws the eye.

To bring this back on topic, I don't think I'd want an IHD while runnning my morning gauntlet^W commute. Maybe, at most, a little number to tell me what gear I'm in, maybe a little dot to tell me when I'm near my shift RPM, and a little dot when the radar detector goes off.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[theonetruekeebler]

I looked at your webpage. That R850R is a brilliant commuter weapon with tons of pull at street speeds---hardly "the most mundane of motorcycles" except maybe in looks.

Which raises an interesting point: your Roadster has a 700W alternator, enormous by most standards. How much power are all these fancy electric geegaws like heads up displays going to draw? Will sorry little riceburners (or for that matter, Airheads) be able to run them?

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[Lumpy]

The safest way to ride a motorcycle is to assume that every car is trying to kill you.

People can look at you directly, hell even make eye contact and STILL pull out in front of you.

I had to lay a bike down for this woman that decide to pull out in front of me (about 100 feet in front of me) in her damned suv and slam on her breaks to try and force her way in the other lane of cars.

it took every ounce of my energy not to beat her with my helmet.... she said.... "oops, sorry"

I was going 40 in a 45 zone, being carful of the idiots...

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[ryanvm]

And the final issue is rider skill. Riders who are self taught or taught by friends and family are over six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That's why the MSF came into being.

A pointless statistic. Have you considered that people who seek professional instruction are naturally more cautious? I believe there's a similar statistic somewhere that shows cigarette smoking lowers your IQ.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[aXis100]

"How dare he, when I'm stuck here?"

Whilst that is frustrating, that wasnt the intention of my comments.

Yes, a bike can outaccelerate your car, probably by a dramatic margin. That means a motorcyclist can find and take advantage of a hole in traffic much more effectively than can a car

Hole in traffic = braking space. Ive been down the freeway where cars were allready too close, and yet riders decided they could zip in an out of those spaces. Not smart. In addition, changing lanes and travelling much faster than the traffic would make it difficult for drivers to see riders in their mirors.

Please, im not trying to tar all motorcyclists wiht the same brush, but ive seen many motorcyclists perform some really stupid, life risking manouvers. Car drivers do plenty of stupid things too, but they tend to have more padding.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[samdu]

That is why Harley does its customers a disservice by providing beer tents at events.

I think the beer tents are there to lessen the sticker shock of Harley paraphenalia.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[RESPAWN]

The next issue is ignorance by other road users, primarily passenger vehicle operators. Nope, bikers aren't getting squashed by semis, they're getting squashed by SUVs and minivans. I've long been a proponent of tougher licensing standards in the US.

This actually brings up a good point, although I'm not certain the blame should rest solely on the shoulders of the 4-wheel vehicle driver. I have had a few instances where I have cut off motorcyclists on the roads simply because they were driving at high rates of speed at night and literally weren't in the lane when I initially checked my mirrors. For instance, the other night I was leaving Taco Bell. I patiently waited for an extra large gap in traffic so that I could pull all the way out into the left lane and make it into the U-Turn area. So, I see a large gap, thanks to the nearby traffic light, and pull out. As soon as I make it into my lane, I check my mirrors again and there is a sport bike right there behind me, who certainly wasn't anywhere near me when I pulled out into the lane. It made total sense to me though since it was Bike Night and all the sport bikers hang out at a near-by establishment. The point I'm making is that, if you're going to be riding a motorcycle (or driving a car even) at extremely high rate of speeds, the responsibility for your own safety should rest squarely on your own shoulders. And I think the good riders do pay that extra attention, because when you are exceeding the posted speed limit excessively, and other drivers don't expect it (and don't try to give me crap about you should always expect somebody to be doing 90 in a 35 or something), you are taking your own life into your hands becuase when driving so much faster than the rest of traffic, on a tiny motorcycle, they have very little time to realize you are there as you fly up on them at twice the rate of the rest of traffic.

I myself am extra careful around motorcyclists. I like sport bikes and respect their riders, mostly becuase I know that if I had one I'd probably kill myself on Day 1 doing 100+ in a 50. (It's bad enough that I've done it in cars, I'm ashamed to admit.) But also becuase I know that they are way less protected than I am and deserve that extra respect simply becuase of that.

And on a different note, let me implor other 4-wheel drivers to help a motorcyclist out by signaling with him, when he's making a turn in front of you in a passing zone. My Dad's best friend in high school was killed in a situation where he was making a left turn so the car behind him was slowing down, but the redneck behind that car did see a signal and so passed the car just in time to hit my dad's friend mid-way through his turn. So, help a motorcyclist out some time.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[gmhowell]

I loved both of my roadsters (I also had a R1100R, but can't seem to find any pictures of it). I suspect a HUD won't draw much more power than an electric clock or something similar. There would be some sort of transmitter on the bike, that presumably taps into existing feeds for gauges. The power supply for the display would probably be helmet mounted.

Which raises another question: how much weight does this add to a helmet? A heavy HUD is one thing in a car, where the helmet can be strapped to the frame of the car, but there's nothing to strap it to on a bike. No, the HUD probably isn't very heavy, and I'm just being silly at this point.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[gmhowell]

I had a similar situation. Except I was in a nice, greasy intersection. First/only time I've activated the ABS on my bike.

Brother had a similar situation. He got on the brakes fairly hard. Hit a full size pickup. Pictures are available of his bike. He had a bit of road rash from where his arm rubbed the truck. His bike was repaired in a week. Now, more than six months later, the guy's truck still has the imprint of my brother's bike in it:)

My father rode in the late 60's/early 70's (and again). When my brother and I started riding in the late 90's, he imparted the same bit of advice. And now, I give the same advice to all of my students.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[gmhowell]

I agree that the statistic is partially pointless, for exactly the reasons you mention. Unfortunately, there is little data available. The best study on motorcycle accidents was done 20 years ago, and the NHTSA and DOT have been reluctant to fund a more current study. The MSF, AMA, and a few other groups are attempting to fund, in part, a pilot study, with hopes that the fed will conduct a bigger, more current study.

But, I should also defend the intrinsic value of professional instruction. Much of what is taught by friends/relatives is inaccurate. Ignorance of the rear brake is a common problem, as is ignorance of counter-steering.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to argue whether or not the biker was speeding. That can really only be proven by the biker himself...

What often happens is that people unfamiliar with motorcycles are fooled by the single point of reference from the headlight. When a car approaches, you can gauge speed by noticing how fast the headlights separate. If you see them very close together at one instance, and very far apart in the next, then you can guess that the driver is going very fast relative to your position.

By removing one of these reference points, the driver is then not presented with the same amount of information as usual. This leads to miscalculations on the driver's part, such as could have been the case with your scenario.

Just something to consider.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[theonetruekeebler]

I do agree with you that lots of people take advantage of spaces far smaller than they should---here in Atlanta I have seen SUVs merging into holes with about two feet at either end, and lowered Civics doing much worse. Motorcyclists do the same, and I watch carefully when I see another bike merge into a slot that is less than one carlength long, although why there is a slot less than one carlength long in 70mph traffic is left as an exercise to the reader.

Of course, on a motorcycle, the consequences of an error are far more dramatic. Powerful motorcycles are dangerous in the hands of those with no sense of their own mortality. Many high performance sports bikes do not live to see their warranties run out. Graduated licensing would probably be as a good thing in the U.S. as it has been elsewhere.

I am glad that you don't lump all motorcyclists together. I don't think motorcycling's clueless::clueful ratio is much different than the general population's.

One note about motorcycles tending to go faster than general traffic. I invite dispute on this, but I am a firm believer that on a motorcycle, one is far safer traveling at least slightly faster than the flow of traffic. The reason is very simple: a rider can see what is ahead of him and what is approaching from ahead, far better than he can see what is approaching from behind. More to the point, he has far more control over situations in front of him than behind him. Consequently, it makes sense to cause the situations in front to approach and the situations in back to recede. The way to do this is to go slightly faster than the flow of traffic. This tactic does not absolve a rider his responsibility to monitor his mirrors, of course, as there is always somebody faster and stupider somewhere behind him.

That is no excuse to use the freeway as a slalom course. But stop-and-go traffic is a different story <grin>.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[JakiChan]

While I would agree that "cage" drivers should be better trained I always get annoyed when I hear the motorcyclists talking about how bad we are without mentioning some of the things their friends do, like lane splitting at 50 mph and weaving through traffic like they're on the last lap at Suzuka. The only motorcycle accident I've ever seen was caused by the guy on the bike.

Now I'm sure that many motorcycle drivers are quite careful. But when they paint themselves as innocent motorists being persecuted by the dumb people in cars then I take exception...

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[LWATCDR]

I also took the MSF course and I am restoreing an old Honda CB-750. The guy is right on the mark.
Q. How many beers can you drink before it effects your ability to ride a motorcycle?
A. 0
That was one of the questions that my MSF instructor asked me.
I learned the value of the MSF course from a friend of mine. He decided to just take the test and not go the MSF. We got our bikes at the same time. Two months later he was up visiting his father. He father had a Ducati Sport bike and a BMW R90. He let my friend ride the BMW. Well my friend was trying to keep up with his dad and lost it on a corner. He ended up with a bent bike and a broken sholder.
When he got back a talked to him and asked if the foot pegs or pipes had been scraping in the turn. They where not.
At that moment I remembered that in my MSF course we covered all the common errors of new riders and my friend had made everyone.
MSF save lives and broken bones. If you get a bike take the course. It is so worth it. Then after a while take the advanced.
I am actually thinking of taking first one again with my wife. She wants to get her own bike.

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[gmhowell]

Not sure what courses are offered in your area, but you may want to investigate some options other than taking the BRC again (that's Basic RiderCourse, BTW). I took dirtbike school a couple of months ago, and it was a blast. You may want to take the ERC (the 'advanced' class you mention). Next year, in Maryland, we'll be doing a BRC II, which is much of the riding, but little of the classroom. It also assumes you can find the controls, get the bike moving, etc.

If you/she buy a new bike, most manufacturers will reimburse you for a course taken within 12 months (before or after) of purchase. Be wary of the Buell Blast and the Harley course. I've heard loads of problems with the Blast (at least as bad as the old Cyclone and Lightning's) and the bike is geared a bit high. There is one excercise where you do a 2-3-2 shift. The Blast requires you to go too fast to really be able to do it safely. This isn't from personal experience, but from that of a person who has been teaching MSF stuff for about 10 years. Better than nothing, OTOH.

Oh, and if you want a REALLY interesting weekend, try to find a Sidecar Safety Program course near you.

What series CB750 do you have? Tons of parts on eBay (I search for CB750-K0 parts, because some of the braking parts are common with Gold Wings of the same vintage). Also, my supervisor for the training site is parting with some CB750's (wants to buy a house). And my brother had a CB750 Nighthawk as his first bike (after having spent a few thousand miles on my dad's BMW F650).

Re:No 'murdercycle' reference?

[DavittJPotter]

Cars do move in and out of traffic in the same manner as motorcycles, but they do it so ponderously that it hardly draws the eye.

Which is why cagers are so dangerous. They're complacent, and don't watch what's going on around them. They're listening to the morning show, laughing, drinking their coffee, putting on makeup, getting the kids ready for school, email, etc.

And yet bikers are dangerous?!

Depends on the bike/rider/situation

[DavittJPotter]

I know on my Intruder 1500LC, I'd like this on my windshield. My speedo is on the tank, and it's a good glance down to check speed & fuel level (no tach on my V-Twin yet). On my old FZR600, this would have been sweetness indeed in my helmet - mid-corner, close to apex, check RPM/gear/speed - without looking down. IF you could make it unobtrusive yet visible. IF, if, if. Motorcyclists don't need distractions - I'm using 100% of my senses to look ahead, beside, and behind to watch for cagers when I'm riding.

If you've never ridden before, don't condemn or judge or pretend you know anything about motorcycling. Until you've tagged your favorite twisty road on two wheels, just ridden 150+ miles to have breakfast with your buds, or just ridden to be out... I can't explain it to you. You have to experience it.

If you ride, keep the shiny side up! Winter won't last forever...

Re:Depends on the bike/rider/situation

[Anonymous Coward]

I know as a Rider myself I really would not want this "feature". It would only serve as a Distraction. I can always tell what Speed/Rpm I'm at by the sound of my Engine. When at speeds (usually Excessive) on the highway, I'm usually Tucked down behind the Screen anyways, so looking at the Speedo for a quick verification is nothing more than a quick dart of the eyes. I seen someone mentioned they would like this for at the track...Huh?? Have you ever been? (just curious) usually at the track, you tape over your Speedo, and tach, as well as remove your mirrors...Last thing you want to be doing at the kind of speeds you hit on a race track, is worrying about what RPM your at.

poor taste...

[llamaluvr]

"I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident."

wish I could mod "-1: distasteful"...

As a rider myself...

[NightWulf]

I can't help but feel the paranoid thought that the GPS data will be used to hurt more than help. I would think it's more possible to start ticketing speeders and such this way. The distraction factor mentioned by other readers can't be ignored as well, UNLESS they could pipe in some rear camera data or such. The cops already harass motorcycle riders more than cagers. I would like to see a market of mapping software and such on dashbased LCD's. The large tourer bikes have them, but I would like to have something on my smaller bike.

Re:As a rider myself...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but feel the paranoid thought that the GPS data will be used to hurt more than help.

Where I'm from, the police must give the ticket to the driver and not the owner of the vehicle. Maybe it's different in your country, I don't know.

In that case, it should be pretty easy to get away with it.. "Wasn't me riding the bike. I was drunk, bounch of my friends borrowed it without permission. I have no idea who did 200 mph down the highway." Ofcourse you would need some alibi, but that can always be arranged.

No no no.

[Malicious]

If you've ever driven a car and instead of focusing on the road in front of you, tried looking at the windsheild, you'd realize just how hard it is to change focus quickly from the glass to the road. Now try driving with glasses on and focusing on the lenses of your glasses, while staying in your lane.
Further, when I go riding I spend most of the time with my visor up, to feel the wind on my face and enjoy the ride. Why would I want to keep my visor down, just so that it can tell me I'm speeding when I already know?

Re:No no no.

[anto]

Except that 99% of the HUD's around 'float' the display out where you would be looking anyway - it dosent appear to be on the windshield but 10 meters down the road just above the bonnet. So there is no (or very limited) refocus time - its the whole point of the HUD concept - keep your eyes on the target.

Re:No no no.

[5strangers]

Most HUD for cars have an apparent focus somewhere near the front of the car for the exact reason you brought up. I would assume that a HUD for a motorcycle would do something similiar.

Re:No no no.

[anonomouse]

its the whole point of the HUD concept - keep your eyes on the target.

Sure, for fighter jets with a target indicator in the HUD, along with other useful information that cannot be physiologically intuited in time critical situations, such as angle of attack and airspeed. But WTF does a speedometer tell a motorcyclist that lean angle and wind buffeting does not? The motorcyclist will not find the HUD much use when inverted, or otherwise disoriented. He will use the seat of his pants, for information, or for landing gear...

This thing is a stupid distraction...

Re:No no no.

[slart42]

>Further, when I go riding I spend most of the time with my
>visor up, to feel the wind on my face and enjoy the ride.
>Why would I want to keep my visor down, just so that it
>can tell me I'm speeding when I already know?

right... what we really need ist HUD-Sunshades!!

Re:No no no.

[anto]

If the HUD has his speedo & tacho it is something that the rider never has to look down for. Which can be quite a challenge on some bikes. Anything that keeps the eyes up & looking for people trying to kill you is useful. I am not arguing that the data is vital - just that if you are going to be looking for the data its better in a HUD rather than down away from the road trying to locate the speedo while inverted :)

I don't ride, so I'm not speaking from experience.

[Bif Powell]

...other than in a car, and I know I pretty much have a +/-5mph idea of my speed (and +/-500 RPM), just by the car, the road, the feel of all the inputs, where my foot is on the gas, the sound of the engine, road-noise etc...I would think most people who ride regularly have an even more accurate 'feel' of their situation (the non-morons anyway) and the loss of peripheral vision and subconscious distraction of the read out would do more harm than good. For cars I think they should be standard safety equipment, but I think responsible bikers have a situational awareness that rivals a HUD. Again, I'm NOT speaking from experience on bikes, just extrapolating from driving a car.

incredibly poor idea

[fw3]

Aircraft use HUD's principally because there is so much information the pilot needs to have. Especially flying IFR the pilot is *only* relying on the equipment for control of the aircraft. Current production commercial aircraft now use displays which give the pilot direct view of the controls he needs at any given time to improve reaction times and reduce stress.

This is not even vaguely related to the conditions of riding a motorcycle (or bicycle), where the rider needs to be continuously evaluating what cage driver may not see him/her, road surface conditions, etc. Yes, you have to look at the guages also but that's a hell of a lot less important than the continuous sweep of your riding environment for where's the next hazard.

I do 10k miles annually riding mostly in Boston, year round in all weather conditions and have exactly one accident, courtesy of a limo-driver who ran a Stop sign. I'll pass on the HUD device thanks.

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Most people can refocus in milliseconds, and I don't expect 80 year olds to be driving speed bikes wearing these.

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably the guy who drives down the street drinking coffee talking on your cellphone smoking a cigarette with one hand out the window flipping off the guy you cut off. I hate you and everyone like you.

One end or the other...

[DysonSphere]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed...

Or on the amount of heat generated by a pair of "ass brakes".

Re:Helmet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Becase most states require it

Two practical questions

[Babbster]

Would the speed indicated by GPS be more or less accurate than the speed indicated by a plain old speedometer?

Related to the above, wouldn't it be better if the GPS receiver/electronics could be integrated into the motorcycle and then connected by wire (or perhaps by Bluetooth?) to a compatible helmet, saving some potential weight in the helmet? It would also make the helmet less steal-worthy.

I'm not a motorcycle rider myself, but I'm the curious sort. :)

Re:Two practical questions

[finkployd]

I would say more, since (1) GPS speed, in my experience, is very accurate, and (2) because motorcycle speedometers are notoriously inaccurate.

Finkployd

Re:Two practical questions

[MobileC]

The GPS is far more accurate unless you are using a pushbike speedo which is just as good.

Yes to the bluetooth.

The normal readout on the dash and if you get "one of those nifty helmets" the bluetooth enables the hud.

Gear, speed, revs or overrev.

Hell make it like a garmin gps where you can control which items you want displayed on the hud from the dash.

I'd have one.

Re:Two practical questions

[TheGrayArea]

My wife and I were once 300 miles from home when the instrument display died on here minivan. The local dealer in the small town we were in didn't have the replacement PCB in stock so we were going to have a weekend trip home with no speedo on the interstates. I grabbed my Dad's GPS unit and strapped it to the dash, set it to realtime info mode and used it as an impromptu speedometer for the 6 hour trip. It must have been pretty accurate since the State Troopers left me alone.
Also, as you say motorcycle speedos are grossly inaccurate at high speeds. Most are way optimistic. The motorcycle magazines used to public actual vs indicated speeds for the bikes they were reviewing. I'm not sure if they still do it now.

Re:Two practical questions

[Jon Abbott]

motorcycle speedometers are notoriously inaccurate.

Unlike Yamaha motorcycles, which have caused riders to invent speed units such as Ymiles, Honda motorcycles generally have dead-on speedometers... I guess the pertinent acronym here would be YMMV. :^)

Operational, medical benefits

[Sean Clifford]

Neat, though I'm not much on the motorcycle thing after witnessing an acquaintance fatally crash. A HUD wouldn't have saved him, but perhaps a personal radar displayed on that HUD could give (motor and muscle) cyclists the information they need to avoid similar accidents. Combined with a wireless medical alert system, drivers - heck, regular folks - will have a much better chance of surviving an accident.

Not for me

[finkployd]

Sorry, but I have enough to worry about on my bike, here is a short list.

(1) drivers who are conditioned to not notice anything on the road smaller than an excursion, and will pull out in front of me while seemingly staring at me.

(2) Those same drivers making a left turn at a light, not noticing I'm in the oncoming lane

(3) wet leaves

(4) oil, antifreeze, pretty much any liquid

(5) deer (PA, nuff said)

(6) Other bikers. Don't get me wrong, it can be very safe if you just take precautions, unfortunately sometimes it seems like I'm the only one on two wheels who is sober, wearing safety equipment, and not trying for the sound barrier.

(7) People. They won't walk out in front of a car but for some reason will dart out in front of a motorcycle. Mutually assured destruction I guess.

So no thanks, I don't need any more visual distractions. I wouldn't say no to a device that spoke my current speed into my ear at the touch of a button (preferably on the handlebars).

Finkployd

Re:Not for me

[orange_6]

So you never check your speed?

Re:Not for me

[finkployd]

Rarely, I have a pretty good handle on how fast I am going by watching everything go by. That, and I generally travel in traffic so I just ride with the flow of traffic (the safest thing to do).

Finkployd

Re:Not for me

[RY]

Don't forget about the F*** *P things that the highway dept does to roads.
On I-5 the highway dept keeps changing the location of lane markers on the road. What makes this so bad is that they take off the old markings by using a machine which leaves a grove 3/4 of an inch deep by 5 inches. Just enough to rip the wheels out from under the bike.

Re:Not for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are large parts of Asia where motorcycling (or scooters) is a common thing like cars are in US. And out here, the biggest problems are not really what you mention.
7) and 1) are common enough but bikers are used to these and will just swerve around a pedestrian (or a car), road rules ignored.
The speeds that bikers hit are really low (top speed of the bikes mentioned in the link are something like 80 mph) so wet leaves or liquids on roads are not an issue except on real steep turns.
Deer no, but cows are common in India. But cows are predictable, they amble slowly in a straight line instead of running so are easy to avoid (cow bellies make for soft landings too :-) .Dogs run, but act sensibly, ie they dont freeze in the middle of the road, anyway you can run over a dog and not get killed (Indian dogs are smaller).
Yeah but you have to always keep and eye on the road, assume that everyone is trying to kill you and you are safe. I really dont want a HUD distracting me
Any US guy who has seen Indian/Asian traffic care to comment?

Re:Not for me

[TheMidget]

So you never check your speed?

I don't need to. When I hear a bang, I know I just broke the sound barrier!

Re:Not for me

[TheMidget]

Indian dogs are smaller

And they taste better. And, because they are so small, they fit better into the bike's saddlebags too!

Re:Not for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Point 7 is so on the ball. Guys, if you cross a road when a bike is passing, just coz it isnt taking the entire lane at that time DOESNT MEAN YOU CAN HAVE THE REST.

Re:Not for me

[really?]

Here in Japan they do even "better" they paint "dangerous" turns in red, or some similar colour. So, even if the turns were just barely worth mentioning before, now they are dangerous as this paint is really slick. Don't even want to talk about the rainy days...
On the other hand the car drivers are MUCH MUCH more curteous.

Re:Not for me

[grem]

I also rarely check my speed unless I'm all alone on a fast country road. And generally, I try to ride just a bit faster (2-3 mph) than traffic to avoid staying in anyone's blind spot or having them forget me.

"The safest way to ride a motorcycle? Pretend everyone is out to kill you and the only reason they fail is that they're too drunk!" - anonymous

I wonder...

[segment]

How long before someone screams Big Brother... A GPS receiver in the helmet is used to calculate position and speed of the wearer"

Re:I wonder...

[rcpitt]

Only if it is hooked to something that sends the info to the govn'mnt (or you die and the GPS survives and is entered into evidence showing that you were in fact doing 180mile/hour on that hairping) - and then who cares?

Business Plan! Business Plan!

[Anonymous Coward]

Manufacture wireless-ready helmets with internal scrolling banner ad displays, complete with audio! Advertisers could buy distribution time on the Audiovis Helmet Network and be able to blare audio jingles in time to pulsing flashing visual ads mere inches from motorcyclist's eyeballs while they drive! They can't look away! Give the helmets away FREE to motorcyclists and sell high quality advertising space to a "captive audience" for BIG PROFITS!

Okay venture people, stay in line, no jostling, there's plenty of opportunity to give me millions of dollars for each of you.

To any naysayers out there with stuffy little safety concerns, I say that the bus has already left. Go whine at all the in-car advertising moguls who distract the drivers of a wide variety of other vehicles and leave this fantastic money-making venture alone. Whoohoo!

Other uses

[Grimace1975]

I personal am not a motercyclest, but have worn a friends helmet in the past.. It was impressive, i didnt want to take it off (till my neck started getting sore).
But i personally would love, and would pay for, a motercycle helment that had a built in mic, stereo and a display in the visor. I would use it for playing my computer games in a more detachment bliss. FPS would be great. or even a mmorpg.
-- Always, Grimace1975

No way in hell.

[chengmi]

There's no way in hell that GPS will be used to administer speeding tickets. First of all, what if you had to speed up a couple mph to avoid an accident? would the GPS recognize this? or just send you a ticket in the mail for speeding? Secondly, I'd like to see the politician who actually tries to push this through the legislature. Talk about bad publicity. No one goes the absolute speed limit. The speed limit on most freeways is 65 mph but the highway patrol estimate the average speed of traffic to be around 70-75. I say it's around 75-85 most of the time. The fact is, nothing is absolute (not even the law). That is why we have judges, and not robots or GPS' to decide things for us.

Re:No way in hell.

[Jellybob]

Ummm... how is the speed limit not an absolute law?

The law says that you can drive at a maximum of 65mph. Therefore if you are going more than 65mph you're breaking the law... the police may decide not to do anything about it, but you are still breaking the law.

Re:No way in hell.

[Zoshnell]

Not true. I live in CA, going doing the freeway in the merge lane doing 64 in a 65 mph zone(my car was acting up) and I got pulled over for obstructing traffic. The officer didn't even ask me if I needed a tow as he sped off hearing my car refuse to stop. And who says CHiPs don't have a heart?

Re:Helmet?

[bozojoe]

Was that supposed to be funny?

More links

[asb]

Here is a link to the The product itself.

And no, the GPS is not in the helmet. The helmet contains an antenna which receives the GPS data from elsewhere (they know better, adding excess weight to the helmet is not a good idea).

awesome for adventure motorcyclists

[ykiwi]

Adventure motorcyclists (or bike couriers in big cities) will find this useful - once it reaches the second or third generation.

Already when we travel across vast distances (e.g. South America), most motorcyclists carry a GPS unit, which is attached to the bike, and use it to record where they went, as well as to decide where to go. Having a heads-up display will be a lot less dangerous than peering down at a vibrating, polarized GPS unit attached to the handlebars. It will also be one less thing to worry about losing.

Motorbikes are easilty the fastest way around a city, but map-reading is a nightmare and extremely dangerous while moving. For bike couriers in a city like London a heads up map display will be awesome, especially when tied into a traffic tracking and route planning system. Can't wait.

but we'd have to be able to turn it off for those times when we don't want to be distracted

oh - and if you have the urge to ride your motorcycle into the sunset, then check out the Adventure Motorcycling Handbook by Chris Scott, or horizonsunlimited.com.

Sounds like a good idea

[sonic_ak]

Having spent a good amount of time on a motorcycle, I'd have to say that I think that this is a good idea. Even though it would be in your view at all times, it would most likely be in a corner. Combined with advances in visibility in motorcycle helmets and the ability to focus beyond what is right in front of you, I think that this could be a boon to cyclists.

MegaTokyo needs this!

[Anonymous Coward]

How else are you going to aim your motorcycle-mounted laser to attempt to save MegaTokyo from an experiment gone wrong?

Yeah, but...

[Ichijo]

...will it help you make turns on city streets at 200mph?

I really wanted a motorcycle helmet HUD like this when I was a kid.

Situational Awareness

[pipingguy]

Seems to me that the average motorcycle rider has to pay much more attention to his (rapidly upcoming) surroundings than the average Chevy Cavalier driver.

Detracting from that experience would seem to be somewhat dangerous.

How does the "power bike" experience differ from the "chopper ride"?

Re:Situational Awareness

[dandelion_wine]

re: that last.

Though I love my cruiser dearly, it's got a completely awful turning radius, and it's top-heavy as a sonofabitch.

Having ridden a crotch rocket a grand total of two times, I found the performance impressive, but as per cliche, couldn't imagine taking it on road trips due to comfort considerations. And I'm on a 650, not a Goldwing (though I had one, and that was indeed leisure cruising).

Important note re: centre of gravity -- though probably not the kind of differences you were thinking of -- the Goldwing weighed over 1000 pounds and I could lift it from the pavement easily if need be (no -- don't ask -- was barely moving at the time). In contrast, the 650, all 550 pounds of it, I have to get under on one side and give it all I've got to right the sucker. Not the kind of thing that should happen much if ever, but that kind of top-heaviness shows in motion, too.

Re:Situational Awareness

[rcpitt]

Wife has a Chevy Cavalier - Son has a Z24 - so I know them well. I have a 'Wing and have ridden stuff from 90cc on up including side-cars.

Riding on 2 wheels you have to achieve situational awareness - know who is in front, to the side and behind in all lanes - and be afraid of what might jump out at you from side streets and lanes.

Difference between power bike and chopper is how long it takes you to get "white-finger" (vibration induced loss of blood in the extremities, i.e. the fingers of your hands) - compounded by the style of gloves you wear.

On a crotch-rocket you get white finger from hanging on for dear life and near misses with little old ladies and (in our neck of the woods) tractors on the back roads. On choppers you get white finger from riding more than about 300 miles unless you have fairly thick gloves on.

On my 'Wing I can ride all day with bare hands and only get white-finger when the temperature gets below about 10C ;>

About 13 mph. Why do you ask?

[amper]

[quote]I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident.[/quote]

The head, when falling from an approximate height of six feet, impacts the pavement with a vertical velocity vector of approximately 13 mph. The math is pretty simple.

As a motorcycle rider, it really drives me nuts every time I see a post like this one--posts that assume and/or assert that motorcycles are dangerous objects, though at least *this* one stops short of calling for an outright ban.

Get your head out of your ass and stop furthering the spread of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Re:About 13 mph. Why do you ask?

[whitegold]

Agreed.

Let's take two accidents at 60 miles an hour.

The motorcylist might hit the ground at... for argument 40 miles an hour. (for you americans who don't understand metric)

Someone in a car, however, would have THEIR head hit at maybe 30 miles an hour into their steering wheel.

The big differences? One is hitting on a sideways angle, and bouncing. The other is impacting straight into the face. The other big difference? Only one of them is wearing a helmet.

My head hitting the pavement doesn't scare me. Morons on roundabouts crushing my legs is what scares me.

Re:About 13 mph. Why do you ask?

[RY]

Well said.

A good set of leathers is an investment.

Blur the HUD?

[chendo]

Would it be possible to project a 'blurred' picture of the HUD so people can read it clearly while they're still looking at the road? That way people won't have to focus on the glass/plastic in front of them.

Re:Blur the HUD?

[Methuseus]

read a little bit

The HUD is made so your eyes will focus on it at about 10 feet out IIRC. That means minimal refocusing of your eyes.

radar

[Sean Clifford]

After reading the responses of several riders after composing and posting, putting a radar in your field of vision seems more dangerous. The "feel" thing with radar and the spoken data others suggest would probably work better.

OT, I'm curious about the appeal of riding. I understand having the sun shine on your face and the wind in your hair, but a convertible "cage" seems more enjoyable to me than a bike. I'm a careful, cool-headed driver so a motorcycle seems reckless. I've ridden a few times, but it never caught my fancy. On the other hand, I enjoyed riding horses.

Anyway, again OT, what about riding motorcycles appeals?

Re:radar

[dandelion_wine]

There's probably loads that thrilled me when I started out that I only barely remember now.

Imagine gently throttling away from a stop, looking down as you lift your foot from the pavement and seeing that pavement sweep by in an ever increasing speed till it's a blur (ok, talk about not watching ahead!), and realizing that it was seamless -- and there is the road, just beneath you.

Only had the wind through my hair once, trying a gentle ride through the park without a helmet just to see what all the fuss was about. Good recipe for a bug in the face at 60kph. As it was, I was squinting, tears welling in the corners of my eyes (despite shades), and a general feeling of terrible vulnerability. Not what I call a good time. But then I started out wearing helmets, unlike some veteran hard-a**es, so for me, it's like wearing a seatbelt in a car for ten years and then not wearing one.

I certainly feel connected to the bike in a way I can't imagine with a car (I'm not a mech-nut). It's responsive to you in a way that a car is not, and you in turn have to be very responsive about what it's telling you in regards to the road, angular momentum, etc. Make it through a few scrapes. See some awesome scenery with nothing in the way. And did I mention that they're kick-a** cool?

Seriously. Go see an action movie -- something good. At night. Walk out to your bike. Strap up your leathers and pull on your helmet and ride. Then tell me what isn't great about motorcycling.

My only regret, rule-wise, is that headphone-music could be awesome on the machine, but talk about distracting, as well as detracting from an important road-survival sense, not to mention contributing to a dreamy, space-out frame of mind that while pleasant, better be accompanied by no surprises whatsoever.

Oh yeah. Almost forgot. Chick magnet.
Needed to be said.

This will confuse more riders than it helps...

[brogdon]

This company needs to use something other than GPS to determine the speed of the bike. GPS's method is to collect a location point every few tenths of a second, then add the distance between each of the last twenty points or so and divide by total time. This means that your "speed" is an approximation at best (almost always to low because or curves in the road) and doesn't show double-zero until a few seconds after you've stopped.

I did a fleet management project using GPS-able PDAs in trucks. We had to kill the big spedometer in our interface because the GPS delay caused it to fuck with peoples' heads.

If they're serious about this, they need to either hang a Hall effect sensor on the output shaft of the engine, or tap into the bike's speed sensor line if it has an engine-control processor and then relay that info to the helmet with bluetooth or something. Otherwise it just won't work.

Re:This will confuse more riders than it helps...

[Anonymous Coward]

A _good_ GPS can provide accurate speed from satellite Doppler. ie NOT by dividing distance by time.

There are standard NMEA messages for velocity & heading.

Re:This will confuse more riders than it helps...

[Methuseus]

I'm wondering how long ago this was. Because the way I understand it, GPS is *very* accurate for speed ratings. It's a little less accurate for finding your way to, say, the White House east entrance. But the speed, or, more accurately, velocity, is more accurate.

That said, I haven't used GPS speedos, just talked to people who have. They denied those problems you are talking about; I asked because I had heard about problems like that before.

Re:This will confuse more riders than it helps...

[Anonymous Coward]

GPS is indeed very accurate at measuring speeds. Where it often lacks is in the timely display of this speed. It's been said before, but I'll summarize; GPS measures speed by calculating location every few seconds and applying the difference in position to the sample rate. In order to get a more accurate reading (less "aliasing" error, since each resolvable location may be several meters in size), the units will often display a running average speed based on several seconds worth of data. This leads to an annoying lag between sensing and display.

For high speed applications (well in excess of what you would even want to achieve on a motorcycle), it's reasonable to use a much smaller sample size to calculate the velocity.

example:
If you're travelling at a walking pace of 1 meter per second, with a sample rate of 10 per second, and the resolvable distance is 2 meters, your speed will be calculated as zero, with a 20 meter per second pulse every time you're calculated as being in a different place (every 2 seconds). If you average for 4 or 5 seconds (40 or 50 samples), the displayed result will be much closer to your real speed.

If you're travelling at 300 meters per second (very roughly 600 mph), you're covering approximately 15 resolvable units per sample, with a possible variance of 1, or roughly 6.5% uncertainty per sample. For a situation like this, you can get away with using a much smaller sample size, maybe as low as 2 or 3 samples, for a latency that's much less noticeable.

I know what I want

[illuminatedwax]

Ooh! Ooh! Can it be like the talking motorcycle from Warrior of the Lost World?!

"Geeks! Geeks! Geeks!"
"Not my problem!"
"Hold on to your a-!"
"Comptuer Terminal Under!!"
Think of how useful it would be! Plus you could have that starfield going all the time.

Yeah, I'd rather have Megaweapon, though...

--Stephen

Re:I know what I want

[finkployd]

"Hey, they misspelled perimeter" - Crow T Robot :)

Finkployd

A bit of consideration please

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident.

a bit of consideration for others please, that sentence didnt need to be so graphic. i lost my father on a bike because of a guy in a 4wd who couldnt drive.

Re:Helmet?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a simple reason to wear a helmet...

Open vs Closed casket

Have you ever driven a bike?

[CrystalFalcon]

You are absolutely correct in your underlying statements about bikers having a lot to pay attention to, yet you don't draw the conclusions. I take it from your comments about bikes being dangerous that you don't drive one yourself?

I drive a Suzuki Hayabusa. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, it's a bike basically built for insane speeding. It starts to accelerate seriously around 80 mph, from where it kicks you up to 180-190 mph while leaving your guts behind.

(As a side note here, speeding is not seen as a particularly serious crime where I live. It's regarded more like a sport. A friend of mine referred to speeding tickets as "fun tax".)

Anyway. When you're cruising down the highway at 140-150 mph or so, there's just no looking down at the instrument panel. The concept of looking down does not exist on this planet. Your focus is ahead, on the road, on the traffic. And sharply so.

Therefore, this is something that will actually make you READ the speedometer. Read the speedometer AT ALL. As it currently stands, the only speed indication you have as a sportbiker is the pitch of your engine, because you sure as hell aren't taking your eyes off the road.

In these conditions, the "spare of your glance" which you are talking about, means you are unaware of the road and the traffic for a minimum of 100 yards travelled (about one second to look down, refocus, and interpret what you are seeing).

So, bring on any and all information you can onto my visor. Anything that rests in my field of view is good, if it means I don't need to take the eyes off the road.

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[dandelion_wine]

I take it from your post that you have never had a deer, or a pedestrian, let alone a car wander out into your peripheral vision, with obvious intention to wander some more.

I've been on a Yahaha 650XS Heritage Special for the last 11 years; thanks for asking.

I have been in situations where a glance down at my instruments is inopportune. It has never caused an accident because I do it quickly and my eyes are back on the road. FYI I also check my side mirrors when I change lanes or turn, and in that moment my eye is also not on the road ahead.

Maybe you've been riding for 20 years. Don't know; don't care. This is not a pissing contest. In my view, having something extra in my field of view that has no relation to the background I'm constantly scanning does more harm than good. I know the approximate RPM of the bike from its feel and sound. I've never gotten so crazy on it that I'm surprised by my speed when I check it. What exactly could you put on that HUD that would offset the additional risk, pray tell?

The cool factor does not cut it. Maybe on four wheels.

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[Anonymous Coward]

hayabusa... it's alright... MV Augusta baby ;) As for taking your eyes off the road... I live in NYC where sportsbikes are more or less as chick magnets in the summer... So when we ride through the village or parades, we're looking all over the place

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[mormop]

You are absolutely correct in your underlying statements about bikers having a lot to pay attention to

Funnily enough, research carried out in the UK showed that the defensive riding techniques taught to motorcyclists are carried over when they move onto cars i.e. car drivers who rode motorcycles first have a significantly lower accident rate than people who have only ever driven cars as the methods they learn are on a par with the advanced car test.

Despatch ridrs in overcrowded London, a group traditionally criticsed for their "enthusiastic" riding style are also, per 100,000 miles, 60% less likely to be involved in an accident that leisure and commuting motorcyclists.

I read (admittedly some years ago), a research report based on police eveidence gathered at the scene that showed that 70+% of accidents involving motorcycles happen at junctions with a significant number resulting from another vehicle pulling out into their path (on which the motorcycle has right of way) i.e. "sorry mate I didn't see you" syndrome.

Look up risk compensation. If it's true, the safer you make people feel when they're driving, the greater the risks they are willing to take with those outside of the tin box being the victims while the occupants are protected from injury.

Best road safety device for cars? Could be a six inch, luminous yellow spike with painted on blood sticking out of the centre of the steering wheel and no seat belts.

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[mormop]

Sorry folks, ballsed up that link: http://www.adtsea.iup.edu/adtsea/TheChronicle/fall _94/risk_behavior_analysis.htm">riskup.edu/adtsea/ TheChronicle/fall_94/risk_behavior_analysis.htm"&g t;

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[seb249]

Start out by saying im a rider as well,

Was just wondering ...how many riders dont actually know approximately what speed they are doing and in what gear by the sound of the engine ?

Kind of makes the HUD a bit redundant doesnt it.

Seb

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[Anonymous Coward]

... on a Yahaha 650XS Heritage Special ...
though Yahaha's are my favourite, I would certainly have the sharpness of the upcoming turn displayed on my HUD when riding a chopper :-)

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're cruising down the highway at 140-150 mph or so

and you have a blowout... they wont find your body.. and they will bury your head in the helmet (if you are smart enough to wear one... only the complete idiots dont wear a helmet.)

if you are not on a racing bike and on a controlled condition track you are a fucking moron for doing that.

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[ryanvm]

Anyway. When you're cruising down the highway at 140-150 mph or so, there's just no looking down at the instrument panel.

I guess we should just be thankful that you're on a bike, since when you finally wreck you'll cause a lot less damage to others than you would if you were driving an SUV.

Good luck with the reassembly of your brainpan.

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[brad3378]

&gt I guess we should just be thankful that you're on a bike, since when you finally wreck you'll cause a lot less damage to others than you would if you were driving an SUV.

Got that right!

on My hayabusa I need less than 1/4 mile to accelerate to 140 - in an SUV I'd need a supercharger and probably a good 2 miles or so of full throttle.

one of the many fun things about riding a bike is that you can get insane speeds out of the shortest roads.

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[Anonymous Coward]

Velocity quadruples energy, and mass doubles.

Be assured that a bike rider going 140MPh would turn even the heaviest SUV out there into a pile of rubble.

Of course, the rider would be a big grease spot.

Re:Have you ever driven a bike?

[pchown]

When you have your accident, I just hope you only kill yourself. 150mph isn't a safe speed unless you're on a racetrack. Perhaps it won't even be your fault, a car will change lanes in front of you without looking, something like that. At that speed you will die instantly.

I don't ride a bike now, but I used to have one rather than a car. I commuted into London on it every day, as well as doing longer journeys. They're great fun and I can totally understand why people want to ride too fast. Somehow it's fun, and the possibility of an accident seems too remote. Yet a lot of bikers do have accidents, often very serious ones.

How about a turn signal

[va3atc]

If I remember correctly from reading something in the Ontario Drivers handbook that a great percentage of motorcyclists forget to turn off the turn signal. Maybe a little bit of visual cue on this HUD could go along way to prevent some accidents caused by miscommunication.

Re:How about a turn signal

[whitegold]

And how many CAR drivers forget to take off the turn signal when they decide not to turn? Or more likely, simply fail to ever put it on.

I used to have a habit of this as a learner rider and was taught to check the indicator whenever I change up gears. As you most often change down gears before a corner, it works out surprisingly well.

Riders don't need a HUD. They need better training to get rid of bad habits.

Re:How about a turn signal

[rcpitt]

Well... if you got a "real" bike - like my 'Wing, you'd get self-canceling turn signals. On the other hand, I followed an old VW bug most of the way home tonight and it had its 4-way flashers on the whole way. I wasn't sure he was trying to make up for the lack of other lighting on the beast or afraid I'd crawl up his tail-pipe because he was leaving 1/2 mile between him and the car in front ;)

Re:How about a turn signal

[Anonymous Coward]

.. then you'd probably better off signing in your bike and continue driving your car.

Re:Safety Angle? T.I.C

[RY]

Replace the 0 lux camera with a thermal imaging camera. The range would be the same if not greater.

Re:Safety Angle? T.I.C

[Tensor]

but wouldn't Thermal Imaging would be too confusing to superpose over the regular picture ? and it would normally not correspond to the pictures we are used to see ... ie a recently parked car would "shine" while a car parked a while ago would be dark

On the other hand the flaring problem would be solved

This is a distraction

[anonomouse]

Speaking as a motorcyclist, I don't think this will be much use for me. When I am riding hard, the thing I might possibly be able to use in a head-up display would be a tachometer, not a speedometer. On straight roads, I can spare the glance down. If I cannot glance down because I am in traffic, or heading down streets with blind driveways, etcetera, I am going too fast for conditions, and my life expectancy will reflect that.

If I am on a twisty road, and going very hard (I am thinking of the fabulous Duffy Lake road, a very remote and senic one, famous within the sport rider community in BC, on which I have never seen any scenery), there is no way I am going to use a speedometer at all. In that case, one doesn't use the tach either. Though it is true that a rider at the limit is not easily able to use gauges (a very athletic activity that invloves moving your body aggresively forward, back, and to the sides to change the weight distribution of the bike), the pace of events is too fast for them to be of any use anyway. Race bikes don't have speedometers, and the tack is usually oriented such that at redline the needle is pointing straight up. With experience, you do not need to look directly at it.

An important skill for fast road riding (even more so than on the track) is a zen-like ability to scan your visual field without fixating on anything. Particularly when you 'see' something you must avoid. Looking at an obstacle will often result you riding right into it! Anything that adds distraction in that visual field is not useful. I hold that a rider at the edge needs less information (just the important stuff), not more.

Spare me the head up display. I can see it now, mounted on the helmets of Gold Wing riders everywhere, helping them know the speed at which they are adjusting their radio pre-sets.

That said, how about making that GPS provide you some route data? Arrows that flash left or right, according to a pre-planned route, with a heading? I think that might be more useful and safer than a tank bag map...

Remember: always ride with two fingers over the front brake. Unless your hobby is rock climbing, and you are on a CBR 900. Then use one. DOH!

Re:This is a distraction

[flockofseagulls]

I can see it now, mounted on the helmets of Gold Wing riders everywhere, helping them know the speed at which they are adjusting their radio pre-sets.

Don't laugh. If it's (a) expensive and (b) lame someone will fit it to a Gold Wing. Just look at this: landing gear (or training wheels) for Gold Wings.

Remember: always ride with two fingers over the front brake. Sounds like you've been to Pridmore's CLASS. The squid version: always ride with two twos over the rear brake, but don't let the flip-flop sandal fall off.

Re:This is a distraction

[gnunick]

When I am riding hard, the thing I might possibly be able to use in a head-up display would be a tachometer, not a speedometer

Well, the *ahem* article says, and I quote (emphasis added):

The Sportvue head-mounted display will allow riders to see speed, r.p.m. and gear position without taking their eyes off the road. The system gathers speed information from a global positioning satellite receiver attached to the rear of the helmet.

In response to other readers' comments about excessive time lag with GPS-determined speed, I suppose the information could still be useful for checking the accuracy of your bike's speedo on straightaways and at constant speeds. I can't see too many people throwing down a few hundred bucks just for that, though.

Anyway... personally, as a serious and long-time motorcyclist, I can't imagine having much use for a unit like this unless the speed was sourced from a wheel-mounted sensor, and calibrated for wheel (tire) diameter, as with bicycle speedometers (I actually know at least one motorcyclist who uses a bicycle speedo on his motorbike).

A HUD might be useful for racers, who have a real need to constantly monitor their RPMs (incidentally, race bikes don't even have speedometers). Most of us (who don't play racer boys on the public streets) aren't going to worry so much about redlining our bikes that we need to constantly monitor the tach, and once we get to know a bike, we'll know when to shift by sound and feel, not by watching for RPM shiftpoints.

So it all seems pretty silly unless it can determine speed without GPS. It seems to me it could be a lot cheaper without GPS besides, and without any concerns about Big Brother.

Re:This is a distraction

[anonomouse]

Don't laugh. If it's (a) expensive and (b) lame someone will fit it to a Gold Wing. Just look at this: landing gear (or training wheels) for Gold Wings.

We are talking about a motorcycle that has a reverse gear. What more can you say?

Perhaps that it actually needs a reverse gear!

The squid version: always ride with two twos over the rear brake, but don't let the flip-flop sandal fall off.

Or the 85 pound girlfriend...

Re:This is a distraction

[rcpitt]

Love the Duffy Lake road - and agree with your post in most ways.

I (also) ride a 'Wing and have ridden various road bikes for 30+ years (including side-car) and have several million miles under my belt in all types of vehicles from my first (English) Morris Minor to tractor-trailer units.

Riding bikes falls into two categories - commuting (which I do on the 'Wing sometimes) and recreational (which is why I bought it in the first place)

Only in commuting is there any need or time to use a HUD as described. Even then, the fact is that others on the road (in the tin-cans that have 4 wheels) are either oblivious or actually out to get anything and particularly those of us on 2 wheels, to the point where doing anything but defensive driving (watch everything in all directions and develop situational awareness of an X-wing fighter pilot) is all you can do.

When recreational riding, just the joy of being "out there" is all you need to concentrate on. If you can't feel when the bike needs to shift (up or down) then you should be on a closed circuit practicing. If you feel the need to know where you are, you should be in a tin-can. The only question is not where you are, but where are the good, twisting paths?

Re:This is a distraction

[rcpitt]

At least I can get off the 'Wing after 1000 miles and still walk. ;>

Not all of us who own 'Wings need or want training wheels or something to tell us where we've been. At some point I might get a GPS unit just so I have a log of the whole trip - but getting real-time updates on my retina would put me in the ditch. I can't conceive of actually wanting/needing such a system.

Re:This is a distraction

[rcpitt]

I rode a URAL (Russian copy of the BMW) with a side-car for about 2 years as the only vehicle I and my (at that time future) wife had. I can honestly say that I wished it had had a reverse.

I've only used the reverse on my 'Wing a couple of times - mostly when I've parked it and some idiot has blocked my exit with a 4-wheeled tin-can.

At almost 1000 lbs with bags and baggage (not including wife ;) you'd want a reverse too. Just remember, I can actually get off it after 1000 miles of riding and walk ;>

Re:This is a distraction

[anonomouse]

I rode a URAL (Russian copy of the BMW) with a side-car for about 2 years as the only vehicle I and my (at that time future) wife had. I can honestly say that I wished it had had a reverse.

Kool. My other bike is a '75 Guzzi 850T3. Don't get me wrong: If I had the room/dough I would have a goldie. WITH a trailer! For my personal effects, of course. And a sidecar for the dog.

Re:This is a distraction

[Tenebrious1]

An important skill for fast road riding (even more so than on the track) is a zen-like ability to scan your visual field without fixating on anything. Particularly when you 'see' something you must avoid. Looking at an obstacle will often result you riding right into it! Anything that adds distraction in that visual field is not useful. I hold that a rider at the edge needs less information (just the important stuff), not more.

Exactly. You get in the zone, and you see everything. You feel the bike, you hear the bike. You don't need to look at instruments to know what your bike is doing. The last thing I want to do when I'm riding is to glance away from the road and check out how fast I'm going.

And it's not like a car HUD, where it always stays in a spot that's relatively unobtrusive. For a motorcyclist, you may be looking "ahead" of you, but your peripheral vision is scanning much further and to one side, the upper corners of the field of vision. In the lower corner, you have a blob that's the guy next to you. So really there's nowhere in the visor where it wouldn't be obtrusive or obstructive.

Spare me the head up display. I can see it now, mounted on the helmets of Gold Wing riders everywhere, helping them know the speed at which they are adjusting their radio pre-sets.

Heh heh... yeah and getting weather updates scrolling across the bottom, text messages from relatives, ads for nearby restaurants...

Re:This is a distraction

[laejoh]

... When I am riding hard ...

You mean you watch porn on your hud?

Re:This is a distraction

[theonetruekeebler]

The Gold Wing weighs 900 lbs wet and has a wheelbase over 60 inches. I have seen one make a U-turn on a two-lane road, but this rider was far better than most. In a parking lot, that reverse gear is a godsend. A grade that you can barely detect with the eye can actually be too steep to paddle or push a 900 lbs motorcycle up.

Besides, the GW has a sufficiently large windscreen that an in-helmet display is pointless. Just put the display up there and be done with it---you barely have to refocus your eyes.

Re:This is a distraction

[DavittJPotter]

The only question is not where you are, but where are the good, twisting paths?

Amen, brother! If you're ever down in the Black Hills of South Dakota (yeah, I'm a Sturgis native, actually), I'll ride with you. Some incredible roads down here that aren't completely clogged when it's not rally time...

Ride safe.

D

Re:This is a distraction

[FFFish]

Duffy Lake road is an orgasm of a ride.

Other good big-O's in BC include Lumby-to-Nakusp. There is some incredible bits in there. The Westside Road, Vernon-to-Kelowna/Westbank, is also fanfuckingtastic.

Re:This is a distraction

[Paul Jakma]

An important skill for fast road riding (even more so than on the track) is a zen-like ability to scan your visual field without fixating on anything.

Speaking as a motorcyclist, you're describing precisely why its such a dumb idea to do 'fast road riding'. Now, I'm making a few presumptions, based on your description of being part of the 'sports bike community' and descriptions of fast road riding being quite physical and requiring such zen-like attentiveness to your surroundings that you can not look at the clocks. I'm presuming that you're like the guys I've seen who overtake on blind crests, overtake other bikes round corners, ie sports bike riders who are suffering from not-going-to-happen-to-me-itis.

If you're lucky, you'll have a scary moment or two and get over not-going-to-happen-to-itis lightly. If you're less fortunate, you'll have a minor spill, pay for the damage to your bike and get over it. If you're unlucky, you'll have a real spill and pay for the damage to your bike and your body and get over it. But if you dont get over it pretty quickly, you're going to be dead.

Even at the best of times, even if you dont make a mistake, you can still easily be wiped out on a bike by some idiot in a cage. Why add to the risks? No matter how good you are, one day you'll arrive at a corner and find loose gravel or sand where you need to brake, or you'll go round a corner and have a dog jump out at you or a car parked at the side of the road or a bit of oil on the road or a car cutting the corner.

No amount of zen will save you from the unexpected. Even without the unexpected, you are human, you will one day make a mistake. At best you'll walk away with bruises and a nice repair bill, at worst you'll be dead or paraplegic.

Slow down a bit, give yourself more time to apply your Zen and hence make better use of it to better anticipate the unexpected, maybe enjoy a bit of the scenery. Save the fast riding for the track where you'll enjoy it far more, at far less risk.

NB: I used to have not-going-to-happen-to-me-itis too, thankfully though, it didnt cost me that much.

Re:This is a distraction

[anonomouse]

Slow down a bit, give yourself more time to apply your Zen and hence make better use of it to better anticipate the unexpected, maybe enjoy a bit of the scenery. Save the fast riding for the track where you'll enjoy it far more, at far less risk.

I think it is fair to sat we have different perceptions of risk. Do you prefer life with no risk? Fair enough: I, however, do not. If I want to enjoy scenery, I will go for a hike or take my Moto Guzzi out for a cruise, not sit on a vibrating, uncomfortable sport bike.

No amount of zen will save you from the unexpected... No matter how good you are, one day you'll arrive at a corner and find loose gravel or sand where you need to brake

Not true: Zen has indeed saved me from the unexpected. I have encountered the very gravel you speak of: the Duffy is frequently littered with rocks from slides, and litter from accidents. It is a very dangerous road.

I'm presuming that you're like the guys I've seen who overtake on blind crests, overtake other bikes round corners, ie sports bike riders who are suffering from not-going-to-happen-to-me-itis.

Well, I don't ride in a pack, and I don't overtake on blind crests. If there is too much traffic, I usually turn back to Squamish and go climbing. As for not-going-to-happen-to-me-itis, believe me brother, it has happened to me. I take significant risk, more than the average bear, but it is calculated risk. I take it with my eyes wide open. Very very wide open. Yes, I am an adrenaline junkie. No, I am not a punk kid. Excitement enhances my life in a way that perhaps you do not require. Fine. Respect thy brothers trip. I have a lot of friends (male and female) who play with risk, and it enhances their lives, and some of them have payed the ultimate price (mostly mountaineers I have known). These unfortunate losses have not led to me or my friends adopting television and tiddlywinks as recreations. The main reason I have seen people give up risky pursuits is because they have had kids.

The worst thing I can image happening to me (believe it or not) is not a painful death. I imagine that you cannot understand that. Fine: don't try. Just don't assume that everyone around you is clinging so desperately to life that they are afraid to gamble it. And believe me, when one places a bet such as that, one does expect to win. Spare me the comments about death wish.

Whenever motorcycling, or climbing, or even windsurfing comes up in conversation with people like you, I have to hear this shit. Try to imagine that there are people out there who love life, yet still choose to face the consequences of crossing against the light, a low-side into an oncoming gravel truck, or whatever objective hazzard you might care to imagine.

Why add to the risks? No matter how good you are, one day you'll arrive at a corner and find loose gravel or sand where you need to brake, or you'll go round a corner and have a dog jump out at you or a car parked at the side of the road or a bit of oil on the road or a car cutting the corner.

If you have to ask...

Re:This is a distraction

[Paul Jakma]

I think it is fair to sat we have different perceptions of risk. Do you prefer life with no risk? Fair enough: I, however, do not. If I want to enjoy scenery, I will go for a hike or take my Moto Guzzi out for a cruise, not sit on a vibrating, uncomfortable sport bike.

No, I believe taking risks with your life is fine. I'd agree with you 100% there. However, when it comes to 'fast riding' on motorbikes on the road (and by fast, we're presumably talking ~80% near the limit of the bike/tyres) I think thats an ultra-foolish risk. For one, you are not justing gambling with your own life, which *is* your right, but you are gambling with other people's lives too, there are other people using the roads. Ok, a bike is not that dangerous to others, but still, it can happen: bikes can slide an awful long way after a high-speed crash and do you really want to be standing there in your scuffed leathers and slowly realise your bike went and took out a pedestrian 50m down the road? Secondly, so much of that risk is outside your control. Just how much is something many of the fast-road-riders just dont appreciate - sadly some will never get the chance to appreciate this.

Not true: Zen has indeed saved me from the unexpected. I have encountered the very gravel you speak of: the Duffy is frequently littered with rocks from slides, and litter from accidents. It is a very dangerous road.

Wrong attitude. Its not that Zen saved you, its that your fast road-riding got you into that situation. I've done it too, arrived at a corner having to scrub maybe 50mph to get round the corner and finding gravel where i need to brake. Very gingerly braking with the front, trusting to the rear brake to scrub the speed and the front to not wash out suddenly and getting lucky and not crashing. Zen is bullshit, had I been going slower I would have had more time to notice the gravel and less speed to scrub. (NB: this isnt a rant about speed - I believe speed can be safe, as long as its not pushing limits of, eg, the road conditions).

But you will not always get away with it, and its not in your own hands if you ride on the road.

Yes, I am an adrenaline junkie. No, I am not a punk kid. Excitement enhances my life in a way that perhaps you do not require. Fine. Respect thy brothers trip.

Oh but I do respect your trip. I wouldnt describe myself as an adreline junky, but I do enjoy speed immensely. :) Ie, I like to enjoy risks which I can control, and the thrust of my argument is that those who enjoy fast road-riding are those who have yet failed to understand just how much of that risk is outside of their control.

The worst thing I can image happening to me (believe it or not) is not a painful death. I imagine that you cannot understand that.

I do. Being para, or worse, quadraplegic is my worst fear. I'd rather have the painful death! :)

And believe me, when one places a bet such as that, one does expect to win.

Exactly my point: not-going-to-happen-to-me-itis, and as I stated I also suffered from this! And it took me a /long/ time to get over it, 2 badish crashes, various small ones, many other "moments" and a few bones and joints that will never be normal again. I've gotten over the condition now, but it still amazes me to see other riders who dont recognise they have this condition and cant be told about it either.

Seriously, save the fast stuff for the track:

1. Your 'fast road riding' is nothing compared to what you can get out of a bike on the track.

2. After /real/ fast-riding on a track, you come to appreciate exactly how dangerous 'slow' fast-riding traffic is on the road with its oncoming traffic, cars, pedestrians, kids, dogs, animals, gravel, sand, trees, telegraph poles, wire fences, biker-unfriendly crash barriers, no run-off areas, etc..

Why risk it when you're not even going that fast anyway? (you cant on the road.)

If you have to ask...

"...Then you dont understand." - bullshit. I do understand. I hope you beat not-going-to-happen-me-itis before it beats you.

No refocusing needed

[CrystalFalcon]

You would still have to defocus then refocus your eyes.

Not so. The company's website lists the system as tuned for when the eyes are focused "at or near infinity". It becomes a red-tinted overlay to what's already in your field of vision, focused on traffic.

Re:boing

[BladeMelbourne]

If the HUD showed:
* speed
* trip distance
* number of FRAGS
* ammo remaining

That would be sweet.

X-Ray vision would be neat during confrontations with a rough/tough bikey gang member in a bar. You can see if they have a knife or a gun. Although you would look like a dag wearing a helmet in a bar - you could choose your fights carefully and live.

skydivers

[Anonymous Coward]

They need a version for skydivers

Disturbing...An "eye"-witness

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who don't wear helmets. Maybe this will come out in a contact lens version, so we can see the speed at which an eyeball will impact the pavement after an accident.

Cool idea but not really necessary

[flockofseagulls]

My bike (BMW K75S) has the usual instruments: speedo, tach, odometer, gear indicator, clock, high beam indicator, low fuel indicator, idiot lights. I don't need to look at any of them to ride. People who actually ride usually know what gear they're in. You listen to the engine for RPMs and to tell if you need to shift. The speedo is just as unimportant as it is in a car--you are either going too slow or too fast for the traffic and conditions, and if you can't determine that without a speedometer you shouldn't be on a bike, or even on the road.

I imagine that changing visual focus to see those indicators on my visor would take about as much time as glancing down. I only do it at a safe moment, not when surrounded by idiots in Escalades and Yukons trying to merge onto the freeway while watching DVDs and playing with their On*Star.

As the MSF instructor pointed out, alcohol and drugs account for way too many motorcycle accidents and injuries. Inexperienced riders and people who spend all their money dressing up their bad-ass Harley with chrome skulls and leather fringe but didn't want to take a wussy riding class just drive insurance rates up for the rest of us. And what instruments do you need to ride from home to the nearest fake biker bar every Friday night?

If you don't ride or don't know anything about motorcycles, shut up. We've already heard the witty organ donor jokes, thanks. They're about as clever as a five-year-old saying "poop."

Re:Cool idea but not really necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right that it is not necessary, but in the real world it is nice to know how severe the ticket is going to be, and adjust for that number, if conditions allow for more than the posted limit.
As far as the gear shift, it takes some time to learn the shift pattern, as the gears on the bikes tend to be close. 5-6 drops less than 1k rpm at a constant speed, and it is easy to lose count of the gears especially when not paying attention to the tach and speedo. (or a wussy gear indicator)
As for rpm, it would be nice to know when the redline is getting close, if one is riding like a squid. Then again, if one is throwing caution to the wind, blowing up the engine is proably not much of a concern. Siezing an engine past the redline would have some intresting effects though.

This could be just as well accomplished with four LED's, one to flash once when you go into top gear, another to come on when you are 500 rpm from redline, a third for loss of oil pressure. (one good reason to check guages occasionally). Maybe a 4th to come on at a preset mph, which would be good for the ride, like, 55+9 or 70+9. All of these could be unobtrusive, in the periphary, and color coded.

Re:Cool idea but not really necessary

[flockofseagulls]

You had better learn the shift PATTERN pretty quick, though there aren't a lot of variations because you only have up and down clicks to work with. I agree that determining the gear from the sound or the RPM is not always easy, but unless you're racing or trying for maximum fuel efficiency it's also not important. Experienced riders go by the sound and feel of the bike -- we're more connected to the engine than a car driver is. I'm not talking about racing or other special conditions (or squids), just everyday riding and touring. If my instruments were unplugged the only ones I'd miss are the clock and the trip odometer (no fuel gauge on either of my bikes).

I suppose squids who spend more on their sunglasses than on their helmet, and who ride with headphones blasting hip-hop music in their ears, probably need the instruments because they can't hear the bike. And people who outfit their bikes with exhausts that always rumble and roar may need HUD because they're going deaf.

My BMW mechanic used to advise me to redline my bike for a few minutes every once in a while to clear out the carbon and to remember what the bike sounds like at redline. Again unless you're racing or doing something special the actual RPMs are not really important; the bike tells you when it's overrevving or lugging.

I wouldn't mind HUD on my helmet or windscreen for clock, miles, speed, and some warning lights, but I already have those things (and more) available with a quick downward glance/scan (no head movement needed on either of my bikes). I would prefer them to be just outside the center of the field of view, but not on the periphery -- the edges are where you don't want any blockage because that's where the SUV/bicyclist/deer/truck tire will first appear.

Although my K75S has a gear indicator I don't usually look at it and I agree that it's kind of a wuss instrument.

'93 BMW K75S -- '73 Honda CB350/4

Hmm, you're right

[CrystalFalcon]

You know what? A few minutes after I made the post I changed my mind completely and decided this was a bad idea, mostly for the reasons you now write about. :-)

When going with the flow of traffic, looking at the speedometer is not important. When ignoring speed limits altogether, looking at the speedometer is not important, either. And like you say, you get the rpm info from the engine pitch, which is plenty.

So I swiftly turn 180 degrees to "get that crap outta my eyesight, I don't need it".

I guess what triggered my post was your reflection that it's much safer to look down. That I still don't agree with, but that's another story.

You are right that I haven't had a deer wander into my peripheral vision, vectoring towards where I'm going to be driving in a split second. That's mostly because they're not so common here, though. Pedestrians happen. Cars definitely happen. The guy who taught me to ride always told me to drive like I was wearing fluorescent clothes, and the first car driver to hit me would win the $1 million jackpot. I still think he has a point.

So, mea culpa, you're right, get this crap off my gear. :-) Like you say, the cool factor does not cut it.

(and just for the record, I always wear protective gear: full helmet, bulletproof vest against sharp metal, impact protection jacket, and full-body sliding protection.)

Re:Hmm, you're right

[dandelion_wine]

... ... WTF?

First time for everything. Like to think I'd do the same. Cheers. :)

Yeah, had the deer. My dad in the truck behind me says it looked like the doe jumped right over me, but what happened in fact was she bounded out and we eyeballed each other for just a moment before she decided to veer just behind me in a leap. Kind of slo-mo beautiful, in that I'm-about-to-die kinda way.

I like the jackpot idea. I still wear all the gear (in 30-40 Celcius heat) and try to keep people guessing on the road, though the cars around me probably find it annoying and don't know why.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[richie2000]

I like the jackpot idea.

Thanks. ;-) And yes, for the record, I'm the one that told him about the "fun tax" on speeding tickets, too.

Or, like a fellow on the GPZ mailing list has as his .sig: "Wear gear, do wheelies".

Weering back on-topic - I for one welcome our new HUD overlords. A non-obtrusive speed reading and the possibility for the system to add any other interesting information like the oil warning light and an indicator for low fuel would be nice. Nothing that's in the middle of my field of vision, just so I won't have to look down. A glance into a top corner would be fine.

BTW, I'm a certified MC safety instructor and just today I got some interesting statistics in the mail: In Sweden, the difference between cars and motorcycles regarding the chances of personal injury per vehicle in traffic is neglible. That is, statistically, riding a bike in Sweden carries the same level of risks as riding a car. Bikes are not inherently more dangerous than cars. And this statistic includes all the crackpots who go out speeding on a borrowed bike, with no protective gear while drunk. A full 3/4ths of all motorcycle deaths occur when the driver fulfils one or more of those critera: Borrowed/stolen bike, no gear and drunk/high. If you'd disregard those and also disregard the number of dead car drivers/passengers that are in stolen/borrowed cars, without a seat belt and inebriated, you'd reach the conclusion that CARS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN MOTORCYCLES. This is because it seems that cars attract a much lower ratio of idiots. ;-)

YMMV, I have no idea what the stats look like in the US although I've once rented a bike and ridden from WV down the Shenandoah Valley to Lynchburg and up the Blue Ridge Parkway. In 30 degree C heat and all of my gear. On that two-day trip I encountered a bike accident, something I haven't done in 18 years (and counting) in Sweden. Go figure.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[CrystalFalcon]

Bikes are not inherently more dangerous than cars.

Actually, I'd like to challenge that. Given that the car protects you better on a factor of, oh, about infinity squared, I do believe that bikes are inherently more dangerous.

HOWEVER, I also believe that bike drivers have a very different attitude towards their transportation than car drivers. I think this different attitude accounts for a lot of those numbers: Bikes are more dangerous, but also carry more skilled/alert drivers. Crackpots not included, here.

Think about it: I don't think you're going to challenge that bike drivers are more alert to their situation. However, if this is true, and the level of danger was the same, then the number of fatalities should have been much lower?

If all car drivers had the same attitude as bike drivers (and, indeed, most truck drivers), then I think the streets would be a different place. The numbers certainly would.

(...as long as car drivers don't necessarily adopt MY particular attitude of getting aircraft-class wheels and making a principle of going at least twice the posted speed limit...)

Re:Hmm, you're right

[richie2000]

Given that the car protects you better on a factor of, oh, about infinity squared, I do believe that bikes are inherently more dangerous.

Let me amend my statement slightly to add the helmet, Kevlar-lined jacket and trousers, boots and gloves to the concept of "bike". You do include the seat belts and air bags in your assessment of the dangerosity of cars, right? Besides, I was just making the point that statistically, the risks are about the same. From that standpoint, it's valid to look closer and see why this is so. Since the data is so counter-intuitive, it's probably very interesting.

I don't think you're going to challenge that bike drivers are more alert to their situation.

Nope.

However, if this is true, and the level of danger was the same, then the number of fatalities should have been much lower?

Ah, but you conveniently forget the large amount of morons in the statistics. Discounting them as anomalies should reveal the 'real' dangers of cars vs bikes as coming out on favour of the bikes, just as you surmise above. Ha! :-)

(...as long as car drivers don't necessarily adopt MY particular attitude of getting aircraft-class wheels and making a principle of going at least twice the posted speed limit...)

I didn't teach you that, did I?

Re:Hmm, you're right

[Uerige]

In Sweden, the difference between cars and motorcycles regarding the chances of personal injury per vehicle in traffic is neglible.
Could that have to do with the fact that in Sweden, you may only go 120 (or 110?) km/h even on the highways, and that there are virtually no cars (or anything at all) on the roads, except probably in Stockholm?

Re:Hmm, you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

Doch.

Motorcycles go faster than 110, wether they are allowed or not.

And there are lots of cars, not to mention elk
and roe deer.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[theonetruekeebler]

The first advice I got about cagers was, "Ride as though they don't see you." This seemed like a great idea at the time. But in competitive urban traffic, it turns out that the correct advice is: "Drive like they do see you, and are actively trying to kill you." I've had just a few too many SUV drivers actually grin at me as they continued their slow merge into my lane. Gotta learn how to kick a door.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

The speed limit, at least in the areas of Southern Sweden that i spent time in last year, was 100kmh.

You're right about the empty highways though.:)

Re:Hmm, you're right

[theLOUDroom]

I think it just means they need to be selective about what they put on your HUD.

Would you really mind if a brake warning light popped up to tell you that you had just lost all your brake fluid?

Also, it doesn't have to be on every second you're on your bike. It could pop up for half a second to indicate what gear you just shifted into. Warn you that redline is approaching, and otherwise only show up when you push an easy to reach button.

There's no good reason this can't be configuable enough to give to only the information you want. It IS safer than looking down, and having it be off most of the time would let you spot those deer.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[richie2000]

Could that have to do with the fact that in Sweden, you may only go 120 (or 110?) km/h even on the highways

It's 110 km/h and compared to the 88 km/h that's the normal highest speed in the US, your point is...? Besides, CrystalFalcon only goes under 110 km/h if he's stopping for fuel. ;-)

there are virtually no cars (or anything at all) on the roads, except probably in Stockholm?

The streets of Stockholm would be crowded indeed if you tried to fit 4 million cars (the number of registered cars in Sweden) on the roads of a city with 1 million inhabitants. :-)

Besides, the points you address (speed limits and potential lack of oncoming traffic) would affect cars and bikes alike.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[dandelion_wine]

I only have a passing familiarity with Sweden, but given the large number of bikes I saw out there, and not to rely too heavily on stereotype, the generally considerate/thoughtful nature of the people, I'd have to wonder if there isn't greater respect for bikes on the road.

Good stats from, say, Winnipeg or Toronto versus Vancouver would bare out very different attitudes toward bicycle riders, for example, with more aggressive car drivers being a decisive factor, I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if bikes were safer in, say, Thailand, even though there are some really nutty drivers out there, because there are bikes everywhere and people are just used to watching out for them.

As for safety, let's not forget the (in)visibility factor. Ever find yourself riding with your own shadow in front of you? Yep. Like a Japanese zero flying in out of the sunset. And that's not considering the -- perhaps psychological -- problem of car drivers keeping bikes in mind and view at the best of times rather than worst. I've had people (and have heard this in many accident stories) look right at me and then try to turn into/across my lane. There's a certain (high) level of automatic thinking in driving after awhile. Maybe what isn't large and boxy or on two legs isn't perceived as something to be watchful of on the road.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[notbob]

I used to agree that truck drivers saw the road as their work place, that was before more schools then you could count started dumping out more truck drivers on the road who aren't professionals.

I very much respect good safe truck drivers, and I have had a few truck drivers put me in extremely dangerous conditions.

I've had 2 trucks deliberately box me in to the point I could not see around the truck at all, in front or back, less then 2 ft from either truck.

I had to make a blind dart out to the next lane to get out of this situation.

I've had truck drivers deliberately run me or someone else off the road.

Since that I generally when going to pass a truck hang back in his mirrors for a long time till it's clear all the way to past his front bumper, then gun it like hell to get past him before he has a chance to do something stupid.

Ever seen a 3 lane highway with a rolling road block of semis? I always thought that was cute.

But I have seen it done for good reasons before too like when an accident occurs I've seen truckers hold back traffic appropriately.

So there are a lot of good truck drivers and a lot of young new hot shot assholes.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this? How about a button on the handle-bar that briefly displays the hud information on your visor? It's just like getting the occasional look at that guages, without looking down and without having the info in your way when you don't want it.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[brad3378]

I think you were right the first time. I've also got a Hayabusa, but frankly, I find it kinda hard to view the instrument cluster because of the windshield. I'm six foot 2 and tend to ride up close to the tank, so the windshield actually blocks my view. I don't think this product is something for everybody, but I could find a use for it. By the way, I got in an accident on my Busa a couple months ago and I'm parting it out it's a 2003 with chrome on Black paint. Let me know if you need any parts and I'll email ya more pics. http://profiles.yahoo.com/rick28dearborn

Re:Hmm, you're right

[Buelldozer]

There is more than one cager running around town with my bootprint permanently embedded into their sheetmetal.

Re:Hmm, you're right

[CrystalFalcon]

Let me amend my statement slightly to add the helmet, Kevlar-lined jacket and trousers, boots and gloves to the concept of "bike".

Point. Let's add in the added manoeuverability, too, for collision avoidance in the first place. (Has saved me once or twice or so from car drivers.)

Ah, but you conveniently forget the large amount of morons in the statistics.

(I was about to ask what the stats would look like if you counted me out, but I can't really compare to guys like PD [Ghost Rider], Pascal et consortes... guys with the life expectancy of a dropped piano.)

I didn't teach you that, did I?

Naw. IIRC, you usually went at about or just below twice the speed limit, only while sitting backwards or sideways instead. When not picking flowers from by the curb. :-)

It's still "insane, but not stupid", I take it?

(Still haven't learned that flower-picking. OTOH, haven't had the opportunity to go riding with ladies, either.)

I believe the term is

[Anonymous Coward]

"donorcycles"

Homebrew for the car

[FrenZon]

Self pimping, here's a really short write-up about an HUD I built for my car:

Re:Homebrew for the car

[spiny]

does it work during daylight hours too ?

i have some fat LEDS mounted in the dash of my vw bus that reflect off the 'screen to remind me that my turn signals are on (the self cancel no longer works as i've swapped the steering wheel) but it doesn't work very well in daylight.

Re:Safety Angle? T.I.C

[RY]

I have worked with some thermal imaging cameras. Just the heat from the day keeps enough heat to give a decent contrast, even when looking in waves in 40 degree water. Moving cars and animals REALLY stand out. The cameras I have worked with are small and lite.

answer to how fast-"Ejection" seat.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... and a part of an object that separates from the whole will not be travelling at the same velocity as the whole object was originally."

Unfortunately that's usually the part you need.

Can it display TV???

[tekspot]

Because I am really impressed when someone is driving their 1998 Honda Civic with all 15 TV screens turned on. The best thing is that the driver is the person in the car...

So, why not do it for motorcyclists?

Got TV in your helmet?

Re:I don't ride, so I'm not speaking from experien

[neurosis101]

That's pretty accurate I'd say. I do ride, and based on the gear and sound you've got a decent idea of what speed you are. The actual speed tends to be less important, its more your speed relative to everyone else and ensuring that you keep enough space for yourself. I dont think HUDs will add much of anything... they're more likey to be distracting. A good thought though.

It somewhat bothers me

[Cecil]

..that so many people, including the submitter of this story, blindly accuse motorcycling of being dangerous with an almost religious fervor. A motorcycle is just a vehicle. If driven safely and carefully, it has approximately the same amount of safety as a car, although in slightly different ways. The statistics will admittedly not bear this out. Why?

Just LOOK at the comments here: People talking about going 180mph, speeding tickets be damned. These are the sort of people who skew the statistics. It's a lot easier for a hot rodder to pick up a superpowered speedbike than it is a top-end sportscar, not to mention that being on a motorcycle is just perceived as 'sexier'.

I've known a number of motorcyclists who I consider to be extremely safe drivers. There's no need to be reckless when you're on a motorcycle, although most people are. This HUD can do nothing but good for them in my opinion. Nevermind the clueless folk who claim it will distract you. They are either going much too fast in the first place, or have never used a HUD.

I welcome this technology, and I keep hoping it will be applied more liberally. Give me one for my bike (of the non motored variety) and have it give me the time, my speed, and boy wouldn't a map of bike paths and bike-friendly roads be really nice? I find it hard to think of places where a well-laid-out HUD wouldn't be useful.

Re:It somewhat bothers me

[dandelion_wine]

My instructor -- very careful rider, showed up to my road test in a neck brace and a back brace. Could it have happened in a car? Sure. Would it likely have happened being rear-ended at a stop-light from a little old lady from Portage la Prairie? Only if she was going a hell of a lot faster than she was.

Two autumns later he dove off his bike to avoid being crushed by a half-ton when he heard it's brakes lock on a bridge downtown. The man is super-experienced on a bike, and he's dangling for dear life on a friggin guard rail.

Yeah, motorcycles are dangerous if you do stupid things on them. Motorcycles are dangerous if you are Mr. Safety, too, because there's always the other half of the equation -- the idiot who comes out of nowhere.

Saying that, I still ride, but I don't pretend there's no danger.

About 13 mph. Why do you ask?-Caged.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The big differences? One is hitting on a sideways angle, and bouncing. The other is impacting straight into the face. The other big difference? Only one of them is wearing a helmet."

No, the other big differences is that one has an airbag and a metal cage.

I like and ride motorcycles myself[1], but lets not downplay reality.

[1] And yes I've spent time in the hospital, and a cast for months due to a careless driver.

Re:About 13 mph. Why do you ask?-Caged.

[amper]

Glad to see you survived.

As for myself, the last time I went down, I didn't even hit my head. At least I didn't have to buy a new helmet! My older brother, who was on the back at the time, put a nice big dent in his helmet.

I ended up with a big bruise on my ass/thigh (where I hit the ground), and a 1/4" diameter hole in my AeroStich/Rider Wearhouse suit. My brother scraped his wrist between his glove and leather jacket.

The bike? $800 worth of damage...arrgh.

As yet another motorcyclist...

[SerialHistorian]

Only those who haven't ridden call them 'donorcycles' or wonder about the speed at which a rider's helmet touches ground during a wreck. Seriously, that was the lamest comment I've seen yet at ./ ... and that's saying something. I wish I had mod points today. Do me a favor -- if you even thought about making a comment like that, go take a motorcycle class. The MSF (Motorcycle Safety Foundation) or your local equivalent (i.e. TeamOregon in, uh, Oregon) offers them in every state. Taking that class is guaranteed to make you a better cage driver, and you could walk out of it with a motorcycle endorsement and an appreciation for the lifestyle and risks that motorcyclists accept in exchange for being able to bomb down that perfect canyon.

As for the HUD ... I don't need any other distractions. Riding a motorcycle, by itself, requires 3 times the concentration that driving a car does. Add in the fact that everybody else on the road is quite literally trying to kill us ... and then add in some serious distractions from a HUD, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

HUDs in cars are a good idea, but motorcyclists are already at their information saturation limit.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[slamb]

Riding a motorcycle, by itself, requires 3 times the concentration that driving a car does. Add in the fact that everybody else on the road is quite literally trying to kill us ... and then add in some serious distractions from a HUD, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

You keep on using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- Inigo Montoya

Please don't say someone is "quite literally trying to kill us" unless you're in combat. The strongest literal statement you could make here is "they often make me fear for my life". Or maybe "they regularly bring me within an inch of death", if they would actually kill you by coming one inch closer. (One inch, not two. Not five. Not some vague, seemingly-small distance.) Anything else is hyperbole, which is not literal at all. Hyperbole is fine, but don't call it something it's not.

But I do understand your sentiment. It's not even unique to motorcycles - when I'm just riding a bicycle around town, it often feels like all the drivers want me dead. They definitely have a blindness for anything smaller than a SUV, and they don't expect bicycles to be moving quickly.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[grumling]

Yep, those darn HUDs on jet fighters are nothing but a distraction. I regularly use a glasses mounted mirror when riding a bicycle (low tech HUD), and it really helps not having to look somewhere else, refocus my eye, etc.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Dani Filth]

Yes, the comments are very lame. Reminds me of a traffic reporter on a local DC radio station who said "a motorcyclist was taken out" when talking about a traffic accident. Needless to say the station, the advertiser during the report, and the AMA all got a letter from me.

'97 YZF1000-R

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[dentar]

"Add in the fact that everybody else on the road is quite literally trying to kill us"

This is about the stupidest thing I've ever seen someone post.

Yeah, get on your bike and break the speed limits, taking other people by surprise quite often. Then when a motorist gets taken by surprise and you wreck your bike, you blame THEM?

Sorry, dude, cars outnumber you, so they make the rules.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Baron_Yam]

I understand the lure of riding a motorcycle. I also understand why they're referred to as 'donorcycles'. Car drivers aren't 'literally' trying to kill motorcyclists, but many motorcyclists behave as if they're trying to commit suicide.

I work in a fairly urban area, and I can't recall the last time I saw a motorcycle in traffic that WASN'T driven by someone who thought the rules of the road only applied to cars. Seriously - weaving through traffic without leaving enough space for cars to react, racing between lanes of stopped cars, speeding well beyond anything I've seen a car do... and if a car driver hits one of those asses, they get to remember what someone else's guts look like for the rest of their lives. Bikes should be kept to touring on the country backroads, and 'rice rockets' should be illegal except on a track.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[dentar]

BTW: How the hell did you get modded up to 5?

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[really?]

"Sorry, dude, cars outnumber you, so they make the rules."

Duuude, by that logic we should be all speaking Chinese.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[really?]

I would guess you are living in the US, or maybe Canada.

Traffic here in Japan would be a total shock to you. I, on the other hand, immediately thought PARADISE, when I arrived in Japan.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Anonymous Coward]

The original author is right (unless they're figuratively trying to kill us- wait, is that possible?). I've had cars cut me off quite intentionally, even on the freeway. Anger can impact a decision in a second, and the ramifications can last a lifetime.

SerialHistorian should have altered his scope so it didn't sound like every driver was trying to kill bikers. It's really only a select few (and thanks to the magic of airbags, seatbelts, and steel safety-cages, Darwin's having a tough time getting to them).

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "the Hurt Report" (after Dr.Harry Hurt). There are plenty of copies floating around, so finding it shouldn't be a problem. One of the findings was that 2/3 of bike-car accidents was the result of the car failing to yield the right of way.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[rcpitt]

I don't know about other jurisdictions (not even my own here in BC) but in California "lane splitting" is legal - as long as you don't go over 10mph faster than the traffic. This means that as a matter of policy, California is encouraging motorcycles by allowing them to get ahead of other traffic.

The guys I have problems with are the ones who think that just because they can't cram more cars across the highway we (on bikes) should sit there when there are spaces more than ample for our width - especially since many of the bikes are air cooled and sitting for hours in traffic jams is devastating. I ride a 'Wing which is wide enough that I rarely take advantage of lane splitting but it is a legitimate idea and as noted above, legal in at least one jurisdiction.

Anyone know of the law in other places?

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Baron_Yam]

I agree that the roads should be filled with 1 or 2 seat vehicles... but they're not. They're filled with SUVs, tractor trailors, and mid-sized sedans for the most part. I drive a smaller car myself, but not an econ-size because those things crumple like tinfoil when they meet the previously mentioned vehicles I share the road with. My problem with most motorcyclists is that they take advantage of their size and mobility to avoid traffic problems... WITHOUT taking me into account. I should be able to change lanes without worrying about a bike scooting up the middle, doing a three lane slide, or cutting me off.

Drive around Toronto for a while, and tell me what you see - lots of overly agressive, bad drivers in (or on) all kinds of vehicles. The ones on bikes are harder to see, harder to avoid, and easier to render into a fine paste. Barring a massive change in attitudes and ability in all drivers in my area, I'd rather just not see bikes on congested routes.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Steve Stock]

You probably didn't see any sane riders because you didn't notice them, they don't stand out. I notice more motorcycles now than before I started riding. This isn't due to many more riders on the road, only that I'm better at interpreting what I view. Or, as Sherlock Holmes put it: "You see, but you do not observe."

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Bryan Ischo]

Well, I'm a motorcyclist and I would love for such a HUD. I would not call it 'distraction', I would call it 'relevent information' ...

But the miracle of it all is, even if they make it, only those who want it have to buy it!

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[DavittJPotter]

Did he mention breaking speed limits? Did he say he was an agressive rider? The closest thing mentioned was "bombing down the perfect canyon".

Do you ride? Have you ever ridden? Ever hear the old adage about the best defense being a good offense?

Every time you ride, you have to be on the alert. That means (for me, anyway) - a good night's sleep, my leathers, no alcohol when I ride. If you don't, you're going to be at best surprised by someone in a car or on another bike, or at worst, splattered on the pavement.

Perhaps the phrase was a bit extreme, but your broad paintbrush of bikers/motorcyclists/indulgers in motorized two-wheeled sporting/whatever the fuck you wanna call it is equally stupid.

Yes, there are plenty of stupid, 18-year-old dumbasses on 155hp sport bikes that only understand redline/shift/redline/shift/crash. Some of us have grown up.

There are plenty of shitty SUV and minivan drivers. Plenty of bad BMW/Mercedes pretty boys. Not all of them are that way.

If you ride, then you can disregard the following:

Shut up about something you have no clue about until you put in as much time on two wheels as some of the other riders here.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, "kill" is not the intent, although it is the end effect. "get the hell off of MY road" is really the intent, or a serious lack of spatial awareness of the size of their vehicle. Most people are not aware of the consequences of their actions to themselves, much less to other people. Funny tie-ins to The Matrix come to mind here, for some reason.

I read some study a long time ago that tried to measure a car driver's ability to estimate the size of their car, and it found that small car drivers are more aware than large car drivers (small car drivers will try to fit in smaller gaps in traffic in proportion to the size of their cars than will big car drivers). Big car drivers, especially if they're very old, can barely see over their tightly clenched steering wheels, etc., and also have no sense of anything outside of their immediate foveal area of vision (witness their high beams in daylight or their persistent turn signals). Having been nearly been brushed off of a wide shouldered road, while riding near the edge of the tarmac on a road bike a few times by just this...

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[bafu]

They definitely have a blindness for anything smaller than a SUV

It seems like this can't be the case since many cars are smaller than SUVs and yet I, just to pick one example, am frequently able to see them while driving.

I agree with your point about hyperbole, though.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[Anonymous Coward]

SerialHistorian should have altered his scope so it didn't sound like every driver was trying to kill bikers. It's really only a select few

Fascinating. Do these would-be serial killers who only target bikers limit themselves to times when the target is riding? Or do they also consider it acceptable to say, force their way into the biker's home and knife the biker? Or perhaps they might use a rifle to stalk and kill the biker from a safe distance? Have criminologists done any study on the pathology of these killers? While it would not excuse their behavior, of course, I do wonder what underlying motivations could cause them to actually design to murder bikers.

Re:As yet another motorcyclist...

[dentar]

"Duuude, by that logic we should be all speaking Chinese."

You're not outnumbered by Chinese except when you're in China.

Please, use your brain.

As one more biker...

[NitroWolf]

While it sounds cool and all... nifty gadgets and all that. There's no F'ing way I'd want something like that in my field of vision.

I like my guages where they are, and putting something like that in my helmet is just a recipe for disaster as my eyes try to focus in and out between the display and the road and the horizon. It would lead to a lot of eye strain, which directly translates to extreme danger for a motorcycle.

Thanks... but no. The only time a motorcyclist could safely view data like that is when he or she doesn't need it.

Re:As one more biker...

[PC35Blade]

After reading through all those comments here, I really wonder what kind of biker would actually need that Information at all!

When riding my Honda CBR600F-Sport, make that a F4i-Sport for you american guys, i can tell you my actual gear and speed (within 5% accuracy, Id say) without glancing on my Speedometer.

The feeling on your bike is way much more intense than in a car or anything, so I really wonder how anyone can want to be distracted by any kind of crap in your field of vision.
The saying goes "Your bike drives to where you look at" - and when Im glancing on some wacko Nav info or stuff, I sure dont look where I want my bike to go...

This HUD stuff has no place in a motorcycle environment.

Besides: I always strived to get the lightest helmet I can lay my hands on, and then someone would willingly put several hundred grams of equipment in the most important safety device? Nah, 100% nonsense, get away with that stuff! :)

/me loves his 1.210 gr X-Lite N801 Carbon/Kevlar helmet.

Re:As one more biker...

[ender-]

I like my guages where they are, and putting something like that in my helmet is just a recipe for disaster as my eyes try to focus in and out between the display and the road and the horizon. It would lead to a lot of eye strain, which directly translates to extreme danger for a motorcycle.


Actually the whole point of a HUD is to stop this. You already have to change your focus between the road [12-?00ft] in front of you and your guages [1-2ft] in front of you.
HUDs are set to be in focus while you are looking at the road/horizon ahead so that you DON'T have to re-focus your eyes.

I for one would love it for that reason.

Ender

Re:As one more biker...

[djeaux]

HUDs are set to be in focus while you are looking at the road/horizon ahead so that you DON'T have to re-focus your eyes.

True. But focussing & re-focussing aside, do you really want anything that close in on your field of vision?

I would think the windscreen would be a better location for a HUD, simply because a helmet is a lot easier to steal than a fairing. And nav info is just too much -- a switchable guage (tach, speedo, etc) would be more useful.

All this said, most riders get to the point where they aren't driving or shifting by speedo or tach anyway. The only time a speedo is really important is when you see a trooper lurking in a bear cave up the I-state...

Re:As one more biker...

[Konstantinos]

I totally aggree! There's no way I'd buy a computer controlled gadget to control my vision.

Imagine this crap crashing and producing garbage(eg. a all-white/black screen on the helmet screen)!!!

And all this while I am taking a turn at 120kph on the highway.

This is destined to be a failure, the only people who will buy this crap are morons who seem to think that listening to your iPod while you drive on your bike is cool...

Start SENSING Motorcycles!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now add a transmitter so navigation systems in cars within a mile can show the nearby motorcycle.

Of particular interest to habitual speeders in South Dakota and Minnesota cornfields.

Easiest software ever

[SheldonYoung]

If I could get the job of writing this software for this thing it would be the sweetest deal ever. The software would be sooo easy:

while(true) {

if( isGoldWing() ) {
print "Speed: Too slow";
} else {
print "Speed: TOO FAST!");
}

if( rider.age() < 23 ) {
print "Reminder: You suck for wearing a tank top, shorts and sandals.";
} else if( rider.age() > 50 ) {
print "Reminder: You bought a Harley for the vibration, there are cheaper and more portable alternatives";
}

if( speed < mph(60) ) {
waste_of_bike++;
}

excitement_factor += random() + radar(CONST_SUV, 42.0);

if( stoppie_detected() ) {
dumpRider( "You cocky fool" );
}

}

car HUD display position

[jeti]

AFAIK the instruments of a car HUD seem to hover where the hood ends.
They seem to be where mercedes stars were mounted.
So they're not directly in your face.

Re:car HUD display position

[Zzootnik]

Speaking of which... Ever since I heard about car HUD's in the pricier oldsmobuicks or mercedes or what not, I've been looking for an aftermarket solution I can plug into the car I can actually afford...
Anyone heard about anything like this?

Re:car HUD display position

[jeti]

No. The HUDs seem to require quite a lot of space behind the dashboard. I think it's pretty much out of the question.

I see Dead People

[Anonymous Coward]

HUD
Current~Speed: 83MPH

atest~Slashdot~headlines!...New Linux Kernal Released

pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/~~~~~|~~~~\xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/~~~~~~~~~~~\xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/~~~~~~~|~~~~~\xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx/~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~\xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx/~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~\xxxxxxxxxxx

Nissan had this a while back

[York the Mysterious]

Nissan has this back in the 240SX (S13). It was one of those late 80s early 90s toys. I've never seen on work, but it basically had an LED on the dash and a semitransparent reflective coating in the bottom left corner of the windshield. They tended to burn out after a while.

Got one.

[caferace]

Zoom zoom, all body parts intact. From racing at least.

Jim

AFM #250

Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbike

[quinkin]

I disagree, speed is and allways will be the biggest killer on motorbikes - not that it doesn't blend well(sic) with alchohol... The ABT has a page which includes the quote: "In multiple vehicle crashes where the motorcyclist was judged to be at fault, excess speed was a factor in nearly half of the cases. Drugs were a contributing factor in one in eight cases."

I am not sure on statistics in the rest of the world, but I know that in Australia we have a population of cyclists which is defined as males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbike.

Of this population, annually 1/3 dies in motorbike related accidents. Can't find a ref. but I couldn't believe it when I read....

Q.

Compulsory helmets in the US?

[Zog The Undeniable]

Out of interest, how many states mandate the wearing of helmets? I've always envied American bikers who don't have to wear them - just a pair of shades and the wind in your hair.

Re:Compulsory helmets in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most states require them now. I know this is so for Nevada, California, and Oregon. Outside that is outside my experience. I think you'd be limited to one or two states that don't require helmets. There is a lot of whining about it, but it hasn't been effective (yet) in changing the laws.

Personally, I continue to vote for helmet laws (yes, I am a biker) because I believe it will help to keep insurance reasonable and prevent motorcycle riding from becoming an price determinate for health insurance.

I don't want to have to pay more for health insurance because some bozo needs to ride without a helmet.

Re:Compulsory helmets in the US?

[Stradenko]

Where I ride, Arizona and Utah, hemlets are non-compulsory for adults. Check out This site

Back in my day....

[twoslice]

We're familiar and comfortable with gauges already.

Gauges, bah! - back in my day sonny we just listened to the hum of the engine and we knew approximately how fast we were going - some drivers increased the accuracy by having an experienced Harley Ho on the back telling the driver their exact speed - we also cooked our grub on the exhaust pipe!

and...we liked it.

PS. I'll bet your one of those sissy geeks that actually use the temperature gauge on your mobo instead of using the old finger lick test...

Re:Back in my day....

[Darmox]

Gauges, bah! - back in my day sonny we just listened to the hum of the engine and we knew approximately how fast we were going

I did this. Sort of.

I had a '72 Honda 500, broke the speedometer cable one morning, and for the couple of weeks that it took me to get a new one, I took small pieces of masking tape, marked them with a speed and a gear, and put them on the tachometer. I went through and calculated that at some number of rpms, the final drive from the engine would be at this number of rpms, and so the chain would go through this at the back sprocket, etc. Came out fairly accurate, and I knew that in third gear at (say) 3500, I'd be doing about 35, in 5th gear at 4000, it was around 65 - 70.

Re:Back in my day....

[wiredog]

You rode a Triumph, didn't you? I remember the 69 Bonneville a friend had. No turn signals, horn, or brake lights. Just a headlight and a taillight. And those lovely, high quality, Lucas Electronics. Lucas, Prince of Darkness.

Have the Brits figured out electronics yet?

Re:Back in my day....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes dipshit i do use the gauges on my machines...but then again your Harley Running MF piece of SHIT bike, doesnt rev to almost 16000 RPMS. It also doesnt make anywhere near the HP or Torque. These modern tupperware torpedoes are not your old beater harley (not that a new Harley is any less an old beater piece of shit). Harley lets see its a 1940's motorcycle only problem is its 2003 not 1940.

Re:Back in my day....

[rossifer]

Have the Brits figured out electronics yet?

Give them time to figure out electrics first. Have to crawl before you run and all that... :)

Regards,
Ross

Re:Back in my day....

[twoslice]

I didn't say I rode a Harley motorcylce - But I did ride a Harley Ho!

Paris Hilton

[Anonymous Coward]

Paris Hilton Full Length Video
www.parishiltonvideo.biz
CD or VHS
Length 29.42

Indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

My bike suit (full protection, no less) has the words "ORGAN DONOR AT WORK" in reflective red all across the back.

If I'm gonna die, might as well die doing something I love. Most people aren't that lucky.

Re:Indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm gonna die, might as well die doing something I love. Most people aren't that lucky.

All because of those warning labels on the Viagra bottle.

More importantly...

[Stevyn]

Which kernel does it run? GNOME or KDE. Is this a precompiled kernel or one specific to the hardware? What file system does it use? Reiser? I mean a heads up display is nice and all, but if it isn't politically correct according to linux zealots, then I'm boycotting it. Alright, back to windows to play some games and use photoshop.

Street Hawk!

[SirPrize]

hehe - liked the "From the street-hawk-returns-dept" in the posting. Sure bring back memories. Who else can remember Streethawk ? Used to love that as a kid, although there was only one series of it which was aired.

Re:Street Hawk!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's any comfort, I believe Ben Affleck has been picked to star in the motion picture they are making based on that series!

Okay, okay, so maybe it just seems like that could be true...

Sounds like Upper Black Eddy to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it does...

-John Le'Brecage

Where's the beef?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. Bike and rider are travelling along, bike stops, rider doesn't. Where does the rider get the energy to increase the magnitude of his velocity? Is that why crashing is so tiring?

When my own helmet hit the pavement in a lowside, it was going slower than the bike, as my leathers had more friction than the bike's plastics. This I know as the bike was ahead of me the whole time.

I like it...

[Talkischeap]

I've been riding on the street since 1969, and have owned nine motorcycles, and was an all weather rider for two of the wettest years California's Santa Cruz Mtns. had on record, so I'm qualified to respond as a rider who didn't dare look down at his instruments on Highway 17 between Los Gatos, and Summit Road, on my way home during some incredibly wet nights.

I think it's a great idea, and will adopt it just as soon as it's much smaller, and "transparent", as in, built into a helmet.

Until then... too BIG, and I agree that wind noise could be an issue with the unit as it is now.

Very good idea though.

date...

[Animaether]

And then when she takes off your glasses whilst you're snuggling into bed, you lose the centerfold overlay and realize your date is Madeleine Albright.

On a more serious note.. if you need a cheat-sheet to impress your date... well, 'nuff said.

Re:date...

[IM6100]

Worse: it's Janet Reno and you didn't put quarters in the coin box of the Magic Fingers hotel bed.

No

[AftanGustur]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident.

Umm... Wouldn't it be aproximately the same speed that the motercycle was going when it crashed?

Luckily, the answer to that is "no".

Even if you're driving at 200 km/h, your head's speed towards the ground is 0 m/s, if you fall, your helmet is only going to hit the ground at the speed it has gained while you fell from your bike.

Even if you are driving at 200 hm/h and are wearing leathers, unless you hit a obstacle, your head is going to be just fine. You are likely to get some burns from the heat that was generated by friction with the ground (through your leather protection). But little what won't heal in a few days or weeks.

Afterwards, the only thing you remember from your fall is the terrible noise your helmet made while scraping the ground ..

Re:No

[Quino]

That's assuming a nice empty road on which to slide...

Although, I have to admit that's the scenario that did not cross my mind. When I thought about it: I pictured a biker flying into traffic (since it was an accident) or a divider or something.

I'm not sure how these things usually end up, but if you don't have the room to slide (and *not* tumble btw), then the speed of the collision definitely matters.

Re:No

[darkpixel2k]

I've responded to a handfull of motorcycle collisions in my area and only one of the drivers survived. He was bruised all over and had a broken radius and ulna.

Everyone else died instantly when they slammed into another vehicle, guardrail, divider, or embankment.

It's strange though--even after responding to all these, I still want to get a bike...

Re:No

[AftanGustur]

That's assuming a nice empty road on which to slide...

Uhh, that's what "Unless you hit a obstacle" means ... (You read the post you were replying to, didn't you ?)

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that pavement is perfectly smooth (which it isn't and not taking into account many many other factors and what will happen as a result of your body being thrown around for however many meters it takes to stop at 200km/h

Re:No

[Fishead]

Man, that just gave me goose bumps.

" terrible noise your helmet made while scraping the ground .."

A HUD in my helmet would be pretty cool, if unnecessary. I wouldn't want to use it for navigation, and how often do I need to look at my guages while I am riding? I could see the benifit for racers however, not wanting to look down, but needing to know fuel/rpm/temp/speed.

About the dangers or riding? My biggest fear is the distracted driver that pulls out in front of me, see's me, and then stops. Completely blocking my escape.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that strange if an insignificant percentage of riders crash. I don't know if this is true or not (although I really doubt it). Now on the other hand, if the odds were great of crashing, and the odds of dying after a crash were great, then I'd be questioning your sanity!

Re:No

[DarkVader]

Part of that may be that in most cases when there is no injury, bikers generally don't call the cops.

I know that the one time I dropped a bike (#$&%& wet sand just in front of a @#$#% stop sign on an unfamiliar road) I slid/rolled across the pavement a bit, got up, picked up the bike, shoved a bit of chewing gum into the hole in the gas tank, and rode off. I had small bits of road rash on my elbows and knees (but no damage to the leathers in those spots) and a bit of a scrape on my helmet. I was sore for a few days.

Had the same sort of event happened in a car, a tow truck would likely have had to have been called.

Re:No

[DarkVader]

As long as there isn't anything for you to hit, very little will happen to your body. If you're wearing good armor, you'll be a bit uncomfy for a week or so, but otherwise fine.

I've known too many bikers who've gone down at ~125MPH and walked (or even ridden) away from the event.

Re:No

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It's not that strange if an insignificant percentage of riders crash. I don't know if this is true or not (although I really doubt it). Now on the other hand, if the odds were great of crashing, and the odds of dying after a crash were great, then I'd be questioning your sanity!

Further up the thread, someone said that your odds are 1 in 3 each year, though I'm sure that a large portion of those deaths are the same guys that insist on doing wheelstands up and down the road.

Re:No

[IM6100]

Had the same sort of event happened in a car, a tow truck would likely have had to have been called.

How would a car 'drop' in wet sand just in front of a stop sign?

Re:No

[supabeast!]

"It's strange though--even after responding to all these, I still want to get a bike..."

That makes a little sense, I mean, you know that at least if you have a horrible bike wreck you won't end up like Christopher Reeve, but without millions of dollars to pay someone to wipe your ass.

Re:No

[throbbingbrain.com]

It's strange though--even after responding to all these, I still want to get a bike...

Get a dirt bike. More fun. Less chance of serious injury.

Re:No

[DroidBiker]

The "1 in 3" statistic is bogus. I'm not sure of its origin. If it were true I and many of my friends would be dead now.

The last statistic I heard from a reliable source was several years back (in an AMA publication) and it claimed a 1 in 50 chance of "serious injury or death" each year. Cars were listed at about 1 in 100. If you remove wheelie popping, traffic splitting, morons on sport bikes from the mix I imagine the stats get much better

My personal experience (not a statisticly significant sample): I know about 15 motorcyclists. They average about 5 years of experience each. 100% of them (myself included) have crashed at least once. None of those crashes was serious enough to require medical attention. On a side note, 2 of the 15 HAVE been in serious accidents requiring hospitalization; they were both driving cars at the time.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your observations is that they don't represent the total number of accidents. I have been in dozens of motorcycle accidents and only once did an ambulance show up. Even then, I was already getting ready to ride off by the time they arrived.

Re:No

[Artifakt]

The 1 in 3 statistic was reported for a group of 18 to 25 year olds who chose racing bikes in a certain class. I wouldn't be surprised if it's accurate, assuming that they bought very high velocity bikes as their first cycle and took them out without much, if any practice with more typical road bikes.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Skid off the road or into the stop sign, perhaps?

Re:No

[DavittJPotter]

Have you ever *driven* on wet/sandy streets? How about if you enter the corner and the front tires push, pushing the front end into a guardrail, smashing the front fender onto the tires, setting off the airbag, and crumpling the crush zone? Theoretically, of course...

Re:No

[DroidBiker]

Ahhh... I could very easily imagine the 1 in 3 number holding for the group you describe. Thanks for the clarification.

Re:No

[Quino]

Yeah, I read it but the main point you were making was that speed of head-into-pavement collision was *independent* of motorcycle speed.

Now, in re-reading it, I guess that what you were saying was "YES" (not "NO"), it does of course matter, except in the case of empty road, here's how that works, etc. but that's not what was written!

I read before replying, sometimes not carefully enough (granted -- the worst is replying to the wrong person, heh!) :)

Commercialization...

[spiff42]

Hmm. And pretty soon everyone will have these helmets with HUDs, and to lower the prices they start having commercials in the middle of your field of vision.

"NOW - including animated commercials and sound".. ARGH!!

/Spiff

Night Vision

[mahbidness]

I would much rather see something like this worked into a HUD.

Re:Night Vision

[eastendboy]

Yeah, this would be neat. You think koalas are cute? they're not so cute under your front wheel! (luckily I've always missed them)

Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since m_f is much smaller than m_i, it follows that v_f must be much larger than v_i.

You have got this all wrong. The "final" mass is not much smaller than the "initial" mass. This isn't a case of a single object whose mass suddenly shrinks; there are two separate objects here that are loosely coupled and traveling at the same velocity. No masses are changing.

Let's take a simple case: the bike and rider hit a low concrete wall. The bike stops, the rider keeps going. He will be traveling at the same speed as when he was riding (until he lands, that is). His momentum is conserved because his mass has not changed.

The mass of the bike/rider combo is the mass of the bike plus the mass of the rider. The velocity of the combo is the same as the velocity of the bike or rider by themselves.

m_c = m_b + m_r
v_c = v_b = v_r

Therefore

p_c = m_c * v_c
= (m_b + m_r) * v_c
= (m_b * v_c) + (m_r + v_c)
= (m_b * v_b) + (m_r + v_r)
= p_b + p_c

This means the momenta can be considered separately. When the bike hits the wall, its velocity (and hence momentum) go to zero, and its kinetic energy goes into deforming the frame. The rider's momentum is separate, and is of course conserved. His mass doesn't change, so his velocity doesn't change. Ignoring air resistance (and friction if he's sliding on the ground), he flies off the bike at the same speed the bike was going.

Of course, as others have pointed out, the speed at which the rider's head impacts the road will be about the same as if he had just fallen over while sitting on his bike, since the road is roughly parallel to the rider's forward velocity.

-A. Coward

Ignoring the most important issue.

[Channard]

This is all very well and good, but clearly funding needs to be reserved to address the most important hi-tech biking question. If the bike in Streethawk was bullet-proof, as was the bike, how come none of the bad guys thought of just shooting the rider off the bike? And then maybe we can move onto investigating why no-one thought of putting a bomb in Kit's exhaust pipe.

Re:As one more snowboarder

[Anonymous Coward]

actually the real market for this helmet are other adrenaline sports - nothing against motorcycles, but how many baby booming Harley riding doctors and lawyers do you know that still go fast? Try this out on a snowboard or skis and it'd be a great way to brag to tha bro's.

Extra weight...

[Cychwyn]

And how much weight will this add to the helmet? Can't say I'd be pleased to increase the chance of the helmet breaking my neck... or the extra force needed to survive on a naked bike.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[spindizzy]

You can't believe it beause it's not even remotely true. Motorcycle deaths in Australia have consistently decreased in the last 30 years (even though the riding population has grown) and the growth areas have been in the over 50s age bracket. Born agains who get the latest sports bike and have no idea how to handle the power. I associate with over 200 WA based bikers on a mailing list and we've only had 1 fatality in 4 years. That was caused by a car turning in front of a bike without indicating. BTW The Hurt report quoted earlier is now 20 years out of date.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[WesG]

Yeah but didn't Australia have a problem with motorcycle gangs in the 80's.

I can't remember the names of the gangs, but Mel Gibson seems to come to mind...:-)

Hiro Protagonist wore one in Snow Crash

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiro Protagonist wore one while riding his bike in Snow Crash, and he was able to access the Metaverse with it.

Older bikers...

[Gordonjcp]

Actually, here in the UK the biggest problem is "born-agains", who are men in their late 40s to late 50s, taking early retirement, and go buy themselves a nice big bike with that fat wodge of cash they've just been handed.

Sadly, what they fail to realise is that the VFR750 they've just bought is a hell of a lot more bike than the CB750 Honda they had back in '75. Well, *initally* they don't realise this. Shortly after getting to a quiet back road, they find this out, usually a little before they realise that hedges aren't very comfortable.

Re:Older bikers...

[Goth Biker Babe]

Then add those who have taken direct access and leapt from a 125cc bike directly on to an R1. The problem is that discovering the limits of a bike like that is at best dangerous and at worse lethal.

Discovering the limits of a 250cc bike is a lot safer. Personally I worked up from a 125cc bike to a 550cc bike to an 1100cc bike over the period of several years. Each time I learnt where the limits of the bike were and how they felt when they were starting to reach them.

Re:Older bikers...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then .... you discover the 250cc was more fun anyhow after you have completed the "monkey-yank-that-speedometer-in-a-straight-line"- phase.

Re:Older bikers...

[Goth Biker Babe]

Too right. The 550 is twenty years old and a laugh. The 1100 is a big lardy unfaired bike and so against smaller sports bikes it's slow in a straight line but get to the bends and it's great fun hauling it from side to side, scaping the boots along the road and the like. My favourite ride, Yorkshire to the Lakes, is just like that.

Re:Older bikers...

[Gordonjcp]

Yeah. You can have a lot of fun riding a crap bike balls out *everywhere*, rather than just occasionally grabbing a quick handful here and there. My old CD200 was rarely ridden less than wide open, terrible old rhinocerous that it was. I quite fancy getting an XS650...

Re:Older bikers...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the XS650 in Europe is similar, if not identical, to the Yamaha 650 Seca that I had in the States. It was my first street legal bike that I got at 18 years of age. I had been riding minibikes up to 250 dirt bikes prior to that. I still got into lots of dicy situations with my 650 on the way through my learning curve. I put 43,000 miles on that Seca 650. Such a great bike.

Due to the recession here in America, I had to part with my BMW R100GS Paris-Dakar for shelter and food. It was a sad day. I may need to write som haiku about it.

Re:Older bikers...

[Gordonjcp]

XS650 is a big parallel twin. Very, very much like an old British bike, in fact. One of my mates (now dead, sadly, and not for bike-related reasons) had an XJ750 Seca - that was fun. I took it around the block at his, after having ridden the CD200 a lot. Bloody weird actually having to move the bars to steer, instead of shifting from one bumcheek to the other...

Re:This was previously

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have just used one %01

great article

Cars have had HUDs for a while..

[Anonymous Coward]

A number of General Motors products have had head-up displays for a couple of years. Most notably the Chevrolet Corvette, but the technology has now trickled down into several lower-end models like the Pontiac Grand Prix (which they're positioning as a BMW 3-series fighter - but in typical GM fashion they then neuter the GP by not offering a manual transmission).

I've not actually seen one running, but I gather the killer feature that makes it work well is the ability to unclutter the display (leaving only one or two features like speed and RPM) - and turn off the interior instrument panel lights when driving at night so your eyes can adjust 100% to looking outside and at the HUD.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[Alan Partridge]

Scoot Jockeys, surely?

I think you'll find that the Toecutter knows...

uh-oh.

[Niet3sche]

HUDs are a nice thing ... but I think this will lead to bad stuff happening.
For example, there has been research done on HUD units that build the "highway in the sky" display for commercial pilots. These guys (commercial pilots, remember) were thrown into a simulator, told to land the plane, and did so.
Well ... actually most of them did so. There were a few who actually saw the smaller plane pull out onto the runway right in front of them and promptly pulled up into a pattern for another go-round ... the rest of the guys missed seeing the smaller plane pull out onto the runway ... right in front of them .
Needless to say, there were a lot of people really shaken up that day, and 2 pilots reported that they shouldn't be flying at all, after seeing that.
The point of it is this: HUDs are nice and all, but they cause cognitive tunneling, which is awful - especially in people not trained for it. I meant to find the NASA Ames article, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. Rather, I direct you to C.D. Wickens & J. Lang, "Object Versus Space-Based Models of Visual Attention: Implications for the Design of Head-Up Displays," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1 (1995), pp 179-193 for some background information.

perhaps the poster should broaden his/her mind

[carndearg]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident.

Yeah, cos all motorcyclists are insane nutters on a one way ticket to instant death, naturally.

If all you can think about when you see the word "Motorcycle" is the word "Accident", then perhaps you should broaden your mind and get a bike licence.

As to the idea itself, as a motorcyclist I dont think it's a good idea. You know about what speed you're doing from the note of your bike's engine, you dont need any distraction to take your attention off the road. Of course an XTZ750 rider like me might see it differently from a Hayabusa rider but there's my 2 penn'orth.

Would have no real effect on helmet usage

[Shivetya]

Facts currently don't encourage some people to wear helmets, let alone wear real helmets. I have a few friends who insist they don't need helmets; they are required by state law; so they "cheat" by wearing those party helmets.

No amount of pictures or facts will deter them. They are so wrapped up in their own persoal ego that they don't give a damn about the risk they take, nor do they seem to care that they are forcing this risk on their wifes, children, and parents. The great claim that it is their right completely ignores the fact their family has rights too... and they are spitting in their families faces just to excercise theirs.

Unfortunately I have been through two funerals of people I know who rode their rights into an early grave. The first was in the military and he left behind a wife, the second left behind stunned parents and many friends.

FWIW, I am a safety zealot, I have full gear, including body armor inserts in my jacket (Savannah-1 or Airflow-2) and pants (either FG winter pants or Airflow-2). I also wear a full face helmet; my only wreck in the 80s proved a FF worth; boots, and good reinforced gloves. I am even to the point of not wanting to ride any bike that doesn't come with ABS... either I am getting old... or...

Re:Would have no real effect on helmet usage

[clifyt]

Funny thing is, I've been in two accidents. The first, an idiot had swevered out and in front and slammed on his breaks. I couldn't see him from the peripheral vision, and by the time he was in front, it was too damn late. The last accident, I don't think the helmet did much to impede it and as I was going 75 at highway speed, kinda glad I had it on (and haven't been on a bike in the 2 years since them -- Guy dropped a load of lumber on I80 outside Chicago, and I *STILL* don't know how I survived).

BUT...

I can name several dozen other avoided accidents because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Before I started riding, I too thought ignorantly that anyone that didn't wear their helmets were just after a home in the dirt. Statistics don't lie do they???

Statistics also don't tell you near misses...they show survivability in an accident.

Most of the near misses I've had involved idiots not looking where they were going. Full helmet? I wouldn't have heard them as clearly, nor seen them from my peripherial view. I've had plenty of them...most bikers I know have had plenty of these near misses as well. Not wearing the helmet allows one to assess the situation faster, sometimes giving you a second to change the outcome...but again, this does not get listed in any stats books.

I do wear my helmet on the highways...once I get to the city, I take it off. Too many people to pay attention to safely with it on. If you don't know where everyone is in the 360 degrees around your bike, how fast they are going, where they are intending to go, when they are intending to do, good luck with that helmet...you might be kept alive, but in what condition.

I will gladly take the risk that my head will pop like a mellon as long as I know that I've seen evidance that I am much less likely to get into an accident in to first place...and at that, much less likely to get into an accident that the helmet gives only my family the option of having an open casket or not.

Re:Would have no real effect on helmet usage

[cidhawk]

>> I can name several dozen other avoided accidents because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Before I started riding, I too thought ignorantly that anyone that didn't wear their helmets were just after a home in the dirt. Statistics don't lie do they??? >>Statistics also don't tell you near misses...they show survivability in an accident.

Sounds like a research grant is needed. Did they forget this possibility in the original Hurt report?

We could call the next report Hurt '04.

Re:Would have no real effect on helmet usage

[clifyt]

How are you going to do that? The original report was very easy to do...ya go out and get accident reports.

Would you require every motorcyclist from a state to carry around a log book noting how often they were in near misses, and if they were speeding, and if they were wearing a helmet, and how much reaction time they had?

Remember, motorcyclists have this outlaw image, even if its just in their own head. Sen. John Kerry has taken to bring his own bike to rallies, solely to prove that he is outside of the pack. If its an idea in presidential candidates, even if 99% of all motorcyclists are prefectly good members of society (and I'd bet they are generally more thinking / caring than any asshole in a SUV...well judging from person experience only), they STILL have this marginalized view of themselves.

Past that, how do you judge adjendas...if known as to scope of the research, many cyclists might game the system...hell, they might even encourage others to do so. As I've said in my last post, I *DO* wear my helmet at specific times...I think that on interstate highways, there needs to be a law for helmet usage...its a completely different situation than city streets where folks are coming at you from 4 different directions, all at different speeds and none of them paying attention to you :-)

BUT I know a lot of cyclists that don't believe in helmuts ANYWHERE...as many as believe that believe that you should ALWAYS wear one. You have vastly different opinions...and any statistician knows this, but it is never as easy to guess at true intent as it is with cold hard accident reports.

It WOULD be a worthwhile study...I just couldn't see the legistics being easy to follow through with...

Re:Would have no real effect on helmet usage

[N3Bruce]

I have only been riding a few years having taken up the hobby right after turning 40, but I cycled extensively in my youth, and have had many friends over the years that have ridden.

A couple of experiences in my youth convinced me to wear a helmet, even when on a muscle powered cycle. The first was an accident I had while riding with my brother and a couple of friends when I was about 13. We were riding on a backroad closely grouped, and I was having trouble with the front derrailier on my bike. I looked down and swerved into my brother's rear wheel. He went down hard and hit his head on the macadem. He came up with a face covered with blood, and ended up with stitches and a mild concussion. The doctor's instructions when he left the emergency room were that he needed to be watched carefully for signs of life threatening brain swelling. Everything turned out okay, but I felt responsible for the accident, and the weight I felt on my shoulders that day stuck with me to this day.

The second experience was a few years later. A close friend's parents took a ride on their Honda CB 450, blew a rear tire, and weren't quite able to keep it from crashing. They were both hospitalized for a few days, but came out of it okay. I saw their helmets, and wondered if my friend would have been orphaned if they hadn't been wearing them.

None of this stopped my brother from buying a Triumph Bonneville in college, which he rode for several years without serious incident before selling it in a moment of weakness. I stuck with human powered cycles but 20 years later, desire and opportunity overcame fear, anxiety, and perhaps good sense in the form of an old V-30 Magna for $500.

I took and passed the MSF course, and promptly had a low speed crash on my first street ride. Neither me or the bike was hurt much, save for my pride and a bent handlebar. After more practice in the yard, I got back out there a couple of weeks later, and have had 4 pretty good years on my old Magna (knock on wood).

I wear a 3/4 helmet (a HJC FG-23) with a flip down face shield whenever I ride, along with a leather jacket, sturdy boots, and heavy jeans. While my gear isn't perfect, it is probably better than what 2/3 of the riders out there are wearing. I have found that most full face helmets fit me too tight in the cheek and chin, due to a larger than average sized head and full cheekbones. I also have a problem with a face shield that can't be flipped up and away if it starts fogging up, say in cool weather or during an unexpected rain shower.

That being said, I won't be without a face shield, as it protects against the stones, bugs, and occasional UFO impact when I ride. It also helps keep my eyes from drying out. Since my peripheral vision is compromised anyway due to strong glasses for farsightedness, I don't even notice the slight restriction on the edges of my vision. Forget HUDs though cool they are, just give me a faceshield that effectively deals with sun glare, and resists fogging up!

Heads up disply? That...

[paragon_au]

Heads up disply? That a thing that says "Heads up" just before you smash into a wall, right?

Johnny Bravo mode!

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine raising one eyebrow insanely higher than the other to trigger voice to data record mode. Recall the data by saying "Hoo-ha!" or "Man, I'm pretty."

MC-HUD 'quit msg'

[Anonymous Coward]

'Analysing velocity, heading and surrounding..'

'Considering the Mass of the wall you're approaching, your chances of survival are:..'

'1 in 200 000'

'Thank you for riding Suzuki'

"Luke, you switched off your targeting computer!"

[Attaturk]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident.

Speaking as a motorcyclist, thanks for that unnecessary and rather gruesome little tid-bit. =/ I'll save you the research though; if I'm doing 90mph on my bike and I hit something that jolts me clear, then my head will hit the road at a little under 90mph. Or I suppose if I hit a truck doing 60mph head-on then similarly my head would hit the grill at just under 150mph.

Now, "horrifying data" aside, I also have a concern about HUD's in bike helmets. A few /.'ers have already pointed out that HUD's (Heads-Up) mean that you don't have to look down at your instruments thereby taking your eyes off the road. This much is true, but it's not always that helpful really. Every motorcycle I've ever ridden has had the instruments in a position that are quite easy to read with a casual (and speedy) flick of the eyes as opposed to a full head tilt. This means that I choose when I fill my head with this information and wait for moments of safety (i.e. not passing any junctions with those lethal car things peering out of them). But with a HUD, the rider has an abundant display of information all the time. Now actually I'm not so sure this is a good thing. I wouldn't mind a HUD too much myself, but we have to bear in mind that many motorcyclists are fairly casual (think born-again-bikers). These people are already a liability to themselves and others and I can't help but think that a HUD with all the 'cool data' (GPS, telephone, trip computer, fuel, speed etc.) would distract them a little too much.

Military jet pilots travelling at supersonic speeds with a huge and deadly payload screaming towards some unsuspecting target not only need that level of information in a HUD, but they also have to be trained to cope with it.

Aside from military pilots, perhaps F1 drivers and some other 'extreme' activities, I think that HUD's are an unnecessary and potentially quite dangerous distraction for your average civilian motorcyclist.

"His HUD was still frozen on the last thing he did before the crash. Apparently he was trying to dial the 1-800-How's my driving service."

no point

[eastendboy]

By the time you've been riding & working long enough to afford one of these devices, there's no point in buying it (geek factor excluded). I can remember learning to ride (after passing the 'rider safe' course) and my attention was always diverted to my instruments (what's my speed/revs?, is my indicator still on? I'm in neutral???). As I got better at riding (despite other road users trying to kill me) looking down wasn't required. I knew what my speed/revs/gear was so I could concerntrate on the things that mattered... like the guy who's "trying to read the bumper sticker you don't have!"

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[finkployd]

BTW The Hurt report quoted earlier is now 20 years out of date.

It is but it is all we got until someone does another study.

Good points regarding the latest sports bikes. I personally think it is an ego thing. Heck, even some salesmen will still first time buyers away from anything less than 600-1000cc ("you will out grow it in a week") which is just murder. The 600cc bikes today are WAY more powerful than the 1000cc bikes of a few years ago.

Finkployd

WTF kind of comment is that?

[Moderation abuser]

"I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident."

CowboyNeal, you are a fuckwit of the highest order.

Motorcyclists are half as likely to be involved in an accident as other road users. You want to know why? Because we're fucking careful on the roads, we actually *observe* what's going on around us despite the fact that when you look up from doing the crossword, driking your latte and putting your fucking contacts in you think we're going too fast when we pass.

So go on, you sit stationary in your cage in that traffic jam for 3 hours of your life every day.

Re:WTF kind of comment is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuckwit? Perhaps you should look into the mirror. Firstly, CowboyNeal wasn't the one to write that. Second, the statement said nothing along the lines of who (cagers vs. motorcyclists) gets in more accidents. Third, who the hell sits in traffic jams 3 hours everyday? You must have some pretty stupid friends. No one that I know would do that.

Idiot.

Re:WTF kind of comment is that?

[mummers]

Motorcyclists are half as likely to be involved in an accident as other road users.
Actually, according to statistics (in the UK anyway) a motorcyclist is 200 times more likely to be involved in & seriously injured or killed in an road accident than a car driver.

I could call you a fuckwit, but I'll be polite and assume you're just an ignorant fool. Or perhaps a soon to be statistic.

Re:WTF kind of comment is that?

[Moderation abuser]

No, you're just plain wrong. As a motorcyclist, I've been over the official statistics several times, you are just showing your ignorance.

Motorcyclists are overall 20-30 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the roads than a car driver in the UK. They are 50-60 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured *in the event of an accident* but this is where your ignorance and limited reading comprehension kicks in. They are half as likely to be involved in an accident in the first place.

So, you can go fuck yourself as well. Moron.

I'll point you to the government stats where you can start to educate yourself.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transs ta ts/documents/page/dft_transstats_024329.pdf

Re:WTF kind of comment is that?

[Moderation abuser]

Any way you look at it, CowboyNeal is a fuckwit.

Supposedly an editor either:

1: Saw the comment, realised it was a troll and didn't care: A high order Fuckwit.

2: Saw the comment and didn't realise it was a troll: Moronic Fuckwit (like you BTW).

3: Saw the comment and didn't realise that one of the jobs of an editor is to edit such crap: Incompetent moronic fuckwit.

You choose which.

Millions of morons sit in traffic for 1 -> 1.5 hours while commuting each way every single day. I bet you're one of them.

I've got it!

[theonetruekeebler]

Here's the HUD I want: Collision radar! Give me a flashing arrow and a distance number telling me there's a car trying to merge through my blind spot! Better yet, if it automatically sounded my horn, oh joy!

Nah. I'd hate to get complacent. Optimism is probably the most dangerous mental habit of the commuting motorcyclist.

You think that's bad...

[Sodade]

..try being on a bicycle. This is the reason why I selectively obey laws on my bike. Sometimes, I am safer running red lights and stop signs than trying to engage with the flow of traffic like I am a car. The way I see it - it is my life on the line and it is my judgement call...

Re:You think that's bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew some mountain bikers who found a good solution to this problem. They wore Share-the-Road t-shirts (with the big circular wheel on back), and strapped their 9mm shoulder holsters across so the gun was well highlighted at the center. They were never run off the road when carrying.

but consider angular momentum...

[Anonymous Coward]

a motor-cyclist might pivot over the handle bars like a pedal-cyclist and/or be sent spinning violently (about their hip-line), giving the head increased (instantaneous) linear speed...

GrimRC

Not necessarily.

[chengmi]

States have different laws on speeding. Some enforce an absolute speed limit, others a "presumed" speed limit. Some states have both. I think universally, the speed law states that everyone should drive at a speed that's "safe, given the conditions". Read here: When Speeding Isn't Speeding. Given the topic at hand, if a GPS system were to be implemented, there would be no way to "judge" this because you don't have the cop as a witness. Therefore everywhere with a GPS system in place would have to have an absolute speed limit.

Neat, but complete waste of money

[GoldenBB]

Couldn't resist getting in the anti-motorcycle jibe in there, could you? So many people have been subjected to anti-motorcycle propaganda that they just accept it as truth. Yes, please, by all means go through life without ever taking any kind of risk whatsoever. I'm sure you are popular with the ladies since you are such a totally feminized wussy boy!

I rode motorcycles for years and barely ever looked at the gauges while I was underway to any significant degree. The speedos on bikes are notoriously imprecise, and all they really tell you is how much you are violating whatever local speed limit is posted. And if you can't shift a bike without a tach, you had better just park it and do something else because motorcycles are not for you.

In all the years I've ridden bikes, I never remember abiding by a single speed limit at any point. Never once got a ticket and never had any accidents.

If you want to help riders, invent something that makes other motorists more aware of them. A device that jams cell phones would be good.

Re:Neat, but complete waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

With attitudes like yours, you'll be surprised and wind up in the hospital or dead. IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE!

obviously...

[Sodade]

...you'd need a method of turning it on and off. With just that, it is already safer than looking down at the instrument panel. Incorporating a GPS seems like a huge convenience factor too. Being lost and confused is dangerous. Ever wonder what a motorcyclist does when they are lost? I'd guess that they would have to pull off the road and whip out a map. ugh! Give me a HUD over that anyday!

I am sure that we slashdotters could come up with a long list of potential long-term enhancements - here is one to start:

* highlighting potential danger spots on the road (potholes, water, gravel, etc...) using image recognition SW

HUD technology goes way beyond the cool factor - it is the interscetion between cool tech and USABLE IN THE REAL WORLD tech. For example - yeah a voice recording PDA is cool (unless you have a lame palm that can't do it), but how easy is it to use in the real world when you are actually doing stuff (like riding a bike).

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[Goth Biker Babe]

The old "going too fast" chestnut. I don't like the phrase excessive speed I prefer the phrase inappropriate speed. In the UK 70MPH is legal on a motorway but is it safe on a raining or foggy day with limited visibility or with a lot of traffic on the road? Conversely is 100MPH unsafe on a straight dry road with little traffic and great visibility.

My bike accelerates faster than an average European car and stops quicker than an average European car (0-100-0 mph in 15 seconds) and as any good driver will say it's often safer to accelerate out of trouble rather than to break in to it (ask any traffic cop who's been properly trained). I have done 135mph on public roads with the right conditions. But in built up areas with children and pedestrians I will ride somewhat under the speed limit.

If speed per se was the factor then there would be deaths in motorbike racing all the time. There aren't and those that are usually not because of the "off" but because they get hit by another bike or hit something hard.

Weaving In and Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with weaving in and out of traffic, at least no more than I do with cars. (In both cases, I think people do too much weaving, but then again, I also slow down for yellow lights rather than trying to race it.) The biggest problem I've had with motorcyclist are the ones that decide that they have additional lanes on the road consisting of emergency lances and center-lines.

Re:Weaving In and Out

[gmhowell]

What you are referring to is 'lane-splitting'. Not sure about Europe, but in the US, that is legal in CA, under certain conditions. But yes, I have a problem with that as well:)

Re:Weaving In and Out

[Anonymous Coward]

As a biker in CA, lane sharing has been a haven. It's tolerated provided it's done reasonably (i.e. at speeds less than 35 mph, between lanes 1 & 2, and sufficient space is there for the bike). There are idiots who do it at 90 mph, but remember that they are the exception. Most us bikers are good folk ;)

Of course, lane sharing would be a moot point if every mile of freeway had a carpool lane >:(

High speeds

[swb]

I've taken my Kawasaki Concours up to about 115 MPH a few times, and while the bike itself feels OK at those speeds,I don't like doing it.

Most roads where 115 MPH is even option are in poor condition. What's kind of a barely noticable glitch at 65 can be a real pain at high speeds, and some could throw you.

They also have poor sightlines and visibility. Things come at you very, very quickly at high speed, and while you can get more or less accustomed to it, the roads themselves aren't built with enough long, straight stretches for those speeds. Many ordinary curves (or intersections!) become scary/blind at those speeds. My high speed runs were done on highway 61 in the Mississippi delta of northern Missouri -- the road elevated slightly over the surrounding farm land, which wasn't growing anything more than 3 ft high. Long, straight stretches of no traffic, no obstructions and noplace for things to hide.

And hiding things is what scares me the most -- I had a deer jump out at me about 25 miles south of Washburn, WI one fall. Its front hooves landed 3 ft laterally from my handlebars. Had it jumped about 25 ms sooner, I would have caught it as it bounded off its back hooves. I literally pulled over to piss I was so scared.

Anyway, with all the shit on the roads, it's really hard to maintain high speeds. I find about 90 on the interstate is all you can do, and that's if there's no traffic.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[hotbutteredhtml]

I disagree...it's not the speed that kills motorcycle riders...it's the sudden deceleration.

2 biggest killers of motorcycle riders are...

[hackhound]

either:

1) The sudden stop

or

2) Prolonged rolling, sliding or cartwheeling on the ground.

Well, if it runs under Windows...

[grand1971]

...it could bring new meanings to the expression "blue screen of death".

all fine and dandy...

[Anonymous Coward]

but do you really think it will catch on in a country where redneck rider thinks its his god given right to NOT where a helmet? where is he gonna put it? tie it into whats left of his hair that "blows in the wind"?

oh i know. tuck it into a fold of fat instead. since redneck riders don't wear gear at all, the gps will still work.....

yes, this is a statement on how idiotic american riders are for not wearing helmets or other protective gear when riding.

yes, i ride. and hell yes i wear a helmet and full leathers. and no i am not american.

Corvette has had this for years . . .

[PeeAitchPee]

It's not a bike, but the concept is the same. The C5s (fifth generation Corvettes) have had an optional Head Up Display since '99 I believe, showing Speedometer, Tach, "Performance Shift" indicator (flashes indicating the optimal shift points and useful, for example, when running 1/4 miles), and other selectable info such as oil pressure, fuel, etc. (Check out http://www.chevroleteurope.com/corvette/english/co rvette/comfort/en_xx_head_up.htm ) The image works equally well in the daytime as well as nighttime, and has adjustable brightness and position controls. I've used it for about three years and have a hard time adjusting to vehicles without it. You really do keep your eyes on the road, and realize that it is a "long" way from instrument cluster to windshield for your eyes.

Great. But as a motorcyclist, I want...

[csoto]

a device that keeps the idiot cagers' heads out of their asses!

Which is more worrying?

[Smilodon]

As a motorcyclist myself, I'm not sure which is more worrying. The sad comments by the computer-potato set, who have no clue about risk and reward outside of the virtual world; or, the others here who ride, but seem to have a rather narrow view of the motorcycling experience.

As has been mentioned many times, alcohol is a major cause of motorcycle accidents, and a major source of fatalities. This is no different than automobiles. Perhaps the car or truck driver will "get away with it" a little more often because they can stumble home with a few dents on their Hummer, rather than laying on the side of the road with a broken leg (or worse). Motorcycles do require more attention and fitness of mind and body to ride safely than do automobiles.

Sportbikes are better motorcycles for road use. They handle, stop and accelerate (often a safety feature) better than nearly any vehicle on the road. They are not inherently more dangerous than other types of bikes. Most bikes, even mundane ones, will out accelerate a car and exceed 100 miles per hour. This power always carries responsibility.

As far as "image" goes, one could argue that cruisers with their "biker lifestyle" baggage (no helmets, drinking, thong-wearing passengers, older RUB riders) contribute more to accident statistics and injury with their habits. Or the big tourers with their generally older riders and heavy weights, overloading and high-mileage skew the statistics. Not to mention off-road bikes and the "evil" ATV!

But I've owned or ridden all of these, so I don't plan to throw any stones. They all provide a quality of life that few inanimate objects do. If I die doing this (and I don't try or plan to), so be it. What "wonderful" way will you check out? None of them sound too good to me (ok, I can think of a few that might not be too bad).

If this "padded cell" mentality is Darwinism in action, I'm sure good old mother nature will come along and nip that limb of the tree in the bud. I don't think people that work up a sweat reformatting a hard drive are the pinnacle of natural selection.

Don't like the ER folks slagging-off bikers? Don't give them your organs!

Open your minds a little folks! Or is this the eventual attitude of any group of zelots?

Re:Same speed? Yer all wrong!

[OldCrasher]

In the great scheme of things if the rider were a board I would agree, but the rider is not a board, they are quite flexible. Certainly some parts of the body reach the ground with mathmatical precision, but other parts are lain there at whatever speed, or with whatever skill, the sentient being in the riding suite can manage.

One attempts to lay ones head slowly on the road if at all possible. Having trashed a few helmets with grazes while crashing at 50-60mph (crashed several times) I can assure you that helmets planted on the ground at these speeds will not survive intact, only human intervention, to bend ones spine, ameliorates the impact.

The worst thing you can do...

[pixelphsr]

is something that the people around you aren't expecting. If there is a traffic signal that says stop, the other drivers are expecting you to stop. If you don't stop, I wouldn't expect them to feel bad about running you over. Of course, that implies that they are paying attention to the traffic and not jabbering away on their cellphone, stuffing their face with a Big Mac, applying make-up, etc. However, this sums up the counter-point... Here lies the body of Old John Jay He died maintaining his right of way He was perfectly right as he plodded along But he's just as dead as if he was wrong!

Re:The worst thing you can do...

[Bryan Ischo]

I think you missed the part where he said that he trusts his own judgement over other drivers. And I'm sure that he factors what other drivers expect into his judgement.

I tend to agree with the grandparent post, I would rather use my judgement than obey marked traffic signals when I think it is safer for me.

I've tried this thing

[Erston]

The manufactuer had a booth at the Seattle Bike Show last weekend with a demo "box" - basically a video screen showing the road and a helmet with the HUD system attached. The result is very neat: the thing is so close to your vision that your eyes pick up the information and display it "over" your normal field of vision. Within a few seconds, I wasn't looking "at" the information but at the "road" of the video. I could still see what gear, rpm and speed was being projected without refocusing. That being said, I didn't care for it: It is an external mounted display that I know I would lose or damage. If helmets came with the system built in, I would consider it, but...

- Erston

Displays for HUDs

[nmg196]

If I wanted to make a HUD for say, a car, what are the options for actually making the screen? Can you get transparent displays, or is reflecting a TFT screen of the windshield bright enough to see during daylight?

How do the HUDs in fighter planes work?

Re:Displays for HUDs

[cr0sh]

You are likely going to want a VFD - these will be the only thing bright enough to do the job, especially in daylight.

Re:Helmet?

[errxn]

No kidding! I live in TX, where there is not a helmet law and you see these morons riding around without 'em all the time. That ranks right near the top of my "Idiots Who Are Just Asking For It" list.

Now some of the 80's Movies are possible!

[tSade]

With head-up display, it is only a short step to missile targeting, built-in radar mapping, and video phones while moving at high speeds. Now, as long as the movie doesn't spent half of it showing someone on a television explaining how to install the weapon systems on the bike. Or, the universal power supply being the innards to a computer (or at least it looks like one).

Riding is MORE work than flying a jet....

[FunkDaddy]

I've read an article in which a fighter pilot says he has to work harder riding the bike than flying the jet. Makes sense to me. In the sky you have 3 dimensions of travel to escape anything in your way. On a bike you have on 2 dimensions. Plus there's a lot less going on in the sky at most times than when riding (except for maybe a dog fight or SAM attack :) Anytime I ride I can't think about anything else other than riding. Cagers not paying attention, potholes, wet leaves, animals, and a myriad of other things always have my 100% attention. I think this would be only a moderate help to motorcyclists, as I doubt only a smal percentage accidents have been caused by someone looking down at the speedo.

Reading / Reciting Poems to Women

[colmore]

Offtopic.

Seriously, does anyone do this? I don't think I could make it through half a stanza without cracking up.

In an interview, Stephen Merrit, probably the best love song penner around these days, was asked if he ever gazed into a lover's eyes and sang a song or read a poem and his response was:

"Are you fucking kidding me?"

Re:Reading / Reciting Poems to Women

[pbug]

Yo Reading me poetry as gotten me ass and dates before

Re:This was previously

[Anonymous Coward]

the %00 goes BEFORE the %01.....sheesh....kids these days...

bad idea.

[El Camino SS]

How about designing a display mounted on the motorcycle instead? We're familiar and comfortable with gauges already. This would reduce distraction, and increase safety.


And that said super-duper motorcycle would be out on the street about .6 nanoseconds unattended before being promptly stolen.

You can take your helmet in with you to dinner, or when shopping.

Totally out of line.

[jbeamon]

"I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident."

CowboyNeal, I know you own the page and you can write whatever you want, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. This is about as charming as a dog pile, and it makes less sense. First, the head would impact the ground at approximately the same speed that the bike was moving at the time of the accident. Second, cyclists who've had state-endorsed safety training or any degree of experience on the road know better than to refer to a crash as an "accident". They're not "accidents" because they're avoidable by smart riders who pay attention to their surroundings. Last, cyclists are more focused on the road than on their cell phones and their breakfast and their necktie/makeup/hair. You've demonstrated an impressive degree of narrow-minded dipstickery today. Congratulations.

more details please

[Anonymous Coward]

how did you manage to t-bone the car? whose fault was it?

Re:more details please

[Anti_Climax]

I was riding in the innermost lane and this woman pulled across the main street I was on, from a side street. She was cited for failure to yeild right of way.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[good soldier svejk]

Nomad trash.

Mod Parent up!

[TamMan2000]

Firstly the grandparent was wrong, and second... The AC did a very good job of explaning why...

Re:Mod Parent up!

[silicon not in the v]

Yes, the AC gave a very good correction. I wish he had posted with a username, so he could have started with a higher rating on his post. I'm afraid his correct explanation is not going to be noticed, while the incorrect original (ridier accelerates!) is already modded INFORMATIVE--unfortunate.

Re:Mod Parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks mate...I didn't post with a username because I haven't created an account yet. =) But you are welcome to repost my explanation with your account and hope others see it.

-A. Coward

alcohol and not taking a class = biggest risk

[johnpaul191]

when i too the motorcycle safety class (it's free in PA to state residents) the statistics they gave us basically said a huge majority of the accidents involved alcohol, and a large number were riders that never took a safety course and learned on their own.

i had ridden minibikes as a kid, but took the course before buying my first streetbike (you also get your liscense at the end of the class) and i really think it saved me from a wreck a few times. i live in Philadelphia, and drivers in any city a much more of a hazzard to motorcycles (bicycles too) then they might be out in the country. i would think if i rode with a few drinks in me i would not have the reaction times needed to evade a potential wreck. motorcycles in general can outrun, outbrake and outsteer most any car. the massive increase in control kind of helps balance out the fact that cars never notice you.

those statistics mostly apply for 16-40 year olds i guess...
i know older riders are the ones making motorcycles accidents on the rise, older guys with a decent amount of money to drop on a bigger bike and they just are not as young as they used to be. younger people generally start on smaller bikes and upgrade when/if they can afford it.

BACK ON THE MAIN TOPIC, the HUD sounds great.... i am sure i could not justify the expense for a while.

Re:alcohol and not taking a class = biggest risk

[Anonymous Coward]

I started in PA as well. I now live in Colorado, as I have for 15 years. I appreciate being able to make the decision to wear a helmet or not. However, I am also thankful that I was forced to wear a helmet (PA laws) during my formative early years on the street.

My rule of thumb is to wear a helmet whenever I am going to exceed what I would be going on my road bicycle, generally 25MPH. If I am just putting around town on a summer day, it is my choice to helmet-up. As a kid, I wouldn't have used a helmet, most likely, and it could have been disastrous (a few times).

Re:alcohol and not taking a class = biggest risk

[HogriderMike]

First the good news, PA no longer requires helmets (for those with > 2years exp.).

Second, regarding your decision to wear a helmet when traveling in excess of 25 mph, do some research. Helmets only provide protection (for the average rider) for up to a 17 mph impact.

Personally, I only wear helmets for weather protection (outside of state requirements). Got a nice sheepskin/wool lined one for winter, and a full-face for the rain. My neck/spine is too valuable.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[Anonymous Coward]

That surprises you?

As a member of that group on the low end of the age range, and the "or larger" end of the displacement range, I'd say this sounds about right. I got a little motorcycle because I thought they were cool. Then I got a faster one. Then a faster one, then a faster one, and now I'm thinking about a turbocharger.

Also, I think the reason death rates are lower in the US is because so few % of motorcyclists ride hard. I mostly see cruisers thumping around at less than the speed limit.

the usual crap.....

[GuyFawkes]

Yet another "invention" by some idiot who doesn't ride, like airbags for bikers etc etc etc.... A biker does not need ANY instruments to ride, you judge you speed to the road conditions, the actual mph doesn't matter, just "safe" and "smooth" and "controlled" is all that matters. You don't need a bloody revcounter, fuel gauge, selected gear indicator, tyre pressure indicator, inclinometer or any other crap, you can hear and feel everything you need to know, this is the WHOLE POINT of being a biker.... In the real world a speedo has one use and one use only, to make sure you don't get a ticket, particularly here in the UK where councils use speed cameras set at arbitrarily low speeds on good roads and revenue generators, for everything else your brain and your experience tell you everything you need to know about speed. Another thing about this thread, people writing about their local experience and making it sound as though that applies worldwide, it doesn't, alcohol certainly is NOT the major cause of death amongst motorcyclists in the UK... in my own opinion that would be "born again" bikers who sold a 500cc bike years ago when the kids came along and now in later years with increased purchasing powers buy a 1300cc 200mph penis extension, and only discover that they lack sufficient training and experience going into that 60 mph corner at 120..... Similarly helmets, ride here (UK) in winter on motorways and (full face) helmets are beautiful things, they stop your brain from being chilled down to the processing power of a chimpanzee on mogadon... ride in southern europe in summer and no helmet is the only sensible choice, assuming the law allows you to make a sensible choice, which it doesn't. Then we have riders who wear bulletproof kevlar everything and ride around like assholes thinking they are superman, and others who ride around wearing shorts and a tee shirt and sneakers... stupidity, no more and no less. Bikers do not need or want more crap getting on the bike with us, bikers need LESS crap, less distractions, less gizmos, and MORE bonding and feedback between rider and bike in the seat of your pants area. As for me, I'm mid 40's and I've ridden just about everything one time or another, in a lot of places around the world, currently running a 23 year old xs11 special that does everything I ask of it, don't own a car and don't posess a car licence, winter / summer, rain / shine, year in year out and more miles than I can shake a stick at. In all of that time and experience there is ONLY ONE THING that I can think of that is any use, and that is training, not the sort of training that you forget 2 minutes after you pass the exam, but the sort of training that sticks with you and changes how you do things... you just can't have too much of it, and it would be nice is some of the car drivers had some compulsory (2 wheel) training too... ride safe, and don't forget what makes biking fun. freedom. not reading instruments.

Re:the usual crap.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have to say that riding in dirt is the best training you could get to ride a street bike. If you can go into the first turn of a motocross race, with 30 riders all trying to fit into a space that is big enough for 4 riders to go through and you can ride out of it then I think that is a testament to your ability. When riding on dirt there is a lot more to focus on then when you ride on the street and you get to know your bike a lot better.

Re:the usual crap.....

[FL180]

I posted this below, but I think it bears repeating...take the MSF class (if you're in the US). It's good. Oh, and if you can afford it, take some flight training. I'd say that flight training has given me more ability to operate a vehicle than anything else I've ever done...speed control of a vehicle in a fluid medium (air), situational awareness, constantly thinking about navigation, constantly thinking about emergency procedures, etc.

A motorcyclist is not a pilot

[webwench_72]

There is a large difference between a pilot's need for information and a motorcyclist's need for information. A pilot above or in the clouds, over the ocean, or in unfamiliar territory, needs the help of navigational aids to see his track and course, etc. A motorcyclist's immediate track is right in front of him, in the form of a road. A pilot can use things like an attitude indicator and a turn coordinator in when he doesn't have visual reference to the ground; this applies not at all to the motorcyclist, except (arguably, to a limited extent) at night. A pilot's attention in instrument meteorilogical conditions needs to be focused on instruments and gauges, hence the usefulness of a head's up display. A motorcyclist's attention *always* needs to be on the road, he never 'drives with reference to instruments'.

I can perhaps see a use for a HUD of GPS information superimposed on a map, if it can be toggled on and off, adjusted for position and brightness, etc. Me personally, I'm more comfortable with a map in my tank bag, which I can look at when I'm stopped at a light, rather than attempt to read while I'm riding. A speed readout on a HUD has limited value off a racetrack; you can gauge approximate speed based on your speed relative to cars around you and based on the wind noise and resistance you feel. You have no need on a motorbike to concentrate on speed, unlike an airplane, when airspeed during departure, approach and landing is absolutely critical. And anyone off a racetrack who needs a light to tell them when to shift up or down shouldn't be in any manual-shift vehicle on public roads, much less a motorcycle.

IMHO, this sounds like a cool, neat idea, especially to guys who would really like to have fighter-pilot gear, but off the racetrack, it would be far more distracting (read dangerous) than useful.

Whu?

[pantycrickets]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident."

I don't think GPS will help figuring that out at all.

Agree completely

[webwench_72]

A projection of a rear view is a good use that hadn't occurred to me. Aside from that, I see no applicability for a HUD to a motorcyclist.

"Inattentional Blindness"

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amadirectlink.com/magazine/2001/story3s ept.html

About your sig?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that Windows crashes are due to the bluescreen?

How about you stick to something you know more about?

Agreed.

[UncleRage]

I usually don't jump on the "me too" bandwagon, but, this time, I will happily.

Speaking on behalf of no one -- except my own bike loving self, I have to extend a glorious middle finger to you, Cowboy.

Here's an article topic for you:
"Heads up display for the deleriously stupid.

An anonymous reader writes "A RTF Article recently described new technology developed by The Super Technology For U Foundation. This technology is supposedly a first step in the Educating the Insensitive Imbicile Program, aimed at helping people choose their words wisdom and care.

The device, built into thick, black horn rimmed glasses, is "part early warning system and part Pavlovian training", said spokesperson for STFU. By stimulating nerve centers, it is possible to simulate the sensation of a swift kick in the ass at any point that the wearer has engaged in a social faux pas. Over time, it is also able to subjectively train the wearer to avoid voicing their opinion on topics that they clearly should not engage."

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the sphincter control response everytime a certain editor received the "ass kicking sensation" because of spewing his ignorance.

Remember, uninformed opinions are like steaming piles of feces... best to be simply avoided. ----

re: fun data at impact time

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which riders' heads impact the pavement after an accident.

What a pussy. Get a life & leave your computer once in a while.

Most motorcyclists don't look at gauges!

[Mr. White]

Sure, the device is neat, but the only time I look at my gauges is to check the trip meeter/odometer/time.

As riders, we're supposed to pay attention to the road and adjust speed accordingly. Likewise, we already know where we are on the RPM range based on feel.

How about for cars?

[supabeast!]

I've been wanting a HUD in my car since they were first announced in the 1980s, and the damned things are still only available in a few expensive sports cars and some luxury cars. Does anyone know of a third party add-on HUD for cars? I can't imagine that it would be hard to design one, after all, people already sell all sorts of crazy aftermarket guages.

I don't think so

[webwench_72]

As yet another motorcyclist, who I can assure you travels with the flow of traffic and drives extremely conservatively, I've already had the unenviable experiences of having women on cellphones attempt to merge into me, having hothead teenage boys ride at highway speeds about two feet from my ass, etc., none of which was brought about by me, driving along I285 at 70MPH like all the other vehicles on the road. When riding my bike, my attention goes towards defensive driving and having eyes in the back and sides of my head. The interesting thing, though, is that I had the same things happen when I was driving a Miata to work every day. The fact is that a lot of car drivers don't look before they change lanes or turn. If you're smaller than an SUV, they don't see you. If you're lower than a large sedan, forget it. The only difference between your average motorcyclist and your average small-car driver is that the motorcyclist, in an accident with another car, will probably (1) die, and (2) not take anyone else with him. As a non-motorcyclisy, this is actually a benefit for you. So, given your feelings on the dangers presented to you from other drivers of all vehicles, you ought to be lobbying for more motorcycles on the road. You can barrel along on all four wheels, while itinerant squids driving sportsbikes in shorts and flipflops impact into your oversized grill like so many flies.

Useless to Harley Davidson riders...

[IDigUNIX]

...Since they never wear helmets (at least here in Texas where there's no helmet law), then this is useless to them. They'll have to wait until this is shrunk into a pair of cool name brand sun glasses. Or perhaps made of flexible circuits and builtinto a n American flag patterned bandana.

Useless distraction

[bender647]

Speaking as an avid street rider, a licensed roadracer, and weekend motocrosser, this toy is a pretty useless distraction. The gearbox is sequential, so aside from a neutral indicator for parking, who cares what gear number you're in? And my bikes already have a rev indicator that flashes at your face when you need to shift. As for speedometers, on many of my bikes I've already removed them :)

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[TheCarp]

I have to agree. Ive heard tails of people running into new riders who just got their license going out and buying R1s. Absolutly insane. Ive never even ridden an R1 myself but, ive seen the stats. (read: drooled over the stats)

I got myself a yamaha virago 1100 from the 80s for my first bike a couple of years back. It was a bit big but it just looked so nice. Being a big guy, it served me well (theres a few bikes out there that a person over 200 lbs would put over its rated weight limit! Not that ive never ridden any of them without a problem, but still)

Anyway, when I crashed in maryland (down at about 45, sprained my wrist, bike didn't fare so well. Im living proof that motorcycle accidents just arn't necissarily that bad - assuming you know to slide and wear proper gear etc)
However I know a couple of people that went down at about the speed I did recently (why to noobies ride 2 up? dumb) who fared a little worst... bunch of road rash mostly. (give me a simple sprain any day) and a bit banged up from bad landings.

One thing to remember: just about everyone crashes. but its really good if your first couple of crashes are very small and minor. Cuz the first one happens so fast. I remember mine, I grabbed the brake in a full on turn (when I shouldn't have been in full lean - I should have been going slower). I grabbed the brake and next thing I knew I was on the ground.

After a couple of crashes that all changed. BY the time I had my big one, the adreniline was pumping at the moment I sensed I was going down, time slowed, and I had plenty of time to consider every action ("Get legs out from under the bike before the ground", "Land flat", "Slide straight"... these are all actual thoughts I had and things I managed to execute rather flawlessly while falling to the ground at 45 MPH)

Back to my original point though... I got myself a Bandit 600 after that, and for having so much less engine... it has 10 more horsepower and weighs nearly 100 lbs less. It absolutly cooks in comparison. I let one of these noobs take it around the parking lot once (he was actually pretty good for a noob) and he said "You know the main difference between your bike and the ones we practiced on is that I hwas doing 30 (it was quite a good size lot) but your bike was only at 3000 rpms" (I didn't have the heart to tell him that he wasn't even in its power band yet)

Most 600s are much too much bike for most noobs to really be riding around on. They still have way too much to learn... like don't grab the brake.

-Steve

Some other ideas.

[aclarke]

1. Equip your motorcyle with a GPS unit and bluetooth (or something like that). Get manufacturers to add a bit of software to their bluetooth/GPS/LCD-equipped new cars to provide a warning beacon (with direction, distance, etc.) of motorcyclists (and bicyclists too!) nearby them. The problem with this of course is the would-be murderers in their vehicles who for some reason actually TRY to kill you when you're on a motorcycle or bicycle. Yes this happens, for those of you who are good souls and have trouble believing it.

2. Turn carpool lanes into motorcycle-only lanes. I know this sounds crazy and will never happen, but I live in Los Angeles County California, and it rains here like 10 days a year and never snows so it SHOULD be motorbike heaven. The roads are wide and totally clogged with traffic. I had a motorbike in San Diego but here in LA drivers are evil and since by bike broke down I haven't replaced it, but that's OT. If they turned 1 lane one every major freeway into a motorcycle-only lane, and offered tax incentives to ride a motorbike, and mandated safety classes and educated drivers about watching for motorcycles, I think it could go a long way toward solving traffic problems. If even 10% of drivers got a bike and rode it to work, it would help a LOT.

OK I'm off my soapbox.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[Cleon]

I disagree completely. Speed in and of itself is not a problem. A good biker who knows his bike in and out can take the twisties at speeds that would make my stomach churn.

It's the idiots who run out and grab a 200-mph rice burner right after they get their license and think they've got nothing left to learn about riding safely. It's the ones who weave through rush-hour traffic at 90 mph. It's the morons who don't change their riding style when the pavement's wet or icy. It's the idiots who take hairpin curves at 90 and wonder where the hell that car came from.

In every one of those cases, "excessive speed" would be listed as a major factor by the cops, but it's not. That's great for paperwork, but it doesn't tell the story. Speed is not the problem. Riding too fast for conditions and not knowing your bike are what kills.

That, and as the poster above said, alcohol or drugs. People who drink and ride are a Darwin award waiting to happen. I made the mistake of doing this once. Luckily, I got home ok, but nothing scares the living hell out of you like falling asleep at 65 mph. It remains the dumbest thing I've ever done.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree completely. I got a Bandit 600 as a first bike, was told by everybody "oh, you'll outgrow that within a year" 5 years, 17,000 miles later, I'm still riding it. It can outrun almost anything on the road - what more do you need? And my one crash was like yours (although the bike did survive and I was able to limp home): I was wearing full leathers, full face helmet, and walked away shook up but without a scratch...

I have a HUD in my car

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only distracting until the neato factor wears off. After that, you can't live without it. It's actually safer, because it's easier to keep your eyes on the road.

Display for rear view mirror

[Bvardi]

Personally - I'd like a button controlled display that could display an image of whats right behind me. (Mirrors and shoulder checks are still essential, but sometimes with heavy traffic or an idiot in front of you riding too close to the next car and slamming on his brakes at random, you don't have the luxusy to do them as often as you should.)

Speed I usually know by gearing/engine sound to within an acceptible error level (Most riders would know this I imagine, one of the first rules of safety on a bike would be "Know Thy Machine") RPM's I can hear well enough so that I can deal without checking that on the speedo either. So neither of these would be as important as knowing what the cagers around me are doing. (I've been saved several times from being run down by some idiot because of shoulder and mirror checks... I've had people pass me in no drive areas (yellow striped marked areas on the road) coming from right behind me and passing literally within inches - which means they're coming right from where I have a hard time spotting them with mirrors.

A small (one inch square maybe) display in the corner only of a visor displaying an image of whats behind me would be I think a good thing - but I think every safe motorcyclist knows that in traffic the safe speed would be slightly faster or as fast as traffic is going (you want to keep from either continuously passing or being passed, since those are both situations where car drivers tend to not see you or not give you enough room), and if they aren't in traffic they should know within 10kph what speed they are generally at without referring much to the speedo. (I know what speed I'm going from what gear I'm in and how much throttle I'm giving it)

That being said - I might change my mind if I had one of the new maxi-scooters (twistngo type machines) with an automatic clutch - MUCH harder to tell by "feel" exactly what speed you are going at without manual gearing. Still doable, but takes more experience.
(And before anyone says anything about scooters not having much to worry about speeding - keep in mind the new maxi-scoots can have 650cc's on them and are VERY capable of going well above posted limits)

Re:Display for rear view mirror

[deriv0]

I didn't see this post when I posted(it's the next thread), but check out www.reevu.com Looks like a simple, effective solution for what you want. If it's even close to as effective as it seems, I'd get it in a heartbeat.

Re:"Luke, you switched off your targeting computer

[FL180]

Not to mention that the picture shows that the display is up at the top the visor, yet in a fighter, the display is superimposed (mostly) over the center front of the field of view. Meaning, a fighter pilot looks *through* the HUD, not up to the HUD (though it's obviously not the only place he looks).

It's a good concept overall, but in the form that I saw it's really no different than the indicators I already have on my bike. Look up real quick or look down real quick, what's the difference...

Head doesn't hit all that fast

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you failed physics because you don't understand vectors. Assuming the motorcyclist does not strike an object and he only falls to the ground, the head will only be travelling at the same speed as it would if dropped from about 5 feet in the air.

Admittedly, that's not a pleasant notion but it's not 80 miles an hour either.

I have been thrown off a motorcycle numerous times and injuries come from sudden decceleration. Unless you high side and are thrown ten feet in the air, there is not a lot of damage from just falling down (abrasions aside) no matter how fast you are travelling.

Yabbut some of those speeds are pretty horrifying

[wsanders]

I got a ticket on my bike and went to Traffic School with a special class for bike riders. (In most of the US you can "get out" of a ticket this way.) The teacher made us confess at the start of the class how fast we were *relly* going and at least half the class admitted (bragged?) they were tagged for going over 100, some of them in 25, 30, 35 mph speed zones. I was a mere piker at 85 in a 55.

Goddammit Neal

[Anonymous Coward]

You *KNOW* NYT articles have mirrors. Stop submitting unless you can provide a non-reg mirror!!!!

An even better solution? Reevu?

[deriv0]

I haven't seen this in person yet, but I was wondering if any fellow riders have seen anything from Reevu? A good picture of it in action is here. I personally would prefer to know if there's lunatics behind me. On any bike you're familiar with, you're shifting by "feel", as you have a pretty good idea of where you are in the power curve. And for the most part, you know what gear you're in, and it doesn't matter that much if you don't. Glancing at the side mirrors is fine, but there are blind spots, and this rear-view mirror by Reevu seems like it should cover the most important part: immediately behind me at close distance. Anyway, I haven't seen it yet, but it should be available soon, if not already.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

No use here in Florida where we repealed Common Sense and Helmet laws... Maybe a cool ugadget like this will get people to wear them voluntarily.

No, that would never happen...

Want to be safer?

[FL180]

Take the MSF class, it's good. And, if you can afford it, take some flight training. I'd say that flight training has given me more ability to safely operate a vehicle than anything else I've ever done... precise control of a vehicle in a fluid medium (air), situational awareness, constantly thinking about navigation, constantly thinking about emergency procedures, constantly thinking about vehicle performance parameters, etc.

Zippy lane-weaving reckless weasels

[PMuse]

I'll bet some horrifying data could be gathered on the speed with which . . . the motorcyclists were travelling. Forget accidents.

As seen in 1983 movie Time Rider

[Anonymous Coward]

Fred Ward had some techie friend in Silicon Valley throw it together for him

Motorcycle gauges of any type are a distraction

[xenophrak]

I've been riding for 12 years, mostly V-Twin sportbikes, (not the Harley type).

I have come to the conclusion that there are those people that need help to determine what their vehicle is doing, and those that intuit from visceral cues.

The ones that can intuit are at a great advantage since they *never* have to take their eyes off of the road. And, yes, you can judge your velocity without a speedometer with surprising precision when trained correctly.

By simply following the flow of traffic, you are almost guaranteed to not get a speeding ticket, and driving sanely is simpler to recover from. That being said, I still like to get out of town and open it up on the twisties.

BTW, if you don't take an MSF course or two, or if you're going to speed, a track instruction course or 10 then you are a fool.

president Bush announces HUD nominee

[Anonymous Coward]

after on-the-spot guidance from american president, HUD productivity increased 23%. impressed with this success, the president-nominated HUD is Alphonso:

linky here

Yeah

[CrystalFalcon]

The 'busa is quite obviously built for five-foot Japanese people, agree with you there, mate. I'm 6'0 and it's a stretch - I certainly need to hunch to see the instrumentation, that is, when I'm not cruising full throttle; at that point I tend to be lying down behind the windshield (with my boots on the tailpipes; picture of that here to show what I mean), so at that point I actually have the instrumentation in my FoV.

But anyway, my point was that I don't really look much at it. Especially not the speedometer.

I would consider a HUD for a navigation system, though, or something else that I'd otherwise have to look down for (or stop by the roadside). My point is mainly that this HUD displays information I don't consider important enough to be in my field of view.

As for brake fluid (like somebody suggested), I think it's a bit overkill to have a HUD just for catastrophic failure conditions. A fat red blinding light glaring at you from the instrumentation will work just as well, it just needs to be bright enough for your peripheral vision to pick it up. There's a large difference between needing to notice something reddish and looking down to read an instrument in detail.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

How did your picture taker manage to get both you and the background to appear stationary at 180mph to take that picture? Simply amazing photography work there! What was the camera, film, shutter speed, f-stop, etc.?

*:)

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[valkraider]

I associate with over 200 WA based bikers on a mailing list and we've only had 1 fatality in 4 years.

Mmmm. Must be WetLeather.

I recall a statistic that the #1 killer of motorcycle riders was people turning left in front of them. I think it was in my Experienced riders course... I'll have to look around a bit.

That ABT study, however, seemed to state the opposite of what the poster was claiming - in fact, that paper very clearly highlights how LITTLE motorcyclists drink and ride, and how so few of the fatalities are related to that... Did I miss something?

no thanks

[10am-bedtime]

the world is a nice place to see on two wheels. however, i don't need more bugs on the helmet than accumulate naturally, thanks.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[Breakfast Pants]

When getting hit by something hard, do you have a better chance of survival at 50 miles per hour or at 100 miles per hour? Also, a person doing 100 down a road and a person doing 50 down the same exact road; which person has the greater chance of hitting something hard?

NYT -- To the editor

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to the customary (free subscription required) postscript to the link?

Thank You

[Seraphim_72]

More distractions mean more accidents - period. But that is OK. Why, you ask? Cuz I have friends that need organs - keep riding.

Sera

don't need 'em

[Tablizer]

Heads-up? Why, I never had a problem with my heads-down ver.....BONK!

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the unofficial clocked record in Chicago is 142 (or was it 182?) mph (police radar) on Lake Shore Drive, a couple of years ago. Note, the guy who did this was at least an amateur bike racer, iirc, and he did it at about 3:30 am. Except for I-94 I-80 and the other major hwys in Chi-town, this wasn't *too* insane to do.

I always wanted to max out my MR-2T on the I-90 floating bridge (it doesn't have the mid-span hideouts like the 520 bridge), but figured not being able to see a state patrol on the other end watching me zoom along wasn't the smartest thing to do (WA State Patrol has radar spots nearly everywhere. Driving from Chicago to WA this summer (IL, WI, MN, SD, MT, WY, ID,WA), I saw...2 state patrols, driving the other way, until I got to Washington...

How about for Scuba diving?

[David Ishee]

I think a killer application would be for Scuba diving. It would be great to always have an air gage display, depth display, and water temperature display along the edges of your mask area, or push a button to bring them up temporarily.

Any solutions that could be hacked together?

Great-Melon-ball.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, here. You know for a crowd that depends so heavily on what's above the neckline. Some seem to take unecessary risks with it.

Re:Males aged 18-25, on an 800cc or larger motorbi

[TheCarp]

Mine wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't 400 miles from home, on memorial day weekend.

Its true though, I don't need anything more than what I have. Now sure, its not that I don't drool over some of the beefier bikes, but the bandit gets me where I need it to.

I just wish it were a bit more comfortable. I need to bring the bars up a bit to change the seating position

-Steve

Just to reiterate...

[quinkin]

Just to reiterate - The statistics are related to when the "motorcyclist was judged to be at fault".

I think we can all agree that other drivers are the major cause of most (fatal) motorcycle accidents.

Q.