Slashdot Mirror
Bike Projector Makes Lane For Rider
hh4m writes "Whether it's San Francisco, New York, or any bicyclistic city in between, you're destined to witness biker after biker dancing with danger, especially at night when visibility is uncomfortably low. Alex Tee and Evan Gant's LightLane device was recently just a concept but is soon to enter reality as a much-needed visual declaration of personal biking space. With a dire shortage of dedicated lanes, LightLane provides urban cyclists with a solution that adapts to them and any route they make take. The compact projector mounts easily to the rear of a bike frame and projects a bike lane-inspired linear pattern that provides great visibility and a familiarity that helps catch a driver's attention."
That's the purpose. So Mr. car driver, you're afraid of my bike-frame-mounted piece of laser awesomeness? Then GET SOME DISTANCE OFF ME.
Or in other words, if you're blind enough to ignore me on the road, I'll make sure you stay blind for good. Besides the lane projected in the image is red, and everyone knows in the animal world red means "don't mess with me".
I live in California, where there are shitloads of annoying bikers riding on the road. They're most often an extreme hazard.
Half of them ride against the flow of traffic, either because they're illegal immigrants who don't comprehend the laws (but understand the basic concept that "bikes on streets == ok"), because they're hoodie-wearing gangsta poseurs who want to rebel, or because they're just plain stupid.
Of the remainder that does it correctly, half of those wear dark black clothes at night and don't equip their bikes with lights.
Of those who do it perfectly, 100% are still a hazard. They weave back and forth (since their position is determined on balance rather than precise control) and the "bike lane" space is frequently blocked by pulled-over or parked cars.
Get the fucking bikes off the road. If you want to save the environment, buy roller skates and hit the sidewalk. There is no good justification for bikes to share the same space as automobiles. I honestly can't believe it's legal at all. May as well let joggers run on the road.
"Gee officer, the bicyclist pulled out this device, blinded me, and the next thing, he was decorating my bumper."
Juries would find for the motorist, and charge the bicyclist with a criminal charge of reckless endangerment, perhaps assault with a deadly weapon.
Bicyclists are a scourge on the roads. For each single guy biking, the oil and gas used by other motorists to pass, evade, get stuck at stoplights, and make up for poor riders more than compensates for the people not using cars. Some bicyclist gets whacked because they blow a light or stop sign, and the whole community comes out in the stupid critical masses to jam up roads in an act of moronic revenge.
This isn't to say bikes are OK, but cities spend millions for dedicated bike trails and bike lanes for them. However, even the best paved bike roads are usually not good enough for some, so you will get the blokes jamming up the highway and playing chicken, hoping that they get struck by someone unwary or distracted so they can win the lawsuit lottery.
Until you start paying rego, compulsary third party insurance and obeying the road rules you don't have any moral right to make use of the road.
Also one person holding up 10, 20 or 100 others while freeloading on the road that the others are paying for isn't exactly the way to make friends.
Or in other words, move the fuck over.
And I ask you this, would it bother you if I ride my unregistered dirt bike, horse or skateboard in the "bike lane" slowing you down? Goddamned right it would, you pricks are as aggressive as, it even shows in your attitude in internet postings.
Ultimately I don't care if you have to ride in the gutter because you want to do 20k in a 80k zone as long as you don't crash into me.
I ride three or four times a week and know my place when I hit the road, that is I'm living on borrowed time at everybody elses expense, patience and convenience riding my bike on a piece of government infrastructure that was not designed for nor payed for by push bike riders. When your in that position it's best to at least be a little coy about it, strangely there's a type of person who thinks that they're somehow entitled to freeload and intentionally piss everyone else off just because they feel like it.
Attention whores generally.
Your ex-gf dumped you for a cyclist with enough energy to go all night didn't she...
sucks to be you dude...
It's a difference in scale. A 10-20% slowdown from a car in front of me going slow is annoying, and 80% slowdown because of some douchebag on a bike who won't get over to the side is fucking unacceptable, especially when I've got somewhere I need to be, like work.
and.... you're the jerk that causes accidents. You have a baseless sense of entitlement. The road IS for CARS. When there is a BIKE LANE, it is for BOTH CARS and BIKES.
Your complaint about "safe room to pass" completely, and in accordance with your poor attitude, ignores the fact that those roads were not designed to have both a car and a bike in that space. If it were, after all, there might be a bike lane.
While you're "pissing off" the cars behind you that have to slow down do you realize that by doing so you are creating an environment where it is more likely for accidents to occur? I bet not.
Bicyclists like you wear shirts, "Share the road" and whatnot, and force yourself upon the rest of us on the road and damnit all, if we just don't have to bow down and kiss your asses. It's either that, or KILL YOU. Which nobody with a car really wants to do, being human you know.
So how are you any different than a terrorist? You're not.
Get over yourself. Go where there are bike lanes, and yield as much as possible to cars where there are not, but "ultimately" respect that you don't have a right to be there.
You're fairly stupid too. Do you realize that you are directly, and petulantly, confronting people in multi-ton objects that can move faster and with more force than you, and have considerably more safety features (and the ability to withstand crashes) than you do? That's not flaming, but an honest assesment of your behavior. But, that's okay. Be right. DEAD right.
If you're upset that you don't have enough bike lanes where you are then get together and form a group. Press your local politicians to add access for bicyclists. That maybe if it was much safer for all of you, that more people would choose it. More of a green solution and get's people exercise. Heck, even go militant and start painting bike lanes yourself.
Just stop foolishly engaging in a war with cars that you just can't possibly win. It's statistics and physics. The saddest part is that you might take somebody's else's life along with your own with your piss poor attitude.
Of course this got modded flamebait, but in reality is quite insightful.
It may not be popular (and I will probably get modded down), but there is a group of bicyclists that are not different than PETA and other such organizations. Extremely obnoxious, a huge sense of entitlement, and absolutely convinced that they must bend the motoring world to their "will".
It does seem that nothing is too good for the small subset of avid bicyclists that have taken it upon themselves to grant them the authority to go wherever they please on the roads designed for cars only and that motorists actually deserve whatever nuisance is created by their actions.
It's the "share the road" mentality that really gets to me. If a bike is really meant to be there, then there should be a bike lane that motorists can see. If I see a bike lane I make DAMN SURE that I give enough room and stay away from it. It's NOT sharing the road when there is a bike lane, it's called FOLLOWING THE RULES.
How does "share the road" apply to a winding path through the mountains that really only supports two lanes of traffic? It's dangerous enough for the motorists, but add a bicycle to it? Now I am forced to almost be in the oncoming traffic lane while passing this bike ON A BLIND CURVE? What if the oncoming traffic is a little to close to my lane? We get to trade paint and lose our mirrors? Why does this person on a bicycle have the right to put us all at risk? Why does he/she get to slow us all down to the bikes speed? If we were okay with getting to our destination at his/her speed, maybe we would be on a bike instead.
I'm all for having more bike lanes, and will happily pay my taxes to make it happen. I just want safety above all else for everybody involved. This "war" between this group of bicyclists and motorists is foolish at best. It's not about "winning", but the person on the bike is most assuredly going to "lose" the argument every single time.
Stick to the bike lanes guys. Please. I definitely don't want to hurt you, and I am offended that you think you can put me at risk any time you please.
It's not self-centric. It's the law where I live and how the roads were designed in the first place. You conveniently ignore the "designed" part. The engineers responsible never considered walkers, or bicycles, or tractors for that matter. Their considerations were vehicles doing assumed ranges of speed that these other forms of transportation cannot do.
It's not about sharing either, or just accepting the reality that I MUST deal with these much much slower forms of transportation. It's about the increased danger to all concerned, and that is most certainly not a self-centric viewpoint. If I was wholly concerned with small delays and an inconvenience, I might agree with you, but I am not. Your inclusion of the walkers is ludicrous. That is WHAT SIDEWALKS are for and crossing points. A walker is much much less dangerous than a bike since they require far less space and are most certainly NOT going to be in the middle of a country road, or any other road for that matter. Competent walkers and runners also go against traffic, not with it. That way they can get closer to the side of the road when they see a car coming to close.
It's not about competency either. In most cases I can change lanes on a 4 lane road and simply avoid the bicyclist, whether he is right or wrong. If giving enough reaction time and braking distance I can deal with a bicyclist in the middle of the road, or too much in my lane, if I am doing the speed limit.
My point, is that you and many others, are simply wrong about the rights for bicycles (and certainly walkers) to be on roads purely designed for motorists. I know, I checked, I promise. My assertion that they unnecessarily create a dangerous environment is valid, whether or not they even have a right to be there.
When they don't have that right (just assume for the sake of argument), it is "condemnable" for them to increase the danger for the rest of us motorists simply to enjoy being on those roads.
Many of you want to vilify me, and make claims that I am self-centered and "hate" bicyclists since they slow me down and thereby inconvenience me. My annoyance further exacerbates my self-centric view by denying them their right to be there and failing to share the road with them in harmony.
Nothing can be further from the truth and I knew that my position would "go against the grain" and be unpopular (the mods show that already). However, my points are very valid.
1) Bicyclists don't have a right to be on the road where I live unless there are bike lanes.
2) Regardless of the legality of being on a road without bike lanes, the danger is greatly increased with bicyclists that choose to occupy traffic lanes, partially or otherwise.
3) The danger is not increased by my possible actions, or lack thereof, but by other motorists on the road. That is not about right or wrong either, just the reality we all have to deal with.
That's just shortsighted. If the money needs to be spent, then just spend the money. Eliminating the dangers and even creating a whole bike path through some of the problem areas would greatly increase the safety for all concerned. The roads that are the problem, need to have the bicyclists REMOVED and put ELSEWHERE. The only other option is to allocate them the space required to make it SAFE.
Now how is that being self-centered? I am willing to spend my tax dollars creating them their paths, and making the bike lanes. If I am willing to do that, then they need to stay the *$*%* off roads not designed for them and stop making it unsafe for me to drive around them.
As for your apparent claims of government waste, give me a break. The government has wasted nearly 2 trillion
I did not mean being directly in the oncoming traffic lane. Just getting real damn close to that lane to be as far away as possible from the guy on the bike to make it as safe as possible for him. If he was really directly in the middle of the lane, then I would just be fucked. I would have to wait till I had enough visibility to safely pass him, with my hand on the horn the entire time. Some people might find that obnoxious, but if he really does not have a right to be in my lane (let's just assume that) then putting me in that kind of danger and being in a traffic lane is cause enough to get the horn.
Respect should be earned. Why should I respect people who ignore stop lights, treat the pavement and road as interchangeable, stick to the middle of the main road when there is an empty bus lane next to them, ride up the inside of stationary traffic and then wonder when they get squeezed, turn right without looking behind them, ride without lights, or with stupid flashing lights which are NOT legal* in the UK, and without minute 1 of any training. With no insurance, no licence, no official inspection of their machine they are pretty much free to do what they want, and they do.
* Flashing rear lights can be used as supplementary lights, but there is a legal requirement for a FIXED red light to be shown at the rear of the vehicle. The same regulation calls for a FIXED white light at the front of the vehicle. Fixed means not flashing.
There is also a legal requirement for mudguards, rear reflectors, a bell or horn, and adequate brakes on both wheels. I would say 90% of bikes in the UK do not meet these requirements. Blame the mountain bike craze for that. They were sold as off-road vehicles and have infested the roads as well. Personally I don't see the point of having 21 gears when I used to do perfectly well with 5. Just takes a bit more effort that's all. Oh, but we don't actually want to work hard when we get fit, do we.
It's novel, and I bet there *has* been widespread interest and encouragement - I've seen this discussed and sent around (with positive sentiment) many times over recent months.
It's a stupid idea because it's illegal. You're not permitted to drive around with shit like this operating on your vehicle, and a bicycle is considered to be one of those. It will make you more visible, but it's still going to distract people and thus make the road more dangerous, not safer, for anyone.
I think it's ridiculous that we have cars everywhere, and not bicycles and golf carts or something. We should replace cars with subcompacts at the LARGEST (Golf carts become grocery getters; subcompacts and Ks become luxury vehicles, heh) and replace interstates with trains onto which these tiny cars can be trivially loaded. With that said, putting some lasers on your bike is only going to get you killed faster.
It sucks to have to move if you don't like how your town treats you, but that's precisely what you should do, because otherwise nobody gets the hint. Otherwise, if there's enough of you to be statistically significant, why don't you and the other bicyclists in your area get together, and make a political difference? Get a cyclist on city council or something, and make a change. Don't just put some stupid lights on your bicycle and expect it to help when you're riding up the middle of my fucking lane.
Coming from Santa Cruz, CA and living in Lake County I have the opportunity to see dipshit cyclists act like dipshits all day, so my bicyclist sympathy-o-meter is pretty damned low. When I was a teenager riding around Santa Cruz, I never had the problems I heard those spandex-wearing fruits complain about, because I am capable of staying out of the fucking road. When I go up the ice cream grade and there's some road biker with his logoed arse bouncing in the middle of my lane on the uphill, I just push the pedal down real hard so they can hear the turbo howling. And THERE you have the option to ride a mountain bike and ride trails practically everywhere instead of sucking exhaust, but I guess that would make too much sense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yeah... I know it's just easy to assume I am a frustrated car driver and that the laws really do support cyclists in my city. That would be easier than actually responding to my arguments wouldn't?
I know it's hard. Because, if I am right about the laws in my area, then cyclists really don't have any rights to be on the road, and there is no "sharing". The danger they represent on roads without bike lanes is unacceptable and unfair to the rest of us motorists and they are not legally entitled to place us in danger.
You see, that is really where I am coming from. A place of reason and rationality. That regardless of laws, there is a much greater danger sharing the roads with bicycles when they were not designed for it.
But that's okay. Ignore that argument, like many others have , and just try to focus on the baseless fact that I am self-centered, and simply a frustrated driver unwilling to be "play nice" with others since it might take me 3 more minutes to get to work.