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."
Yes, it's just projecting a false lane on the ground behind your bike. Basically the bike rider is insisting there's a bike lane where there isn't one, and the hope is that cars will see it and think of it like a real bike lane. In the meantime, the bike is constantly moving... making this just a bunch of flashing red light on the street.
FTA: Originally presented as a losing design competition entry, LightLane has continued onto a path to production thanks to widespread public interest and encouragement.
It's a shit idea, and I SERIOUSLY doubt there's been "widespread public interest and encouragement".
The top speed is slower, as is the average speed outside of rush hour.
But - during morning rush hour it is faster to get from Lyngby Station to Nørreport Station (in Copenhagen) by public transportation and bicycle than it is by car. For the uninitiated that's 11.5 kilometers most of which is highway from one of the larger suburbs of Copenhagen to the busiests place in Denmark as measured by the number of people passsing through it.
Top Gear has done two similar tests that I can recall. One was driving vs running the London marathon route at 10 AM on a tuesday and the runner won by about eight minutes. One of the somewhat silly things in that one in my oppinion was Clarkson stopping to buy a congestion charge thingie in the middle of the race instead of buying one before as most people who live in London would do. But it took him no more than five minutes to do, so he'd still have lost the race.
And the other was (again) during rush hour - bicycle vs boat vs public transport vs car from somewhere in London (can't remember where) to the London City Airport. In that one not only did the bicycle win the race, it was the first time public transport beat the car in any of their challenges. The bike won followed by the boat, then public transport.
Rush hour is a bitch for cars. It's fairly crowded on a bike as well, but with decent bikelanes it's easily managable.
Let's say there is a car coming up directly behind the bike. Assuming this works as it should and for a moment it fools the driver into thinking it's a bike lane, his natural response might be to move to the left (or right in UK) to get off the bike lane. Given that the bike could be anywhere, including in the middle of the road, this could be a head on collision waiting to happen.
Oh, never mind, just found a video of it in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOU563OvpUY No chance of anyone thinking that's a bike lane..
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I don't see why having fancy (but fake) laser-system-bike-lane would be any good. I have seen people driving around with a thin, flimsy reflector which sticks out 30 centimeters (about 1 ft) from the side of the bike. It won't damage cars if they get hit and also won't cause the biker to fall, because it will just fold backwards... but it does show cars to go around the biker. It's a 2 euro solution for the problem we're dealing with here. It does not require batteries. It can easily be built on any bike. It already exists.
In addition, real bike lanes are worth the money. Great experiments (Denmark, Netherlands) show that this really works. Perhaps there is no space in Manhattan, but on 99.9% of the surface of the earth, a 1 meter wide lane really isn't a big issue.
What annoys me and other drivers is that cyclists will obey the law when it suits them.
You might not be aware of this since your powers of reasoning seem lacking, but cyclists are not one giant collective controlled by a hive mind. You know, the asshole who cycles the wrong way down a one way street at night with no lights (only one? lucky you) might be a different person from the one who wants you to obey the law and leave 3 feet. Even crazier, is that they might have never met in their entire existence and aren't in fact in a giant consipracy to piss you off.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The green line lasers used here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOU563OvpUY look like they are in the 1mW to 5mW range type devices. These are eye safe under all conditions as it isn't possible to get all that light focused onto the back of you eye even if you hold it within a few mm of your eyeball. At 1m distance, the power entering your eye will be approx 1/100 of this so there is absolutely zero chance of eye damage from this sort of thing.
Dazzle on the other hand is far more of an issue. It is quite possible that a reflected beam could distract or dazzle a driver for a few seconds. Not something you want to happen.
wot no sig
Bikes do not suck at acceleration. They generally suck at top speed. I'm normally ahead of the cars when we get to the opposite side of an intersection. I can deliver a maximum of ~250 NM of torque(comparable to a cars output), and the bike and me weigh less than a tenth of a car. The problem is that I have trouble delivering more than a single horsepower sustained. So when I reach 30 km/h I'm out of steam.
The very first thing they told me in my defensive driving course is to not let the other vehicles drive your.
In other words, don't let someone force you to take an action you wouldn't have normally or already taken. As for being safe when someone passed you, you are no less safe because of that then when an on coming car passes you going in the other direction.
Now the bicyclist should be on the right side of the road and most roads are three to four feet wider then the largest cars (until you start getting in town with parking on the streets) that would be traveling on it. I think 8 foot or larger lanes for non interstates and 12 foot lanes for interstate traffic. While this may force you into oncoming traffic to pass them, it doesn't leave the oncoming traffic without an option to avoid a collusion.
I have a bunch of Amish where I live. It's worse then the bikes, the bikes generally do 20-30 MPG going down the road. Try coming up on a horse and buggy that's 4 or so foot wide and doing 3-5 mph with just a candle shoved into a box with colored red lens in the read and a clear lens in front. You learn really fast to not drive past your vision, be patient, and to wait for the proper times to pass.
Just for the record, Edlll is an ignorant fuckwit who's oblivious to the law of the land.
In the grandparent he said,
I don't know where you live, but a bicyclist does not have the RIGHT to use any part of the road UNLESS there is a bike lane.
In the parent he said,
I live in the U.S. Where I am, unless there is a bike lane, you are not allowed to be in lanes designated for motorists.
It is clear that Edlll believes that cyclists do not have the right to use a road unless there is a bike lane.
In the UK this certainly isn't true. I'm not familiar with US traffic law so I thought I'd look it up,
New Jersey
39:4-14.1 Rights and Duties of Persons on Bicycles. Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway is granted all the rights and subject to all of the duties of the motor vehicle driver.
Montana
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable except when: (a) overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction; (b) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or (c) necessary to avoid a condition that makes it unsafe to continue along the right side of the roadway, including but not limited to a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Ohio
A motorist must: â Share the road with bicycles. The bicyclist has the same right to use the public road as any other driver, except freeways.
California
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.
So in 4/4 states we fine three explicitly grant the cyclist the full rights and responsibilities of a motorist, and the fourth state clearly grants the right to use the roadway but adds some restrictions about not impeding traffic where possible.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Here in Belgium, where cycling is a lot more popular than in the US, nearly every bike has a generator on it, it makes it a little harder to bike but it really isn't a big difference, nobody has any trouble biking with a generator on, and they deliver a very bright and even light all the time. And you never need to worry about running out of batteries.
The LAW states that the bike has a right to the whole lane from the INSIDE of the white line to the yellow line.
Many states have laws that compel cyclists to keep as far right WITHIN THE LANE as safely practicable, but they are explicitly NOT compelled to ride on the shoulder (although it is permitted) AND they have a right to move leftward for safety purposes.
The law compels YOU, as a driver of a faster and heavier vehicle, to be aware of slower traffic and conduct yourself accordingly. YOU are the jackass, not the cyclists.
Do you honk and swear at tractors, funerals, and Amish buggies too?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
First of all, let me just say that it's a good fucking thing that your wife is the lawyer and not you; perhaps SHE understands that federal law is just one layer, and there are others on top of it. If you tried to apply these laws in California, you would fail. My responses are California-centric:
cyclists can ride as 'close as practicable from the side of the road', meaning they do NOT have to ride within the boundary of the shoulder, especially if there is debris on the far side.
-motorists MUST obey all road laws when dealing with cyclists, including passing laws. It is against the law to pass cyclists with a solid yellow 'no pass' line on their side, just as it is when passing a car. Furthermore, motorists must use the same discretion when passing cyclists, say on a hill or around a curve, as they would when passing another automobile.
And yet, it is still illegal for a bicyclist to ride in a fashion such that they create a road hazard, and they must pull over to permit passing if five or more vehicles stack up behind them, regardless of the speed at which they travel. (Same for cars and bicycles)
-cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate
Just like motorcycles, except that you need to get out of my fucking way when it's possible.
cyclists MAY take up an entire lane if they deem the situation to be potentially hazardous to them, eg when going over a hill. If the cyclists suspects that their well being will be endangered by a driver wanting to pass them from behind while going over a hill or around a curve, they can effectively stop this from happening by taking up the lane. This is a tricky predicament because the aggressive driver behind you may want to pass anyway
It's also a tricky predicament because if you're going too slow up the middle of the lane, you're creating an unsafe situation, which is illegal even when your action is otherwise permitted by law.
cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights.
Not in California.
at night, bikes MUST have both front and rear lights, clearly visible to the driver, as well as side reflectors, and preferably reflective clothing.
In California, you need a front light and rear reflector, that's it.
in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway.
Which is why most of what you said is nonsense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"