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".
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.
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
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.'"