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."
Lasers? We're worried enough about people shining them at airplanes on purpose. Now we'd have to worry about one straying off the road and hitting a driver in the eye who would then likely cause an accident. Good intentions, possibly rethink the implimentation.
-]Phreak Out[-
If that thing's using lasers instead of just cheapo LEDs with something restricting the beam I REALLY don't want to be near it when it hits something reflective. I still cringe when I think about the time my friend tried to use his laser pointer in a rainstorm.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
It doesn't say anywhere I can find, but does the device just "paint" a lane with you always in the center, or does it try to detect a curb and give you a steady guide so you don't drift out into traffic? I'm guessing the former, which makes me wonder how exactly this is better than a head and tail light.
Oh, was that my outside voice?
This is using green lasers and the picture shows it with red? Okay, that's silly in itself, but more importantly, whenever it hits a puddle, any other reflective surface or god forbid is used in the rain, isn't EVERYONE GOING TO GO BLIND INCLUDING THE BICYCLIST?
Ultimately, I don't care if you're pissed off that you have to slow down to 35k in a 50k zone as long as you don't crash into me.
and that's the attitude that causes such ire amongst drivers. Lemme requote what the important bits are.
Ultimately, I don't care
And here's why you should revise the attitude
as long as you don't crash into me.
Cars drive away from a bike collision with nasty tickets (court dates, possible criminal charges), scratches, maybe some body damage. But the cars (and their occupants) drive away. Bikes don't drive away, bikers don't walk away, or possibly walk again, ever.
Cars always win, show some respect and don't be the jerk holding up 40 cars simply because you can't be arsed to pull over to the side and let people pass.
So, when the speed limit is 30km/h and I am traveling at 36km/h, is that not sufficient? I can burst up to about 50 km/h - the limit in most residential areas.
You should try biking to work every now and then. You sound tense.
Anyway, I agree - some cyclists are douches. So are some drivers.
I bike to work, and I have for years. It's faster for me to ride than to drive, and that includes a shower and change when I get there. (I'm an Engineer, and I wear slacks and a dress shirt.) My view is that any time a car has to pass me or slow down for me then I have failed. I'm also of the view that the lanes are just paint and they don't magically protect you against a driver who - statistically speaking - has a 20% chance of impairment. I stick to back roads and trails whenever it is physically possible. When I am on a major road, I will either go onto the sidewalk if it is possible (risking a $125 traffic ticket for doing so) or I will take the entire lane as I am permitted and required to do so by law.
From personal experience, I know that if I am close to the curb, the driver passing me (and again, I have failed) will try to stay inside the lane. If they think there's a chance that they can pass without going into the other lane, then they will. If I come out about 1 metre (3 feet), then they will pass safely. I have no illusions about how I would fare in an car-involved accident. Bikes represent 1% of all traffic, but 2% of all fatalities.
However, I simply can't ride on the sidewalk if it is populated. I generally sustain 30 km/h, and it's just not feasible for me to navigate around the pedestrians. You know those people who walk into the pedestrian crossings without looking? Where do you think they are when they aren't on the road? Yep, the sidewalk.
But these points are mostly trivial - a painted line won't protect you. Add some distance, say 100m. Throw in some trees, a nice berm, maybe a house or retail setting between you and the traffic, and now you're talking. I plan my routes so that I'm avoiding traffic. There's a trail by my house that takes me downtown. I take that to work.
If someone is riding without lights at night and/or without lights, I can't imagine that you'd face charges. One guy here killed a cyclist who was drunk, no lights, no helmet, and wearing dark clothes at night. He was only charged with "leaving the scene". (Justifiably so)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I love riding bikes and skateboarding but I stay the fuck off the goddamn road. I've rode on the sidewalk my entire life and I've never been cited, even as cops drove right by.
It's illegal for a reason, you know. Speaking as an experienced cyclist (I've biked more in a summer than many people drive), I can tell you that sidewalks are often more dangerous than the roads. Drivers entering and leaving the road are not watching for bikes (when's the last time you looked more than 5 feet down a sidewalk when crossing it at a driveway?). Pedestrians move unpredictably. Even worse, many of them are walking dogs, which have a tendency to chase bikes (which is usually a losing proposition for the dog). Riding on the sidewalk is unsafe for bikers, and it's unsafe for walkers.
I agree that many bicyclists need to improve their skills. I have a headlight and taillight, wear light-colored clothing, signal turns, and share the road with cars; many others do not. By all means, stay pissed as hell at the bikers that do stupid things - they annoy me too. But bicycles have just as much right to the road as cars do.
I live in a very rural area where there are no bike lanes and cyclists tend to ride on the road very often. The bikers who live around here tend to ride on the white line, one abreast. Motorists give them room and slow down to pass, since there's little traffic usually and the roads are wide enough for a bike and a car to ride side by side. There's no problem with this setup. Until, of course, there's a bike race and hundreds of city dwellers descend on the town. The city cyclists get out there like there's something to prove, riding 4 feet out into the lane, often 2 abreast for no reason. The people here have no desire to hit a cyclist and aren't used to this asshole road-blocking behavior. I haven't seen any bikers get hurt, but I HAVE seen more than one car wrecked or off the road while trying to pass a cyclist who keeps drifting farther and farther left while oncoming traffic keeps whipping by around blind corners. And the they try to brush it off like they had nothing to do with it. Oh, like a goddamned rolling roadblock ignoring your horn and shouts for 2 miles wouldn't cause you to make some less than ideal choices.
The road is big enough if both parties just share. The real problem here is self-righteous assholes, not cyclists or motorists.
Until you start paying taxes and obeying the road rules you don't have any moral right to make use of the road.
Fixed that for you. Insurance doesn't pay for roads.
Actually, roads are for cyclists as well, except as otherwise explicitly posted.
Share the road. It's not going to kill you. Not sharing the road kills cyclists. These are real lives -- this is not a game.
So ... you want them to break traffic laws, just so you don't have to worry about them?
Interesting. Why don't you just use the sidewalk yourself? It's easier to do in a car (people WILL move out of your way, and if not you're driving a ton of steel - just run them over) AND you'll get to your destination much quicker. You don't even have to worry about rush hour.
You might want to get an old banger for the trip though. You might end up with quite a few dents in the car, and it will probably need to be washed daily. But think of the time you'll save.
So where do *push bikes* get this "right" from?
It's the law. Legally, a bicyclist has all the rights AND all the responsibilities of any other vehicle. That means that you must give me 3 feet of clearance when passing. It also means that I must give you 3 feet of clearance when passing (so none of that darting down the middle of two lanes of stopped traffic that some bikers and motorcycles like to do).
I have no idea where you're from, or what this "rego" you speak of is - but quite frankly, bikes cost less for society. In my locale, roads are not paid for entirely by gas taxes, registration fees, etc.; money for them also comes out of income or property taxes. So maybe you pay slightly more than I do - but you also require a more sturdy road, use the roads more, and cause more wear on them. Semi truck drivers undoubtedly pay more than you do too - and they cause more wear and require a heftier road, and probably put on a good number more miles than you. Is that some great injustice too?
Think of it this way; every biker you see is one less driver that's getting in your way, and one less car parked between you and that perfect parking spot right next to the door of your destination. Most of us are smart enough to use residential streets, bike lanes, or bike paths, rather than highways and main thoroughfares. If you take all the bikers off the road and replace them with the cars, you can bet they'll be in between you and the next stoplight (which you would otherwise indubitably race towards at top speed, only to slam on the brakes, repeating at each successive block).
Funny to hear how much ire there is for bicyclists in other parts of the country.
As a Manhattan native I can confidently say that the most annoying thing on the road is the douchebags who feel like its a good idea to bring their massive cars in from Jersey, Westchester and Long Island -- and clog up traffic.
From a NY perspective, the traffic problems have nothing to do with cyclists at all. They have more to do with a perceived right to bring a massive metal and glass behemoth into the world's most crowded places. Keep that sh*t parked outside the city and take public transportation.
I'm all for a $50 toll for commuters. Clogging up the city should be incredibly expensive for non-commercial traffic.
Cities should be primarily mass transit, taxis, pedestrians and bicycles. Douchebags feeling like they have a right to bring their suburban into the city is a much bigger problem than some dude on a bike.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Unfortunately you are absolutely in the minority when it comes to road bike riders...
As someone who is an occasional biker, it is unfortunate that so many bikers ride so recklessly, because it gives the sport a bad name and leads to things like all the posts around here about "get off the roads onto the sidewalk" which sounds like a much more reasonable idea then it actually is if you don't actually try to bike for transportation purposes. (Not saying you fall into that category.)
Personally, I try pretty hard to uphold what I see as my end of the deal. I'm a firm believer that bikes belong on the roads, but in exchange, bikes have to follow the rules of the road: stop at stop signs, wait a red lights, etc. (I don't view "stay against the curb" in that set, though in the absence of passing opportunities for cars, pulling over to let people pass is a good idea.) Accordingly, I usually follow said rules, and would be in favor of increased policing of moving violations committed by cyclists.
I am not going to claim that I always hold to that ideal, but when I break a rule I basically follow four guidelines: (1) is it safe for me, (2) is it safe for everyone else, and (3) will it affect the decision making of anyone else, and (4) leave a substantial safety margin. Often (3) translates to "there aren't other cars on the road". (Incidentally, I follow similar guidelines when jaywalking.) I have a variety of reasons for how I justify this to myself, which you might think are justified or not.
Regardless, I at least think I'm pretty courteous when I'm biking around, at least given the constraints of riding a me-powered vehicle. The problem isn't with bikers on the road; it's with the dumbass and selfish bikers who give us a bad name. (Which I'll admit to be a sizable proportion.)
... the cyclist in the picture doesn't actually have any lighting on his bike apart from the lane-thingy :D
Anyway, as a dutch person who has biked in the states (Knoxville, TN area) I was absolutely appaled by the risks bikers have to take on americans roads. I was trying to make my way from my parents house to knoxville, a minor 10 mile ride, and at one point found myself forced to take an interstate ... holding to the shoulder of course but it was rocky and all ... worthless and dangerous.
To paint the picture, in the Netherlands you could cycle the whole country without having to share a lane with a car once ... we have a pretty good infrastructure with bike lanes and even seperate bike paths with run parallel to the roads.
My point being, this 'solution' sucks, is overengineered and impratical. If you want to really encourage people riding bikes instead of taking the car, build the infrastructure for it.
It can be done, even in formerly very car-centric cities. Take, for example, Paris, where the last years biking has taken off hugely because of a city push for more biking, including cheap rental bikes and massive new bike lane building.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
I appreciate that it is physically impossible for you to travel the posted speed limit. But you don't have the right to block traffic. Here in California, you are legally required to pull over if you are unable to drive the posted speed limit and there are 5 or more cars behind you.
Here in the UK the speed limit is just that, a limit for perfect conditions. Anyone blindly driving at the speed limit is showing no regard for the conditions and should be banned.
Of course, in a nose-to-tail tailback I assume that means you have to pull over, you aren't travelling at the speed limit, and there are more than 5 cars behind you.
This is true whether you're driving an antique car or a broken car or a bicycle. If you must ride so that you block traffic, do so briefly.
This is called the primary position. Responsible cyclists take this position when they can't be safely overtaken (usually at dangerous, artificial pinch points)
If you reach a stop light, let the traffic that you blocked go past you when it turns green.
Generally in Europs it's different, but we don't worship at the alter of the car. Certainly in London, you'll find the average speed of a bike outside of rush hour is about the same as that of a car. You might find a car reaches a top speed of 5 or 10mph more, but will simply spend longer waiting at lights, or behind the car in front.
In rush hour of course, theres no choice, bikes out perform cars by an order of magnitude.
Pootling around the town I live, I'm often held up by cars on the ride from home to the station, traffic isn't particularly bad either.
Actually, roads are for cyclists as well, except as otherwise explicitly posted.
Thanks for that post. Not only that, but sidewalks (previously suggested) are definitely not for cyclists. That shit drives me batshit insane as a pedestrian every time some dumbass cyclist practically bowls me over because he's going 15 mph on a sidewalk, in a vehicle that's probably three times as large as the width of a person's shoulders, in a city that doesn't have enough sidewalk space to begin with.
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
As a driver, I often have the reverse thought. I work weekends, and what is a nice ride out of the suburbs for lots of cyclists is my commute. What is it with convoys of cyclists? Either two (or more) abreast, stretching the overtaking distance substantially or preventing it completely, or in indian file leaving no gaps for cars to pull into, meaning you either have to try and overtake anywhere from 2 to 6 bikes at once, or not at all.
I'm a realist. I know we're going to have to throttle back on car use a lot in the future. I'm quite happy to pay more road tax to fund better public transport, and if it was better I would use it. Perhaps we can build more off-road cycle lanes too? Bikes and cars just don't mix - the size, vulnerability, and speed differentials are just too great.
In the meantime I wish cyclists would realise that some people still have to drive to make a living. We're not arseholes, most of us have good spatial awareness and don't really fancy the idea of killing anyone. Any chance of some consideration going in the other direction?
Rant over.
Most bicycle paths that run near roads are lower in elevation than the roads. It's entirely possible that the drivers in his situation were running with the low beams on, and that due to unfortunate positioning the glare of the lights still hit him. The same thing happens when you're driving in a car and approach a hill... if there's an oncoming car that crests the hill before you do, there will be a point where the headlights, even on low-beam, will shine directly in your eyes. If you're on a country road with no street lighting, you will be blinded.
It's also possible that he just encountered one asshole who didn't bother to turn off his brights. Carry a mirror for that, not a laser... when somebody's following me with his brights on, I turn the rearview mirror to shine them back in his eyes... usually doesn't last more than a few seconds before he either passes me or turns his lights down.
I still think it's a solution without a problem, though. When I drive, I have never had trouble seeing cyclists who use the proper equipment at night. There's laws in this country that require that bikes used at nights have lights on them, and they really do work, when installed properly. Have a red flasher mounted under the seat or on the back of your helmet, have a white light in front, and you've still got the reflectors in your wheels (which are also mandated by law), and a bike is *very* visible at night.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
It's the law. Legally, a bicyclist has all the rights AND all the responsibilities of any other vehicle.
The law is not morality. It's legal for a record company to sue somebody for $200,000 for copying a $1 song, but that does not make it right.
Using "its the law", ought to be right up there with Godwin's rule when it comes to making lame arguments.
This is my sig.
You mean roads that were designed for horse drawn carriage
Those roads were mainly mud, and the real good ones were made of cobblestones. Asphalt is 100% thanks to automobiles. Bikers like asphalt too - hey everyone likes asphalt. It's a smooth ride. But the only reason the world is covered in black goo is because of those "invading" automobiles.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You see, this is an example of the apparently unassailable moral high ground that cyclists (seem to believe they) occupy.
If there's no room to overtake, I don't overtake. As I said, I don't like killing people.
Cars overtake in smooth curves. The further out I have to move, the longer it takes me to get back in. Increased risk and fewer opportunities.
On wide-ish roads, there is often room from a car each way *and* a cyclist. Less often is there room for a car each way and multiple cyclists.
Tractors are usually driven by farmers who produce food, arguably a useful job. They have sometimes also been known to pull over to let cars past.
As I said, I accept the environmental, health and cost saving benefits of cycling, but in the current world, not everybody can use them for every journey. Let's please vote for more cycle paths, and while we're waiting, can cyclists please understand that drivers are not (all) the minions of the antichrist?
[Incidentally, I'm not picking on cyclists. The behaviour of pedestrians on the outskirts of my town is increasingly dubious, too (in the centre I feel they're more entitled to take right of way - there's no particular reason it should be clogged up with cars, after all.) When I was a kid, it was drummed in to me that I had a certain responsibility for my own safety when interacting with traffic. What the hell happened to that?]
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to bike? Don't inconvience others and then expect them to like you.
Where I live, bikers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that its ok to ride on sidewalks (its not), ignore stop signs (they can't), ignore lanes clearly marked for them (why they DON'T right in the dedicated lanes that DO exist is beyond me) and ignore red lights.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm all in favor of making it illegal from them to ride ANYWHERE except dedicated paths in city limits.
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to drive a car? Don't inconvenience others and then expect them to like you.
Where I live, car drivers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that it's ok to drive faster than the speed limit (it's not), ignore stop signs (they can't), turn without signalling (nope), harass other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians (assault and sometime battery), talk on the cell phone (illegal here), text message or work on computers (I'm not kidding about this), read books, put on make up, and ignore red lights. Ever see someone stop right in the middle of road just to talk to their passenger oblivious to the traffic they are stopping? Every year, car drivers kill thousands of people and do millions of dollars of property damage.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm in favor of making it illegal for them to drive ANYWHERE except on the freeways.
XML causes global warming.
OK. I'll take your angry post as sincere. As a driver and a regular cyclist who has had the experience of being rear-ended by a car (clear day, perfect straight road, inattentive driver, saw it coming and had nowhere to go), I have a couple of observations to share. First, there are idiots everywhere, some behind the wheel and some on bikes. Second, the edge of the road had many hazards that are hard for drivers to see, such as glass, sand, rocks, beer bottles, potholes, and sewer grates perfectly aligned to swallow a bike tire. Even if most of the roadway lacks these obstacles, when they do occur a cyclist may have to swerve to avoid them. Riding a bit away from the edge of the road puts the bike further from many of these obstacles and gives the option of swerving away from traffic rather than into it. A third observation I have made is that the farther I ride from the curb, the more room cars give me. It makes no sense at all, but when I try scoot over as far as I can, thats when I see mirrors whizzing by inches away from me. Finally, in situations where there are parked cars, cyclists have to ride a few feet out or risk getting "doored" and perhaps damaging the underside of passing vehicles.
Honestly, most of us cyclists are not trying to inconvenience you, but just trying to get home safely.
The car may be parked, but the door is moving. ;-)
If someone opens a door 3 feet in front of you when you're traveling 20-25mph, you don't have time to even apply the brakes in any vehicle. The difference is that roads with on-street parking are usually designed so that traffic is a safe difference from parked cars. But that's often not the case for bikes -- in many places marked bike lanes are right in the "door zone".
In Massachusetts we recently passed a bike law that, among other things, makes it a ticketable offense to open your door in the path of a cyclist. On the other hand, there are some states where it's illegal for a bike to ride within 3 feet of parked cars.
I personally try to avoid the door zone unless I'm moving very slowly, even though the law is on my side here.
Do you honk and swear at tractors, funerals, and Amish buggies too?
Actually, yes. AND other cars! But bikes are the worst because they have that high and mighty moral swagger. "I'm just exercising and saving the environment." Yeah... and wasting my time, fucker.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Where does the money to build and maintain roads come from? Oh yea, road use tax in gasoline, parking meters (do bikes have to pay to park?), drivers license, vehicle registration? Oh, and keep up with pace of traffic.
When bikes start paying road use tax by the mile, require registration, inspection.. then maybe you have a legit reason to complain. In the meantime STFU.
Oh, there are plenty of asses, however, in my experience, only cyclists combine being asses with pretending they have the moral high ground.
I know good cyclists, just as I know good drivers, but this is an asshat toy, it's creating a bike lane just for you, because you're a cyclist and you deserve one. It won't make you safer because it's not a lane, it doesn't create space for you and it doesn't magically move the cars around you.
If you're doing the right thing and the driver is doing the right thing you won't need it, and if you're not or they're not then it won't help. If people want bike lanes they should be proper bike lanes. I like real bike lanes, they keep cyclists in a lane designed for traffic of their own speed, so they can do their thing, and I can do mine(whether I'm walking or driving).
Do you know what the + sign means? Do you work hard being so stupid?
The claim that funding for roads comes solely from use taxes is false. Depending one where you are and what roads you are talking about, the claim that funding for roads comes primarily from uses taxes is false.
XML causes global warming.
look sig is kool