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."
Oh noes, it's "illegal" to ride on the footpaths! Trust me, that cop in the right lane will thank you for staying the fuck off the goddamn street, and every other motorist will also.
Girlintraining has a point - bike riders are fucking douches who need to stay the fuck off the goddamn street. Most of them are baby boomer scum and their douchebag offspring who've bankrupted the country and are now living out their mid-life crises and only-child entitlements in their obnoxious bike shorts and neon spandex and their stupid-looking dickhead helmets which are a slap in the face because they're playing chicken with multi-ton armored shells while swerving into busy streets at 3mph.
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. I like it better that way because I know I won't be knocked the fuck off my bike. Motorists like it that way because they don't have to deal with your 50-million dollar lawsuit and medical bills.
2 things in life will always succeed in pissing me the fuck off. The first is fucking religious morons, Jesus and Allah suck my cock etc. The second is fucking silver-spoon douchebags or dumb-shit starving students, breast-fed and ass-wiped by mommy till age 20, riding their fucking bikes in the street. They make me want to do a Grizwold European Vacation[skip to 5:00] on their ass.
-1, motherfuckers!
This person is not a troll and whoever modded them troll will probably mod me down too. Don't mod people down because you disagree with them! dipshit
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
You sound like a reasonable person.
Unfortunately you are absolutely in the minority when it comes to road bike riders who are generally growth hormone taking, tantrum throwing, pink lycra wearing, Tour De France wannabees. Who have a chip on their shoulder the size of their over inflated egos and ridiculous helmets.
They're the problem, they're the high visibility riders who ride three abreast up hill at 20k/h with 100 cars behind them, who run red lights and cut across intersections giving the drivers they cutoff the finger. And they deserve every bit of derision and every beating they get, not just from drivers but also from ordinary decent bike riders like you for the *enourmous* amount of ill will they generate towards people who ride pushies.
And yes I ride.
"But bicycles have just as much right to the road "
Why?
Does my unregisterable dirt bike have that right? What about a horse? Can I just start walking down the middle of a lane to my destination?
Bike riders don't pay for the roads, they don't pay for rego, nor do they have insurance.
So where do *push bikes* get this "right" from?
And I'd like this "right" to apply to motocross bikes, so where do I apply?
The bike is NOT traffic. It's just a bike. I am not overtaking it either. The bike is doing far far far less than the what the average speed of traffic is. You don't overtake a car doing 5mph in a 60mph zone do you? No, you're just avoiding an obstacle.
Wrong, the biker put us all at risk with HIS reckless behavior. You seem to suggest that I sit behind the biker for 15 miles on this winding mountain road with an ever increasing amount of pissed off people behind me that cannot figure out what the problem is. If you had 5 or 6 cars start to overtake not just you, but 2 or 3 cars behind you on blind curves (because there is not much choice as the blind curves as separated by mere seconds) just how long would you wait to just pass the damn bicycle?
You didn't seem to read what I wrote at all did you? There is considerable and very real danger while I am sitting behind this vehicle doing a fraction of the posted speed when the reaction times and braking distances might as well make me AND the bicycle a stationary object. Did you consider that at all?
Even IF I was to just stay behind this bicycle, I would be at great risk. The only way to remove the risk is to pass this person on the bicycle. I chose LESS risk, not MORE risk. Try remembering that.
Never been to Baltimore. Closest I have ever come to that was being in Texas where there is an unposted rule about doing 15mph less than the posted speed limits in some cities.
Now I know there is at least one place.
You "bet". That does not mean you possess actual awareness of the laws in every city and municipality in the U.S. With respect to everyone posting, I DO know the laws in my state and city. I REALLY REALLY DO.
Where I live that is a true statement.
I am pressured not out of fear, or frustration, but because of the significantly increased level of danger of those other motorists up my ass and attempting to pass me. I would say that those who ignore the conditions of the road, which include other drivers and obstacles, should not be on the road in the first place. That includes the bicyclist and the motorists unsafely passing me out of frustration.
Asking me to stay in such unsafe conditions is unreasonable, and my desire to leave such unsafe conditions is not motivated out of fear or stress either.
NOT where I live. It's bike lanes only. We can all argue about legal entitlements that are going to vary from location to location, but that does not excuse all the behaviors of some of these cyclists does it?
It's not an issue of ME respecting anything. It's the law. When there is not a bike lane, it is neither safe nor considerate for bicyclists to occupy traffic lanes and roads not designed for them, but for traffic going much faster than they are. It is the bicyclists that are not being respectful and considerate of other people on this road.
Your vision of harmony lacks the awareness of the simple reality of it being significantly more dangerous for a bicycle to be on roads not designed to accommodate it, and that in many times the bicyclists actions are inconsiderate and illegal.
I never indicated that I would use the oncoming traffic lane. Just that I would be uncomfortably close to it, and possibly occupying part of the line, to be as far away from the bicyclist as possible.
What I consider is the high possibility of me being slammed into the guardrail or the wall when the person attempting to pass me out of frustration realizes they screwed up and need to get back in the right lane. Even worse is if they slow down to much and clip my back end, which could send my car in a quite unexpected direction down a cliff. In some of those cases, that guy on the bike is going to get plastered between me and something else.
That's right. I stay in a situation I know is unsafe and console myself with the fact I was "following some rules", "being nice", and that I could sue somebody for shitloads of money while being a paraplegic for the rest of my life. I sure hope so. Being a paraplegic is quite expensive.
Your making a LOT of assumptions that an accident could go "right" or be less dangerous. I never said I would risk a head on either, as that would be insane, but at the same time risking the type of possible accident waiting for me by staying where I am is insanity too.
A little movement with the light is a simple and recognizable way to inform drivers that the thing in front of them is in fact not at all stationary, thus allowing them to react accordingly.
Sorry, I'm with Neal Stephenson on this one. If you are depending on drivers to notice and correctly avoid you, you are looking to die. The advantage of the bicycle is the ability to MOVE, BITCH, GET OUT THE WAY. You can just jump off into that gutter without too many disadvantages, unless of course you're riding one of those girly road bikes that are functionally equivalent to a ferrari. I guess that makes sense if you're part of the pave the earth set, but if you're worried about saving five pounds on your bike, why not just put on a couple pounds of muscle? On flat ground it hardly matters anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Back in blighty we use the word CUNT.
*sorry for the blatant troll, but this guy is just being a dick now with his fears and his paranoia (probably still justifies gun ownership so the king cant steal his moms basement*
**Not posted anonymously as some of us aren't paranoid twerps
bah!*@%!
Okay. How about this?
Found here
That's vague enough not to reveal my location while showing there is at least quite a number of places that are exactly how I state they are.
It was not designed to kill off trains. The idea of a public-access system of highways is very old. The Roman Empire used it to great effect.
Invalidation of your point #1: The Romans did not have the Steam Engine, so they did not have access to the superior technology of Railroad.
Autos were already popular for both military and domestic use before the Interstates were made
But not for long-range travel, for which we took trains.
Passenger rail (except for subway and other commuter networks) has mostly died out in the US because most Americans prefer air or auto travel for their trips. It was a one-two punch.
Passenger rail died out mostly because the auto companies bought profitable rail, bus, and trolley lines and shut them down. Don't let the facts interrupt your shilling, though.
If it were not for aircraft, it is likely that rail would still have quite a healthy demand for long-distance passenger travel.
If it were not for subsidies, rail would be cheaper than flying, and more people would use it. Hint: It's usually cheaper to fly, not least because governments build airports but rail and train stations were [mostly] built by the railroad company.
On the other hand, rail has certainly not been killed off, since it is still very popular for long distance freight.
Yes, the car companies that killed off passenger rail were careful to keep the freight type, since you need freight rail to move coal around for power, to move steel around to build cars from, and ironically, to move the cars from the factory to the point of distribution in many cases. If roads are so great, why do we transport so many cars by rail?
Why don't you log in and join the big parade? Are you a paid shill?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Just not true where I live. Sorry. They don't have a right to be there. Bikes are not traffic. They are objects as far as the laws are concerned. If I was to hit one, without any reasonable way to avoid doing so, while ALSO driving safely, I would not be held liable for even one second.
Sadly, there are many pedestrians and bicyclists hit in my city, and with very few exceptions is the motorist ever held liable. Those exceptions represent incidents in which the driver was operating his/her vehicle unsafely to begin with or was under the influence.
The rest of your post assume that I have some sort of emotional investment with the fact I might be delayed or otherwise inconvenienced and that I might be willfully ignoring the law to suit my own desires. That this indicates I lack "maturity" and "mental toughness". That is simply untrue as well. My concerns are simply based upon the safety of all involved. Nothing more, nothing less.
Driving does not mean we must share the road with non-motorists. Not under the laws which govern me currently. They do mean that when presented with such an obstacle that I have the duty to avoid it or yield to it to not cause harm, but not that these obstacles had the right to be there. If some kid on a bike is riding in the middle of traffic, I am obligated to slow down. However, he will shortly have his little ass painted red by local police. If it is an adult, they get into more trouble.
The only exceptions are bicycle lanes, which we have plenty of in most places. Also, interestingly enough, I have never heard that bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks either. I have seen them many many times. In fact, we have some scenic country roads around us that specifically have allowances for bicycle lanes.
The problems we have are with the "militant" cyclists, or those visiting, that have the same belief that so many other posters have, which is that the road must be shared regardless. Regardless of the increased dangers, regardless, regardless, regardless.
When you point it to them that they should not be on the road, you would think you were asking an African-American to sit on the back of the bus, or a Japanese U.S citizen to take a "vacation" until the war is over.
You looked up four states, which hardly makes you aware of U.S traffic laws. Obviously, I do KNOW the laws that apply to my own city. If the bicyclist does not have the right to be there, then he most certainly does not have the right to put us all in danger either.
I don't "believe" that. I KNOW that, by virtue of me being aware of the laws.
That is an assumption that I am oblivious, or lacking memory. I know the laws of MY land. Instead of working with that statement, of which I have been more than willing to accept at face value that statements of others with different laws, you call me an "ignorant fuckwit".
How are you "informative"? You are more guilty of flamebait than ANY of my other posts. I am simply stating the facts of where I LIVE, and that bicyclists represent a very real danger on roads not designed to accommodate them. Nothing less, Nothing more.
Obviously that is unpopular as evidenced by the abusive modding, but I don't care. The laws are what they are in my city, and arrogant bicyclists with an undeserved sense of entitlement create very real dangers on the roads around me. I knew that stating these people were wrong making it dangerous for others to drive safely was going to be unpopular.
That's okay. Call me ignorant, even though I am fully aware of the law, and that it is different in the EU.
That's okay. Call me self-centered and claim that I am more upset about delays and not the safety of everyone on the road.
Other than mentioning four U.S states, you did nothing other than insult me, and nothing to make any productive arguments. Very few have. Bravo.
Uh, I used to, From the time i was 12 until around 16 or 17. I never rode more than 6-12 inches from the curb at any time.
You're deliberately writing flambait as well. It is illegal where I am. Period.
You can all continue to write vitriolic attacks against me all day long. It does not change the fact that I know the law where I am, and that I am right. Many times I have acknowledged that if the laws were different in the EU, or some other country, that I would respect and abide by them.... Yet you attack me still with your insults and abusive modding.
I am most certainly suggesting that people be denied the right to bicycle on certain roads, as they are in my city. What about walking? What about the Bus? I took the public transportation system for awhile when I was younger, it works.
You want to make it out like it is an issue of freedom. If that was true, and we could work with your logic, and let the facts and truth be set aside for your fantasy reality, then driving a car would be a right, not a privilege and pedestrians could walk in the middle of the roads on the Interstates. After all, if somebody does not have a car, we cannot take away their freedom to move about the country by denying them their rights to walk wherever they wanted. After all, that's what our ancestors fought and died for right?
Be realistic. The reason why a bicycle is not allowed on these roads is safety and has nothing to do with freedom. Your freedoms STOP when they put me in danger. Otherwise, you seem to be suggesting that we can all put other citizens in danger without fear of reprisal since it is purely a civil liberties issue...
Please, you know that you have now constructed a fantasy reality as well.
You can be angry and take it out me since it is overwhelmingly clear that I support an unpopular position, but that will never change the simple facts:
1) It IS illegal where I live.
2) Regardless of legality, it places people in very real danger since bicycles and cars were NOT designed to share these roads.
Continue forcing a square peg through a round hole though, just attacking me since I pointed out. That won't change the fact these roads were not designed for bicyclists, but hey, don't let that stop you. You have the "god given" right fought for by our fore fathers to put us all in danger so you can "move about the country".
Ration and Reason seems to be truly beyond those of you so viciously attacking me. It does not matter where it is legal where I am. It is STILL DANGEROUS, ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF THE CYCLISTS, WHICH IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT.