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."
Cyclists are already huge douches (atleast here in the twin cities). They ride 8 feet out from the curb, blocking the lane to motorists, and yet bitch when periodically one of them becomes a speed bump. We have dedicated lanes for bicyclists downtown -- and everywhere else there are sidewalks. Yes, it's a little more work. Yes, you'll have to use your brakes and be more alert to pedestrians -- but a bike/pedestrian accident usually results in profanity. A bike/motor vehicle accident almost always ends in tears. Not only that, but it's not like they're helping their cause -- mounting strobe lights as a "safety feature"? Events like "Critical Mass" that clog streets and result in clashes with the police?
I'm sorry, but nobody's going to be fooled by your latest bike accessory -- they're still going to side-swipe you in the middle of the night because you're in the middle of the lane and it's hard to have compassion for someone doing 15 in a 45, especially when nobody's around to protest reducing them to a twisted mass of aluminum and hamburger. If you have a problem with this, ride on the shoulder or near the curb, which is what every safety instructor has told you, along with wearing a helmet and reflective clothing. But you don't do either because you want to feel liberated when a twig jams your front wheel and you face plant, or get run over by a car because wearing all black at night makes you feel like a bad-ass. Don't laugh -- it's more common than you think. Every motorist in the Twin Cities that has more than about 20,000 miles under their belt has witnessed one of these kamikazi nut jobs.
Americans will tolerate just about anything so long as it doesn't obstruct the flow of traffic. Many bicyclists are the anti-thesis of this statement. You may now mod me down, because it's easier to write a pleasant fiction that sounds socially sophisticated and intellectual than to write down a blunt truth.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I have nothing against cyclists per see, it's a bit annoying that they're too slow for regular traffic and two fast for the foot path, but I can live with that if the cyclists respect others on the road and/or they have dedicated lanes(which I approve of).
The problem is that most cyclists(like a lot of people on motor bikes for that matter), really don't respect others on the road, they don't signal properly, they don't keep to safe sides of the lane, they ride down between cars to avoid having to wait their turn like everyone else, and do things like ride in packs slowly to anger drivers for some political bloody reason.
Giving those asshats the belief that everywhere they go is their own dedicated bike lane is just stupid, we all have to share the road, and acting like an ass whether you're in a car or on a bike, is bad form and not helping anything. When you drive like an idiot on a vehicle that provides you with no protection and expect everyone to get out of your way as you ride like a drunken maniac, then you're a darwin award waiting to happen.
Yes, it's just projecting a false lane on the ground behind your bike.
So, even if the roadway on our side is only seven feet wide and you're dawdling along at fifteen miles an hour, you're projecting a three-foot wide "My Bike Lane" thingie?
Kiss my Hummer 1, you moron. I can wash the stains off my bumper and grille when I get home.
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?
. It's the car drivers who want the road all for themselves and andanger other traffic that dares to enter their domain.
We paid for the road with something called a "gasoline" tax. Bicycles, last time I checked, do not use gasoline. Therefor, you are freeloading as well as well disruptive and annoying, and you should be banned.
Bicyclists are the spammers of public roads.
This is my sig.
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.
Maybe the people riding bikes shouldn't be jackasses who ride 2-3 feet out into the road from the curb/sidewalk. Where I live (Madison CT, suburban town), all the bikers are fucking retards and ride on the white line or over it, even if there's 2-4ft of space from the line to the curb. If you can't handle riding within the same 6-12inch track (and no, there is not shittons of debris, maybe pebbles n shit here and there which any bike will NOT wipeout on) and instead need 2-4feet of lanespace for your bike...you shouldn't be biking on public roads cause you're a fucking idiot.
Yes, I know i'm gonna get hit with troll/flamebait mods, but I'm sick fo the self righteous bikers who cry about getting honked/yelled at when they're being utter morons literally getting in the way of a vehicle that is going 2x+ as fast as them, and weighs easily 5x-10x+ more than them.
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.'"
No I don't because they can't be expected to stay on the side of the road in such a way that I shouldn't even need to move over to go by them, whereas a bicyclist can. Just cause it's the law doesn't make them any less of a jackass.
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 douchebags paid road taxes when they bought fuel, and they do indeed have a right to bring their Suburban into the city, because that's how the law is written. Maybe you should go to the Chevron and drink some gasoline, then you'll have a right to be there too.
"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.
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.