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."
Where this projector would be adapted on a car to project an autobahn lane with no speed limit while driving on the highway ;-)) ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Zeichen_330.svg/100px-Zeichen_330.svg.png
Anyway, would this type of device be legal everywhere even for bikes ?
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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[-
As they swerve/drift into another car or biker..... misaimed lasers notwithstanding....
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?
...are the laser-lines legally binding? What will the local constabulary think of people re-writing the road lanes ad hoc? And does it run line-x?
THL phish sticks
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?
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 live in California, where there are shitloads of annoying bikers riding on the road. They're most often an extreme hazard.
Half of them ride against the flow of traffic, either because they're illegal immigrants who don't comprehend the laws (but understand the basic concept that "bikes on streets == ok"), because they're hoodie-wearing gangsta poseurs who want to rebel, or because they're just plain stupid.
Of the remainder that does it correctly, half of those wear dark black clothes at night and don't equip their bikes with lights.
Of those who do it perfectly, 100% are still a hazard. They weave back and forth (since their position is determined on balance rather than precise control) and the "bike lane" space is frequently blocked by pulled-over or parked cars.
Get the fucking bikes off the road. If you want to save the environment, buy roller skates and hit the sidewalk. There is no good justification for bikes to share the same space as automobiles. I honestly can't believe it's legal at all. May as well let joggers run on the road.
some retard is going to get this and think there's a bike lane no matter where he goes. when a mac truck disagree's with him, he will claim it was in the bike lane.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
is old.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/16/light-lane-concept-would-protect-cyclists-bring-tron-to-life/
As if the high intensity LEDs and Laser that can blind the approaching drivers is not enough, now you are providing many brazen bicyclists a fake lane to think they are safe? There is a reason for bike lanes in high traffic zones, to keep them safe because they never win a battle with a car. Wait for the lanes!
but around here, the roads are black bitumen, so trying to paint them with a laser won't work so well, will it?
Except when the roads are wet, then it may work _too_ well.
Anyway, we have plenty of real bike lanes here, so I don't care.
Not to mention that green lasers are banned imports. Not sure if this will be a good enough reason
on my import permit application.
I don't see anything in the article about how much one of these might cost, but I'm guessing it's not cheap. From the image it looks like anyone with an allen wrench could remove the device and pocket it. In it's defense it just looks like a light and I doubt many potential thieves would care, but it's something to consider. They could incorporate a quick-release but having to put it somewhere removes some of the appeal of the device.
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.
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?
I for one am getting god damned tired of pulling bikes out of the grill of my hummer H2
maybe now you bike riding hippy fucks will be easier to see... I mean a few of the bikes scratched the grill and all
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.
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 : )
Want to hijack this trollfest and see if I can get some useful information - the thing city bikes REALLY need is regenerative breaking - compared to cars, bikes suck at acceleration, and trying to conserve precious momentum makes breaking traffic laws way too tempting - some regenerative breaking would solve both problems and more.
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Regenerative_20Brake_20Bike here are some http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-206514.htmllinks but it seems while everyone agrees 'it's tricky but can be done' no one has actually done it.
Not sure why that is, any additional info/ideas would be welcome. I think it would really transform the urban environment if it could be worked out. And I have fantasies of keeping peddling at stoplights then shooting off @ proper street speeds.
closed minded is as closed minded does
Instead of when it was first reported in January?
http://slashdot.org/submission/928767/Virtual-Bike-Lane-proposed-by-designers?art_pos=1
Sheesh.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
No? That's good considering how meandering most bike riders actually are. Besides a laser powerful enough to etch the lane in pavement or concrete would likely slice off your legs. The one benefit is that you'd not need to have an external power source as the bike could have a generator installed. Think of how much fat you could burn in no time! What's that smell?
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.
$50? Like people need more reasons to stay out of big cities.
What on earth is the point of something with a 3 hour life that you have to recharge every day, and yet barely puts out any light? You could trivially power a massive, blinding LED array off the same power source and be 10x as visible.
That's because you live in a densely populated area, where nobody could go more than 5 mph even if they wanted to. Spend an hour on the freeway at 20 mph because there's cyclist blocking the entire road and you'll understand where the bike haters are coming from.
... 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."
Inventor: Hey, bicycle enthusiasts! Want to buy a neat safety device?
Cyclists: Sure! We are all about safety, look at the styrofoam on our heads and these lycra shorts! We care about safety because many of us are killed or injured in the most baffling circumstances.
Inventor: Ah, ok! This is a device that projects a cycle lane onto the road so that traffic behind you is made more aware of your presence on the road.
Cyclists: 'Be-hind'? What is 'be-hind'? Is it something to do with my shorts?
Inventor: Not shorts related. Behind you. To your rear. The traffic coming up behind you.
Cyclists: Traffic coming up behind us? What are you talking about?
Inventor: You know, when you look behind you and..
Cyclists: LOOK BEHIND? Are you crazy? Your words don't make any sense.
Inventor: Well, when you turn your head..
Cyclists: TURN the HEAD? You are nuts! The head doesn't turn! The head looks down at the front wheel spindle. You are a crazy man!
Darwin: Dude, you are wasting your time with those cyclists.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
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
I see all these people arguing about cyclists vs cars, obnoxious vs pleasant, etc and I really don't care. All I do care about though, is that cyclists should be forced to have insurance when they are given the privilege of using the Queen's Highway free of charge. (Yes folks, those lovely roads you cycle on are paid from the taxation of motorists)
Sure, smack my mirror on the way past down the queue of traffic, maybe scratch the side of my door with the pedal clips, and I just love it when a cyclist comes barrelling out a side street and into the side of my vehicle leaving a nice big dent in the door.
Yes, the cyclist may have a few scratches from his or her own carelessness, but it's _my_ insurance premiums that are going up due to someone elses carelessness. If cyclists want to be treated equally on these roads, then they can start being charged equally and held equally responsible for damage. For what it's worth, I am both a cyclist and a car driver, and yes... I do have insurance for my cycling stuff. Liability up to £3 million if memory serves.
Now, gerroff my lawn!
Only going to make life safer if you can crank the power up to several hundred MW and blow the annoying cars up before they reach you...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Don't shell out vital cash on projectors. Simply improve bicycle safety by keeping off the pavement and stopping at red lights and pedestrian crossings.
Cheap, efficient
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&q=reflective+vest&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=21
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=led+bicycle+lights&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=
this is the perfect tool for grunts as it will indicate the direction in which they are heading and also visibly tells surrounding people how far away they should be from this person should they throw up.
Turn it on and next thing you know - "brring! brring! crunch!" - you're lying on your back covered with tyre tracks and with little tweeting birds flying round your head.
Almost as dangerous as painting a railway tunnel entrance on the side of a cliff...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
. 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.
In the grand /. tradition, I didn't RTFA.
Does this device shine a light (laser ?) in front of and behind the bicycle? If so, how does it compensate for the wobble and slight variations that a bicycle may make that is not exactly parallel to the curb?
Or is this a more sophisticated solution that can determine where exactly the side of the road is, and where obstructions are up ahead, heralding cards that can drive themselves?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Look, I am all for alternative transportation and dedicated bike lanes, but this is just stupid. Near the top of the list of stupid ideas, in fact, is the idea of cyclists (too many of whom already have a badly skewed sense of entitlement when it comes to roadways) "creating" their own lanes and expecting everyone else to respect them.
I admit that I am a few years past my peak biking years, but I remember certain cities as being more bike friendly than others. Anchorage, AK had an extensive bike path through the parks and greenways, with major street crossings through very large (10'+) arch culverts under the roads. Seattle was also pretty good, especially around the university area. Eugene, OR as similar, although not as extensive. I never did find any good bike riding in California.
I live on the east coast now, and in general the lack of decent bike facilities is one reason I don't take to the pedals much any more. I discourage my kids from riding outside of the subdivision, because bikes on the main roads are just moving targets to many of the drivers. (10 points!) I know why cities, counties, and the state are slow to provide dedicated bicycle lanes (and paths!), but it sure would be nice if they would.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Some guy did a study many years ago showing that if a runner carries a glass water bottle in the hand facing the lane, cars are significantly more likely to give him leeway. Which just goes to show that a significant percentage of drivers don't give a rat's ass about creaming your squishy body but don't want their paint scratched by a hard object. Physically innumerate and morally bankrupt but that's the results, so project something that will cause a driver to give the bicyclist leeway, not something that gives the driver a heads up that a target is "there".
The city cyclists get out there like there's something to prove, riding 4 feet out into the lane
That's because they're used to there being a parked car lane next to the curb and they don't want to get doored.
The inventors of this projector thingy suggest, that a bike lane protects you in shared trafficspace, when there is no extra bike lane on the street.
Contrary to public belief and repeated myths there is scientific evidence, that sharing the road with the cars is definitely safer than cycling at the very right edge or even on a separate lane. This is especially because there is no absolute separation: at every crossing you "meet" the cars again and they will hardly recognize you on the bike lane.
Instead of strange devices I would invest in strong LED lights with hub generator that make you seen in darkness.
Refs: English overview
German quick risk picture
And while the driver is staring at the pretty lights he runs over the cyclist.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
"Make your own lane"? WTF? Why should someone on a bicycle be able to do that when someone in a car can't? Besides, if you are in a car, YOU are the one actually PAYING for the road to begin with (gasoline taxes).
Bike riders put themselves in danger because they don't obey the rules of the road, instead, pretending to be a car when it's advantageous (ie: riding in the middle of the lane) and being a pedestrian when it isn't (ie: running red lights and stop signs).
If they obey traffic laws and avoid roads where the speed limit is higher than they can ride, they will be safe.
Corporatism != Free Market
Then you can't overtake.
If they ride side-by-side, they take no more room than a single car and to overtake that correctly, you overtake in the other lane.
If there's no other lane, then this is possibly obstruction by the cyclists, then again, a tractor would give you the same problems and no recourse for whinging.
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.
I've never been able to burst anywhere near 50 km/h on a significant uphill grade. Is there a strategy guide or something for surpassing what appears to be my natural speed limit of 25 km/h on level pavement?
There's a trail by my house that takes me downtown. I take that to work.
I don't have that luxury. I have a 65 km/h road between home and work and no slower parallel trail or road.
Or, if you want to get picky, it's as illegal as a Black Taxi Cab in London not having a bale of hay in the trunk.
Personally I cycle where the passenger side wheel leaves its track: if a car with suspension and four-wheel stability isn't driving that close to the kerb, neither will I.
if this works, then so does my "Designated Smoking Area" hat.
Which cyclists pay for.
Epic.
Fail.
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.'"
Honestly, if there was any single place where it would probably be safe to have a bike lane, it would actually be the interstate. If you had bike lanes I'd think it would be ok.
This is my sig.
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 have a better idea. Let's keep the residents out of NYC, and then there shouldn't be as much need for bikes. And we can bulldoze apartments to put in more expressways and parking garages. That solves the problem nicely, and eliminates one of the very few things I dislike about NYC - New Yorkers!
There will be more dumbass cyclists who think that they have the right of way regardless of the law.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Where I live (Costa Rica) it is a tidbit better than where I used to live before (Hungary), but generally at both places the sad truth comes down to this:
1. no one cares/respects bikes ... (it sucks to tell a dad in front of his family to please not get beaten up by you in front of the whole family and to politely stand down before bad things happen when he runs at you in a fist-fight position)....
2. when you are on the sidewalk you are a damn bicycle
3. when you are on the road you are not a vehicle enough - people would actually pull out in front of you thinking that you are just a bike and will definitely stop easily.... I ended up on the windshield like that once and believe me I have total control over my brakes and the bike as I was racing for years (now doing enduro which is a more high speed activity)
4. when you are on the bike lane (which is shared/divided by a line from the walking lane) you get people walking on the bike lane and I actually got into a fight over people blocking the way and then making nasty comments when you politely remind them that the pedestrian part of the was is over the line
5. If there is no physical protection on the lane it is used to : a: overtake other cars b: park cars
Well at least in Hungary there is a bicycle lane in the capital (dunno what is up with other cities) and mostly it is a lane divided from the sidewalk, but in Costa Rica there is not even a sidewalk for pedestrians... which sucks as I love to walk to places. Never rode a bicycle here, but have several heated conversation while riding my motorbike and idiots do not respect your way at all.......
Most bikers generally agree that if something happens here, just gently kick the door/blinkers of the car if an apology does not follow - motocross boots can do some damage with one single kick ...... I personally prefer to confront people and explain to them to respect bikers because one day someone will beat the crap out of them if you push the wrong biker too much. Hitting on the roof and screaming at the driver usually provides them with enough of a shock to look out before turning the next time....
Back to the topic: maybe in 50 years when we decide to build side walks bigger than 1meter and when these people learn how to keep their own lane.... maybe then.. just maybe we can have projected lanes .... yeah right
I agree, with one anecdotal caveat: the only shitty drivers that have ever hit me on my bike in Manhattan have been cabbies.
Interesting how people have different perspectives... I'd say what you're describing makes me want to AVOID Copenhagen!
I pay a big part of my annual salary for the privilege of owning and operating my motor vehicle, and I actually like it. By contrast, I don't even own a bicycle and don't really want to. (At least half the time I take a trip someplace, I have enough items I need to take with me, a bike would be impractical.)
With all the fuel taxes I've paid that go towards road maintenance, I expect to be able to use those roads without some self-righteous city government officials deciding they "like bikes better since they're so environmentally-friendly" or what-not, and trying to ban my car from being driven there!
Just because someone puts up a "stay back 300 feet, not responsible for shit I drop on the road" does not mean that the sign is binding. Same with this light lane thing.
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.
Yeah. It's almost like they think they're allowed to drive on the paved, motor-vehicle-centric streets that they paid for. I'll let you in on a secret: people with your unjustified sense of entitlement are the reason most motorists shrug when they hear about a biker getting run over.
Yes, I ride my bike to work sometimes. No, I'm unlikely to get run over by leaping in front of a vehicle even if I technically had the right to.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You said it yourself NYC is the most crowded place (in the US at least). NYC is unique, there is a functioning large scale subway system, the entire island of Manhattan is only 2 miles wide, NYC is uniquely suited to pedestrian and bike traffic.
Unfortunately for the rest of the country bicycles more often than not have a combined negative effect. Most urban area's around the country have little residential traffic and most of the commuters are coming from widely dispersed areas. Widely disbursed commuters means that mass transit is essentially impossible. The Bay Area has one of the best mass transit systems (especially when you consider that most of the commuters are commuting to san francisco from places across the bay). But if you have work at 9am you would still need to be catching the bus at 7:45am to guarantee you get to work by 9am, and that's if you're in the city i can barely imagine relying on mass transit to commute from a place farther away.
Bikes and cars should not be sharing the same roads. It's dangerous for all parties involved. I know that a lot of the bicycle riders want to believe that everybody could ride a bike everywhere, but it's just not true; i would contend that the vast majority of people could not physically bike to work unless that was time they were paid too bike.
Does it come with the subsequent "body on the pavement outline-drawer" module too? Because it IS going to be needed.
Insisting something is true doesn't make it so.
If I 'insist' that the space I'm riding in is a bike space that I'm entitled to, all it gives me is a ludicrous false sense of security.
-Styopa
From the article: "new bike-lane inhibition is promoted by arguments on a legislative level, such as one in San Francisco that accuses the cityâ(TM)s large bicycle population of creating more pollution than automobiles because they supposedly impede the flow of traffic." Oh, right; and they would impede traffic MORE if they had dedicated bike lanes?! Visit Amsterdam sometimes, and see how it's done.
Let's put the genes back in Genesis.
Sounds good ... Only ... How will you move while I'm standing on your "reflector" ?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Privacy? I don't think so. Bicycling on public streets (with some conditions) is legal in all 50 states.
In my state, a cyclist must right as close to the curb as is practical, but may take the lane "on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side." The law also allows for choosing a lane position that avoids other hazards.
You're not paranoid -Âjust misinformed. Can you cite one state (you've claimed to live in the U.S.) that doesn't permit cyclists on roadways?
This "Cars vs Bikes" argument is old and played out. I'm a cyclist who drives occasionally and I'm a driver who bikes for fun. I can understand the frustration on both sides of the issue. I don't tend to give much though to the law, but in this case having rules to follow keeps both parties safe, happy and on-time. For the most part, both the drivers and cyclists I have encountered have followed those rules, and so I don't know why these internet discussions get so heated. When I'm in a car my mild inconvenience is worth your safety as a cyclist, and if I'm on my bike, respecting traffic signals and right-of-way doesn't significantly decrease my own travel time. No one should be in such a hurry that they put their safety and the safety of others at risk. Admittedly, though I regularly participate in Seattle's Critical Mass, which damages my moral standing in the argument.
More on topic, this idea isn't really that great. It all depends on how it is implemented and marketed. Something like this might give a self-righteous rider more encouragement. It does seem like it could be useful, merely as a visibility tool, but the pattern that is projected probably has as big an effect on the inflation of the riders sense of importance as it does on the driver's visibility of the rider, and so I'm not sure the 'bike lane' metaphor is the best choice.
Shriver
And a thousand thousand slimy things
Lived on; and so did I.
Damn them and their "freedom!" Can you believe the gall of wanting to make use of roads their (substantially-more-than-yours) fuel taxes paid for? Those assholes.
Comment of the year
In my life, I cannot recall a cyclist doing something jerk-wad-ish on the road. I can only recall a few incidents of motorcyclists being reckless. Yet, EVERY WEEK I have at least once incident with some dumbass in a car doing something thoughtless, reckless, or stupid. This week I had a woman cruising the wrong way through the parking garage who ran me off the ramp, an idiot who pulled into a parking space and immediately decided to dive back into traffic without looking, and a neighbor who backed up his truck into the road without looking for cars. I've never understood how drivers can be so annoyed by the few minutes of their lives inconvenienced by having to navigate around bikes. Do you not understand that your 2 ton vehicle will KILL people if you aren't careful? There is NO competition and even if a cyclist was being careless, you're going to end up with maybe a dent while he'll end up in traction for a year.
Instead of all the bitching about the "slow bikes" in front of you, how about you put down your damned cell phone and pay attention to the road?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Where I live (Costa Rica) it is a tidbit better than where I used to live before (Hungary)
You must have an AWESOME accent.
Comment of the year
this is the law here in CA.
look sig is kool
London has (had?) a congestion vehicle charge and it went a long way to solving traffic problems in the inner city.
Don't forget the fact that the car commuters are far more likely to become obese and thereby a burden on healthcare systems, at the expense of everyone else. Oh, and there's pollution. And braindead urban planning that makes it impossible to get anywhere without a car. And drunk driving. And gruesome car accidents...
"ignore lanes clearly marked for them (why they DON'T right in the dedicated lanes that DO exist is beyond me)"
This is because (at least where I live) the effen lane is full of all sort of debris from wrecked cars. Not only do we have to avoid gravel brought on the road by cars, but we also have glass, spark plugs, nuts bolts, head lights, broken everythings, bumpers etc..
While the suspension in my car may feel almost every pebble (it's my stiffy) Bikes have little to no suspension, and those that have "good" suspension cost a lot of dough. I've got a Hardtail w/ front suspension and lockouts for road riding. I have to stay to the very Left of the bike lane in order to avoid flats. I'm burning through a tire in 1000mi instead of 3k and I'm riding on on Kevlar. This makes the tires on my bike more expensive per mile than the tires on my car! In fact it's almost 4x more expensive / mile.
I live in a fairly bike friendly place, Olympia, WA. though not as friendly as say, Denver, CO. we have some trails and lots of bike lanes, but they are not maintained, and so they do no good to us.
The only thing I can think of would be like telling an average person (non-suv) that they have to commuteon a logging road w/ broken glass bottles mixed in with the gravel. They'd take one look at you and say you're crazy, but us cyclists (and I'm a car enthusiast as well) have to do that every day we ride. God forbid if we fall in that mix of dirt, grease and skin shredders.
When I drive, I treat cyclists and motorcycles as if they were semi-trucks. (minus the drafting part)
Thanks for your input, and I hope this enlightens you a touch to the hardships we face as cyclists.
P.S. I just got the derailer hanger for my bike! I get to ride to work again!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
Why are you trying to pass on a blind curve? Would you try and pass a slow farm vehicle on a blind curve? So why do you try and pass a bike?
Just wait. Most decent cyclists will move to the side when they think it's safe (e.g. when they see the road ahead is straight and clear) to let you pass.
Wow, can it be that there are no decent cyclists in Portland? I've seen a bike let people pass maybe twice in my 3 years in this city. I greatly appreciated it both times.
Why does he/she get to slow us all down to the bikes speed?
Oh dear! Do you slow down for old women crossing the road? That probably delays you more than a bicycle.
Well, yes, but my reaction "OMG WTF is this old woman doing walking in the middle of a winding mountain road?!". Now why should my reaction to a bik going 5mphe when I'm coming around a blind curve be any different?
I definitely don't want to hurt you, and I am offended that you think you can put me at risk any time you please.
You are the one with the dangerous vehicle, so you carry the responsibility. It's *you* that puts everyone around you at risk whenever you drive somewhere. You should do everything you can to keep that risk to a minimum, which includes giving vulnerable road users space when you pass them, or being patient when you can't.
Yes, but you see thats' why we drive our dangerous vehicles only on the places specifically allotted for them to drive on. Don't be a dick: stick to the bike path.
I was stopped at a traffic light one time, to make a left turn (on bike)... This was on a normally 2-lane road (one each direction), with a third lane at the intersection for a right-turn lane.
A guy in a trailer truck was making a right turn onto the road - after making the turn, he stopped his truck and took a minute to yell out the window about how bikes shouldn't be on the road, and how he could have hit me (I was well within my lane, and he didn't hit any of the cars in front of or behind me), how I should be on the sidewalk, etc...
It's frustrating, the level of misinformation that's out there about where bikes should be. Fortunately, on my route to/from work it's mostly residential roads without too much traffic - I can generally get from place to place without inconveniencing others too much and without drivers hassling me...
I believe the law here (Massachusetts) is that there are some places where bikes are expected to use sidewalks - I think it was industrial areas or something.
Bow-ties are cool.
here effectively recognize bicycles as legitimate users of the road in their laws, either by defining them as vehicles, or by giving riders the the responsibilities and privileges of other vehicle operators (citation: http://bikelaws.org/ ).
A few states have special restrictions, such as using a bike path if possible. Four states require bicycles to use the shoulder of the road, but not when that would be hazardous.
There have been periodic laws to ban bicycles from the road, or to mandate really stupid things like riding against traffic, but they have universally been rejected at the state level. A few additional requirements may apply in your jurisdiction to bicycles (e.g. helmets, and audible signals). A very small number of localities have restrictive bike ordinances. But the default and overwhelmingly most common case is that bicycles have legal rights to use roads other than limited access highways.
So we are to outlaw pedestrians? Get rid of crosswalks?
I know about cyclists getting hit. A good friend of mine was killed while riding by a hit and run driver. He didn't have to die, but the driver didn't call an ambulance. He left him in a ditch to die. So should we outlaw cars based on this? No. It was an irresponsible driver that killed him.
It is quite possible for cars and bikes to share the road at an acceptable level of risk. It's not so hard. We just have to enforce the law. The most fundamental law is responsible operation of your type vehicle. For cars this means to drive at reasonable speeds with awareness of what is or may be ahead of you. It's not any different than what you have to do to avoid hitting stranded motorists. For bicycles it means riding in the normal direction, using hand signals, and not swerving or weaving into traffic unpredictably.
Naturally they are angry at you (if you live here in the US). You're trying to stop them from doing something they have a perfect right to do. If I told you you couldn't walk down the sidewalk or sit on a park bench, you wouldn't like it either. So in a sense, it is like the things you are talking about. The difference is a matter of degree, not kind.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I do not know if it is actually AWESOME, but a strong one for sure ...... kind of like a German / Eastern European one.... strange, even after 8 years of speaking English almost exclusively at home and at work, with some Spanish now on the side......
Actually people tell me that I am influencing my wife's accent in English which is really scary as she is a native Spanish/English speaker.
To bring this product to market they will have to prove to the FDA that this device is safe for the public (no more than 5mW is the general rule, MPE is very strict). This is using a DPSS lasers which takes 808nm infrared light through a crystal to get 1064nm light then through another doubling crystal to get 532nm light. If no proper IR filtering is in place these can blind people! I am not saying it isn't a bad idea but the certification process can take a long time (laser mice even take a long time to get certified). The other thing is they have to consider the liability from these devices, it may pass the CDRH process but may never make it out of the legal department...
-Anony Mouse
People have "GIVE BIKES THE RIGHT" bumper stickers everywhere around here. You couldn't ask for a better public attitude toward bikes. But I would never take up a lane, even here.
I try to figure out bike routes that stay on residential streets. So I end up finding a lot of streets that turn out to be such convenient shortcuts for cars as well that they need to install traffic calming crap everywhere. People just tear through at 50 mph both ways down these little streets on their way from one major road to another- according to those big speedometers along the side of the road. On one street the traffic calming includes a bottleneck with only one tight lane admitting one car at a time (going either way). I was biking through this thing one morning when some guy showed up behind me and was amazed OMG he had to slow down to follow a bike that was blocking his lane. He started tailgating really closely and honking. Then after we escaped the bottleneck, I went into the bike lane. So did he- I had a stalker! He was cruising down the door zone right with me. And he kept up the honking and tailgating until we passed the speed bumps and then he FLOORED it to pass really close- the way people do when they're trying to make a point. There are just too many of these idiots to take advantage of California law.
You aren't really a man until you've slammed into a car at 20 mph anyway. I was coming down a hill once- occupying the middle of a lane in fact. But I was behind an old dude. The light turned yellow just as he reached the intersection, he slammed on his brakes, and I crashed into him. It was basically just a fender bender, only with no fender, just a bike, which makes it a totally different sort of experience. In that split second- with my bike twirling up and to the side, my tires spinning into the air, and my torso rolling up the trunk of an Oldsmobile- I became a man.
I had no broken bones or injuries; my bike just got an ugly scratch on the frame. (I'm not sure about the old dude and his car- he calmly took off as soon as the light turned green.) But there's just no two ways about it. Smashing into a car on a bike just looks totally not cool to anyone who is around to see. I had to slink away to avoid being recognized.
look sig is kool
Regardless of the legality of whether a motorist is responsible for dooring a cyclist, the cyclist is who gets hurt or killed, so it is the cyclists personal responsibility to stay OUT OF THE DOOR ZONE. (people just forget to check their mirror all the time, it will never change, no matter what the law says. and don't forget the taxicab passengers! i've had two doorings from them in my career. one of them was when a cab stopped abruptly mid block right ahead of me. i saw this coming as soon as the cab was stopping so i hit the brakes too but still slammed hard into the door as it swung open... and the lady in the cab cursed me out for interrupting her ability to exit the cab! i was so shocked i didn't know what to say. "bitch" comes to mind.)
look sig is kool
The primary reason for anti-biker hate is due to the simple fact that bicycles are much smaller than cars: this causes our primitive ape-brain's status/power-hierarchy analysis system to kick in. It's not based on rationality or logic, it's simply the fact that humans are just apes, and millions of years of evolution has hammered into our brains the primary importance of relative physical size in establishing and meting out dominance hierarchies. "Me big car, you little bicycle, oog oog".
It's simple, really, and once you realise it, it explains so much of the heated "debate" around what really ought to be a non-issue.
It's a small price to pay for some peace of mind.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Well, why don't cyclists pedal faster then? If it's a 35 mph road, go 35 mph, and no one will bother you. Many of us don't think of motorcycles as a burden, as we think of bikes. Then again, your sentence, "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." can be seen as pro-cyclists and anti-cyclists that I think you might be trying to be sarcastic, especially with the caps. I have no clue what you're trying to do here. Have a nice long weekend!
What if someone driving in front of a cyclist slows down to 5 mph and the cyclist has no way of passing. Is the cyclist going to just follow at 5 mph and excuse the driver? Will the cyclist not feel even a little tiny bit of frustration?
That's because you live in a densely populated area, where nobody could go more than 5 mph even if they wanted to.
With less cars, there's plenty of room for everybody else to go faster than that. When city centers clog up, it's cars that get banned, because they take up most of the space. Put all those people on bikes, and there's no problem.
Except in China of course, where they ban bikes. The bikers can't afford cars, so banning them leaves the streets free for the elite.
Spend an hour on the freeway at 20 mph because there's cyclist blocking the entire road and you'll understand where the bike haters are coming from.
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! :P
An hour!
At 20mph?
For one cyclist?!
Oh, come on, you must be able to safely overtake 1 cyclist in less time than that. I don't believe you've ever been held up for a whole hour by one cyclist, what a load of old bollox!
I highly doubt anyone who can hold 20mph+ average for an hour is not to give you safe pace to pace in one whole hour. For starters, they'd have been run off the road years ago.
Just YOU wait till this happens to you 'cause it aign't happened yet!
you're right. when that happens, its usually because of a group of cyclists. I fail to see how that's an important difference though.
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.
Win. That is all.