Slashdot Mirror


Hammerhead System Offers a Better Way To Navigate While Cycling

Mark Gibbs writes "If you've ever tried to navigate using a smartphone while cycling you'll know full well that you took your life in your hands. By the time you've focused on the map and your brain has decoded what you're looking at you've traveled far enough to be sliding on gravel or go careening into the side of a car. What's needed is a way that you can get directions from your smartphone without having to lose your focus and possibly your life and Hammerhead Navigation have one of the most interesting answers I've seen."

249 comments

  1. Really? by msauve · · Score: 0

    If you have a problem navigating at a cycling pace, you have more serious issues.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Really? by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Define cycling pace? There's people who struggle to go faster than 10mph, and there's people who can hit 40 or 50mph on a good road bike. My personal record is about 35.

      Also, even at 10mph, looking at a map while you're moving isn't a very bright move. When I was learning the bike route to get to work, I would stop to check maps. Not sure why people can't do that... seems a perfectly sane way to navigate on a bike.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you ride slower than I do.

    3. Re:Really? by LuckyPhil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, even at 10mph, looking at a map while you're moving isn't a very bright move. When I was learning the bike route to get to work, I would stop to check maps. Not sure why people can't do that... seems a perfectly sane way to navigate on a bike.

      I couldn't agree more - just stop and check the map.

      Too many people are trying to solve problems with technology when often a non-technical option is the better one.

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stopping isn't always safe or convenient; where do you stop on a road with a small shoulder? "You shouldn't be there"? In much of the country, shoulders are a non-existent luxury.

    5. Re:Really? by Garridan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you're wrong. Not everybody has your opinions, despite your insistance to the contrary. There are people that care about other people on bikes. Also, I agree with GP as far as "anybody with some skill on a bike can properly evaluate risks before taking attention away from the road". However, this is for n00bs who want to spend crap to feel like they're more into biking. Not interested.

    6. Re:Really? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please, explain why people need all this navigation. I simply don't understand it. I can start any place in the continental United States, refer to Rand McNally, and maybe write a few notes on a scrap of paper. I can drive ANYWHERE in ConUS or mainland Canada, without any further guidance.

      Now, I may be pretty smart (like most people I like to think that I really am smart) but it doesn't tax my mind to remember a series of route numbers and directions. I don't need a cell phone, or a GPS to hold my hand, and tell me whether to turn left or right, or how many yards to travel before turning.

      Cycling is somewhat different than driving on the highway - but FFS, everything comes at you slower, there are fewer things to remember, and landmarks should be more "intimate".

      I'm sorry, but I see all this navigation software as just a tool to help dumb down America. Better to learn to read a map, then actually read the damned thing, then do your own thinking. Hey, I'll admit that software such as Rand McNally produces are beneficial. I can't know the current construction status of every mile of roadway in America. If you update McNally regularly, the software will warn you that US 1 and 9 are under construction in Smelly Swamp, North Carolina. That's a great feature - I can decide to take I-95 to avoid the construction. But, that's a simple decision, that should be made BEFORE you ever start out on your trip!

      Alright, so maybe I'm off on a tangent here. The discussion is about cycling. Let me think - ride down my home street to Oak Street, make a right, ride to the library and make a left, go across the bridge then take the third left, go to the crest of the hill and cut down the alley next to the yellow house, wave at the old dude sitting on his back porch, turn right at the HUGE magnolia tree, watch on my right for the hot chick who often waters her flowers, at the church make a left, and I'm at work. Do I REALLY need navigation? Getting across town isn't exactly rocket surgery . . .

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Really? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      where do you stop on a road with a small shoulder?

      You stop at the next intersection. I have been biking about 100 miles/week for 30 years. During that time, I have never, not once, needed to check a map while pedaling. If you are in such a hurry that you can't pull over for 30 seconds, then maybe you should have taken the car.

    8. Re:Really? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      where do you stop on a road with a small shoulder?

      You stop at the next intersection. I have been biking about 100 miles/week for 30 years. During that time, I have never, not once, needed to check a map while pedaling. If you are in such a hurry that you can't pull over for 30 seconds, then maybe you should have taken the car.

      It's nice that you always bike in familiar areas, but I like to explore new places on my bike, and often map out my course in advance so I can stay on bike-friendly streets. While I could print out a paper map and keep it in my back pocket, or stop every few turns to consult my phone to see if I'm on course, I can appreciate why someone might want a GPS to help them. Why should I pull over for 30 seconds to consult a map when I could have an unobtrusive GPS aid on my handlbars to tell me which way I should be turning at the next corner?

      Why do you think that a GPS is any less useful for a cyclist than for a car driver?

    9. Re:Really? by mjwx · · Score: 0

      Define cycling pace? There's people who struggle to go faster than 10mph, and there's people who can hit 40 or 50mph on a good road bike. My personal record is about 35.

      Also, even at 10mph, looking at a map while you're moving isn't a very bright move. When I was learning the bike route to get to work, I would stop to check maps. Not sure why people can't do that... seems a perfectly sane way to navigate on a bike.

      Cyclists dont reach 80 KPH.

      Normal cycling pace is 20-25 KPH because this is how fast the traffic stuck behind them is moving.

      But I agree, if you need to look at a map whilst moving you should pull over and do it. Regardless of what vehicle you're in control of. A 20 KPH crash on a push bike can be as bad as a 60 KPH crash in a car, easily fatal if you're not wearing a helmet.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:Really? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Please, explain why people need all this navigation. I simply don't understand it. I can start any place in the continental United States, refer to Rand McNally, and maybe write a few notes on a scrap of paper. I can drive ANYWHERE in ConUS or mainland Canada, without any further guidance.

      Now, I may be pretty smart (like most people I like to think that I really am smart) but it doesn't tax my mind to remember a series of route numbers and directions. I don't need a cell phone, or a GPS to hold my hand, and tell me whether to turn left or right, or how many yards to travel before turning.

      Cycling is somewhat different than driving on the highway - but FFS, everything comes at you slower, there are fewer things to remember, and landmarks should be more "intimate".

      I just counted, and my commute to work takes me on 18 different streets - it winds through several neighborhoods and on some bike-only paths. When I drive my car, I drive on 5 different streets, most of it on a freeway. Why do you think there are fewer things to remember on a bike? When I drive my car I stick to larger streets that have clear signs for major destinations, when I ride my bike I stick to smaller streets and I check a map first to help me stick to bike friendly streets... my community doesn't yet have comprehensive bike route signs, so I have to remember the street names myself. Now that I'm familliar with the route I don't need a GPS, but the first few times I had to write down each turn, and still had to consult my phone GPS after I missed a turn.

      I'm sorry, but I see all this navigation software as just a tool to help dumb down America. Better to learn to read a map, then actually read the damned thing, then do your own thinking. Hey, I'll admit that software such as Rand McNally produces are beneficial. I can't know the current construction status of every mile of roadway in America. If you update McNally regularly, the software will warn you that US 1 and 9 are under construction in Smelly Swamp, North Carolina. That's a great feature - I can decide to take I-95 to avoid the construction.

      So what do you do when Rand McNally tells you that the freeway to your destination is closed for construction and you have to go through some smaller towns?

      The discussion is about cycling. Let me think - ride down my home street to Oak Street, make a right, ride to the library and make a left, go across the bridge then take the third left, go to the crest of the hill and cut down the alley next to the yellow house, wave at the old dude sitting on his back porch, turn right at the HUGE magnolia tree, watch on my right for the hot chick who often waters her flowers, at the church make a left, and I'm at work. Do I REALLY need navigation? Getting across town isn't exactly rocket surgery . . .

      Not everyone rides on familiar roads every day - some of us like to go someplace new.

    11. Re:Really? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Shit. I bought stock in Hammerhead Navigation software product. Should I enact my exit plan?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    12. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You might try pausing at those octagonal red signs you might have seen. They have white letters on them.

      Not that any other bicyclist does...

      AC

    13. Re:Really? by hawguy · · Score: 0, Troll

      You might try pausing at those octagonal red signs you might have seen. They have white letters on them.

      Not that any other bicyclist does...

      AC

      You're not a cyclist are you? Stopping on the road (even at a stop sign) to bury your head in a map or phone GPS is a good way to get rear ended by a car and you'll never see him coming since you're looking at your map. You could pull off the road onto the unpaved shoulder, but that seems like a lot of work to avoid using an electronic navigation aid.

    14. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cyclists dont reach 80 KPH.
       

      I do 80 KPH regularly down a hill on my daily commute, and others are much faster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Whittingham

    15. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      BS. I've been over 50mph several times. But I don't weigh much so the last time it took a good tailwind coming off Squaw Pass into Evergreen, Colorado, and I had to spin out a 53x13.
      Cyclists don't reach 80kph? Better have another Mars bar buddy.

    16. Re:Really? by cduffy · · Score: 2

      Which? The product discussed here is hardware.

    17. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a car driver's GPA also displays a map thus the driver can also see if the GPS thinks the car is in a different location than it actually is. Bikers using the Hammerhead system have no such map and will blindly follow whatever it tells them. Worse, GPS doesn't work as well in a city which is exactly where you'd need such a device. Smaller cities tend to have less complicated roads thus making it easier to know where you are and where you need to go in the first place.

      But I still think it's a neat device.

    18. Re:Really? by milkmage · · Score: 5, Interesting

      but the thing about biking (at least for some) is cadence - stopping breaks cadence.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(cycling)

    19. Re:Really? by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anyone has got to be a bit retarded to be doing 35-50mph without knowing where they are going. do they run face first into walls when it is dark too?

    20. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed - i struggle to find a usage scenario for another peace of expensive kit on my bike.

      we are talking about someone who is taking their bike to various different unfamiliar locations on a regular enough basis that this becomes a requirement?

      Outside of a cycle courier (who should know the area anyway) and the occasional long distance explorer (who generally looks for a reason to stop and get out the map as a bit of a recovery) I don;t see it.

      Anyway good luck to them.#

      PS if you can have a retractable low drag bike flag to keep the traffic away during heavy periods i'd be interested - something that would damage cars if they hit it would be great.:D

    21. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect from a slashvertisement? This isn't even a product yet. This is just a pre-order cash grab.

    22. Re:Really? by s.petry · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you said! If you are bicycling and need turn by turn GPS to help you, you are doing it wrong.

      I really don't get people today feeling like they can't move without having a GPS mapping system showing them their route and telling them where to turn and when. Look at a map ahead of the ride, plan the route, and ride. Like you said, bring a map if it's a new route and stop and look if you need to.

      And yes, I ride. I'm only doing about 60-100 miles a week. No map, no GPS. I ride every day to and from work, and I don't carry anything but work gear. Road runs on weekends, I carry water, a bit of food stuffs, cell phone for emergencies, repair kit, and small first aide kit. If I get lost, I backtrack the way I came if all else fails.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    23. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you are in such a hurry that you can't pull over for 30 seconds,

      Many of the places where I ride my scooter, I would be dead if I pulled over. It just isn't safe in much of this country to stop.

      I have a mount for my iPhone for my scooter, but GPS is just too slow to use for navigation. By the time it updates, you're always past the turn. It is completely useless for that purpose, and it's sad to see scammers that are still trying to sell this scam to the public.

    24. Re:Really? by s.petry · · Score: 0

      Your epeen is way bigger than reality.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    25. Re:Really? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I use a Garmin e-Trex (battery powered GPS designed for hiking) mounted on my handlebar. That works pretty well.

    26. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Then perhaps you should FIGURE OUT WHERE THE FUCK YOU'RE GOING BEFORE YOU FUCKING LEAVE. I mean jesus tittyfucking christ, automobile drivers are supposed to pull the fuck over when using a goddamn smartphone, what makes bikes so fucking special?

    27. Re:Really? by MisterSquid · · Score: 2

      Also, even at 10mph, looking at a map while you're moving isn't a very bright move. When I was learning the bike route to get to work, I would stop to check maps. Not sure why people can't do that... seems a perfectly sane way to navigate on a bike.

      Checking maps while cycling is inadvisable at best. You're right to consult a map while pulled over. Perfect.

      But even checking a map is unnecessary and brings me to the point that this article is really pretty silly. I'm not normally one to complain about Slashvertisements (first time I've even used that word) but this is definitely a time to complain about it because SMARTPHONES

      Both Android and iOS have Google Maps which delivers turn-by-turn directions for bicycles. I have a bluetooth speaker built expressly for cycling (Boombotix, you can search for it, but there are other) so when I am somewhere I don't know and which does not have a gird-based layout, I let Google Maps on my smartphone give me audible turn-by-turn directions.

      The sound sometimes is not perfect and I might mishear a direction or two, but it's not much more difficult than using turn-by-turn in an automobile.

      This front page story is really trying hard to make a problem when an 80% solution already exists.

      --
      blog
    28. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, explain why people need all this navigation.

      Well, I for one ride 2000 to 4000 miles per year, and most of it is on unfamiliar roads. Someone in the bike club plans out a route and I ride it. If I were faster and could stick with the leaders I would never get lost, but I do at times get off on my own and need to find my way.

      I must admit that I have gotten by to this point without using a gadget... my rides are documented on a "cue sheet" that has instructions like "at mile 2.3 turn right on 123 Street; at mile 4.6 turn left on 456 Avenue" and so on. I have two odometers on my bike; if one flakes out, I use the other one. When you have a cue sheet, you want a working odometer to help you know when to even start looking for a turn.

      But in 2014 I will try out a gadget. I bought a Garmin Edge GPS. I mainly bought it for data capture (heart rate, elevation, miles, speed, that sort of thing) but it does also work as a GPS navigation device, and many of the rides I will do have GPS files available on the Internet. (Why not? All it takes is for one person to ride the course with a Garmin and record, or for one person to painstakingly click a bunch of turns on map software, and then any number of people can download and use it.)

      There are two main problems with a piece of paper: (0) I have become a bit farsighted and it's harder to read than it used to be. (The Hammerhead's simple flashing lights would work well for me without needing any glasses.) (1) I don't always recognize turns. I can well remember rides where I missed a turn and overshot, and had to turn around and go back. Not a big deal most of the time; but when you are trying to beat a rain storm, or when you were rolling downhill when you missed the turn and must climb back up to the turn, you are not happy.

      So while I don't really need this gadget, I'm kind of interested in it. But given that I already bought the Garmin, likely I won't buy this.

      Interestingly, the Garmin has features that work by tethering to the phone. It can alert you that bad weather is predicted to come, and I think it can relay text messages or something like that.

    29. Re:Really? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      I bought my first automotive GPS when I was doing a driving tour through cities I had not visited for over 30 years. It proved its worth on that trip. It not only led me through the spaghetti maze of Boston streets-- just as bad as it was back in the day but now with lots of changes-- it also routed me around road construction and a traffic jam. No amount of studying a paper map will do that.

      I use a GPS on my android phone on the bike. It is not only aware of current traffic conditions, but it also tells me where the nearest pub is when I'm ready for a break. The bicycle mode is getting better, though it still doesn't know about some of the alleyways that can avoid busy streets. But then, paper maps are even worse for that.

      If you are going to get an android for some other reason, it makes sense to install a GPS map app on it-- it probably comes with one. Depending on the price of the Hammerhead, it might be a good accessory. There are times when I'm sharing the road in city traffic when there is no place to stop to read a map or cell phone; hell, there are times when I can't even look at the street signs between dealing with traffic, potholes, and road debris, even at 10 or 12 mph.

      --
      Will
    30. Re:Really? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Cyclists dont reach 80 KPH.

      Maybe that's true in the Netherlands. On many of the roads in around Portland Oregon cyclists regularly reach 50 MPH (a tad faster than 80 KPH).

      A 20 KPH crash on a push bike can be as bad as a 60 KPH crash in a car, easily fatal if you're not wearing a helmet.

      Define "push bike"; I don't know what you are talking about. Adults around here ride various types of pedal bikes; the push bikes are the tiny things without pedals for toddlers.

      A cyclist crashing at 14 MPH (faster than 20 KPH) is unlikely to sustain anything worse than a bit of road rash if he's using good equipment (gloves and helmet being part of good equipment). His vehicle will usually be undamaged as well. A similar crash in a car will often result in a busted headlight or damaged bumper. Since cars are designed to crush in a controlled way.

      Normal cycling pace is 20-25 KPH because this is how fast the traffic stuck behind them is moving.

      Only when hill climbing or riding into a strong headwind. Commuting cyclists in Portland generally ride at 15 - 25 MPH, often faster than cars in downtown traffic. That's one of the reasons why more people are now commuting by bike.

      --
      Will
    31. Re:Really? by RearNakedChoke · · Score: 1

      People can 40 or 50mph on flat road? For what, 10 seconds? At any rate, this invention is pointless. I put my smartphone on a phone mount on the bike, crank up the audio and simply listen when it tells me to turn.

    32. Re:Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If it isn't safe to be stopped on that shoulder, it isn't safe to be riding on it, either. Like, duh.

      And if you have that little clearance, you shouldn't be navigating at all, you should have your attention affixed firmly to the road.

    33. Re:Really? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 0

      Well, as a bicyclist I have the right to treat stop signs as yield sign (I am assuming you are talking about stop signs, if you not I would appreciate if you were a bit more specific) and even red lights as stop signs. Idaho rocks

    34. Re:Really? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I live in Oregon, and I lived in Portland for a couple years including downtown... and you're totally full of it. Cyclists here ride the same speed as everywhere else, and if there are idiots that get up to 50, that's because they're going down a hill. If you aren't sure where you're going or if you need to turn before you get to the bottom, you don't want to go that fast anyways. Anywhere that you need navigational assistance, you're going much slower; even, a controlled speed. ;)

      The reason cyclists downtown pass cars isn't that they're going 20+ MPH. That's actually kinda funny. It is because the traffic is going like 10MPH, and bike is going 15. Obviously downtown has hills but see above; if you're not sure where your turn is, you're going slower anyways.

      The trees are taller out here, but the bicycles go the same speed.

    35. Re:Really? by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      Define "push bike"

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WmhMKWt8DI

      Name commonly used by people who don't live in Portland.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    36. Re:Really? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Because, to pick a random bit of North Carolina: http://opencyclemap.org/?zoom=16&lat=35.80116&lon=-78.64709&layers=B000 the route a cyclist follows is often more complicated than that for a car driver.

      To drive (or take the bus) to work, I would make three turns. I could cycle the same route (it's not forbidden), but there is a more direct route which avoids the unpleasant, busy roads. That involves 13 turns. I have another route, which is a little further but nicer (along the river for half the distance) and that's 10 turns. When I first moved here, I studied a map and set off early to give myself time to find the route, checking on my phone where necessary.

      If I regularly wanted to cycle in unfamiliar places, but didn't want to follow the easy routes -- the big roads full of cars -- I'd be interested in a better GPS.

    37. Re:Really? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Define "push bike"; I don't know what you are talking about.

      We have this Internet thing, it cures ignorance: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=push+bike

      Adults around here ride various types of pedal bikes; the push bikes are the tiny things without pedals for toddlers.

      No, they're called balance bikes.

    38. Re:Really? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Please, explain why people need all this navigation. I simply don't understand it. I can start any place in the continental United States, refer to Rand McNally

      As you asked: The fact that I 'can' plan a route and follow it doesn't mean I'm any smarter if I choose to do that instead of allowing a device to do it. I don't see handing over simple tasks like route planning for a car to a device as dumbing down. It frees up the nominal amount of attention that it requires and lets me use it to be even more aware of the road and traffic around me. It also routes me around heavy traffic, accidents and road closures without me having to stop.

      I've also never got the strange pride about being able to follow roads. Like it is somehow a tough task to be proud of mastering. Any muppet can drive 500 miles along interstates. It's a lot easier to get from the beginning of the M6 in London to the Inverness than it would be to get from a terraced domestic area on one side of a reasonably sized city to another in the UK due to the one way networks, pedestrianised zones, bus lanes and minor roadworks.

    39. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Evergreen. I'd love to see you get that 50mph going the opposite direction...:)

      FWIW I've ridden from my house here down to Denver - downtown, City Park, Cherry Creek etc. numerous times. I will say that it takes me less time to get down than to get back!

      (For those not in the know, that's about 35 miles each way and a 3000 ft elevation change)

    40. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have been reading this thread for about 5 or 10 minutes, I can't fucking believe how much arguing is going on about this shit.

      Hey, everybody, my favorite color is BLUE. I think BLUE is the BESTESTEST color there is. I defy anyone to disagree with the supremacy of the color BLUE to all other colors.

      Wanna fucking argue about THAT?!? Jesus H.M.F. Christ, people, grow the fuck up already. Fuck.

    41. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since this is already a slashvertizement, I feel confident in promoting our own biking navigation:

      Oh music where art thou

      http://www.usinet.nl/omwat

      It uses music for navigation, runs on aroid, is free and about 20 times cooler than the Hammerhead solution*

      *approximately

    42. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have hilarious ideas about bicycle speeds. No, a crash at 14MPH does not leave a bike undamaged, unless it's just a "fall over to the side all by themselves" kind of accident. A bike with a carbon frame is a write-off after a collision at 14MPH. No, commuters do not regularly ride at more than 20MPH, unless it's downhill or with a strong tailwind. They may occasionally reach speeds up to 25MPH, but no commuter sustains that speed. And no, cyclists do not regularly reach 50MPH.

      A lot of people who have never ridden a bike since they were 10 comment on cycling. Did you note that the author of the Hammerhead review does not even regularly ride a bike? He writes about the product: "Makes me want to start cycling again." Thanks, next time start with that, so that I don't waste time reading the review.

    43. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably depends on the street layouts where you are. In an area with grid-like streets, I agree: What do you need turn-by-turn navigation for? But in areas with winding roads, lots of one-way streets, natural barriers and different road types with maze-like interconnections, turn-by-turn navigation really helps me enjoy rides in unfamiliar territory. Yes, I could stop and look at a map, but with navigation I don't have to. I have been using a Garmin handheld outdoor GPS with handlebar mount for the last 10 years and it's been great.

    44. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen a stop sign on a bike path?

    45. Re:Really? by fatphil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get over yourself. The thing about biking is getting from point A to point B. If it's not, you're doing it wrong. However, getting from point A to point B is a mostly solved problem - do your groundwork and plan, before you even set off. For another 9, have something to refer to when the route doesn't match your plan. It's worked for centuries.

      "Cadence", sheesh, I almost feel embarassed to have never had a road-going vehicle with more than 2 wheels in my 3 decades of adult life. And you wonder why Critical Mass Porto Alegre happened?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    46. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obiously you've never been to Zoetermeer. Honestly, studying maps in advance won't help you and half the signs are pointing in the wrong direction. Heck, even if you have a map with you, you'll still get lost.

    47. Re:Really? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      So basically you don't cycle much and you mostly use the same route. This does not work if you make bike tours into unknown places. I find my turn by turn GPS navigation very helpful when I do the 60 miles on a single day, exploring the surroundings, and mounted on the handlebar the voice output of the navigation is loud enough so I don't have to look at the screen. I do not know where you live, but here in Germany towns often are a mess of small alleys of, apparently, non-Euclidian geometry, very easy to get lost.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    48. Re:Really? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's true in the Netherlands. On many of the roads in around Portland Oregon cyclists regularly reach 50 MPH (a tad faster than 80 KPH).

      To reach 80 kph with a bicycle you've got to cycle down a steep hill and have a frying pan for a crank (on a road bike you'd need a 60 teeth chainring and 120 rpm of cadence to reach that speed). I live in the mountains and when decending, I can reach 65 kph on a 26" with slicks at a 48-11 gear, but no more - not possible to spin any faster.

      And when climbing that kind of a hill, you'd have to be a pro to keep 25 kph all the way up.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    49. Re:Really? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

      God what a stupid post.

      Cadence is about maintaining a steady rapid pace pedaling. Not about not stopping, Let me point out that you need to do so at stop signs and red lights.which actually are perfect places to check a map. BTW most people don't check a mpa often enough to come anywhere close to interrupting cadence.

    50. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Former cyclist here (used to race, been doing it all my life). You *can* hit 40 MPH on a good road bike. Mine costs what a decent car does. But it still gets very squirrely around 40-50 MPH, something that's not the least bit pleasant on a slick mountain downhill in a pack.

    51. Re:Really? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Try it somewhere like Germany, in towns you've never been in before.

      I did that, extensively, and the only way to get useful information from the map was to stop and read the map - and even then it was challenging.

      This, from someone who can navigate pretty much the entire state of Florida, including minor county roads, by automobile at 60mph+ without need for a GPS or map.

      I met a guy who was going "back-country" in Northern Norway - he used a map strapped to his handlebars in protective rain sleeving. Map in plastic worked there, where you get one new turn every 40km, in Denmark it was o.k., in Hamburg, forgetaboutit.

    52. Re:Really? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      It's not about reality, practicality, or anything like that. It's about market, perception, and price points... Judging by the initial interest, there's investment potential even if there's no practical use for it.

    53. Re:Really? by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      You're entire post validates his point. The problem is that you're head is stuck so far up your own ass, you're utterly missing the simplicity of the world around you.

      When you move to a new city, a GPS is the WORST thing you can use to 'learn' the city. This has been proven by multiple studies. GPS is a shitty way to learn since you don't learn, you just follow directions and don't absorb them or the route you took.

      Why are you riding your bike in such a shitty environment that you're afraid to stop. That sounds like you're too stupid to make intelligent decisions about your path anyway, so its unlikely technology is going to save your dumbs.

      Why should you plan? ... Technology doesn't save the ignorant, which is what you are, especially without a plan.

      Stopping up hill is a massive ball ache for you? Then I'm 100% certain you should have put your fat lazy fucking ass in a car. The speed you had is of very little use, it takes you the same energy to get up the hill and overcome gravity regardless of speed, anything else you experience is entirely in your head.

      In short, all of what you posted is typical trendy idiot biker bullshit.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    54. Re:Really? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If you're going to Cadence cycle, do it somewhere the navigation problem has been solved - either by you or lead vehicles knowing the route, decent signage, or otherwise.

      If you're "exploring the unknown" get over the idea that you're going to get some extreme workout simultaneously. Tour De France riders are (almost always) not in it for a navigational challenge, even the leader.

    55. Re:Really? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Those of us who started doing this before electronic navigation aid was available managed to survive long enough to spawn the next generation....

    56. Re:Really? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I find that the people who "really need" GPS are the same people who have the most trouble navigating with it.

      We have a 3G connected tablet, it can do real-time mapping, in the 2 years we have had it, it has actually helped find someplace about twice, been used as a curiosity about 4 times, and mostly sits in the trunk unused.

    57. Re:Really? by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're not a cyclist are you?

      Its illegal not to stop on the road at those red orthogonal signs that have the word stop written on them. Idiots like you deserve to get creamed, but its unfair that someone will have to live with the fact that they ran over your stupid ass because you refuse to follow the rules of the road due to your arrogance and self entitlement bullshit.

      You deserve to get ran over for making such an ignorant response to his.

      You're pulling off the road not to 'avoid using an electronic navigation aid' ... you're pulling off the road so you don't get turned into road smear because your dumb ass was staring at the GPS rather than the world around you, you ran into traffic and a garbage truck turned you into a very thin smear of blood and guts on the road.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    58. Re:Really? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Granted, Miami is mostly grid-based, but I used to explore on my bike starting from Coral Gables, pre-GPS, and find routes from Homestead up through Miami Beach - I think I spent about 1% of my exploration time finding dead-ends and the remainder of it pedaling through stuff that was either obvious without a map, or I already knew somehow or another. Trying to "beat that" efficiency with the "aid" of a GPS distraction doesn't seem like good odds.

      Places I have rented bicycles (LA, Switzerland, Hamburg/Denmark), fussing with a GPS would have distracted from enjoyment of the scenery. I did do a trek from Hamburg-Berlin in 1990, the West German ADAC maps at the time were a little inaccurate, but I was glad to have them there - total lack of useful road signage in the ex-East.

    59. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the world hour record on a hpv (human powered vehicle) is a bit above 91 kph

      in fact you need to go down to number 21 to drop below 50 mph, see http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/fastest_list.asp

      (granted those are faired recumbents in ideal conditions but hey, it obviously is possible)

    60. Re:Really? by GTRacer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bicyclists here are supposed to follow the established automobile rules, yet most cyclists I see don't give a flip about stop signs/crosswalk indicators/red lights. I know full well if I drove like these paragons cycle I'd be buried under the jail by now.

      I appreciate cycling and honestly wish I lived and worked such that I could ditch my car too. But so long as were forced by circumstance to co-exist, please mind the signs - I hate lawfully coming to an intersection and nearly flattening the cyclist who didn't feel like stopping when indicated...

      Also, is it just me or do many cyclists cycle with chips on their shoulders?

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    61. Re:Really? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      As you asked: The fact that I 'can' plan a route and follow it doesn't mean I'm any smarter if I choose to do that instead of allowing a device to do it.

      There are studies that would beg to differ. Its been shown that people who plan out their route using some method before the trip, then don't rely on a GPS to give them directions end up knowing the route better and being far more aware of the route and whats on it. Most people can then repeat the route a second time without help or with very little help, where as the GPS user will need the GPS for 10, 20 or more times before they actually pick up on all the things the person who knew where he was going did.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    62. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't know a city, how will you know an area you go into has unfriendly locals?

      And if you want to deviate from the path because of a construction project? Not all of them are conveniently listed in the newspapers/websites/etc. What if the marked detour route doesn't have room for bicycles? Do you just plow through the site going by your meticulously memorized route?

      And try starting a bike on a hill as opposed to a flat surface. Start a hill with momentum built from a flat surface. Momentum counts for a lot, except in you magic world where that Newton fella was full of bullshit.

    63. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should I pull over for 30 seconds to consult a map when I could have an unobtrusive GPS aid on my handlbars to tell me which way I should be turning at the next corner?

      Why do you think that a GPS is any less useful for a cyclist than for a car driver?

      Because unless the "unobtrusive GPS" has audio, you're taking your eyes off the road, which could lead to an accident. If you're quickly glancing down it may be no big deal, but a good portion of people will move their eyes down and they'll stay down for longer than is safe.

    64. Re:Really? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1
    65. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is nice, but in most states bicyclists must follow the same traffic laws as cars, including stopping at stop signs. In the area I live in, we have a big problem with bicyclists ignoring traffic laws. We have bicyclists who travel in packs and block intersections so they can run stop signs and red lights. Personally, I hope every single one of them who do that gets hit by a car.

    66. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stopping breaks cadence.

      Jesus, who modded this insightful? Doing a tight turn (or almost any turn, based on how the average cyclist does it) also breaks cadence and people don't do just straights. Cadence is the preferred "pace" of someone. Doesn't mean they can't ever stop. And even if you don't know where you're going and you have to stop to take a look at the map, let's hope you can read more than one turn ahead and figure out where to go without having to stop every 30 meters. Because that wouldn't ruin just cadence, it would ruin all the fun!

    67. Re:Really? by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cyclists around here love to pick the busiest, curviest, narrowest roads they can find and they JUST LOVE the morning and afternoon rush hours. That's when and where I see them the most. Did I mention they overwhelmingly pick roads with no real bike lanes or even decent shoulders?

      Congratulations! You just found out that there are people who cycle to work. And they do that despite the bad infrastructure.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    68. Re:Really? by tirerim · · Score: 1

      Around here, if I'm in a hurry a car would most likely be slower. I frequently beat friends who are driving to places while I am cycling, mostly because the bike lanes don't get clogged with traffic nearly as much as the car lanes, and there are a few very useful shortcuts on bike paths.

      If I'm going someplace unfamiliar, though, having a navigation aid is pretty useful. I find that the voice directions from my phone mostly work.

    69. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (granted those specialized vehicles in specialized environments attempting to set speed records and are not representative of general bicycling or even bicycle racing.)

      FTFY. To show you where you go wrong, let me switch the subject to cars and how fast they can make it between two points.

      The fastest production car in the world goes over 265 mph

      in fact you need to go down to number 14 to drop below 150 mph, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars

      (granted the total production run of those cars is less than 15,000 in 51 years and 99.999% of the human population couldn't afford any of them)

    70. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about you see more cyclists at rush hour because you drive more often at rush hour? And I'm betting many cyclists commute during rush hour. Also, the roads don't exclusively belong to cars and trucks. In my area, bicycles are considered to have the same rules and restrictions as a motor vehicle, save not being allowed on interstate highways. In fact, I can sit in the center of the bloody lane and block it if I feel like it, so long as I don't slow down traffic. (I don't block traffic, but you should be aware of the pertinent laws in your area--and I bet they're similar.) Additionally, dependent on locality, you can *also* ride your bicycle on the sidewalk at a walking pace, even in downtown areas. Just try watching your local bike cops sometime.

      So get over it, and share the road. Bicycles are everywhere.

      Fucking cage drivers. (Also cyclists on the wrong side of the road.)

    71. Re:Really? by guytoronto · · Score: 1

      I like to explore new places on my bike, and often map out my course in advance so I can stay on bike-friendly streets.

      That isn't exploring. That's following a pre-determined route on bike-friendly streets. That is probably the furthest thing from exploring. In the urban jungle one of the best ways to explore is to get lost. You can't do that with GPS and a preplanned route.

    72. Re:Really? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      And you kids! Get off my lawn!

    73. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All roads are dangerous. I for one have been hit by vehicles 3 times on dangerous roads. One of which I was hit on my left arm by a passing vehicles mirror and I took a spill and separated my shoulder and tore my ACL out. I still ride today.

      If you can't accept the risks of riding a bicycle in an automobile world, then stay off the roads. There are plenty of bike paths for you to ride on your day off.

      I have a garmin 605 and it is loadable with Google Maps with a free program Easy GPS. It beeps when I need to make a turn with an arrow in the direction I need to turn displayed on the screen.

      It is also speed sensitive. If I am traveling at 10mph it will beep about 50 feet before I need to make a turn. If I am traveling at 25 mph it will beep about 200 feet before I need to make a turn.

      Garmin has been around for a long time now.

      As for riding uphill, if you have to get off your bike to get up hills, you don't need to be riding on the street.Stick to bike paths. It is just common sense.

      Nathan

    74. Re:Really? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      I have. There's a dedicated bike path along the river in this city, and it's got speed limits (25km/h) and stop signs, and I've seen people get traffic tickets for not obeying those rules....

    75. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, Ms. Ecstacy Goth, I have yet to see a single comment by you that isn't a childish flamebaiting troll. Please GTFO slashdot. There is certainly a drug-oriented rave site you could be trolling instead.

    76. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so let's rephrase the question slightly.

      How is using a GPS *ANY* different for a cyclist than for a car driver?

    77. Re:Really? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Insightful? Really??

      You know you can only turn at intersections right? The perfect place to check a map.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    78. Re:Really? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Bicycles have changed a lot in the 40 years since that song was last sung. and I don't think that "push bike" ever got much use outside of Australia.

      I don't know about Australia, but I think much of it has also changed.

      Anyway, thanks for the link. That clarifies where the "push bike" comment might have come from (very far from North American, European, and Asian bicycle communities)

      --
      Will
    79. Re:Really? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Hopefully one would not need turn by turn directions for a daily commute or another familiar route.

      But navigating to an unfamiliar location while remaining on a reasonably bike-friendly route can be much harder. More than once I have ended up in a tunnel with no shoulder because the road signs were not easy to read from a bike, and more than once I have found myself in a location where I really didn't want to stop due to safety.

      I cannot imagine mounting a GPS to my bike, but I imagine there are times where I would use Siri to help navigate... if Apple's maps had reasonable bicycle directions. Navigational aides open up the world.

    80. Re:Really? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      When you move to a new city, a GPS is the WORST thing you can use to 'learn' the city. This has been proven by multiple studies. GPS is a shitty way to learn since you don't learn, you just follow directions and don't absorb them or the route you took.

      Yes, but its not total. I have actually learned routes that I might not have found if not for GPS, unless I did some serious map study, and even then some wouldn't stand out because they are longer and only better due to traffic (I use waze on my phone, so it accounts for traffic)

      That said, there are also great routes it took me on that I didn't learn because I relied on it too much but, they are often again, ones I wouldn't have found on my own.

      I think traffic is the biggest win. So far it seems that there are about 4 different sections of my commute that have alternate routes that are better in some traffic conditions. On the whole, there is one main route it takes me down about 70% of the time.... but when traffic is heavy it routes around and manages to get me there in about the same amount of time as a normal day (most of the time).

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    81. Re:Really? by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      I'm a cyclist. I follow the rules (unlike my neighbour who I suspect I will be peeling off the road one day as he blows through stop signs). Okay I mostly follow the rules, I will slow down at certain intersections and proceed if clear, otherwise I stop.

      I wish I could cycle to work as well, doing so would have me cycling through 2 states and a District through some not so lovely areas, and it is only 30 miles form home to office (when I am not traveling).

      As for the chip on the shoulders, some do, but mostly it is the cyclist riding defensively and being a dick about it. Has to be done sometimes. Take DC for example, there are plenty of bike lanes next to regular lanes, yet buses, taxis, normal drivers, and cops like to occupy those lanes.... In a situation like that, I treat the lanes like an Ice Hockey goalie's crease, you enter my lane and I will take you head off (not literally), but a SPD cleat to the side of the car as a defensive move is perfectly acceptable.

      Yes, not everyone follows the rules, bike messengers follow no rules, plenty of cyclists are douche bags, but the same goes for drivers. I see more asshole drivers in 4000 pound death machines then I do asshole cyclists.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    82. Re:Really? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      What shitty GPS are you using? I've used my S3 with Google Maps, a Garmin, and a TomTom on different occasions for GPS navigation, handlebar mount with a connection to the bluetooth headset in my helmet with a capable device. It doesn't matter if I'm going 10, 25, 45, 55, or 70+ MPH, all the GPS Solutions have given me turn warnings with plenty of time to make lane changes and prepare for the turn. Regardless of speed or device, I get a 2 mile warning, 1500 foot warning, 500 foot warning, 250 foot warning, and then within 10 feet, there's the imperative "Turn here" notification. I also only use GPS when traveling in a new area without being able to pre-plan, or if the local signage is just totally screwed up (Instructions say take S.R. 79 North... actual road signage indicates 79 East / West. Take the right specified in instructions and that's 79 East, oops, the actual place I need to go is West of the intersection. Stop, ask for directions, Oh, MapQuest [at the time] is always wrong here because Georgia doesn't know how to name their damn route in line with the convention.) Or were you just making a poor attempt at a troll?

    83. Re:Really? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You, Sir, have earned a salute. You've obviously done things the hard way long enough to know what you're doing. And, you'll most likely recognize when the gadget is wrong. (yep, it happens)

      "(0) I have become a bit farsighted and it's harder to read than it used to be."

      I empathize with that. Or, maybe commiserate is the proper term. The same thing is happening to me.

      "(1) I don't always recognize turns. I can well remember rides where I missed a turn and overshot, and had to turn around and go back. Not a big deal most of the time; but when you are trying to beat a rain storm,"

      Yep - we've all done it. Most of us can figure out what needs to be done, and we do it. Beating the rain storm? Well - the rain got me yesterday morning. I'm on a motorcyle, but yeah, again I can empathize. ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    84. Re:Really? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "It frees up the nominal amount of attention that it requires and lets me use it to be even more aware of the road and traffic around me"

      Alright - you make a pretty good point. Except - as I witness people driving all around me, it seems evident that a large majority of those people whose attention are freed up, waste that attention on trivial nonsense. Over all, I don't see a good trade off for the attention.

      " Any muppet can drive 500 miles along interstates."

      But, of course! I hope that I didn't give the impression that I've always been on the interstates. I've always used the interstates when it made sense to do so, but I don't drive out of my way to use them. I actually enjoy the scenic routes. Unless I'm pressed for time, I've been known to get off the interstate, so that I could see some of the towns in between points A and B.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    85. Re:Really? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      If you see the context of my post, then I'm mostly agreeing with you. Also, not talking about accident-safety but am-I-going-to-get-stabbed safety, which are very different things...

    86. Re:Really? by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      You are being a bit of an asshole here... and this just seems to show that you have a certain animosity towards cyclists in general, and odds are nothing I will say will change that.. I will counter all of your points reasonably without resorting to any more name calling.

      "When you move to a new city, a GPS is the WORST thing you can use to 'learn' the city. This has been proven by multiple studies. GPS is a shitty way to learn since you don't learn, you just follow directions and don't absorb them or the route you took."

      Same reason people use them in cars, roads under construction, roads closed, trying to get from A to B is not always as clear as people think. There are certain laws in most states (MD VA and DC), any road with a speed limit higher than 45mph, you cannot cycle on it, unless explicitly noted that cyclists are permitted (which usually means dedicated bike lanes, or rural country roads). Unless you know every back street, and different route, GPS (or paper maps would work too) allows for this impromptu change.

      Then there are those of us who do distance riding, and may be doing a different 60, 100, or 120 mile route every couple of weeks, not all of that is in a straight line on a single road, and in those cases, you don't want to stop (or maybe you do if you want a rest) to look at a map, or a smartphone for that matter, Garmin make decent GPS cycling units that provide prompts. Stopping, especially on inclines absolutely kills your momentum. As for the uphill thing, yes it sucks for a car to be stuck behind a cyclist on a one lane road, and I will use my lane if legally till I get to the top, at which point I will wave the cars by.

      "Why are you riding your bike in such a shitty environment that you're afraid to stop. That sounds like you're too stupid to make intelligent decisions about your path anyway, so its unlikely technology is going to save your dumbs."

      Because every city, every place you live, has perfect little neighborhood, every road and highway has a bike lane, and everyone gets along without any problems....... Yeah no, life is not like that. I would love to cycle to and from work, except my options are to go from where I live, through 3 shitty areas of DC where I am likely to get shot and murdered at most, at the least I would get mugged... there are only certain routes from MD to VA, and they either involve a major highway, which the states frown upon when cyclists try to use them, or the shitty neighbourhood paths... and routing around said neighbourhoods involve an extra 30 miles on top of the initial 30 miles.. This has nothing to do with intelligence, more self preservation. Although the intelligent thing to do in this case is use a car. Some people don't have that option.

      "Why should you plan? ... Technology doesn't save the ignorant, which is what you are, especially without a plan."
      I agree with you here, except for the negative remark about being ignorant. Tech does not replace, and in most cases never will, it augments, and there is nothing wrong with that.

      "Stopping up hill is a massive ball ache for you? Then I'm 100% certain you should have put your fat lazy fucking ass in a car. The speed you had is of very little use, it takes you the same energy to get up the hill and overcome gravity regardless of speed, anything else you experience is entirely in your head."

      Really, okay I take bake my name calling statement, you are an idiot..... Momentum is the keep to getting up a hill. That consists of having enough forward momentum to get you as far as possible up the hill while still pedaling, only using less energy, till you get to a point where you have to pick a comfortable gear and grind your way to the top. This uses significantly less energy than just grinding away from the start of the hill.

      So not only do you know nothing about cycling, your also one of those drivers who I will put my cleated boot through one of your windows, or dent/scrape the crap out of the side of your car as a defensive move if you violate the 3 foot law where I live, and I am legally using the road.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    87. Re:Really? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I regularly reach 35 MPH on downhills around Portland OR, such as Greeley Ave and Time Oil Rd, and have been passed by cyclists doing 15+ MPH faster. I ride a Specialized aluminum 700-C frame, 28 mm tires at 110 psi, standard road bike, no clip-in pedals or handlebar extensions. My big chainwheel is 52 T, my small cog is 14 T, I'll leave it to you to figure out the gear inches (hint: somewhere around 110, AIR). My highest cadence used to be 128 but that was years ago, and I could not keep that up for more than a sprint of a minute or so.

      I don't know how much faster the bike could go with a foolhardy rider in excellent shape. I've been bicycling for more than 50 years, and I don't fold up as aerodynamically as I once did, and I've got more fear at high speeds than I once did. So I don't push the bike to its limits.

      Of course I don't ride up Greeley since Williams is a less steep alternate route that is only about 3 miles longer. I do sometimes ride up the Time Oil hill, in my lowest granny, a little faster than walking at maybe 5 or 6 MPH, and usually completely blown out by the time I've topped that 400 yard cliff.

      If I lived in the mountains, I would buy a slower, more stable bike like the one parent post describes. But I live in the city and ride mostly on clean, smooth streets and bike paths. My bike is worthless on gravel, lousy on dirt.

      --
      Will
    88. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cyclists around here love to pick the busiest, curviest, narrowest roads they can find and they JUST LOVE the morning and afternoon rush hours. That's when and where I see them the most. Did I mention they overwhelmingly pick roads with no real bike lanes or even decent shoulders?

      So you suggest the cyclists take a detour - rain or not - so that the car drivers are not bothered with bicycles? The word arrogance is not strong enough to describe your attitude towards the weaker road-users. Who don't pollute the air you also happen to breathe by the way.

    89. Re:Really? by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      True, but at some point, you will want to get home, and if you are lost exploring, that means you might not know the way home.... GPS's do help in those situations.

      Me personally, if I am not part of a structured ride, I will randomly go left and right depending on the direction of the wind, or my mood, or whatever, not following any predetermined route until I hit the 30 or 40 mile mark, then use my GPS (Garmin 810) to get me home again.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    90. Re:Really? by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      You may wish to try a different phone.. as there is something wrong with you... I have never had an issue of being past my turn, except in extremely dense urban areas where people already know GPS is worthless (like downtown DC, NY, etc).

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    91. Re:Really? by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      Incorrect...

      MD for example. There are some roads between DC and Annapolis, that are single lane in each direction, with no shoulder at all. Some have barriers as well so you could not even jump off the bike and move over into the grass/gravel/whatever is next to the road. Guess what.. giant signs on those roads every mile or 2 that states.. "Share the Road with Cyclists"... MD also has a 3 foot law, meaning you cannot move your vehicle within 3 feet of the cyclist, which means if there is no passing, you cannot go past the cyclist. With a long line of vehicles behind the cyclist on an incline, it can be dangerous to stop, especially if the driver is not paying attention.

      Most cyclist I know will wave cars past them when it is safe though.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    92. Re:Really? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Someone is full of it.

      Nuff said.

      A bit of background for those who don't know about Oregon bicycle politics. Bicycling in Oregon is booming. It is bringing in a lot of tourist dollars because we've got some really great places to ride, and it has become a major, and fast growing, style of commuting in Portland and some other towns.

      And that is pissing off a lot of automobile drivers because they think that striping shoulders as bike lanes and paving bike paths is somehow using up precious tax dollars that should be spent on their part of the streets. What they cannot get through their heads is that every bicyclist they see is one less car in the traffic they are dealing with, and one more parking space available to them. Nor are they willing to recognize that most bicyclists also own cars and pay their share of gasoline taxes, license fees, and so forth.

      Plus, it pisses them off that they have to wait in traffic inching forward at the intersections while the bicyclists go whizzing by in their bike lanes all the way up to the head of the line. That just isn't fair!

      --
      Will
    93. Re:Really? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Hi

      it might be that your bike computer is not entirely correctly calibrated. You will reach 35 mph max at 52-14 and 120 rpm cadence. 99 gear inches according to ritzelrechner.de, which, in my experience, is an excellent gear calculator.

      At cadence that high I'd personally be afraid to cycle without clip-in pedals.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    94. Re:Really? by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      maybe i'm not as gifted as you, but navigating around the DC metro area is a bitch without a gps. There's not really a grid, Roads open, close, and change direction depending on time of day. Intersections, ramps, and interchanges are horribly tangled messes. Looking at a map is often insufficient to provide information on if you even can get on the road you want in the direction you want from the intersection you are looking at. A little old lady on the george washington parkway will back the thing up for miles and turn what should be a 20 minute commute into a 2 hour one. A wrong turn will often lock you onto some road that will send you miles out of your way before you get to turn around.

      A couple years after moving here, i now have a pretty good map in my head, but i still rely on my gps to tell me what route to take to and from work. Out of the handful of routes i could take, some are going to be clogged 2 hour rides and some are going to be 30 minute jaunts. The gps can tell me what route to take in an instant, that beats doing research on traffic every day.

    95. Re:Really? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      So if you were to look at a rural area you have never biked, you could not find main intersections on the map and remember them? If you are heading down alleys and get lost, back track to return to a familiar road? I get that GPS makes things very easy, but it also creates a dependency on the technology. Numerous studies have shown that the technology prevents your brain from working properly.

      To really "get lost", I would need to have no idea which direction I was heading (North, East, etc..). If you have difficulty navigating basic directions, something else is wrong. Not every bike run is during cloudy days in big cities where there is no chance of seeing the sun and having an idea of which direction you are heading.

      You are right, I don't bike a thousand miles a week. I work and have a house and kid to take care of, and lack the time to ride 60miles a day. That said, I don't take the same routes to work every day nor on weekends, because I bike to enjoy scenery and get exercise. As soon as I pay attention to a GPS, I don't pay attention to scenery (this one of many points found in the studies that show GPS inhibits learning).

      You of course can do as you wish. If you don't care about the harm GPS does to learning and have more fun with the technology, you are at least trying to be healthy. That does not mean that I get it.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    96. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's exploring. You still go there and you still get to see the route. Just because someone's been there before so that you could choose the route on a map instead of while riding, it isn't any less new to you. When I got a GPS for the bike 10 years ago, my rides became more explorative, because I knew that wherever I was, I was going to get to my destination or home in a given time. I chose routes that I would never have chosen without a GPS. Without navigation, I had to avoid getting lost and taking too much time. And I chose routes that are easy to remember because I didn't want to stop often to look at a map. The only thing more annoying than constantly looking at a map is finding that you've been going the wrong way for kilometers.

      With a GPS, you just go where you want to go. You stop worrying. One thing that many people do wrong with a navigation system is that they follow its directions religiously. What the GPS says is guidance, not law. If you feel like going a different way, the GPS can't stop you. It will happily recalculate. Having bicycle navigation available when you just want to ride is great. You should try it.

    97. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, I think he discovered that you are more likely to notice the cyclists that do more noticeable things. But why didn't he speculate why all of those car drivers also decide to take the busiest route... must be some sort of desire to spend more time commuting, because otherwise they would take different routes.

    98. Re:Really? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      We have this Internet thing, it cures ignorance: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=push+bike

      Adults around here ride various types of pedal bikes; the push bikes are the tiny things without pedals for toddlers.

      No, they're called balance bikes.

      No. "Balance bikes" are known as "push bikes" That's why when you Google for "push bike" you get all those articles on balance bikes. You silly thing.

      What does this prove? Well, for one thing it demonstrates that a person who thinks they are clever, and knows about LMGTFY and Google, will still fail it if he doesn't use the smarts that he thinks he has.

      --
      Will
    99. Re:Really? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Another quick point. I spent over a month patrolling the then East German border with my platoon using nothing but a map and compass (North East of Hanover). In some of those forest areas, it's easier to get lost than in a city with strange street layout. We also patrolled several small towns there which, we had never seen before. Personal GPS didn't exist back then, and we did just fine. Perhaps some of my view is based on confidence that other people lack.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    100. Re:Really? by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Well when I'm out cycling I make a point of pausing at those things. (Unless I'm turning right and am on a nice wide shoulder).

      And "pause" is most fitting for the situation, imo. Dead stops at stop signs are only necessary when you're going through a potentially busy intersection or you need to wait for other cars at an all-way stop.

      I'll stop at red lights (again except when turning right). But when I know the coast is clear I'm not waiting for it to turn green to start going again. You could potentially wait a long time if sensors are looking for other cars.

      Not sure if this is the legal way to do things, but it makes sense so fuck 'em.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    101. Re:Really? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      No, the calibration is accurate by measuring the rollout circumference of the wheel. I think I can trust Cat Eye's computations.

      I don't know when I hit 35 MPH or how long I am at that speed-- I don't dare look at the cyclometer on those downhills. I check the max speed when I have slowed down to 18-20 MPH. I am consistently faster than 32 MPH in those places, but 35 MPH is rare for me. Might have to do with a tailwind or catching drafts off passing vehicles, I never thought about it.

      What wheel circumference did you use with the gear inch calculator? 99 seems pretty low, even my junkie 1970 27" no brand ten speed with alpine gearing had 104 gear inches. (I should count teeth on the small sprocket. Maybe its smaller than I remember)

      --
      Will
    102. Re:Really? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, you have specified 700x28C, so 2130mm, that is about 84 inches. Since you have measured the rollout circumference I am inclined to believe your speed then, but my Garmin sometimes shows me a 80kph top speed and I know that it is impossible. My old Polar has also shown some strange speed readings when it picked up interference from tram powerlines.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    103. Re:Really? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      There are just too many intersections. Actually, GPS does me more good than harm because when I have cycled through a long route once with GPS cues, then I almost always manage to cycle the same path without help, just by the visuals, even if it is a long and complicated track. I do have difficulties navigating basic directions, but I am quite comfortable if I've actually been somewhere once, even after a decade.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    104. Re:Really? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      If a cabbie can do it, so can a cyclist. We just have to start testing and licensing cyclists before they're allowed to ride there.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    105. Re:Really? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Better yet, how much did hammerhead pay dice for this slashvertisement?

    106. Re:Really? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Is this supposed to be a sarcastic remark or what? I do see stop signs on bike paths. They are smaller that the regular street ones and they face the direction the path comes from, in the woods, where there are no cars driving. So they do exist.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    107. Re:Really? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you're joking, because the alternative is that you just said something colossally idiotic...

    108. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in Illinois you don't, and I doubt you're right about anywhere.

    109. Re:Really? by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      You're not a cyclist are you?

      Its illegal not to stop on the road at those red orthogonal signs that have the word stop written on them. Idiots like you deserve to get creamed, but its unfair that someone will have to live with the fact that they ran over your stupid ass because you refuse to follow the rules of the road due to your arrogance and self entitlement bullshit.

      You deserve to get ran over for making such an ignorant response to his.

      You're pulling off the road not to 'avoid using an electronic navigation aid' ... you're pulling off the road so you don't get turned into road smear because your dumb ass was staring at the GPS rather than the world around you, you ran into traffic and a garbage truck turned you into a very thin smear of blood and guts on the road.

      For anyone who thinks that bikes are the problem, and not the attitudes of drivers, this should pretty much end that arguments.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    110. Re:Really? by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      I see more asshole drivers in 4000 pound death machines then I do asshole cyclists.

      Good point...

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    111. Re:Really? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      You're not a cyclist are you?

      Its illegal not to stop on the road at those red orthogonal signs that have the word stop written on them. Idiots like you deserve to get creamed, but its unfair that someone will have to live with the fact that they ran over your stupid ass because you refuse to follow the rules of the road due to your arrogance and self entitlement bullshit.

      You deserve to get ran over for making such an ignorant response to his.

      You're pulling off the road not to 'avoid using an electronic navigation aid' ... you're pulling off the road so you don't get turned into road smear because your dumb ass was staring at the GPS rather than the world around you, you ran into traffic and a garbage truck turned you into a very thin smear of blood and guts on the road.

      I don't know if you'd bothered to read the article about this topic (the link is at the top of this page, go ahead and click on it, it won't hurt you), but the entire point of the Hammerhead GPS is that you don't need to stare at it to use it -- the flashing lights are visible in your peripheral vision, or at worse with a quick glance. No need to stare at the blinky lights to know that when all of the lights on the right side are flashing then you should be making a right turn. Even better, when you see the left lights flashing 100 feet from your turn, you have plenty of time to gently merge into traffic to make your left turn instead of stopping at the stop sign, pulling out your map and then trying to make a left turn from the right side of the road.

      I understand that you don't like bikes, but at least learn something about the product before you make an argument that tries to shoot down the very problem that the device is designed to solve (i.e. the need to stare at the GPS).

    112. Re:Really? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I see pages of normal bicycles. Perhaps it's American (or just some regions) that's different?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle cites the Oxford English Dictionary in the first line.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_bike

    113. Re:Really? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Insightful? Really??

      You know you can only turn at intersections right? The perfect place to check a map.

      Yeah, if you don't mind getting rear ended by a car while you're looking at your map. Intersections are by far the most dangerous place to stop - if I have to stop on the road, I prefer to stop mid-block, preferably in front of a parked car.

    114. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "True, but at some point, you will want to get home, and if you are lost exploring, that means you might not know the way home.... "

      That is one of the fun reason to explore. You might get lost. That is one of the thrills of fucking exploring for christs goddamn sake. If you have no risk of getting lost then you arent fucking doing it right.

      Fucking-a its like we're being taken over by a bunch of pussies

    115. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is friggin' brilliant. I believe I may be in love.

    116. Re:Really? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      but the thing about biking (at least for some) is cadence - stopping breaks cadence.

      So you actually admit being one of those assholes who ignore stop signs and red lights? You belong in an intensive care ward, that might cure your obsessive assholishness.

      Stupid kid.

    117. Re:Really? by lightBearer · · Score: 1

      Listen, I understand the irritation that arises in the interactions between cyclists and cars. We (cyclists) have to obey the same rules as cars. We have a few others thrown in for good measure in many places -- things like, "If you're on a 2 lane road with no shoulder, you may use the whole lane or, if there is a shoulder get over there instead". That kind of locally legislated crap. Fun fact: once you have your license to drive, there is nothing to make you go back and educate yourself on the rules that cyclists have to follow in order to use the road as well. In addition, there's nothing requiring drivers to educate themselves as to the meaning of road markings. Ever seen or looked up what a sharrow means in your region? It may not be the same as for me so you can't take it for granted that if you come to my city, bikes will use it the way you expect.

      To make matters worse, confirmation bias. You see the asshole cyclists because they are the ones who rush to the intersection, track stand for a second at the red light and then take off while you are stuck waiting for the light to change when there's no cross-traffic. Of course this pisses you off. They're also the ones you see blowing stop signs like they're not there. I hate it when I go through a roundabout the correct direction and nearly get clocked by a car who is turning the wrong way because it's easier than going full circle to make that turn as much as you hate nearly creaming a cyclist who ignores traffic control. That doesn't make us all bad people on either side and we need to remember that a majority of road users we don't remember because they're not the ones who gave us an adrenaline rush or caused our lives to flash before our eyes on the way to work.

      As for the chips on the shoulder, I attribute it to us feeling vulnerable, fragile, and scared in the face of your 1 ton car, that 18 wheeler and the delivery van with no back windows. Y'all are terrifying but but them's the roads I have to use, bud.

      --
      - No Bounce, No Play -
    118. Re:Really? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      For a technology site there's a massive luddite community on here.

      It's not a "technology" site, it's a nerd site. Meaning there are a few here who actually use our brains for something other than to rest a hat on. We're pro- GOOD technology, but the intelligent are never against stupid, useless, or worse, harmful technology.

      A device that tempts a bicyclist into doing something stupid like taking his eyes off the road while cycling is a stupid, dangerous, utterly retarded technology that nobody with a three digit IQ would ever use.

      Protip: liking to buy shiny new tech doesn't make you a nerd. Liking to design, build, repurpose tech does.

      Another protip: everyone in antarctica and on the ISS are nerds. Hell, a couple of astronauts are so nerdy they appeared on the Big Bang Theory (one of whom repaired the Hubble while in orbit, the other of whom walked on the moon in 1969).

      Yet another protip: I don't think you're a nerd.

    119. Re:Really? by bored_engineer · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    120. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off.

      You political cyclists give all the rest of us a bad name.

      Its just another trendy fucking club/clique mentality - in other words, juvenile.

      I fucking hate it when people start doing things that I've been doing for years - cycling or kayaking - and start coming up with trendy little rules, sayings, social bigotries, political views etc.

      Its a wonder anyone ever did anything without trendy little yuppies to define for the rest of us the ideologically pure reasons and methodologies all the rest of us should be using.

      Fuck. You.

    121. Re:Really? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      A device that tempts a bicyclist into doing something stupid like taking his eyes off the road while cycling is a stupid, dangerous, utterly retarded technology that nobody with a three digit IQ would ever use.

      And yet most of us do now accept the value in car GPS systems... so the difference between a driver and a cyclist is...? In fact, a car driver is far more dangerous with his eyes off the road.

      I don't think it's intelligent behaviour, I think it's snobbish. "I don't want a technology therefore I think you shouldn't have it either."

    122. Re: Really? by daisybelle · · Score: 1

      I can appreciate that this would have been very useful when learning my route to work in Sydney. Having to stop constantly and refer to my print-out of directions, then compare this with the GPS and trying to find street signs to see if anything matched up was a nightmare. I only had to navigate 14 kms, but it took about 2 weeks to learn the route cos I took so many wrong turns. Started out taking 2.5 hours, once I had the route finally worked out it was normally under an hour (depending on lights, traffic and weather). Of course, I assume the hammerhead will only be as good as the GPS behind it, and I'm not really sure that anything can make Sydney roads easily navigable.

      --
      "You only get ONE LIFE." Richard Rahl, Faith of the Fallen - Terry Goodkind
    123. Re:Really? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Those of us who started doing this before electronic navigation aid was available managed to survive long enough to spawn the next generation....

      Sure, and people have managed to get around with paper maps for decades, but that doesn't mean that GPS's aren't a better solution. I remember vacation car trips with mom and dad, and mom was a lot less patient than a GPS while "recalculating" after dad missed a turn. Now I can drive across the country without looking at a map and when I get hungry or sleepy along the way, my GPS will tell me what hotels and restaurants to expect at the next few exits and will even give me their phone numbers so I can call to see if they are still open at 10pm. Looking through the AAA Tripbook was much less convenient.

      No one is arguing that every bike should be equipped with a Hammerhead GPS, but it sounds useful for cyclists that often bike in areas that they aren't familiar with and want a GPS that gives easy to see visual cues that doesn't involve staring at a map display, or wearing an earpiece so they can get audio directions.

    124. Re:Really? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Lack of empathy? Did you not understand the first sentence in my second paragraph? I'll spell it out in words short enough for you to understand - when I'm not walking or taking public transport, I have never been anything apart from a biker. (Both kinds, 4 seasons, even in a cold climate.)

      And to address your points:
      - GPS is the worst way to learn a new place.
      - You have a point here - I'd forgotten that you magically become invincible once you're cycling at your magical cadence. In fact the word "cadance" is derived from the ancient Zulu word for "bullet-proof".
      - Because the non-thinking technology-reliant are those who drive into ditches, or rivers, or canyons, or railway stations, or buildings. Just because it's technology, doesn't make it better.
      - If you're "going up a long hill", then you don't need GPS, a map, or to stop. Just keep going up, idiot.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    125. Re:Really? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I was mostly replying to the "threat of impending death" in the parent comment.... I stopped and read plenty of paper maps, and I'd bet I was safer than people attempting to use any modern form of GPS while "navigating on the move...", Hammerhead included.

      That said, Hammerhead represents an apparent improvement in usability for people who want a GPS on their bicycle.

      I want to want a GPS for my bike, cars, and wristwatch.... I just can't justify the inconvenience, for me. My life seems to rarely take me outside places that I don't know well enough to navigate without a map - even if GPS cost $0, it just isn't worth my attention to look at the device instead of the natural navigational cues - 99.9% of my "out and about in the world" time.

      I had an analogous experience when I was first given a Blackberry with (horribly slow G1.5 or something) web access. I had an hour to kill in the airport changing planes, and a dead watch battery, so I used the Blackberry to find a watch battery shop near my hotel - it took the whole damn layover to extract that info from Google / Maps, etc. via Blackberry. Granted, today on a 4G phone with a 5" screen, it might take more like 2-3 minutes. Back in real life, my hotel had a Concierge desk (though the regular front desk often works as well)... I stepped 10' out of the shortest path to my room, waited 15 seconds for the person in front of me to get their answer, held my arm up and pointed at the watch and asked "where can I get a battery." Net investment of 30 seconds and I got the same answer from the Concierge as I had extracted from the Blackberry....

      GPS and online maps have their place, in unfamiliar towns they're great for finding food, gas, etc. but it is truly more trouble for me to keep track of a widget and feed it electrical power than the benefit I get from it - most days. Circling back to the navigating unfamiliar territory on a bike application, I did a lot of that in Germany, it's amazing how easy it is to ask directions of people on the street, and equally amazing how efficient it is instead of trying to interpret a map - paper or electronic. Yes, yes, neither are 100% accurate, or available, but overall, I find the non-electronic solutions to be much more responsive and efficient.

    126. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not, but the people around here who do not or have not ridden on a bike because they live in their Moms basement have no clue what this device does, or how it functions. They just need to be part of the argument and provide nothing but the cars are better why not use them response.

      anyone arguing that cyclists are a danger are the real threat. Bikes have been around longer then cars, just keep that in mind people

    127. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was Apple Maps, telling him to turn left when it meant right.

    128. Re:Really? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Why should you plan? ... Technology doesn't save the ignorant, which is what you are, especially without a plan.

      Especially if your GPS dies while you're going through a seedy-looking neighborhood...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    129. Re:Really? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      You definitely shouldn't have the technology if it makes you more likely to hurt others.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    130. Re:Really? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      If you have a problem navigating at a cycling pace, you have more serious issues.

      It can be pretty serious, all right. My last crash happened when the pack came to a fork in the road and the guys in the front hadn't been paying attention to the route sheet. FWIW, though, in my cycling club, we print out an easily-readable list of turns and mileages, which riders clip to the handlebar or brake cable, and this has generally worked pretty well for the 30 years I've been riding with bike clubs. And when I'm mapping out a route for myself in unfamiliar territory, I write a similar route sheet.

      One potential problem with the Hammerhead is that bicyclists sometimes ride in places where there is no cell phone service. I've tried using Google Maps on occasion (while stopped on the side of the road), and the map information simply isn't there. The Garmin solutions are far better than the phone.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    131. Re:Really? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, it's even more stupid to take your eyes off of the road in a car. If it can give voice directions that you can hear, great. But if you need to look at a screen, find somewhere to park.

    132. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > as there is something wrong with you

      Really? A personal attack just because you don't understand the problem with the GPS that is included with modern carphones.

      I have an iPhone 3G. It is less than five years old so it is relatively modern, and I know for a damn fact that it is too slow to use for navigation while driving. Why do you people have so much trouble understanding technology that you resort to hateful personal attacks?

    133. Re: Really? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was joking, but there's always an element of truth. The element of truth here is that I think that professional licensing is also collossally idiotic.

      Now, if you wanted to have TWO classes of cabbie, certified-licensed, and uncertified.... I could go for that. The difference is freedom vs. entitlement.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    134. Re:Really? by arobustus · · Score: 1

      Smart phone is fine for biking. I just set it up, put in the earbuds, and stash the phone in a pocket, and let the nice GPS lady guide me. No need to look at the screen.

    135. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Your solution is better, much better.

    136. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see more asshole drivers in 4000 pound death machines then I do asshole cyclists.

      Only because there are more cars on the road. If you look at percentages of each the cyclists will be higher.

    137. Re:Really? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why should I plan, do groundwork? We don't have to!

      So ... you have never, ever, ever had a piece of technology stop working on you because the batteries have gone flat?

      When I had a GPS, for interest, in the early 2000s, I was interested in the navigation aspects, and also in the barometer in the device that I brought as a tool for understanding weather trends. But for the barometer to work as a barograph, the device needed to be powered up continuously. The internal batteries would last - when I put in a set of the best of the then-new NiMHs available - for about 8 hours. So at least once during a day in the saddle, I'd have to connect up the external battery pack and calbe (doubling the weight and bulk that I had to carry), then plug in the replacement internal batteries, then remove and pack away the external battery pack and cable (because that broke the device's weatherproofing, which you don't want to do on the handlebars. I'd also have to change batteries in the middle of then night, too. Any trip more than 4 battery changes long and I carried more weight and bulk of batteries than I did of the GPS itself.

      Basically, this was technology designed for use within seconds of walk from a power source. So when the burglars took it a couple of years later, I didn't bother to replace it. I've not seen a device that doesn't have that fundamental problem (and I do look). So, am I a Luddite, or am I someone who wants a device that doesn't exist, and which for perfectly understandable marketing reasons, isn't going to exist unless I make it myself.

      I see no reason to make one for myself since I've got technologies that hugely outperform it (for the tasks that I need) for a vastly lower outlay, and which can survive being dropped into rivers and don't need their batteries changing more than once a month or so. (That's a map, a compass, and a headtorch.)

      Lots of things have worked for centuries, doesn't mean we can't do them better.

      GPSs do different thing than maps and compasses. But that doesn't make them better than map and compass for the things that map and compass do.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    138. Re:Really? by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but most cyclists in my town do not believe that traffic control signs or indicators have any bearing on bicycles. As far as they are concerned, the stop sign, the red light, etc. were only created after the number of cars hit a critical mass so they do not apply to bicycles. Now, of course the laws are written to include the bicycle but there's a movement to have the laws changed so that bicycles will be explicitly exempted from requiring to follow traffic rules, signs and indicators.

      Myself, I've decided I'm all for it. Give them what they want since the police have stated they haven't the resources or inclination to enforce the laws against cyclists anyway and, maybe, just maybe, after a few have been killed by saying traffic laws don't apply to me they'll find out that traffic laws are really just a coding of a combination of common sense and physical laws.

    139. Re:Really? by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

      not to put too fine a point on it but the dependence of the current generation on their technology may finally put an end to the scourge known as man. The technology will break down eventually and if there's that much dependence on it then don't bother holding out any hope for a next generation.

    140. Re:Really? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      You are brutally evil.

      You deserve to get ran over for making such an ignorant response to his.

      Reread this sentence:

      Stopping on the road (even at a stop sign) to bury your head in a map or phone GPS

      I bolded the important part that you should be comprehending before you go acting all venomous and crazy.

      I would expect that hawguy deserves an apology.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    141. Re:Really? by nobodie · · Score: 1

      I use a crap bike, on purpose. I don't need or want to race cars. I don't need or want to have serious money tied up in a fragile and insecure bike, I just want to get to where I want to go, eventually. I use a crap lock because nobody will steal a crap bike. I go slow, often in lower gears just because my crap brakes don't stop so good. I would never even consider using a system like this because I don't care if I have to stop and figure out where to go next.

      The best part of my way is that I don't have to wear those stupid biking clothes and a stupid bike helmet, or pay for them, or change clothes and shower when I get somewhere (besides just biking in a circle, I actually use my bike to go to work and go shopping and visit friends and pick up the kids and stuff).

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. Wrong Color by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those LEDs look blue. Red would be better when biking at night. Such a minor change yet a major difference in usability.

    1. Re:Wrong Color by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in my State if you mount something with blue lights on your handlebars, and you're not an emergency vehicle, you can get a huge fine.

  3. Yay another infomercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All its missing is a buy now button

  4. Silly hype. by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you've ever tried to navigate using a smartphone while cycling you'll know full well that you took your life in your hands. By the time you've focussed on the map and your brain has decoded what you're looking at you've travelled far enough to be sliding on gravel or go careening into the side of a car.

    Actually, after making a proper bike mount for my N900, I had no trouble using satnav while cycling.

    Unlike TFA author Mark Gibbs, I'm aware that my experience is not universal, as people in some other cities have to deal with worse traffic than I do.

    1. Re:Silly hype. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because everyone knows that bike riders won't use their bluetooth to listen to the phones voice turn-by-turn like some car drivers do.

  5. How about... by ApplePy · · Score: 0

    ...knowing where the fuck you're going, before you head out?

    I remember back in the Stone Age, we had these things called "maps" that we could use to determine a route to take, and then we could write down or memorize the turns to make. Believe it or not, we still have this technology.

    People are seriously getting waaaaaay too dependent on their little gadgets. I have this friend who puts his phone in a windshield bracket and turns on the GPS nav to get 3 blocks from his house to the supermarket. It's fuckin' pathetic.

    Me, give me two major cross streets and I can get to anywhere in my metro area, and a good part of the rest of my state, without looking at a map. Call me old-fashioned, but it works.

    Really, if you are riding a bike watching a screen, you deserve your lacerations.

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    1. Re:How about... by mechtech256 · · Score: 1

      "Really, if you are riding a bike watching a screen, you deserve your lacerations."

      Perhaps you didn't even read the article, but the device shown has no screen and is basically just a turn signal.

      I remember back in the stone age we had these things called stone tools that we would kill Mammoths with. Now people go to the market just to get a bite to eat. It's fuckin' pathetic.

    2. Re:How about... by Albanach · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...knowing where the fuck you're going, before you head out?

      I'm guessing you either don't cycle much or don't ever travel and cycle some place new?

      Some of us happily ride 50, 60, 70 ... 100 miles when we go out on the bike. Typically it's on rural roads with lots of turns. Sometimes you might make a new route to suit the distance you want to cycle. So you combine lots of bike friendly roads you are used to riding on, but you use them in a different way. Remembering which turn you're planning to take typically involves printing out a map or cue sheet.

      Other times, someone else will have plotted a ride using bike friendly roads you are unfamiliar with. Thirty turns wouldn't be unusual. That's a lot to remember, even if you have a pretty good idea of where you are.

      Surely this is much better than a cyclist constantly checking their odometer so they don't miss the next turn.

    3. Re:How about... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      LOL, I remember the stone age. I posted a rant along those lines above. I just wish the kids would stay off my lawn while they are trying to figure out where they hell they are going! ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would one not want to pre-check your route instead of relying on a device, to me this would defeats the purpose of cycling, obviously if you are in an area such as mountains or woods and you decide to go off (if there is a clear tract) the usual cycling routes carved out. What happen to a compass and knowing the direction you want to go if you end up lost, maybe I am to adventurous in this sense.

      To me the whole point of doing these activities is to rid yourself from the sense of time and having to know every little detail in currently in your life. Your comment mentions city like routes, when your only going 10-20 mph on a bike you should be able to figure it out without a device. This is bothersome that people rely on devices instead of pre-planning (again if you want to plan it) . If your cycling is for making deliveries, then I I can see this being a problem in which using a GPS would help, but after working for UPS and FEDEX we didn't have those devices we had to pre plan and study maps of the areas we were covering, to know where to go without wasting time circling 2 blocks till we figured it out or asked someone from the neighborhood.

    5. Re:How about... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing you either don't cycle much or don't ever travel and cycle some place new?

      Looking at your UID you're not a spring chicken: your UID is older than mine.

      What this means is that you were alive and mobile before satnavs existed as a consumer item. What on earth did you do back then?

      I remember what I did. I looked up the route on a map, and would try to memorize a few key points for the next chunk of the journey, things like big road intersections etc. Worked well. Still worked well.

      Oh yeah and that was in London where there are (a) no road names[*] and (b) a lot of roads.

      [*]Seriously, this is one thing I really miss about the US. You guys religiously lavel every road at every intersection. It makes navigation much easier. We prefer a more homeopathic approach to road labelling here.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:How about... by N1AK · · Score: 0

      I remember back in the Stone Age, we had these things called "maps" that we could use to determine a route to take, and then we could write down or memorize the turns to make. Believe it or not, we still have this technology.

      No; back in the stone age they had stars, and I'd give about as much of a damn about the opinion of a caveman pointing out that they still exist as someone who thinks his ability to use a map is in some way merit worthy. You are old fashioned, I really don't care if you want to think of that as a strength and I'll bet that I'm not the only GPS user who doesn't care what self declared 'old fashioned' navigators think.

    7. Re:How about... by N1AK · · Score: 0

      What on earth did you do back then?

      People sent telegrams before email, sent letters before phones and I bet you whined about change over the fence to anyone who'd listen before the internet came into your life and allowed you to disseminate your disdain for change more widely. "We managed before" has got to be one of the stupidest arguments for anything in existence.

    8. Re:How about... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      "We managed before" has got to be one of the stupidest arguments for anything in existence.

      You know, given the whinyness of some people I do honestly wonder how on earth they did survive without smartphones. It's not a question of surviving before, it's more that people seem to have become unable to survive without a technical solution for everything.

      The thing is, an integral part of cycling is looking where you are going. This meshes extraordinarily well with navigating by looking where you are going. And the smartphone makes it easier since it's smaller than a map and tells you where you are automatically.

      The thing is a smartphone doesn't have a magic "ride into a ditch while you're looking at it" problem any more than a real paper map, and the paper map derived solution (i.e. work out where you're going and then look) works excellently with a smartphone.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there's this big room with a bright light that doesn't have a radar on it. And you know what, not all the streets have signs on them, and sometimes there are pieces of concrete that aren't on the map, and occasionally the map was ambiguous. One of my favorite sports is orienteering (can't run for shit, so my times suck) but I still think this is a fine idea on a bike. Much better to be heads up with a peripheal indication of a pending turn than heads down on the odomoter checking to see if the next turn is coming up.

    10. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I just tended to get lost when I cycled into an unfamiliar part of London, and occasionally go around in circles, that's the worst part of cycling in London, the roads don't go in straight lines which throws off my sense of direction. That method of navigation might work for you, but it certainly doesn't work for me.

    11. Re:How about... by c_jonescc · · Score: 1

      Why is so much precision required in routing? If it's not for your commute (which will not be "new"), then time and length should have some flexibility.

      I used to bicycle over 200 miles a week, and most of that was without even an odometer. One of the great joys was the feeling of "I am going to go that direction and see what happens" for x miles or y hours.

      And if I needed to get somewhere specific, I'd look at a route in advance and head that direction. If I got mixed up, I'd just head in the right cardinal direction for a while. At 20 mph it's not like you're going to overshoot anything that dramatically, and if the destination area seemed esp. difficult I would just print out a map.

      Why does every turn need to be precisely mapped, and why would it be a problem to miss a turn every once in a while. When did sport stop having any sense of adventure?

      --
      Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
    12. Re:How about... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this is one thing I really miss about the US. You guys religiously lavel every road at every intersection. It makes navigation much easier.

      I wish. Yeah, most streets are marked, but a lot aren't.

    13. Re:How about... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I have not pedaled more than 100 miles in a few decades now... but when I did, there was no such thing as GPS and it was not a problem at all. I would just head out randomly and explore. Mountains, buildings, even the location of the sun was sufficient for navigation.

      Nowadays, when I explore, it is anywhere up to a thousand miles in a day... and GPS is fantastic. I love being able to look at a map and see exactly where I am. "Oh look, there is a lake over there! Let's head over in that direction."

      Do I care exactly which road I take? Nope. As long as I am heading in the proper general direction. I never allow the GPS device to plan a route. All I want from a GPS is to show me exactly where I am on a map at any given time.

      I guess what I am getting at is that I fail to see the strong need for GPS while biking. A decent mental model and a knowledge of what direction you are heading in should be sufficient.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  6. Um, voice directions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I usually listen to music while cycling, and my smartphone is perfectly capable of giving voice directions (turn left in 300m, etc).

    I don't see why there is any need for custom hardware.

    1. Re:Um, voice directions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I generally like to keep my ears open when cycling, so I can hear the truck coming before it runs me down.

    2. Re:Um, voice directions? by Hidyman · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you can't use open-ear Bluetooth headset for voice navigation/phone usage, without music.

      --
      You can't take the sky from me ...
    3. Re:Um, voice directions? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I take care that I am suitably visible and if I share a road with cars that means that the max speed should be 60km/h for the cars. If it's faster then there is usually a separate bike lane. This gives them enough time to avoid me properly. If I dodge for every truck that will pass me the I will never arrive at my destination and I would look like an idiot. This means that I would not use the information, so I don't need to have it. Mind, I have my headphones on so softly that I can still hear traffic sounds. Not near hard enough to drown out a blaring car horn, because that would mean that I would get hearing damage and I like to hear my music properly.
      Then again, I don't live in the US. I live in the Netherlands and biking is far more common here.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    4. Re:Um, voice directions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes my dear brother, but you are also driving a giant red cocoon, your visibility is quite a lot better then someone wearing black with faulty lighting. The technical solution to the second type of person would be "Lights and orange clothing".

    5. Re:Um, voice directions? by peppepz · · Score: 1

      Sigh, I'd like to live there. Here, bike lanes do not exist. Extra-urban roads have a speed limit of 90 km/h and you have to share those with buses and trucks, because most often there's no other road at all. Not that speed limits matter, because people don't respect them anyway. The roads are of two kinds: either they're newly-built, and therefore they're designed only for motor vehicles and they're either dangerous or inaccessible for cyclists and pedestrians, or they were built for donkeys and ox-carriages, which is actually the best occurrence for cyclists. Car drivers treat bikers just like a sidewalk: they make the minimum effort to avoid them, and that's it. Occasionally they will put your life at risk for no reason: you get buses overtaking you so close that you can feel the temperature of their metal on your left shoulder, on a sunny day, with zero traffic, and on a straight road with two lanes per direction. Or people might overtake you dangerously, only to brake in front of you at the traffic light which is red. You need to listen carefully for engines' noise not only for ordinary traffic, but also to detect if there's some Michael Schumacher-wannabe that is using the state road as his own personal driving circuit assuming that there's nobody else on that road because, say, it's Sunday morning. In that case it's best to find some sheltered spot and wait there for him to arrive and pass. That's also the best thing to do in the case of clandestine horse races. Inside cities, articulated trucks run on streets that would be narrow for a car, and to respect the readers' sensitivity I'll spare them from the details of what happens when they hook some cyclist, pedestrian or motorbiker with some component of their coachwork.

    6. Re:Um, voice directions? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      When I am done with my current set of modifications that red cocoon will have orange sidelights almost over the complete length of the body.
      But even when I am not Questing I wear a fluorescent yellow jacket and my lights work. I like to be visible because I don't like to be a bloody mess. It's hard to clean blood off a jacket.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  7. Hammerhead? by fizzer06 · · Score: 4, Funny

    An odd name choice for a bicycle navigation system. Ouch!

    1. Re:Hammerhead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd assume they named it after the shark.

  8. non-issue by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a many-years bicyclist, for transportation, recreation, exercise, etc...I offer the following advice:

    Any time you see some new device being marketed, consider that the bicycle in its first forms dates to the early 1800's, nearly a century before cars were commonplace. In that time, cyclists have figured out the solutions to most problems, and those solutions have been refined as material sciences, engineering, and whatnot have evolved. So, for example, my front light uses a sophisticated mirror and LED to light 50 feet of bike path in front of me, while my back light uses LEDs and light pipes to provide a 2-inch wide big glowing red bar...all powered off a smooth, unnoticeable generator in my front wheel's hub.

    The solution to this "oh my pretty little cyclist head just doesn't know where it's going" problem is one of the following:

    • I look at my phone as I start my journey, figure out the first 2 or so turns, and look again at said phone when I get to a light or a convenient place to stop. I typically note approximate distance between turns and street names. It's a skill pretty quickly learned.
    • I can place an earphone in my ear. Both Apple and Google provide spoken directions.
    • I can place a GPS cycling computer with route navigation on my handlebars. They're daylight-readable and backlit, the batteries last 8-9 hours while navigating, they make a nice loud "BEEP DA DA BEEP!" for an upcoming turn, show a big-ass arrow you can practically see in your peripheral vision, along with the street name/distance, too, usually.
    • I can place a "cue sheet" on my handlebars in any of half a dozen different ways. Clips, clear plastic holders, you name it.

    The device strikes me as rather ignorant of how most cyclists travel, anyway. Most everyone I know, including if not especially beginners, consult Google Maps and think carefully about their route because of safety concerns. By the time we're on our bike, we probably know where we're going and how to get there.

    Damn near everything bike-related that has come out of Kickstarter either solves a problem that was already solved, and was solved better...or solved a problem that didn't exist. Both are usually due to ignorance on the part of the designers, or designers preying upon ignorance among the general public.

    Sadly, an increasing number of these products are designed to prey upon people's fears about danger, or continue a culture of placing the onus on cyclists to protrect themselves from other people doing stupid, dangerous, or illegal things with large, fast-moving vehicles who then strike them.

    1. Re:non-issue by jklovanc · · Score: 1, Troll

      Sadly, an increasing number of cyclists continue a culture of placing the onus on vehicle drivers to avoid cyclists doing stupid, dangerous, or illegal things with small, fast-moving vehicles who then get struck.

      FTFY
      There are similar number of bad cyclists as there are bad drivers. I was making a right turn on a green. A cyclist on the two way crossing street in the far lane passed several cars on the right barely slowing down, did not stop at the stop light, turned left in front of the stopped vehicles into the crosswalk and passed in front of my vehicle. Had I not noticed him and stopped he would have been a hood ornament and his fault. Legally he broke the following laws; passing on right without enough room, failing to stop at a stop light, turning left from the incorrect lane(there was a left turn lane) and riding a bicycle in a crosswalk. Bicycle vs vehicle accidents are not always the vehicle's fault. I ride a motorcycle sometimes and know that a fight between a 4 wheel vehicle and a 2 wheel vehicle will always be won by the 4 wheels. I call it right of weight.

      I have seen many cyclists push their rights to be on the road until it is inconvenient and then want to be treated as a pedestrian. Cyclists are one or the other. Not both. If you want to be treated as a pedestrian get off your bike. Many time cyclists break laws so they don't have to expend energy. I don't think I have ever seen a cyclist stop at an intersection with a stop sign when making a right hand turn.

    2. Re:non-issue by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. On a bike the cost of stopping is negligible, even when we factor in that you might need to get off the road to safely stop. When I need to look up something I stop, look it up and continue. Problem solved.

      Actually, I don't even see the market. I've never seen someone go "I want to visually consult my smartphone's navigation app while riding my bike but there's just no safe way to do so!". Stopping to take a glance at the map is just that obvious a solution. I mean, sure, it's basically an expensive smartphone peripheral that emulates a cycling computer but then again most rides either don't require navigation or aren't time-critical enough that stopping and taking a look at the map is unfeasible. Even if you are something like a bike courier a single open headphone provides you with spoken directions form your smartphone (as the parent noted) and doesn't significantly impair your hearing. And it costs much less, to boot.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:non-issue by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      While there are too many crazy cyclists, in a bicycle-car collision the fault is in most cases with the driver, not the cyclist. Most of these were ignoring the cyclist's right of way when they were turning right or coming out of an alleyway.

      Here is a typical example (not my video, but I know the guy and I had my share of similar situations):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpIZmbqp9Gk

      Oh, and If you want my anecdotal evidence to beat yours: about a month ago I was cycling on a bicycle lane which was a part of the sidewalk. A van sped out of a workshop exit and nearly ran me over - "nearly" only thanks to my overtly expensive hydraulic disc brakes. When I complained that this was a bicycle lane, the driver got out, punched me in the face and drove away.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:non-issue by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not negligible. First, if you stop, you'll have to accelerate again. No concern for a car, but cyclists have to use their own strength. Also when you stop, you'll have to put a feet on the ground otherwise you'll fall. Also, no concern for a car.

      But this is just nitpicking, on your main message (When I need to look up something I stop, look it up and continue) I totally agree.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that idiots who just ran you off the road or tried to hit you are best dealt with by holding up a cellphone with 911 (or 999 if you're British) for them to see. Nobody wants you to call the cops/boss and report their plate number.

      (I did however once have a Sherrif's van try to run me off the road, nearly squishing me into a guardrail. As I had nowhere to go, my only option was to flip him off. Not sure how you report them..)

    6. Re:non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah right, development of (mainstream) bycicles essentially ended in 9143 when the UCI (union cycliste internationale) created a definition of what a bycicle was for racing. That definition was made to exclude recumbents, and hasn't really changed since, it mandates the formfactor of road bikes.

    7. Re:non-issue by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      In my town, this year, there have been 3 bicycle accidents resulting in fatalities. In all 3 incidents, the biker was cited as the cause.

      There have been a handful of non-fatal accidents ... and in most of them, the driver of the car was not charged.

      In my area, cyclists are trendy hipsters who think they own the road and are too stupid to realize that my 2500 pound little car wins the argument EVERY SINGLE TIME ... They are the problem, not the innocent. That may not be the case in your town, but its the case in every college town I've ever lived in.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:non-issue by swillden · · Score: 2

      So... your point is that in over 200 years all of the problems have been solved... and your example is a lighting device that didn't exist on bikes 20 years ago (probably less)?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:non-issue by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, according to the German insurer statistics, drivers were at fault in 90% of all car-bicycle accidents. This is actually way more than I thought, my gut feeling was at 75%.

      The difference is probably that while where you live only trendy hipsters cycle, but here in Germany there are lots of casual cyclists from all classes.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re:non-issue by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I can place a "cue sheet" on my handlebars in any of half a dozen different ways. Clips, clear plastic holders, you name it.

      I do this as well; the problem is that by the time I've looked down at the cue sheet and located the next turn-instruction, my eyes have been off the road for 5-10 seconds. It's long enough that I don't feel safe doing it very often, which means I either ignore the cue sheet (and possibly end up taking a wrong turn) or pull over and stop every time I need to check the sheet (which is inconvenient -- doing it at red lights helps, but sometimes you need to make a decision at a place where you don't really want to stop).

      Most everyone I know, including if not especially beginners, consult Google Maps and think carefully about their route because of safety concerns. By the time we're on our bike, we probably know where we're going and how to get there.

      The above is true when I'm riding by myself to a familiar destination, but often I'm on a group ride where there is a set route, and if I want to stay on the route I need to know not just how to get to the destination, but which streets to use to get there. Typically the route has several dozen turns on it, so it's not something I'm going to easily memorize before the ride.

      I could see this device being useful for me, although it would be best if it had a way to read the route sheet file automatically, since entering in the route instructions manually before every ride would be tedious.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re:non-issue by a1056 · · Score: 1

      I will say there are far too many cyclists who take a cavalier stance on road rules, but there is mounting evidence that even in cases where the car is absolutely at fault there are often no criminal repercussions. So that might not be the best leg to build a case that the cyclists are the root of the issue.

    12. Re:non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convenient that the cyclists could not share their side of the story. Naturally the driver will claim the cyclist is at fault and it's very unlikely that a random good samaritan will stick around to tell the cops a different viewpoint.

      As for your car being bigger, that doesn't give it more rights. That's like saying that if you get in an argument with a guy carrying a gun then you should concede to them because they can kill you. It's short-sighted.

      Regardless of whether the cyclist is behaving appropriately or inappropriately, YOU are in the wrong to ever put their life in danger.

    13. Re:non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That corresponds all to well to my experience. I've commuting by bike for two years in California. Weekly, someone stopped at a red light will consider that he can turn right because, obviously, a bike is not traffic. I'm very careful every Friday and Tuesday for those are garbage disposal days, and drivers will try to pass you even though there is not enough place on the lane, due to the huge metal garbage bins on the side of the road. People go out of their alleys with no concern for your presence ? about monthly.

  9. Warble feature on this GPS I use to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I quite liked the warble feature on this GPS, not suitable for bikes but great for finding your way around town:

    http://youtu.be/hZBlSSkJSUA?t=5m7s

  10. Cheap Low Tech Wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When in doubt, stop bike, look at map, get oriented, start bike. Very safe. Very cheap. Very simple.

    1. Re:Cheap Low Tech Wins! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Next thing you will suggest is obeying traffic laws, stopping at stop signs and riding on the proper side of the road. All insanity! Pure insanity!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. author isn't qualified, nice by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Makes me want to start cycling again."

    Translation: the author, like most tech bloggers, doesn't actually use a bicycle, but considers themselves qualified to speak about bicycle products.

    1. Re:author isn't qualified, nice by RobertinXinyang · · Score: 5, Informative

      Correct observation, this product has already been discussed on bicycle forums and has been dismissed as not very useful. http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/917472-new-procuct-take-a-look?highlight=hammerhead

      When out on a multiday ride in an unfamiliar area I want more than a blinking light. Frequently the GPS picks, plain stupid, route detours. A look at the map or the map screen shows these obvious errors quickly. Even when routing my way back home form an unfamiliar location at night I need more than the hammerhead provides. About the only use for the hammerhead is when riding a, tested and proven, preloaded track. A GPS enabled bicycle speedometer will do the same and more.

      Because this thing still requires the smartphone to be present, just mount the smartphone and be done with it. At best it is an interesting gift for the cyclist who has everything. . . just don't let your feelings get hurt when that cyclist 're-gifts' it.

    2. Re:author isn't qualified, nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this thing still requires the smartphone to be present, just mount the smartphone and be done with it.

      With this thing, the smartphone will burn its batteries to operate the GPS radio and the Bluetooth radio.

      Without this thing, the smartphone will burn batteries for both of the above radios *plus* the display. On most phones, the display is a major drain on battery life. And my phone at least pretty much sucks in direct daylight.

      Still, I met one guy who had his iPhone in a mount on his handlebars. He had a cord going from the iPhone mount to a bag mounted on top of a rack, and in that bag he had a 10 amp/hour battery pack (10000 milliamp/hour). Kinda heavy.

      I bought a Garmin Edge 815 because it claims to have 15-17 hour battery life. Don't want to mess with battery packs in bags on my bike.

      Once a year I ride from Seattle to Portland in July. That's a little over 200 miles. I have heard that there are people who can do that in 8 hours, but I am not one. My best time was about 15 hours. For training rides, I may be out up to 10 hours, sometimes even more. The Garmin should have enough power for any ride I do (although I might need a battery pack to top it off toward the end of the Seattle to Portland). Even with this Hammerhead thing, my phone won't have that kind of life, and with the screen lit... forget it.

    3. Re:author isn't qualified, nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Makes me want to start cycling again."

      Hmmm, nah. Too healthy. Where's my butts? Gotta light?

  12. vibration by Rixel · · Score: 1

    Why not use the same vibration tech that bugs me when my ringer is off. Use bluetooth and have the left or right handle bar start throbbing when you need to turn. Or if you don't keep your hands on the wheel then use the vibration on the L/R of your seat. ....what was I talking about again?

    --
    Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
  13. The perfect machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bicycles have only two wheels so stupid people can learn to pay attention.

    1. Re:The perfect machine by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Then way are most of the stupid people driving SUV's then?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  14. Humanity just jumped the shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last one on the cyanide pills turn off the lights.

  15. they beat me by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

    dammit, I was going to do something similar, but with vibrating motors on each of your temples and call it hammerhea...damn I suppose the only thing left is to add blackjack and hookers... without the stupid navigation thing.

  16. it's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every cyclist in Vancouver knows that any time you run into a car, it's the car's fault. Doesn't matter what you're doing or not doing, it's simply the cars fault that you've run into it. If you run into another cyclist, you find a car nearby, blame it and make a claim against its insurance, even if it's parked.

    Remember, it's always the car's fault.

    1. Re:it's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never crashed into a parked car on my own. I've hit trees, my balls on my top-tube, face-planted in the mud, been backed into by a car, had a door opened into my face, head-on collision with a concrete barrier, and slid to a near-collision just under the front edge of a car (and many more), BUT not once has a parked car jumped out at me without a human inside it. (My sister, who also used to race was not so lucky: she bounced off an ambulance parked at outside of a corner on the bottom of a downhill. Didn't make the turn, bounced off a sign and then the side of the ambulance. Not sure whether that was a good or a bad place to put the ambulance still...)

      I'm guessing you're a cage driver.

    2. Re:it's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could say so, I guess. I drive around in a large metal box, the priviledge for which I've had to show a knowledge of the rules of the road and the ability to properly control it. I've had two moving accidents, both learning experiences and with no appreciable damage to either vehicle, one was getting caught in a heavy snow rut and sliding into a parked car.

      Now, the question remains, who did you blame for these accidents? Against who's insurance did you or your sister make a claim?

      Our local free paper had a column by "the roadie scholar" who held that if you, as a cyclist, ran into a fence or tree then it was your fault but that if you ran into a car, moving, stopped or parked, it must be the cars fault. The possibilty that a cyclist could distracted enough to run into a car was simply impossible so it must be the car's fault if the bicycle is involved in any moving accident.

    3. Re:it's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was during a bike race; we both signed waivers.

      My point was that I've never run into a parked car (that didn't involve someone opening a door into my face), and you'd be an ass to blame such an incident on the owner of the car. I've never even pressed an insurance claim against or filed a report against someone who hit me--I've been rather fortunate (and alert!). If you crash into a stationary, unmoving object, it's your own fault. (Ignoring obvious cases like being forced off the road...) Not everyone is eager to drag everyone else through the mud. I walked away okay, just scratches and a pounding headache, we're cool, just watch it next time. Cycling is inherently dangerous. Driving is inherently dangerous. If you do one or the other in your life, you are overwhelmingly likely to crash at some point. That's just life. We do everything possible to avoid it, but when it happens, and everyone walks away okay, there's no need to make a three-ring circus out of it.

      As for the race, there is mandatory insurance provided which you must pay for at the start of the race. The ambulance was one of the medical support vehicles specifically for the race. Generally, if you want to stay alive, you don't push the laws of physics that hard outside of a race. Trying to do a U-turn at 20+ MPH at the bottom of a hill on the outside of a pack is one of the worst positions you can be in. There's a reason they usually put down bales of straw and such.

      To be young, dumb, and fearless again...

    4. Re:it's simple by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

      Well, again, in Vancouver, I live on a bike route, held up by our local city council ans one of the busiest bike routes in the city as it provides the main path from the downtown core to the suburb to the south of us. The city has very carefully defined these side streets as bike routes they've re-arranged the stop signs so that cars who's path crosses them must stop before crossing the bike route EXCEPT where they've replace the stop signs with a traffic calming circle. I live near one of those. Those intersections are supposed to be handled as an unmarked 4 way stop. They've also posted a 30 Kmph speed limit on the bike routes where the rest of the city is 50 Kmph. So what do I see at this intersection where there's a posted speed limit and it should be treated as an unmarked 4 way stop?

      The bicycles ignore the speed limit, easy to do near my house since there's a downhill grade. In fact, the cyclists are pedalling for all their worth to see how fas they can go. Then they hit the traffic calming circle. Since every other cross street has a stop sign they just carry on as if there was a stop sign there so the cyclists pay no attention to the proper right of way rules. Saw a lovely pile up last year when there was a bit of frost on the road. There was no way for the cyclists to control their bicycles as they went around the traffic calming circle and they ended up in a tangled mass at the base of a street tree. They probably wouldn't have crashed if they'd kept to the speed limit.

      My point is that the majority of cyclists do not respect the rules of the road because they have no requirement to learn them in order to use a bicycle. Even if they do know them because they also have a real drivers license they know that the police department has been told not to enforce traffic laws against bicycles (confirmed by polling the local community police offices who have stated that the bike route speed limits are not meant to apply to bicycles).

      In other words , why is anyone questioning whether something that a cyclist does is smart or not, or right or not. In most communities they've been given carte blanche to do as they will, when they will, where they will simply on the belief that they'll be saving us from the ravages of green house gases produce by cars. The roadie scholar's attitude about responsibility in bicycle accidents is just another expression of that contempt that the typical cyclist seems to have not only for cars but pedestrians as well.

      (@admins: there you go an obviously negative comment with my name on it. Its all the truth, it's how I feel and if you still feel the need to ban me from responding as a AC because I haven't the time or inclination to read all the attempts to defend the counter to these positions than I might still read the site but I'll never bother to respond. If you don't like to see bad news printed in your comments then I hope you'll be happy in your mutual appreciation society but real discourse needs two sides to be meaningful.)

  17. Learn from history by Nyder · · Score: 1, Funny

    Before smartphones, cyclist still managed to get around fine. And back then they had *gasp* paper maps. ya, I know, how did they manage?

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Learn from history by pr100 · · Score: 1

      Before maps people got around by dead reckoning, trial and error or talking to the locals. That doesn't mean that maps are not useful.

      By the same token the existence of maps doesn't mean that gps navigation aids are not useful.

    2. Re:Learn from history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had bike computers in the past (to train for races, as I was sponsored)--but you know what? I hate the bloody things. The last thing I want to see on a bicycle is a computer (and this coming from someone also a programmer of 20+ years). Dead reckoning is the way to go. Most of the time, simple heuristics can find your destination or get you unlost. In a confusing rural area? Follow the majority of the trafic, you'll wind up at a landmark or major road soon enough in most areas. Can't find the exact spot you need to be? Work a spiral around your original position.

      These also work in cars. You can purposely get yourself lost somewhere you've never been and work it out just fine. In fact, it's the best way to learn an area. Take a paper map if you're really worried, but keep it in your pocket or pack. GPS is not my first choice for reliability (often doesn't work well in cities, runs out of battery, falls out of your pocket and goes smash, etc.). I also find that people tend to be kind to cyclists in general, offering directions, water, and their phone if you're really in a jam.

      If you can't tell basic compass directions from staring at the sky/keeping track of turns and roughly how far you're turned in a given direction, perhaps you should work on your navigational skills before getting on a machine that might leave you walking (too many cyclists don't carry repair tools) for a few hours.

    3. Re:Learn from history by swillden · · Score: 1

      GPS is not my first choice for reliability (often doesn't work well in cities

      Smartphones work even better in cities, because they also use known Wifi locations. In fact, in a city you can often turn the GPS receiver off and your position data will degrade only slightly, using pure Wifi.

      runs out of battery

      Hub generator.

      falls out of your pocket and goes smash, etc.

      I put mine in a case on a handlebar mount. Visible, protected from the weather and plugged into power. The touch screen is even usable, though there are obvious issues with taking your attention off the road and looking at the screen. I normally stop, or at least slow way down, before trying to manipulate any controls.

      Any other reliability issues?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  18. Overthinking it by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

    Why not a smartphone app that hooks into the mapping/GPS/nav services, shows a large flashing arrow and reads out navigationally with vocal commands via a bluetooth earphone?

    1. Re:Overthinking it by drcheap · · Score: 2

      Why not a smartphone app that hooks into the mapping/GPS/nav services, shows a large flashing arrow and reads out navigationally with vocal commands via a bluetooth earphone?

      Yeah, it could even have voice recognition capabilities so that you can speak to it and ask it how to get to location XYZ.
      I should go patent that before someone else .... aw dammit!!

  19. go back in your hole by SuperBanana · · Score: 0

    Are you intentionally using every stupid cliche in the book?

    You forgot "bikes don't pay for roads."

    1. Re:go back in your hole by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Sorry but experience is very different than cliche.

    2. Re:go back in your hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but experience is very different than cliche.

      Neither of them, however, is data.

    3. Re:go back in your hole by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Considering the hundreds of times I have seen cyclists ignore stop signs I would call that data.

  20. Bike HUD by MarkvW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All this is nothing to me. I'm waiting for a viable, programmable (and private) bike HUD (with rearview, HR, wattage, and navigation data.

    That's what I'm waiting for.

    1. Re:Bike HUD by David+Off · · Score: 1

      Strava have just launched a doo-daa that works with Google Glass. I don't know whether it does any of what you want but may be worth a look.

      For bike navigation, when I'm going somewhere in town I just pop my car's TomTom in my pocket. It has a 2 hour battery life, has cycle routes and speaks the direction. Pretty straightforward.

    2. Re:Bike HUD by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      All this is nothing to me. I'm waiting for a viable, programmable (and private) bike HUD (with rearview, HR, wattage, and navigation data.

      That's what I'm waiting for.

      That's nothing, I'm waiting for all that and an Robot to petal the bike for me, who can use SIRI to let me know how great the bike trip was from a remote location. But of course the robot can't convey emotional values of how nice the bike ride is -- I'm going to have to watch the Google Goggles video stream for THAT.

      Of course, I won't be happy until I get the "anthropomorphizing" upgrade to my robot -- not completely.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  21. Most apps are disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I ride my MTB in the woods (40 to 80 kms), on dirt roads, single tracks and open fields. I have tested most popular apps for biking.

    Smartphone apps for biking are written by young people with good sight, using large monitors. Tipically, those apps are like desktop programs, having lots of menus and options, and are nearly unusable under open sky. Really; and having menus, options, alerts, ads and whatnots, in a small screen doesn't make then easy to use. Been over 50 doesn't make small text easy to read for me. And also, I don't need any "social apps" that need an account and connection to a web site for checking travel data.

    A good cycling apps must have: a) good color scheme, visible even under brigth light; b) most simple menu navigation, to avoid errors and confusion on the road; c) exporting/importing to KMZ/GPX; d) complete independence from any website.

    At the end, I fire Google Earth and put a sheet of paper over my 19" monitor, tracing the route I'll use with a pen, with distances between relevant waypoints. That's enough even for exploration rides on unknow areas.

    Oh, I also carry my smartphone with my own tracker app, just for recording my whereabouts. At the end of the day, I put my data on Google Earth, where I store all my rides and routes. Later, I post them in my blog, http://SenderosDePichilemu.blogspot.com, for others to use them.

    1. Re: Most apps are disappointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you sound like you should be using our app to navigate. no tiny screen to look at

      Oh music where art thou

      http://www.usinet.nl/omwat

      It uses music for navigation, runs on aroid, is free and about 20 times cooler than the Hammerhead solution*

      *approximately

    2. Re:Most apps are disappointing by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Apps are for poor people who can barely afford the phone they have, Your type of biking and your age means you can actually afford the correct device, Get a Garmin designed for what you are doing, far better in every way. Oregon 600t is absolutely fantastic for trail riding and get's rid of all the limitations that a smartphone has. Like being readable in broad daylight.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Most apps are disappointing by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      The only think the 600t is missing, ANT+ or Bluetooth support for additional sensors HR, Power, Candace, etc. Otherwise it is a nice little device. I personally use the Garmin 810, and rarely do I have the map up on it, more for speed, tracking (does live tracking which keeps the wife happy when I go on long rides), distance, and a few other things. Sometimes on long group rides (various centuries), I will load the cue sheet into the Garmin.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  22. HEATHEN!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is slashdot! technology solves all problems! Even those that don't exist!

  23. Navigate by sound... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally navigate by sound. Just put on the GPS, on speakerphone, and let it tell me where to go.

  24. cue the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bike nuts 3... 2... 1... seriously, those fungus-helmet heads will argue endlessly over issues that would cause a twit with overbite a bit of a problem

  25. Free as in beer by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    Open Streetmap has (where I live) much better cycling maps than any other. Offline, so no data charges. OSMAND (for android) is free as in beer, and gives you spoken instructions in the language of your choice. And if your favorite track is not on the map, it is very satisfying to draw it yourself and share it with the community.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  26. Step In The Right Direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that gets me closer to playing Skyrim and surfing porn while I cycle sounds good to me.

  27. no thanks. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I'll just put a BT headset in and listen to the audio cues that ALL gps apps deliver. Honestly, his "hammerhead" thing is a solution looking for a problem.
    Looking down all the time for a visual cue is dumb.. ride along never looking until you hear " left turn 1000 feet ahead on main street" in your ear is the proper solution.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:no thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS ^^^

      Audio cues in your ears are all you need. If you need to see the map you're doing it wrong.

    2. Re:no thanks. by neorush · · Score: 1

      You've got it, I do this on my motorcycle all the time. I could mount it on the handle bars like a lot of guys, but I find it is just too distracting. If I'm really not sure I just stop and look at the screen. The other piece to this is to review your route before you head out. 2-3 mins of review and there is really no problem.

      --
      neorush
  28. I'm confused by shiruba1067 · · Score: 1

    So, I live in Tokyo and I usually take the train everywhere. I also tend to walk a lot, but not usually farther than the closest station. I decided to get a bike for exercise, with the idea that anything within 10 Minutes by normal train is often doable by bike in less than an hour. However, sort of riding below the train tracks The whole way, I find out just how much I don't know the local roads and have no idea where I am. Also, filtering the train track is often a very inefficient way to go when biking. I tried using the navi on my phone by holding it in one hand while I ride, but that does truly seem dangerous - or at least inconvenient. I also tried the approach of keeping it in my pocket and stopping every once in a while, but that's also terribly inefficient and inconvenient. Then I found this navi/phone holder that has a clear pocket for your phone and straps onto the handlebars. Not only does it work, it works pretty damn well. I punch in my destination before leaving, and glance down at the display for like a millisecond every once in a while. Usually when it's quieter (like at night), I can avoid looking at it altogether by following the voice prompts. I've never come close to any kind of accident or felt that this is dangerous in any way. I'm missing what the big deal is, I suppose. A car navigation system isn't really much different. If you glance at it every once in a while to make sure you're still on track you would be perfectly safe. If you are trying to fiddle with it without stopping, you're asking for trouble.

  29. Not really by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If you have a problem navigating at a cycling pace, you have more serious issues.

    Just about everyone that makes a start on orienteering has trouble navigating at a walking pace.

  30. A comparison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sort of navigation system reminded me of the RoboRoach remote control (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/backyardbrains/the-roboroach-control-a-living-insect-from-your-sm). The same left turn, right turn mechanism. Another instance of humans merging with technology... not that it doesn't look useful!

  31. Hammerhead System - solution for the stupid? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    If you've ever tried to navigate using a smartphone while cycling you'll know full well that you took your life in your hands.

    Which is one people with common sense stop and check the maps, whereas stupid people looking for a Darwin award do not.

    What's needed is a way that you can get directions from your smartphone without having to lose your focus and possibly your life

    No, what's needed is to stop and look at the map. Common sense >> gadgetry.

    and Hammerhead Navigation have one of the most interesting answers I've seen.

    Not as interesting as, I dunno, stop and look at the map. Fucking revolutionary, I know!

  32. Handlebar mount. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    This was solved long ago for motorcyclists who ride at a much faster pace than pedalists.
    Align the mount so you can glance down at it. RAM make nice ones.
    If your phone display is too small that a glance won't do, dedicated GPS are cheap enough.

    Review your route before leaving. If your route is complicated and in an unfamiliar area, print a paper map and toss it in a ziploc bag. If I go anywhere I need a GPS I do this in case the GPS fails.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:Handlebar mount. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      An even better exercise would be to actually memorize the path to ride before you go out. If you take the wrong turn you may realize that sooner or later and just backtrack. Either you ride a fixed track for exercise or you ride for discovering things. If you get lost on the road you shouldn't be riding without someone leading you.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  33. RAGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That asshole biker needs to signal his turns.

  34. Geez, maybe something better is possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also as a many year cyclist for commuting, transportation, training, etc. I could see something like this being tremendously useful if it works.

    Assuming it does work, it would be a whole lot nicer than a map or fumbling with a smartphone or having a smartphone mounted on your stem. While not common, people do get mugged on their bikes around here. I've ridden through some places where frankly I'd rather not stop.

    I also ride in all weather. Rain and bitter cold are not so great for using either maps or a smartphone. Actually anything with an LCD screen tends not to work well in the cold.

    How much is a good cycling GPS with turn by turn that you can read in daylight, cold weather, with a good backlight, and is waterproof? Again, are you going to want that on your bike in a sketchy area? The hammerhead is $85. Not cheap, but cheaper than most decent cycling GPSes I've seen.

  35. A simpler solution using the same smartphone by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Why not just run your mapping/nav app reading the course to a Bluetooth earpiece? With all of the hardware attached to you, not the bike, there is less that can be stolen.

  36. Mod up, funny!! His last four words... (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting across town isn't exactly rocket surgery... ... hmmm what tools would I want to use for rocket surgery? Well, first we have to get past the metal skin, so I think I'll use a torch... ... Huh?!? Where'd I go?

  37. Stop means stop by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Well, as a bicyclist I have the right to treat stop signs as yield sign

    Not in most places you do not. Stop signs are stop signs and the rules are the same for bicycles as for automobiles. You stop at a stop sign the same as everyone else. If you do not then in most places you are breaking the law and being the sort of asshat who gives cyclists a bad name. I am aware local laws permit what you describe in some places but it is not widely true nor is it clear that it is a good idea in general.

    1. Re:Stop means stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not aware that local laws permit it in some places. Cool. I wonder which places..

    2. Re:Stop means stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice the "Idaho rocks" comment at the end of his comment? Well, look up "Idaho rolling stop".

    3. Re:Stop means stop by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Idaho does. Notice the Idaho part at end of my comment.

  38. Really by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Well when I'm out cycling I make a point of pausing at those things.

    Then in most places you are unambiguously breaking the law.

    And "pause" is most fitting for the situation, imo.

    Regardless of whether it is sensible or not, you are behaving in a manner contrary to the rules of the road as well as the expectations of everyone else you share the road with. If you want to get the laws changed then please help do so. Until then please obey the law and help cyclists everywhere. It's pretty hard to argue that we deserve equal rights on the road when asshats everywhere are breaking the law on a regular basis.

    Not sure if this is the legal way to do things, but it makes sense so fuck 'em.

    In most places it is not legal and your attitude on the matter is what keeps cyclists from having the high ground in this debate. The sign says stop and that is exactly what you are supposed to do. Cyclists who don't are self indulgent idiots who give cyclists everywhere a bad name.

    1. Re:Really by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Regardless of whether it is sensible or not, you are behaving in a manner contrary to the rules of the road as well as the expectations of everyone else you share the road with.

      If the "pause" or going through a red light is done the right way, and nobody is close enough so that me not coming to a complete stop requires anyone to change what they're doing then it's irrelevant. The only people who get angry at such things are busy-bodies who should find more important things to worry about. (Breaking traffic laws is much more dangerous for everyone when cars do it, so it doesn't apply to them).

      As a cyclist I'm almost certain you don't come to a full stop at a stop sign you're going to turn right at, un-clip, wait, re-clip and start pedaling again. The countless tail-gaters I see when I'm driving my car are far more deserving of your sanctimonious ire and anyone else who likes to bitch about sensible cycling that doesn't follow the law to a T . For cyclists the ones who tick people off are the ones doing flagrantly dangerous things like zipping right through red lights or ignoring stop signs outright.

      Go pound sand.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
  39. Because it makes life easier by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Please, explain why people need all this navigation. I simply don't understand it. I can start any place in the continental United States, refer to Rand McNally, and maybe write a few notes on a scrap of paper. I can drive ANYWHERE in ConUS or mainland Canada, without any further guidance.

    Because I can have someone give me just an address or a point of interest and I can get anywhere on the globe without having to consult an atlas or ask anyone for some (probably sketchy) directions. I've got a fairly good sense of direction but many people do not and GPS helps them greatly. Furthermore if I miss a turn (which happens to everyone) or need to take an unexpected detour it lets me know and gives me a detailed revised route immediately. Best of all I don't have to carry around a bunch of paper maps since both my car and phone have GPS built in. I use a GPS because it is FAR easier. I'm perfectly capable of getting someplace without GPS. I lived without GPS for most of my life but today there is no reason for me to do so today under normal circumstances. Why would I waste my time and energy worrying about navigation when I don't have to even if I'm good at it? I have far more productive things to do with my time. If I want to test my navigational skill I'll take up orienteering.

  40. A Solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to a problem that does not exist. If you are cycling or moving any considerable distance, why wouldn't you check your route from the comfort of your home? Or your car? I feel there is often an over enthusiastic desire to "adapt" information technology to convey marginally meaningful information at best. Please spend the $85 on a good helmet light instead.

  41. Does nobody listen? by Jaqian4274 · · Score: 1

    I don't even look at the maps when I drive I listen to its directions instead. Same as when I cycle.