Radar Changing the Face of Cycling

First time accepted submitter Franz Struwig writes "MAKE Magazine has a great review of a bicycle radar product — showing off some of the early prototype innards: "The latest version features a 24 GHz radar antenna — high enough to resolve more targets and small enough to fit on a bike — an ARM processor, and Bluetooth LE to communicate with the front unit. The radar creates a doppler map, and recognizes not only the vehicle, but how far away it is and how quickly it’s approaching. It communicates this to the cyclist by a system of LEDs, and to the car by increasing the rate at which the tail light blinks as the car gets closer."

Comments

They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[msobkow]

One of the big issues with flashing lights is that they have to avoid frequencies which set off epileptic seizures. The last thing you want is for the driver of that hunk of metal behind you to have a seizure behind the wheel, stomping on the gas and jerking to the right as they collapse in a frothing fit...

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a list somewhere, or laws about that? There's a grocery store that hasn't changed a flickering neon light for months and I can barely walk into the aisle in question because of that.

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is definitely a standard or standards relating to flash rates. I had to deal with one in a military contract back in the 90s but my memory is not good enough to identify it.

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[AK Marc]

How often is that? I know an epileptic who was 20 years without a seizure, but still couldn't get her license back. Are they letting epileptics drive these days?

And what do you avoid? 8-70 Hz? More? Less? There isn't a single perfect flash to trigger it (the most reliable triggers are multi-color, which this is not, and the studies indicate that color of the monochromatic flashes matters, so red may not have the same "optimal" frequency as white, or other colors.

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Epileptics are typically denied driver's licenses.

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

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[Charliemopps]

One of the big issues with flashing lights is that they have to avoid frequencies which set off epileptic seizures. The last thing you want is for the driver of that hunk of metal behind you to have a seizure behind the wheel, stomping on the gas and jerking to the right as they collapse in a frothing fit...

One sure way to prevent a drive from hitting you r bicycle is to send them into a seizure. So that sounds like it would work even better!

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[sumdumass]

Yes, epileptics can drive. It varies by state.

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

I know an epileptic who had his license pulled after a single vehicle accident. He was able to get them back in about a years time but needed his doc to sign off on it. The doctor is the one who pulled his license too. The state didn't even cite him for the accident but his doctor filed the paper work, told him his license was no good and by the time he was released from the hospital, the revocation letter was sitting in the mail box. He ran up a telephone pole guide wire and flipped his car on it's roof then proceeded to bang his head and everything else not restrained by the seat belt off the steering wheel and whatever else was in the way while the seizure was happening- no damage to anything but the car and himself.

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[ProzacPatient]

It depends on the state and I do believe in some states an epileptic can get driver's license if they can document that it won't interfere with safely driving.
Contrary to popular opinion not all epilepsy is the same; epilepsy can have different triggers and affect other areas of the brain with varying degrees of severity where one person might have a photo induced seizure that only gives them a minor twitch while another person might hear certain frequencies of sound and subsequently lose all control of their body.

A history of epilepsy runs through my family; my oldest half sister has it really severe and my father is pretty sure my grandfather had it but self-medicated with drugs and alcohol.

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you asked them to change it? If you are uncomfortable letting them know you are epileptic, just tell them "it is very irritating" and "could you please have it fixed". That's what I always do.. It helps to speak with a manager.

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[AK Marc]

The one I knew was in Texas. I didn't know the details, but looking at the site, they are required to be on their meds. It doesn't have an (if any) at the end, so it's possible that she didn't need any meds, and thus was ineligible to drive, or something like that. I also didn't know her when her license was revoked, so maybe it was related to some circumstances about it's loss

I also noted that India and China, as well as much of Africa don't allow any driving after a seizure.

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[Calinous]

If I remember correctly, it's forbidden in Romania to use intermittent (red) lights (that is, if you're not the police).
      I still use them on my bicycle... but they're illegal.

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[hawkinspeter]

If you've got a known medical condition that renders you suddenly incapable of safely driving a car without warning, then maybe you should let someone else drive?

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[afc_wimbledon]

Sure fella, or your fucking epileptic ass can TRY A DIFFERENT PRODUCT.

I think it's pretty obvious he meant an epileptic would be driving a car and get a seizure due to passing by a biker with this. Use your brain, asshole.

In most online discussion of cyclists vs car drivers the use of brain seems to be frowned upon.

Re: They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[KenHansen]

while another person might hear certain frequencies of sound and subsequently lose all control of their body.

The brown note?

Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right?

[RockDoctor]

I don't know about your country, but in this one a person who has epilepsy which is prone to be triggered in day-to-day life normally loses their driving license.

I think that it may actually be a recordable illness - i.e. if a doctor diagnoses the appropriate disease, then they're obliged to inform the DVLA (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Authority) of the diagnosis. (Obviously the patient isn't required to inform the doctor of whether or not they have a driving license - that's not relevant to medical treatment.)

In the agreement between you and the state about getting your license to drive (it is NOT a human right), you agree to inform the DVLA of any relevant medical conditions. So even if you cover up the disease from the DVLA, then you're still driving in violation of the terms of your license, and therefore have no license. And so your insurance is also invalid. So that makes two criminal counts against you already. and another two counts every time you drive. Not a good idea.

There are ways of getting your license back - a friend in that condition (trauma-induced fits after a motorcycle crash) got his license back after IIRC two years without a fit, and the consultant's opinion that chances of recurrence were negligible. Other people don't bother - Mum never asked for her license back after her illness. But as she was pushing 50 when she learned to drive, it was hardly an issue.

two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Rearview Mirror

Re:two words

[PPH]

This.

I'm a much better judge of the behavior of an overtaking vehicle than a bunch of electronics.

Perhaps some optics/mechanics to help steady the image. Other then that, its pretty straightforward tech.

Re:two words

[sjames]

Now how am I going to connect that to my anti-collision missile system?

Re:two words

[Kilo Kilo]

I have one on my helmet, it cost about $5 and it works great. There's no need to over complicate some things.

Re:two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Duct tape.

Great thing if you are blind!

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise, what's wrong with using the eyes?

Re:Great thing if you are blind!

[TWX]

Don't see how something that communicates with you via LEDs is so good if you are blind...

Re:Great thing if you are blind!

[viperidaenz]

The eyes in the back of your head?

Re:Great thing if you are blind!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of us with proper vehicles have these funny reflective things arranged so we can see what is approaching from behind, the left, and the right simply by moving our eyes. Maybe you cyclopaths should start thinking smarter rather than blaming the other guy all the time.

Re:Great thing if you are blind!

[geogob]

No, but in front of a rear-view mirror...

What about pedestrians?

[R3d M3rcury]

I always thought it'd be interesting to have an alert for pedestrians--particularly small children--who run out onto the bike path without looking because "Ooh! The Beach!"

Granted, it wouldn't work for the little moppets that run between parked SUVs, so it wouldn't be a perfect solution...

Re:What about pedestrians?

[TheLink]

Granted, it wouldn't work for the little moppets that run between parked SUVs, so it wouldn't be a perfect solution...

That's why I have been proposing that for robot cars they also have cameras/sensors/radars/lidars at bumper height. It's often easier to spot (from a distance) people/animals obscured by vehicles from bumper level than it is to spot them from driver or roof level. But I'm no car or robot car engineer, so someone else will have to actually do it.

You might be able to do something like this for "kiddie" sensors mounted on bicycles/motorcycles, but given the front wheel of those vehicles is movable it's probably a bit trickier :).

Re:What about pedestrians?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about parents keeping an eye on their brats in non-playground, dangerous areas like a car parking or a road with moving cars? Gosh.

Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still gonna get hit! Don't fool yourselves! You are a target in the road that eyes look at and hands steer towards. You are a goner, sooner or later.

Re:Haha

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

That's why bike cams are important. You may not avoid getting hit, but you can have the guy thrown in jail, license permanently suspended, and sue his ass into poverty.

Re:Haha

[viperidaenz]

Suing someone isn't going to bring you back from the dead.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Austin where hit and runs are extremely common (I actually am filing APD paperwork on a hit and run right now), a bike cam is critical. Make sure you get a GOOD bike cam, as I was using a supposedly decent dash cam (and checked the footage every couple months)... nope, it stopped recording even though the light was on, and useless when I needed it most.

IMHO, I have put enough ghost bikes up on street corners. The fear of a dash cam (and this applies to both cyclists and drivers because in Austin, I get plenty of encounters with dipshits on both) hopefully will keep people from being less of idiots... or if a wreck happens, they stay around and don't commit criminal actions by scooting, thinking they can get away with possibly murder.

Re:Haha

[Ol Olsoc]

That's why bike cams are important. You may not avoid getting hit, but you can have the guy thrown in jail, license permanently suspended, and sue his ass into poverty.

Remember though, the car might have a driver cam that shows 5 cyclists riding abreast but not one of them in the bike lane.

Re:Haha

[mark-t]

Most accidents involving cars and bicycles are not fatal, or even particularly debilitating in the long term for the cyclist unless the cyclist was not wearing proper protective gear.

Re:Haha

[sumdumass]

First, I'm not a bike nazi or whatever they call those people who seem to always be in the way because their biking is better than a car so don't think I'm coming into this prejudiced.

Remember though, the car might have a driver cam that shows 5 cyclists riding abreast but not one of them in the bike lane.

It doesn't matter where they are riding. You need to drive at a speed which you can react to everything you see and come to a complete stop safely. That is drivers ed 101. It's annoying to slow down and pass someone who shouldn't be where they are. But the fault is yours if there is an accident like that.

If you cannot see past your headlights far enough needed to safely stop, you are driving too fast for conditions regardless of what the speed limit is. If there are hills you cannot see over, the same applies. You not being able to see something, or someone not in their lane is not an excuse to hit them. They can however come into your lane without leaving you proper time to react and it would be there fault. But the bottom line is, if they are in the lane you are driving in, it is no different then another car except you can pass them without completely changing lanes. If you hit them, it is the same as hitting another car. It doesn't matter if that other car or bike breaks 200 laws in the process of being in front of you, slowing, stopping, obstructing the flow of traffic is not a valid reason to hit them.

Have you ever went down a 4 lane city street with narrow lanes and saw a semi truck taking both lanes when they likely could squeeze into just one? The reason for that is because as long as they are in the lane (in this case two lanes) they have the right of way. If you try to squeeze by and there is an accident, it's your fault. If they try to squeeze by you and there is an accident, it's their fault. If they stay in one lane and wonder out of it which can easily happen if the road is bumpy, it's their fault. So by taking both lanes, they avoid being too close to the sidewalk, parked cars, telephone poles and whatever but also clear a right of way beside them. And yes, it is illegal for them to use two lanes instead of one.

Just think what would happen if a stationary object is in the middle of the road. What if a cinder block or something fell off a truck and you run up on it, it's all you and no one else unless someone comes back looking for it and is stupid enough to stop and ask if you saw it while broke down and sitting on top of it. It's all you if you swerve to miss it and hit another car.

Re:Haha

[TapeCutter]

Sorry but the driver cam would only make it worse for you, riding five abreast and taking up all lanes does not give you the right to ram them from behind. Think about it, would you ram an oversized tractor doing the same thing? It would be a different story if it was night and the cyclists were not lit up, or if they were on a "no bikes" freeway, but you would still have a lot of explaining to do.

Re:Haha

[polar red]

bullshit. I just was in an accident as a cyclist earlier this year, not wearing any protection. none would have protected me, I broke my wrist and i have a serious shoulder injury.

Re:Haha

[drinkypoo]

It doesn't matter where they are riding. You need to drive at a speed which you can react to everything you see and come to a complete stop safely.

It does matter where they are riding. Just like the driver of a car is required to operate their vehicle safely for conditions, so is the rider of a bicycle. And if it's not safe for you to ride abreast due to traffic conditions, which include both the rate of flow and the posted speed limit, then it's illegal for you to do so. It does not matter if the law gives you permission to ride abreast, because the law also requires that you operate your vehicle (motorized or not) in a manner which does not make the road unsafe for other users. You are also required in most states to permit passing as soon as it is safe, and especially if cars are stacking up behind you. If that means getting off the road and getting off your bike, you are required to do that even if you don't want to, just like I am required to pull my car off the road and come to a complete stop under the same conditions.

[Some] cyclists are upset because the same rules are applied to them as to everyone else, and they can't just do whatever they want. They reason that because their impact is so much less, they are better people and should have additional privileges. The problem with that idea, which I do otherwise have some sympathy for, is that they're making the world more dangerous for everyone else in the process. If it were just their lives, who cares? You have a right to risk your own life. But the whole point of vehicle laws is that we're supposed to follow them to increase safety. Those lines aren't painted on the roads because they might look pretty, and most vehicle law is actually not even there to increase revenues (certain laws around parking and speeding aside) but to improve public safety.

Have you ever went down a 4 lane city street with narrow lanes and saw a semi truck taking both lanes when they likely could squeeze into just one? The reason for that is because as long as they are in the lane (in this case two lanes) they have the right of way.

But they don't have the right to use both lanes unless they actually need them to execute a maneuver.

If they stay in one lane and wonder out of it which can easily happen if the road is bumpy, it's their fault.

Yes, it is their fault, for driving too fast for conditions. Same as everyone else.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I've been in three accidents as a cyclist, and all of them were fatal.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck getting that enforced. If the police lights come on behind a cyclist, it just takes sliding into a crowded parking lot and out another road. No police officer can catch a cyclist (barring the very few on bikes), and won't risk their safety to catch them.

So, in reality, the attitude I've seen where I live is that cyclists only have to worry about laws of physics and gravity... not traffic laws.

Re:Haha

[mark-t]

I said "most".... Your case would be the exception, not the rule. Statistically, wearing protection reduces the probability of fatality or serious injury by over 85%. Not to diminish what occurred in your case, but only to point out that in general, there is no reason for a cyclist to actually *expect* to get seriously hurt before it ever happens if they are following the law than it is for a pedestrian to expect to get hit before they cross a road where the "walk sign" has just lit up and the vehicles are all stopped and waiting for the red light in their direction.

Re:Haha

[FireFury03]

But the bottom line is, if they are in the lane you are driving in, it is no different then another car except you can pass them without completely changing lanes.

Worth pointing out that the British highway code says that you give bikes as much room as you'd give a car (i.e. you must pull all the way out into the next lane). I say this as someone who still has a bunch of painful cuts from about 3 weeks ago when a driver decided that it was safe to overtake me on a single track road, leaving around 2cm between his car and the end of my handlebars (I swerved to avoid getting hit by his wing mirror, lost my balance and wobbled into the side of his car, which is exactly what leaving zero margin for error gets you. I ended up with cuts, bruises, grazes and a ripped T-shirt from where I hit the road, he ended up with an expensive handlebar scrape the full length of his car, which will hopefully remind him not to be such a bellend in future.)

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

the car might have a driver cam that shows 5 cyclists riding abreast but not one of them in the bike lane.

I don't know what the law is where you are, but in Minnesota bicycles are vehicles and are entitled to occupy a lane just like a car or truck, as long as they are not unreasonably impeding traffic.

Meaning, if there are 5 riding abreast at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone, too bad: you wait.

Re:Haha

[sumdumass]

I might add that even if the law or code doesn't require that much space, it is a good idea to ensure there is enough room for the bike or even pedestrian to fall over and not be hit. I usually try for one and a third of their heighth so if they hit something and topple over, or just fall, i'm not held up with paperwork, repairs, or nightmares about a dead guy.

Re:Haha

[Ol Olsoc]

Remember though, the car might have a driver cam that shows 5 cyclists riding abreast but not one of them in the bike lane.

It doesn't matter where they are riding. You need to drive at a speed which you can react to everything you see and come to a complete stop safely.

I'll reply to this, but that's about it, having no desire to get into th echicken and egg game of Bikes versus cars.

So let me get this straight. If I need to drive at a speed where I can accomodate any situation and stop safely. That means that the person I might hit is not ever not once at fault?

Wow. Must be nice when the bicyclist is not ever at fault.

Let me give you some scenarios. Then you tell me who is at fault.

Bike blows through a stop sign. I collide with them, or they run into me.I'm at fault because I wasn't going slow enough to stop for a person that runs a stop sign? What if a car did that?

side note. That happens a lot in my college town. The local police generally drop off the citation to the cyclist at the emergency room.

Bike is riding down the wrong side of the road and hits me while I'm stopped. My fault?

I'm passing some bike riders at 5 mph. One of them swerves and hits me. My fault?

And my example, driving as far to the left of 5 riders cycling abreast (already a violation) and one swerves into my lane?.

That is drivers ed 101. It's annoying to slow down and pass someone who shouldn't be where they are. But the fault is yours if there is an accident like that.

Great bolshy yarblockos, that's bullshit. There might be times I was at fault, say if I'm driving in the bike lane, or I'm driving down the wrong side of the road. In my state, bicyclists are expected to obey the same traffic laws as everyone else. If there is a bike lane, you use it. You don't ride multiple abreast. You don't drive recklessly.You stop at stop signs, and obey the speed limits.

Re:Haha

[Ol Olsoc]

Worth pointing out that the British highway code says that you give bikes as much room as you'd give a car (i.e. you must pull all the way out into the next lane).

That's a excellent law, and certainly what I do. I do know a lot of auto drivers don't do this.

Re: Haha

[Ol Olsoc]

Remember though, the car might have a driver cam that shows 5 cyclists riding abreast legally, while the ignorant driver gets road rage.

Fixed that for you.

Dunno where you come from, but in Pennsylvania, the law is this:

(e) Limitation on riding abreast. -- Persons riding pedalcycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of pedalcycles.

The link:

http://www.shippd.org/pa%20tit...

Fixed that for you

Re:Haha

[Ol Olsoc]

Sorry but the driver cam would only make it worse for you, riding five abreast and taking up all lanes does not give you the right to ram them from behind. .

Because that's exactly what I said. I said - ram em!

Could you point out where I said that? Seems to have been removed from my statement when you saw that. I apologize, I don't know how that would happen, I mean since you said I said I had the right to ram them from behind, you wouldn't have like made that up in your mind would you? I must have said that. Boy that was mean of me.

I apologize sincerely for having the nerve to say that I had the right to ram bicyclists from behind - dunno what came over me. But thanks for pointing that out, and I gusee Dice removed it. Thank goodness.

Most respectfully, if you need to dig that deeply to try to make a person say something pathological, slag off.

Now that we've all had time, my point was that in the world of traffic accidents, pretty often there is someone at fault. Some times it is the bike, and some times it is the car. A camera on any of the vehicles might show who was at fault. That's all. Pretty simple. No need to try to tun me into a homicidal maniac who thinks that inconveniencing me is an excuse for aggravated manslaughter. Even my example, 5 abreast riding, is illegal. Not some made up excuse for killing people.

Now try to have intelligent discourse without lying to other people about what they write.

Re:Haha

[Ol Olsoc]

the car might have a driver cam that shows 5 cyclists riding abreast but not one of them in the bike lane.

I don't know what the law is where you are, but in Minnesota bicycles are vehicles and are entitled to occupy a lane just like a car or truck, as long as they are not unreasonably impeding traffic.

Meaning, if there are 5 riding abreast at 25 mph in a 30 mph zone, too bad: you wait.

In Pennsylvania, only 2 are allowed to ride abreast. Unless they are on a bikes only path. 5? Breakin' the law, breakin' the law.

Re:Haha

[Jeremi]

bullshit. I just was in an accident as a cyclist earlier this year, not wearing any protection. none would have protected me, I broke my wrist and i have a serious shoulder injury.

Your single data point doesn't demonstrate anything one way or another about "most accidents".

Re:Haha

[sumdumass]

I was purposely long winded in order to avoid the confusion but i guess sometimes people are slow to see the points. If you would have paid attention to the rest of the post, you wouldn't have posted that.

Someone violating a rule or law does not give you legal right to hit them. In the 5 abreast scenario, if to hit one of the bikes, you are at fault no matter how many rules they broke when you pass them in the lane they sre in.. If you are driving faster than you csn see and you stoppinng distance is beyond your line of sight, you are always at fault.

If someone blows a stop sign and you hit them, it can be your or their fault. If you had time to stop but didn't its your fault. If you do not have time to stop it is their fault.

If someone hits you when you are stopped, it is their fault. This is true almost sll the time whether bike or car or whatever its also a silly scenario to put out since the entire point of my post was about how you drive. In this scenario, the you is the other person. Suppose your car breaks in the middle of an intersection and you are stopped. No one has the right to hit your vehicle because you are blocking a travel lane.

If you are passing someone doing 5mph in the same lane and they hit you it is your fault. If you are in another lane and they enter your lane, it is their fault.

No state that i am aware of relieves you of your responsibility to operate safely just because someone else is violating a law. Well, outside of a DUI in wich case they seem to blame everything on the drunk driver regardless of who hit who.

Re:Haha

[Ol Olsoc]

I was purposely long winded in order to avoid the confusion but i guess sometimes people are slow to see the points. If you would have paid attention to the rest of the post, you wouldn't have posted that.

Someone violating a rule or law does not give you legal right to hit them. In the 5 abreast scenario, if to hit one of the bikes, you are at fault no matter how many rules they broke when you pass them in the lane they sre in..

Jesus on a pogo stick, I don't know who you are having the conversation with, But if the bicyclist is aft fault, they will be at fault.

Or you can show me the respective statutes that prove the bullshit you ar etrying to sell.

Sites, or you're just some sort of weird troll.

Re:Haha

[sumdumass]

I do not understand what is so hard for you to follow. Please explain where you are failing to grasp these simple concepts. A specific scenario was laid out and even though a bicycle was violating a law or rule, they would not be at fault if you hit them. You would be in that scenario.

Re:Haha

[Rakarra]

And if it's not safe for you to ride abreast due to traffic conditions, which include both the rate of flow and the posted speed limit, then it's illegal for you to do so

My understanding, or at least what I was told at various organized cycling events, was that riders should never ride abreast. Some people like doing that because they're talking to each other, but it's never kosher.

Re:Haha

[Swave An deBwoner]

I agree with you that a driver must drive in such a way that he (or she) can avoid collisions. However the law apparently doesn't recognize that, at least in many jurisdictions.

Take for example the curious case recently in Canada where the driver of a car stopped on a highway to rescue some baby ducks who had wandered onto it. A motorcyclist with his child on board slammed into the rear of the stopped car and both dad and child died. The driver of the car has been convicted for negligence and faces "life" (2 x 14 years) in prison.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663995/Canada-woman-stops-ducks-guilty-2-deaths.html

This is tragic for the family of the dead man and child. It is also tragic for the driver of the car though. Clearly she should not have parked on the highway, but the motorcyclist should not have rammed into a stopped vehicle. That car could just as well have broken down on the road and he still would have slammed into it. Drivers have to pay attention and drive carefully. The first step may be to slow down. Speed limits have become too high.

In 1964 an increase in the New York City speed limit was forced upon the city by the New York State Legislature against protest by the NYC Traffic Commssioner Henry Barnes (of the famous "Barnes Dance" protocol). Today Mayor Bill de Blasio is working to lower it back to 25 in most places, and to 20 in higher risk areas.

We need to back off from the mindset that moving motor vehicle traffic as quickly as possible is properly the primary goal of traffic planners. Safety must be moved into first place.

Re:Haha

[FireFury03]

Worth pointing out that the British highway code says that you give bikes as much room as you'd give a car (i.e. you must pull all the way out into the next lane).

That's a excellent law, and certainly what I do. I do know a lot of auto drivers don't do this.

It is an excellent law, shame very few people follow it.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

All props to you. I'm a combined cyclist/motorist, so I tend to be fairly free with space when overtaking anything.

Despite it being enshrined in the highway code in the UK (I'm a bonglander myself) I'll confirm that about 80% of drivers don't give a flying toss about the rule.

Ah well, cannot be helped.

Useless

[jam42]

As a long-time road cyclist I can say this is a completely useless product. Obviously if one is riding on the road one is going to be passed by cars. And so long as one is not an idiot listening to music while riding, one can *hear* vehicles approaching from the rear. This device can't discern how closely a vehicle is going to pass you, which would be the only useful information - warning you if the vehicle is going to pass, say, less than three feet away horizontally.

Re:Useless

[carld]

Good idea, and base light feedback on the likelihood of paths intersecting in addition to proximity.

Re:Useless

[TWX]

You know what apparently does work, based on a friend's experiences?

Putting a pair of amber lights out to the sides of your red center light, and having a sufficiently bright headlamp in front that illuminates a good chunk of road.

Those work because drivers assume that you're a motorcycle, and if you're a motorcycle then you're a lot heavier, and more likely to cause damage to their car.

With modern battery technology and modern, super-efficient lighting, it should be easy to fake a bicycle to light up like a motorcycle well enough to fool drivers at night.

Re:Useless

[alphazulu0]

I have to agree with jam42. Anyone who rides in a city is in close proximity to cars constantly. All this will do is make my bike heavier and more complicated while providing no more safety than a tiny rear flasher running off a watch battery.

Re:Useless

[unimacs]

Knowing how far a car is behind you and how fast it is approaching can give you some idea whether or not you can move over to make a left turn. And as more electric cars end up on the roads, you may not always hear them coming depending on what other sources of noise there are. I frequently ride through an area near an airport. I'm not going to hear a car approaching over the roar of a plane taking off.

I'm not sure I'd trust it vs taking a look over my shoulder. That would be my main issue. I've tried various rear view mirrors and never much liked them. Too small a field of vision. Too much moving my head around to see what I wanted to see.

Re:Useless

[mark-t]

If you're a motorcycle, you should be capable of going a lot faster.... and I wouldn't have any reason to suspect that you aren't going to be trying to keep up to the flow of traffic... If I know that you are a bicycle, I know roughly what to expect of your top speed, and will try to safely navigate past you... not try to hit you just because I know that you won't damage my car. Because even if you don't make a scratch in my car's paint job, I'll still have to face all of the other repercussions of being in an accident... which would include an insurance report at the very least... plus being on the hook financially for any damages to them or their bicycle -- unless I intended to do a hit-and-run (which is a jailable offense, so I better hope there are no witnesses who can take note of my license plate).

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly why I don't hit guys on motorcycles. Damage to my car. Kids on bikes, well, I drive over them. Because you know, my vehicle can handle it.

Re:Useless

[pipedwho]

It's not that the driver thinks it's a motorbike and gives extra consideration. It's that with multiple co-linear lights, a driver is far better able to judge how far away the cyclist is. As another poster noted, if a driver thinks you're a motorbike, they'll also assume you are travelling at or faster than the traffic flow.

On a bicycle, a single point source of super bright light will let a driver know that you're somewhere in that direction - while partially blinding them if you angle it up like I see done far too often.

Whereas, a wider (multi-element) lamp that isn't overly bright will let the driver's eye far better estimate and track how far away you are - while not blinding them to the other surrounds.

Re:Useless

[jeti]

Any kind of unusual light seems to work. I've written a small app (Better Bike Light) to use my cell phone as a rear light. When I use it, cars are considerably more considerate when bypassing me. I'm not sure if they're more careful when encountering something unfamiliar or are just curious, but it seems to work.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

" And as more electric cars end up on the roads, you may not always hear them coming depending on what other sources of noise there are."

I work in an automobile assembly plant. It is terrifying the number of times I have looked over my shoulder and found a (large) gasoline powered SUV behind me. Cars are really quiet in general these days regardless of power plant.

That being said, I have a mirror on my glasses when I ride my bicycle, and I am always ready to ditch into the shoulder. I spend most of my horror-laden bike rides expecting to ditch into the shoulder. (I only ride my bike for transportation. Riding for "fun" is just insane.)

Re:Useless

[Sanians]

I'd imagine the improvement in driver behavior your friend experienced was more a result of increased visibility.

The reflectors that most bicycles come with are next to useless as they don't reflect well and they're quite small in the scheme of things on the road. Most bicycle head/tail lights are almost as bad. I damn near hit a bicycle cop once because he had no rear reflector and only an LED bicycle seat with nearly-dead batteries, and he parked himself directly between two very bright taillights of a car stopped at a stop light. Just couldn't see the motherfucker until I was right up on him.

What I find works best is those orange vests with reflective fabric strips. No battery powered lighting is going to compete with reflecting a cars own headlights right back at it. Just think about how easy road signs are to see vs. the occasional non-reflective sign you see (or don't see) by the side of the road. I even made backpacks out of the orange vests and their reflective fabric so that I can be seen even when carrying stuff. The fluorescent orange fabric is especially useful at dawn and dusk when cars may not have their headlights turned on, as there's more ultraviolet light than usual at those times and so the orange is especially bright.

I think the orange vests have another advantage in that they remind drivers about safety. Drivers rarely see bicyclists and so they haven't put a lot of thought into how to behave around them. It's better that they think "there's a crazy guy in an orange vest. Maybe he's retarded. I'd better pass him slowly and give him a lot of space." Otherwise they just see a minor obstacle on the side of the road which they almost don't even have to leave their lane to avoid and so they put no more space between you and them than they would if you were merely some roadkill they wanted to avoid splattering all over their car.

Re:Useless

[TWX]

Well, his bike is also a kludged-together e-bike with motors, fenders, and above all else, speed. He's able to keep up with traffic on small neighborhood streets and if he pedals (and based on how it's geared pedalling would actually contribute something) he can almost keep up with the speed limit on some of the slower arteries.

So in his instance the bicycle is bigger than normal and going faster than normal too.

Re:Useless

[havana9]

So you think that the favorite pattime for drivers is hit-and-run cyclist? It's not true: it's way better to hit-and-run the moms with a stroller.
The real effect to put a bright light on a bike, instead of no lights at all or some puny single-lamp lights, is that having bigger lights makes the cyclist more visible.

Re:Useless

[StripedCow]

Indeed. Basically, the light tells you to "prepare for impact".
But of course, after 20 cars have passed you, the message wears off.

Re:Useless

[polar red]

I just had an accident as a biker. I was hit from behind in my own lane. maybe that flashing light would have made the driver of the car more aware of me

Re:Useless

[u38cg]

My problem with it is that most of the time range rate with respect to a moving vehicle isn't of interest, because the driver of that vehicle is controlling his position with respect to you and can manoeuvre easily. The only time it is of interest is when it crosses the boundary to "too late to act", by which point, it is in fact too late to react. I really struggle to see what I would do differently based on the information this thing would give me.

Re:Useless

[hunter44102]

You won't hear my electric car coming. Most hybrids are really quiet also

Re:Useless

[MrL0G1C]

I've experienced similar. Simply having a very bright bike light on the front stops the b******ds who will pull out or front of you simply because you're a cyclist and don't count). And of course it massively increases the chances of you being seen in the dark.

Re:Useless

[Admiral_Grinder]

Most the noise you hear from cars on the road is the sound of the tires on the road. How is that on your car? I ones that always manage to sneak up on me is the city busses. Probably be cause they have the low rolling resistance street only tires and lots of body structure in front of them.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I agree that this is useless, depending on how fast I'm going and the wind, there have been plenty of times when I didn't hear a car till it was going around me.

Re:Useless

[cmdr_tofu]

I'm a little deaf in my left ear from bicycle-touring on busy roads. I'm not sure range/quality of this radar, but if it detects things that you cannot possibly detect, it could be at least a tiny bit useful. For instance you are riding into headwind down a windy one lane dirt road at night. If I car is trying to pass you at the 20 mph speed limit that's fine, but if some joyriding kids are "offroading" on road at 30-50 mph, they aren't going to be able to stop.

Sure if you hear them you will get off the road and try to take a picture of their license plate to send to the police, but what if the conditions (wind, EV, something else) are such that you can't hear them?

The device will tell you *when* and at what speed the vehicle is going to pass you, which are good bits to know in certain circumstances. I don't know about carrying the extra weight and charging the batteries for the thing. If it was small and I only had to charge it once a week though... I would put one on my bike.

As far as the LED blinker application... Good LED blinkers are highly visible and make you safer. I don't see any value in varying the frequency/intensity of light/type of blinking for different speed drivers. If you are riding at night or in the rain or other poor visibility conditions, you should have your LED blinkers on at the highest setting. You don't need radar control for it.

Re:Useless

[cmdr_tofu]

I wear an orange reflective vest. (the $4 kind from the hardware store). Clipped to the reflective vest is an LED blinker which is super bright and flashy. Clipped to the back of my bike rack should be an additional LED blinker, but it broke off and I haven't had time to install the 2nd blinky yet.

Re:Useless

[cmdr_tofu]

hahah I guess all the driver's think I'm retarded because I wear an orange reflective vest and 1-2 LED blinkies (and a helmet which I think I'm going to paint with glow in the dark paint)

Driver's still pass me too closely. I don't usually mind, but when there is broken glass/broken pavement or other obstacles on the side of the road and I can't get to the left, it starts to feel pretty dangerous.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

As a long-time road cyclist I can say this is a completely useless product. Obviously if one is riding on the road one is going to be passed by cars. And so long as one is not an idiot listening to music while riding, one can *hear* vehicles approaching from the rear. This device can't discern how closely a vehicle is going to pass you, which would be the only useful information - warning you if the vehicle is going to pass, say, less than three feet away horizontally.

A pedestrian may not be able to hear the approach of electric vehicles, given a sufficient amount of background noise. Riding a bicycle has wind noise, heavy breathing noises if you are riding hard, etc. I can easily imagine a situation where a Prius can come up on a cyclist and they have no clue until the last second. I place a mirror on the one side of my bike, but imagine many others do not.

Re:Useless

[wonkey_monkey]

Nifty. Personally I don't think I'd risk attaching my phone to my bike in any way that left me unable to see it, but that's a neat solution you've got with the signalling.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Use retroreflective strips, rather than phosphorescent paint. The paint won't glow very brightly or for very long. Drivers with eyes adjusted for oncoming headlights and streetlights probably won't even see your helmet.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the horror - if you mistook a bicyclist for a motorcycle you might have to actually properly estimate the speed of travel and plan a proper overtaking maneuver, instead of going "cyclist, must overtake at any cost". And you might not pull out next to me and try to squash me to the side when I _was_ following the flow of traffic, only on a lowly bicycle, so clearly belonging in the gutter.

Re:Useless

[Rakarra]

Those work because drivers assume that you're a motorcycle, and if you're a motorcycle then you're a lot heavier, and more likely to cause damage to their car.

....

Does anyone REALLY believe this? That the only thing that stops a person from hitting bicyclists, pedestrians, or anything else is the possible scratch to a car? The whole.. not wanting to kill someone doesn't enter the thought? Manslaughter? Insurance hassles? Police reports? No, what stops them is worrying they'll have to buff out a scratch?

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

On a bicycle, a single point source of super bright light will let a driver know that you're somewhere in that direction - while partially blinding them if you angle it up like I see done far too often.

I'm always amazed at the number of bicycles and motorcycles that think blinding other drivers will make them safer. Then again, the ones who do this kind of thing are most likely to be ignoring traffic rules, which is the real reason they have so much trouble in the first place.

Re:Useless

[Sanians]

Something else I've found helps a lot is to not stay to the right side of the lane. You might think that moving closer to the middle puts you closer to traffic that is passing you, but I've found that it makes people realize they have to use the other lane to pass you, and so most of them go entirely into the other lane, putting them farther away from you than they otherwise would have been. I usually stay between 1/3 and 1/2 way into the lane, close enough to the right that I could argue I was on the right if any police decided to give me any shit about it, but far enough into the lane that it's obvious to drivers that they can't squeeze themselves into the remaining space in the lane, which forces them to decide to use the other lane to pass.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you. my 20+ years of commuting validate this.

What we need...

[djupedal]

...is to stop mixing cars with bicycles at all.

That, and do something about the assholes on bikes that think that little white line and bike lane are some sort of magic force field that protects them from massive hunks of steel inches to their left...

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Agree completely. Lets make sure that cars are restricted to interstate type roads and that town level/city level roads are restricted to cyclists and pedestrians.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would never work in Seattle with our militant bike riders. Many of them ride in the lanes for cars even when there are marked bike lanes. To be fair, in a lot of the city they are travelling just as fast as the cars and many of them refuse to use the bike lanes to keep from getting crushed by buses pulling over to the curb, but it's still annoying.

Re:What we need...

[Rob the Bold]

. . . do something about the assholes on bikes that think that little white line and bike lane are some sort of magic force field that protects them from massive hunks of steel inches to their left...

As you drive, do you also swerve into cars separated from you by the "magic force field" white line? Or are you concerned about your paint job in a car vs. car scenario? Perhaps bikes/bikers just need some extremely aggressive abrasive on their sides to protect them from motorists.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. And what about those handicapped people who park in regular spaces? Let's go after them,too!

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

That, and most bike lanes don't consider bikes that turn. How do you turn left from a bike lane? How safe are you going straight through a green on a bike in a bike lane if a car wants to turn right? I don't think bike lanes solve much.

Re:What we need...

[viperidaenz]

Restrict cars to roads, pedestrians to foot paths and cyclists to cycle lanes.

Re:What we need...

[viperidaenz]

Only if they're wearing Lycra pants.

Re:What we need...

[drinkypoo]

That, and do something about the assholes on bikes that think that little white line and bike lane are some sort of magic force field that protects them from massive hunks of steel inches to their left...

I agree, with the caveat that we need to do something about the drivers who don't. Only by working together can we avoid vaporizing cyclists.

The only cyclists I can't abide are the ones who ride side by side when there's any kind of visible traffic around, or where the view distance is inadequate to permit passing them in those conditions. Cut that shit out.

Re:What we need...

[Ol Olsoc]

That would never work in Seattle with our militant bike riders.

I was helping with a bike race once. We'd have a car pace behind the groups of riders at a safe distance to keep other cars away from them. One of the asshats on a bike seemed to think I was stalking them or something. Started yelling and gesturing at me, then dropped back to me and yelled to "get the fuck out of here and quit following us". Told him who I was, and radioed his number to HQ. His raceday ended at the next checkpoint.

Never did figure out his problem. Either 'roid rage, or just a bike rider with a bad attitude.

Now I just help with the mountainbike races like the Wilderness 101. My kind of people.

Re:What we need...

[Ol Olsoc]

I agree, with the caveat that we need to do something about the drivers who don't. Only by working together can we avoid vaporizing cyclists.

The only cyclists I can't abide are the ones who ride side by side when there's any kind of visible traffic around, or where the view distance is inadequate to permit passing them in those conditions. Cut that shit out.

This. I always go completely in the other lane whenever possible when passing a rider. Most of them appreciate it. But several riding abreast are really scary, especially the ones who are just out for a very casual ride, and want to chat with each other. I've had more than one occasion where they've made a sudden swerve into the opposite lane. There comes a time when I can't go any further around someone.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Turning left on a bicycle would generally mean that you just come to a stop at the far right corner of the intersection, where pedestrians would wait to cross, and walking your bike across the street as a pedestrian when you get a walk signal. After clearing the intersection, you can get back on your bike and continue riding, completing your the left turn.

Really... it's not a remotely hard concept to grasp.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Cars turning right on a green light need to yield to bicycles going straight through in a bike lane just as they would need to yield to pedestrians. Many intersections that I've seen where there are bike lanes also have a special stage in the lights for bicycles, and vehicles are not permitted to turn during that stage. It is illegal for a bicycle at such an intersection to advance when that stage is not active... just as illegal as an automobile running a red light.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't turn left from a bike lane (in the US.) You merge into traffic and make a left turn like everyone else. Nowhere in the United States is a cyclist required to ride in a bike lane.

The problem with right turns is threefold: 1)drivers don't understand that turns must be made as close to the edge of the road as possible (i.e. not across another lane) and 2)drivers often pass a cyclist immediately before turning...out of spite, impatience, incompetence, or ignorance 3)drivers don't signal

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Many of them ride in the lanes for cars even when there are marked bike lanes. "

They are allowed to do so.

"many of them refuse to use the bike lanes to keep from getting crushed by buses pulling over to the curb, but it's still annoying."

No, actually. They're doing it to avoid being doored by drivers, the top cause of injury in US cities. Being doored can kill them either from the impact with the door, or if they're thrown outward into traffic and then run over.

The problem is that you and your fellow drivers can't check your fucking mirrors before opening your doors. We're reacting to that. Either check your fucking mirrors, or stop complaining that what we're doing is "annoying" you.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

So to ride a bike, you must walk it across intersections? Note, that's not how the instructions for using bikes on the street work. The official instructions for Texas are for the rider to safely leave the bike lane, merging into regular traffic, then change lanes to the regular car left turn lane, turn left when safe and legal to do so, then return to the right side of the roadway.

Maybe the anti-bike nuts hate bikes because they don't even know the bike rules.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

That's not what http://slashdot.org/comments.p... says.

Re:What we need...

[rainmaestro]

Such a simple concept that you managed to get it wrong, apparently.

From my state's laws:
        s. 316.151 – Required Position and Method of Turning at Intersections
        (b) Left turn . A person riding a bicycle and intending to turn left in accordance with this section is entitled to the full use of the lane from which the turn may be legally made.

If you are making a left turn at an intersection on a bicycle, you get in the turn lane just like a car. Laws could of course vary by state, but in every state I've biked in, this was the case.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

To leave the bike lane, you still have to yield to vehicles that are not in the process of changing lanes. Since cars are typically moving faster than you, you generally wouldn't be able to do this safely unless there was absolutely no other traffic moving in the same direction (which isn't impossible, but is unlikely on a road that has high enough traffic volumes that it would warrant having a controlled intersection), and if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.The safest thing to do, in my experience, is just stay on the right hand side and manually walk the bike across to get onto the road you intended to turn onto.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Whether they are "entitled" to use it or not is irrelevant if they cannot safely enter the lane in the first place, because cars move much faster than bicycles, preventing a cyclist from being able to change lanes from the rightmost lane (designated bike lane) to the leftmost without causing an accident that they would actually be considered entirely at fault for.

Yes, you are right... bicycles are entitled to use that lane just as cars are... but that entitlement does not also entitle a cyclist to cut off any traffic (because they move so much slower than cars) as they try to move from the bicycle lane on the right to the leftmost lane... even if it is simply because they are making a left turn.

Re:What we need...

[Bert64]

The problem is that there are no license requirements for bikes, so many riders are totally unaware of the actual laws, and often highly inexperienced..
Drivers at least have to pass a test, and while there are plenty of bad drivers they should at least have some experience and understanding of the rules.

On a daily basis i see bikes ignoring red lights, while to see a car go through on red is pretty rare. Just yesterday i saw a bike come off of a footpath, go directly across a 2 lane road without slowing or checking for vehicles (causing several cars to hit the brakes) and into the wrong end of a one way street.

And it's no better as a pedestrian, i was shouted at by a bike rider who took issue with the fact i was in her way by walking down the sidewalk causing her to hit the brakes. It's illegal to ride there, why should i be forced to get out of the way of a bike speeding down the hill ringing a bell and shouting?

Also when trying to cross a road, you get a group of vehicles which pass you, and then a long spaced out stream of bikes that fill in the gap before the next group of vehicles - giving you no time to cross.

Re:What we need...

[gnupun]

Not sure why dedicated lane posts are being marked troll, but that's the safest option considering the difference in speed and the relative fragility of bikes. As shown in this article, extra space (as opposed to the current 6 inches space) between bike and car lanes is crucial for safety.

An even better solution is a protected and dedicated bike lane where there are concrete barriers preventing cars from entering bike lanes. Of course, all this requires a lot of city planning.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

So a bike can't use a lane because "yield" means "don't go where anyone would ever want to be?" If you pull out "in front of" someone 150 yards behind you with a closing speed difference of 30 mph, that's about 10 seconds distance. Would that be failure to yield? How about 500 yards?

if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.

How would that go with "I changed lanes when he was about 2 football fields behind me, and over 10 seconds later he hit me, failing to take due care."

And I find your suggestion amusing when I see roughly 0% of cars following your requirements for bicycles.

The safest thing to do, in my experience, is just stay on the right hand side and manually walk the bike across to get onto the road you intended to turn onto.

In my experience, the safest thing to do is to never get in the bike lane.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Being aggressive/assertive as a cyclist is not the main issue here, it's the rudeness that some cyclists allow themselves to have whilst being aggressive that's getting on everybody's nerve. It's mostly part of a combination of bad upbringing (dad or mom that swore and yelled while driving) and the inability to use common sense to lose that bad habit.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

So. Much. This.

Re:What we need...

[EmagGeek]

I've seen that in races before. Cat-5 morons are so amped up on caffeine, 5-hour energy, and race-day adrenaline that they become violent neanderthals.

Bicycling is not what it used to be. I quit racing two decades ago because of the devolution of cycling. Today's hyper-competitive yuppies have ruined the sport.

Back in the 80's, I could race and everyone would talk to each other and we were all friends out on the road having a good time being competitive with character and integrity. I did a lot of racing out in Colorado, and you could be competitive, but also count on the other riders looking out for you. If you saw another rider in distress, you'd at least put a hand out and ask if they were okay. Riders competed, but they also cared about eachothers' wellbeing.

Something happened in the 90s. I'm not sure what it was, but people started getting nasty. Racing was no longer a sport - it was personal. The younger guys HATED you. You were not their friend. They were there to BEAT YOU, and not to have a good time. It was War, but one in which they simply did not understand that a 30 year old rider with 10 or 15 years of racing experience was going to shellac a 20 year old hot head in a race every single time, as had been done to them a decade before. That generation was not taught, or did not learn, that the 30 year old rider was a mentor, teacher, and friend - not a sworn enemy to be defeated.

That was when I said "fuck it" and stopped racing. About 10 years after that, in the 2000's when Mr. Dope-head started winning Tours de France, it got even worse and the "every ride is a race" mentality filtered down to the group rides, charity rides, and basically any time two riders met on the road under any given circumstances. I rode with three or four guys in my age group on a regular basis, and we always did our best to avoid other riders as much as possible.

Maybe it's just because I'm getting older, or maybe it's because the younger generations are not being taught how to be human beings with empathy and compassion for other living things. Indeed it seems like today's young people are a bunch of violent, maladjusted, narcissistic sociopaths to me, whether on a bike or not.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in London and see some road users of all types behaving well and badly on a daily basis. I used to cycle until I was hit by a car whilst stationary at a red light that she wanted to slip through. Now I mostly walk, which is slow but gives me more time to look around for hazards.

Recently I went to Barcelona. Traffic there was so different. Pedestrians, cycles (motor and pedal) and cars all seemed to mingle together much better. Why? Because people there seemed to be in much less of a hurry to get where they were going.

Re:What we need...

[MrL0G1C]

Pedestrians and cyclists just get in the way, get rid of sidewalks and cycle lanes, ban pedestrians and bikes so that drivers can move freely with ease (sarc).

Re:What we need...

[PvtVoid]

To leave the bike lane, you still have to yield to vehicles that are not in the process of changing lanes. Since cars are typically moving faster than you, you generally wouldn't be able to do this safely unless there was absolutely no other traffic moving in the same direction (which isn't impossible, but is unlikely on a road that has high enough traffic volumes that it would warrant having a controlled intersection), and if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.

Once you have merged left and taken the lane, any traffic behind you must yield right of way (i.e. slow down) to you. They can't just indiscriminately run you over and say its your fault because you're going slower than they are. Bikes have the right to use the full lane when it is necessary for safe operation of the bicycle, and that includes making a left turn.

Going slower than the speed limit in the center of the lane is not illegal, for a car or for a bike. And it certainly shouldn't be punished with the death penalty.

Re:What we need...

[MrL0G1C]

How often do you hear cars honking there horns because some idiot car driver is doing something wrong. In a few places that they made the mistake of introducing licenses for cyclists they revoked those rules because they outright didn't work.

London Bicycle Hire scheme has about 10k bikes and millions of hires, not once was the big readable number taken and reported to the police. With a time+date, the number can say who the rider was.

Re:What we need...

[PvtVoid]

Whether they are "entitled" to use it or not is irrelevant if they cannot safely enter the lane in the first place, because cars move much faster than bicycles, preventing a cyclist from being able to change lanes from the rightmost lane (designated bike lane) to the leftmost without causing an accident that they would actually be considered entirely at fault for.

Going slower than the traffic behind you wants to go is not "causing" an accident. What causes accidents is idiotic responses to a slow vehicle in the lane. Just slow down, be patient, and there won't be an accident.

Re:What we need...

[RivenAleem]

What can be really useful is a short, flexible, pole, about 2 feet long, with a red flag tied to the end, and a glass cutter. Given how in many places, there is a minimum of 3 feet, 1 meter or in some places even 1.5 meters, anyone hit by it would be breaking the law. Ireland, unfortunately, has no such law yet (the law says "Give sufficient distance" and not a specific value for sufficient distance).

Re:What we need...

[Lawrence_Bird]

An even better solution is for police to finally start giving tickets out to bike riders who fail to obey traffic laws.

Re:What we need...

[Echemus]

Merging into a lane is a co-operative event, it is up to the road user wishing to move over to signal their intention and wait for a suitable space to move into. It matters nothing that the speeds are different, it is your responsibility as a following road user to be alert for other road users merging and adjust your speed accordingly, or move over to an adjacent lane (if one exists). Yes, if there isn't a safe space between you and the person in front and the person merging dives in (with or without signalling intent) then it is likely if an accident occurs they are at fault. This is no different no matter which type of road user is merging into traffic.

What happens a lot of the time is that people see a cyclist, bus, garbage truck, old person in a car signalling a merge and they speed up to close the gap. If there is a resultant collision it would at least partially be the fault of the road user who sped up in response to the signalling, as they have done the opposite to what is reasonable. If you are a Garbage Truck or a Bus, you pull over anyway (most of the time) as they are not intimidated, but others?

When I am riding in Toronto, I signal my intent to move to the left lane, to make a turn and I wait for a suitable gap in the traffic. You learn to judge the speed of the traffic and how far from the Intersection you need to make your lane change to do it safely and avoid annoying other road users unnecessarily. Yes, sometimes a vehicle will need to slow, but never in an abrupt fashion.

If we're going for the separate cycle lane approach, then the only way it can work safely is if cyclists heading straight on (in the cycle lane) have right of way over motorists making a turn. This is the case anyway, both with cyclists in the near side lane and pedestrians on a side walk. (Unless, in the case of the pedestrians, the cross walk is flashing before they step into road).

To solve the left turn is simple too, you show green to cyclists ahead of the regular traffic signal. They can then perform their left turn, whilst the traffic is held at red. This does mean the cyclists would have to wait for the appropriate phase in the cycle at the Intersection to make their left turn.

Cycling around cities in Denmark and Holland show that this infrastructure can be made to work (and retro-fitted to cities). Sadly, giving road space over to cyclists (at least in Toronto and I suspect a lot of other cities in the world) is politically unpalatable, even if it ultimately is the best for everyone.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've considered exactly this after being passed close by police (minus the glass cutter). If the cops aren't going to respect the 3' minimum law you can be damn sure everyone else wont.

It is too annoying to do though. It'll bounce all over, limit storage and if someone does clip closely you will likely get whipped by the pole

Re:What we need...

[Echemus]

I'm not 100% sure about N.America, but in Europe at least, the vast majority of cyclists you see have driving licenses and even own a car, but are just choosing not to use it. Yes, there is a subset of cyclists who flaunt traffic laws, although, I've yet to see any statistics to say what sort of percentage actually do this. (It is probably far lower than people think)
On a daily basis driving (or cycling) around Toronto I see many cars passing through traffic lights at red, especially in the case of a left turn.

in London, UK, there was a study performed to work out why (as a percentage) female cyclists were involved in more accidents than male cyclists. One of the conclusions was the fact that a male cyclist was more likely to move off before the traffic signal turned green, jumping the red light. Although, I suspect that is not what you are referring too. An unnerving number of cyclists do just blow through a red light without any hesitation, which is not a smart thing to be doing.

I sympathise with your pedestrian anecdote, cyclists if they are riding on the footpath (legally or not) should always be courteous to pedestrians. Although, you should really not take offence at a cyclist ringing their bell at you. When riding my bike I am more than aware of the fact I am almost silent so ringing a bell from a sufficient distance does warn pedestrians you are approaching, it certainly should not be interpreted as an aggressive act on the part of the cyclists. Shouting and being aggressive though, if you don't appear to notice, is totally out of order. (for all the cyclists knows, you may be deaf)
(And yes, whilst my bike technically is legal to ride on the side walk in Toronto, I do not do it)

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Once you have merged left and taken the lane, any traffic behind you must yield right of way (i.e. slow down) to you.

*ONCE* you have merged, yes.... but if you are moving much slower than that traffic lane, then again... unless there's almost no traffic in the lane you intent to pull into, you're not going to finishing merging before the car behind you is going to feel that you've pulled in front of them. If there is an accident, all they would ever have to do is say that you changed lanes and pulled in front of them. Bam... it's instantly your fault unless either you had video evidence showing that you had signalled in plenty of time to indicate your intent, and that you had completely finished merging and were travelling safely in that lane otherwise (which is possible of the car behind you had a dash cam, and if the insurance company knows about it being there, they may ask to review the footage), or enough witnesses to the accident who would say that the fault was clearly that of the other driver and not you.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Just slow down, be patient, and there won't be an accident.

If you slow down to change lanes, then you only make the matter worse, and that much more difficult to safely merge.

Bear in mind that legally speaking, merging requires that you are already moving with the flow of traffic in the target lane, and that other vehicles will not need to slow down to accommodate you because of your speed (they may have to slow down to accommodate you for purposes of vehicle spacing, but because bikes move so much slower than cars, this isn't going to be the predominant factor).

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

How would that go with "I changed lanes when he was about 2 football fields behind me, and over 10 seconds later he hit me, failing to take due care."

I can tell you exactly how that woud go.. You'd get as far as "I changed lanes..." and the insurance company would rule against you. Immediately.... automatically. 100%. Every time.... you will need irrefutable proof to support absolutely any claim you could ever hope to make that the behavior of the other driver was actually unreasonable.

Re:What we need...

[Kielistic]

Yes that's definitely what the parent said. Good one.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Yes, if there isn't a safe space between you and the person in front and the person merging dives in (with or without signalling intent) then it is likely if an accident occurs they are at fault.

And this is exactly what is generally going to be the case when there is a moderately heavy flow of traffic moving in the same direction as the bicycle, and why it isn't possible for the bike to safely change lanes... hence my recommendation about just manually walking the bicycle across the road at the crosswalk on the far side of the intersection when as a pedestrian walking on a walk light, you would have full right of way.

Re:What we need...

[Kielistic]

Key word being "merge". No one was talking about merging safely a legally. If you cut someone off and they hit you because they didn't have enough time to stop then it is your fault. If there is a high volume of traffic merging safely and legally while traveling 20 to 30 km/s more slowly is not really a realistic proposition.

Re:What we need...

[cmdr_tofu]

I read this (I think on slashdot) about tube bikeways over toronto. Will it ever happen? http://www.treehugger.com/cars...

I guess we can dream and until then maybe radar and goretex will help ;-)

Re:What we need...

[Kielistic]

Unsafe lane changes cause accidents quite frequently too.

Re:What we need...

[drinkypoo]

I always go completely in the other lane whenever possible when passing a rider. Most of them appreciate it.

I go way, way around cyclists. If not all the way into the other lane, then at least halfway, even when it seems like I could pass them just fine. And I even wait to pass them until it's safe, regardless of how long that takes. In exchange, I expect them to do what they can to make it safe, permit passing, and generally behave as predictably as possible. That's the "social contract" that permits cars and bicycles to "share the road". And bicyclists had better hold up their end, because there are many more drivers than cyclists and they will win any battle, whether it's collision-oriented, or political. There is substantial economic interest in keeping the cars going, and next to none for the bicycles by comparison.

Re:What we need...

[PvtVoid]

If there is an accident, all they would ever have to do is say that you changed lanes and pulled in front of them. Bam... it's instantly your fault unless either you had video evidence showing that you had signalled in plenty of time to indicate your intent, and that you had completely finished merging and were travelling safely in that lane otherwise (which is possible of the car behind you had a dash cam, and if the insurance company knows about it being there, they may ask to review the footage), or enough witnesses to the accident who would say that the fault was clearly that of the other driver and not you.

Of course, if you were already fully in the lane and somebody rear ends you anyway, it would literally be murder (or attempted murder if you survived). Luckily, very very few drivers will actually murder another road user in cold blood.

Re:What we need...

[PvtVoid]

Just slow down, be patient, and there won't be an accident.

If you slow down to change lanes, then you only make the matter worse, and that much more difficult to safely merge.

Who said anything about changing lanes? If the cyclist in front of you is signaling a left, you wait behind them until it is safe to proceed. Bear in mind that legally speaking, merging requires that you are already moving with the flow of traffic in the target lane, and that other vehicles will not need to slow down to accommodate you because of your speed

No, and no. As long as there is sufficient space between you and following traffic to move left and take the lane, that traffic is absolutely required to slow to accommodate your speed. Why is it so fucking hard to understand that vehicles are not obligated to travel at the speed limit just because you're too muck of a dick to slow down for thirty seconds or so?

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

Selection bias at its finest.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but as a cyclist I see *far* more drivers failing to obey traffic laws than cyclists.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.

In the US, that statement is patently false.

Pragmatically, though, it depends on your skill/athletic ability and the speed of traffic around the intersection.

Re:What we need...

[edtice1559]

Many people have commented that this isn't how the laws are written in the US and I believe that they are correct. My wife is Taiwanese and car / scooter collisions are a big problem. Scooters (a motor vehicle) are now required to make the turns just as you described. I don't know the statistics on how much this has improved safety but it certainly seems reasonable. I imagine that many cyclists wouldn't mind this. Also I'm not aware of any law prohibiting a cyclist from stopping at an intersection and crossing like a pedestrian, so this could be done today.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

I can tell you exactly how that woud go.. You'd get as far as "I changed lanes..." and the insurance company would rule against you. Immediately.... automatically. 100%. Every time....

You are wrong. Then word it differently. "After traveling in the middle lane for quite some time, the guy behind me hit me."

I've been told on slashdot, many times, that the guy in the back is always wrong.

And it's hilarious that you are holding bikes to a higher standard than cars. More than half of lane changes I see (car on car) require immediate evasive action to prevent a collision.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

I don't hold bikes to a higher standard than cars... if you're in a car and you change lanes and get rear-ended immediatley afterwards, you're at fault then too..

You are wrong.

No, I am not... I am telling you what actually happens when you try to talk to the insurance company. I know this because I've seen it happen.

Then word it differently. "After traveling in the middle lane for quite some time, the guy behind me hit me."

That might work... but they would probably also ask you to qualify "quite some time", if you had recently completed a lane change, and if it was really only a few seconds, then you will most likely be considered to have stll been in the process of completing the merge, and if an accident occurs, you would still be considered at fault for the accident. Even if you think that the driver behind you had deliberately sped up, and even if you accuse (possibly accurately) the driver behind you of driving excessively fast (you would need objective proof to establish this... your sworn word is not sufficient... not even in court).

Again, I know this, because I have seen it happen... Probably between fifty to a hundred times in my lifetime, easily*

*No... that's not because I'm accident prone, it's because I used to work for a company that handled vehicular accident claims.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Do I really need to do the research for you?

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

The core of the problem is that if any vehicle, or bicycle, is performing a lane change, if it is moving slower than the traffic in the lane than it is merging into, it is considered to be "cutting off" the traffic behind the lane-changing vehicle or bicycle, and thus is considered at fault in a collision.

Re:What we need...

[Rakarra]

Not sure where you live, but I haven't seen that myself in a loooong time. I can't remember the last time I saw a driver just blow through a red light. Bicyclist? Just saw that this evening.

Re:What we need...

[Rakarra]

But we were talking about lane switches here. If you're going 10 miles and hour and you switch over into a lane where traffic goes 30 miles an hour, then yes, you could very much be causing an accident if traffic is anywhere near. It can happen with two cars as well (and I see it all the time on the freeway when traffic is slow and someone tries to switch over into the HOV lane).

Re:What we need...

[Rakarra]

Of course it won't happen! They're extremely expensive to build and maintain, and if anyone tells you differently, they're probably trying to sell you a tube bikeway. :-) Most cities, at least in the US, do not have huge amounts of money to throw around.

Re:What we need...

[Rakarra]

That's not what http://slashdot.org/comments.p... says.

He's giving the insurance company line, not what the vehicle code says, barring stupid things like merging into close traffic going much faster.

Re:What we need...

[Rakarra]

That's why I go on rides, NOT races. Well that and I'm not terribly fast. On the organized rides I go on, people are respectful, seem happy to be there, and everyone seems friendly and chatty. Races though, ehhh...

Re:What we need...

[Rakarra]

I think you should basically use whatever lane it is that leaves you a comfortable distance from the sides of cars. If the bike lane will do that, you'd better be in the bike line.

This is why I avoid many city streets -- most bikers just don't want to accept that there are some areas that are not safe to bike and should be avoided.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

If there is a high volume of traffic merging safely and legally while traveling 20 to 30 km/s more slowly is not really a realistic proposition.

Where are you where it's possible for a 30 km/*s* speed difference? I wouldn't cut off anyone going Mach 90 either.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

did you still have the time between the driver’s entry in your lane and the accident to slow down enough to maintain that clear distance?

From your own cite. Seems to prove you wrong. If someone sees you changing lanes, and doesn't slow after you begin your change (are in their path) then they violated the ACDA rule you linked to.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

You are wrong. If the traffic is that heavy, then it is slow. I commuted 15 miles (each way) in Dallas for a three month period. There were no bicycle lanes in Dallas at the time. http://blogs.dallasobserver.co...

Looks like they got one 2 years ago. But nowhere near where I was riding. I would go in the morning in rush-hour traffic, and home at lunch. Your advice is bad. The safest thing for a bike is to always ride in traffic, regardless of whether there's a bike lane or not. Certainly in places like Dallas, where there are so few bike lanes the cars don't know what to do with them, and are likely to fail to yield to people in the bike lane. And changing lanes on a bike is not at all how you describe. Can you even ride a bike?

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

They only need to slow down to ensure adequate spacing... *NOT* to accommodate any particularly slower speed you may be moving at. If you *ARE* moving slower than the traffic in the lane you are intending to merge into, whether you are a car or a bicycle, then *YOU* are responsible for any ACDA rule violation. Thus, to change lanes in bicycle, you require much more clearance than a car would... and in a multi-lane road that is busy enough that the city would think a special bike lane to the right of the vehicle lanes might be necessary in the first place, you're not likely to get this kind of clearance in either lane, let alone both (since to make a left turn, you must be in the left lane,. so if you start in the bike lane, you must change lanes twice) unless you happen to be riding your bike at peculiar times of the day. Much of my own cycling in traffic has been during rush hour, both in the morning and evening.. and the kind of spacing that I would require to safely change lanes in those busy roads, moving at speeds that much slower than other vehicles, is simply non-existent. I will ride to the far end of the intersection, and wait at the corner for the light to change so I can go forward from there and complete the left turn.

Sometimes the bike lane will have its own set of signals, and there is a traffic light phase where those in a bike lane are free to advance, while the lights are otherwise red in every direction. Bikes can advance forward, or make left turns freely during that phase directly from the bike lane... although in the city where I live, probably fewer than 5% of the intersections of roads that have bike lanes are equipped with such signal. Only a few years ago, however, none of them had such traffic signals, so I can easily imagine that the general rule that I would use of riding to the far side of the intersection and waiting for the light to turn green in the other direction so that I can safely proceed may eventually no longer be necessary, Until a majority of such intersections are so equipped, however, that's still going to be the safest way to roll.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

You are wrong. If the traffic is that heavy, then it is slow.

It doesn't have to be bumper to bumper... traffic can be flowing completely smoothly, but if there's still only enough space for a car moving at the same speed as traffic to safely merge in between two cars without causing an accident, that's not going to be anywhere close to enough distance to allow a bike, which is moving much more slowly, to complete a merge. A bike would be considered to be cutting off traffic (or any vehicle would, for that matter, if it were moving more slowly than the traffic in that lane), and thus would be found at fault for any accident. I know this because I've seen this exact thing happen. Lots of times, in fact. And almost every single time, the insurance company determines that the fault of the accident belongs to the person who was changing lanes... even if they had actually completed the lane change before they were hit. The *ONLY* exceptions to this are when objective witnesses to the accident can testify to the insurance company that the driver of the rear vehicle was behaving in a fashion that would not be commensurate with being an attentive driver. This isn't impossible, but it's rare.

Anyways. to merge into any lane of traffic, whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle, you must be moving at approximately the same speed as the traffic in that lane, or else there must be extra distance beyond what is necessary to accommodate a regular vehicle merge. Even during periods of entirely typical traffic levels, where the traffic is slightly heavy, but far from stop-and-go, it can be all but impossible for a cyclist to find such spacing into which they can merge. Unless the cyclist doesn't bother riding in the bike lane in the first place, and anticipating a left turn some distance up ahead, regardless of how far, gets into the left lane as soon as they are able to do so, just as a regular vehicle would likely do. But then, the original question was how do they make a left turn from a bike lane, not how do they make a left turn in general.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not been a serious rider in a long time. I was one of the first riders in Minneapolis to wear a helmet and also one of the few that rode year round.

I learned the hard way to handle a bus pulling up next to you and pulling into the curb. Usually I avoided it by listening to what was behind me and noting a but stop coming up, but I was not paying proper attention that time. I was able to jump sideways up the curb and land on the sidewalk where I quickly stopped (there were people on the sidewalk). But that opened up a whole world of tricks and stunts I was able to learn to do.

I quit biking seriously about the same time when riders riding abreast quit dripping back into a line the moment a vehicle was heard behind. Can't say that it was anything other than coincidental though.

I am old and with health problems now. I really wish I could ride seriously (or at all) again. I still have my bike from back then. I figure it has 60,000-70,000 miles on it. It was sure fun while it lasted.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

They only need to slow down to ensure adequate spacing... *NOT* to accommodate any particularly slower speed you may be moving at. If you *ARE* moving slower than the traffic in the lane you are intending to merge into, whether you are a car or a bicycle, then *YOU* are responsible for any ACDA rule violation

So a bike that pulls out with "adequate spacing" and gets run over by someone behind is at fault because the car had adequate spacing when the bike pulled out, but isn't required to slow, even when they had adequate spacing?

Nope, that's not how it works. If the bike pulls out with adequate spacing, then the car behind is responsible for slowing to maintain ACDA. That is the rule.

That you evilly applied the rule while you worked for an evil insurance company doesn't change reality.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

Anyways. to merge into any lane of traffic, whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle, you must be moving at approximately the same speed as the traffic in that lane, or else there must be extra distance beyond what is necessary to accommodate a regular vehicle merge.

Sure. But you obviously don't ride a bike, do you even know how? There are large accordian spots in traffic. Someone slowed to make a lane change, or took off slowly from a light. These results in lots of opportunities for bikes to "slip in" without disrupting traffic. Sure, the guy they "cut off" can't go as fast as they like, but in most cases needn't even touch the brake to adopt the new speed.

Unless they drive like you sound, and floor it to get on the tail of the bike and honk because they have some insane belief that bike can never legally change lanes.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

I'm saying that "adequate spacing" needs to be greater than what is typical (would allow a vehicle moving at the same speed to safely merge) when merging with traffic that is moving faster... and that such larger spacing is not particularly common on main throughfare roads.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Sure. But you obviously don't ride a bike, do you even know how?

Ad hominem. Yes I do... I used to do so daily during the warmer months, during rush hour... and I did this for about 5 years.

There are large accordian spots in traffic.

Sure... they can happen... they can also not happen. My experience is that it is more expedient, not to mention safer, to simply cycle through the intersection and wait at the far corner for the light to change in the other direction than it is to wait, or especially slow down and wait, for such an opportunity to get into the leftmost lane... particularly if it is a multilane road (which is usually the case if there is a special bike lane, and going into the left turning lane from the right hand bicycle lane would require changing lanes *TWICE*, not just once).

Unless they drive like you sound, and floor it to get on the tail of the bike and honk because they have some insane belief that bike can never legally change lanes.

Of course a bike can change lanes... as long as there is enough space to do so. The problem is that when the lane you are merging into is moving slower than you... and it does not matter whether you are driving a car or riding a bicycle in this matter, the amount of space you are going to require is actually going to be larger than what a vehicle moving at the same speed would need, and in the kind of city driving that I see almost every day, people often tend to drive almost as close together as they can... while still leaving sufficient distance that they could still safely come to a stop if the vehicle in front of them had to stop unexpectedly, often barely leaving enough space for a car that is moving exactly the same speed as them to merge into safely, let alone a cyclist that may not even be able to get up to half of that speed. Simply put, motorists do not typically drive in a way that accommodates cyclists from being able to move in traffic exactly the same way that cars do. Whether they are legally entitled to do so or not is irrelevant. And if a car speeds up and hits you just after you finished changing lanes, then you're going to need witnesses and some pretty objective proof to substantiate that claim because every experience I've had says that the insurance company will rule against you in those circumstances.

Re:What we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a left-turn bike lane in Salt Lake City. As I usually just formed up with traffic to turn left it was a bit of a shocker.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Who said anything about changing lanes?

Ahem:

How do you turn left from a bike lane?

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

Re-read your comments. You implied that the space would need to be infinite, if the vehicle changing lanes was going slower than the car they pulled out "in front of".

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

No...not infinite. nor did I mean to ever imply that it should be... only that the speed difference between cars and bikes is large enough that the increased adequate spacing to safely merge is not likely to ever actually happen in practice. It's not impossible, but still implausible. In my experience, one would spend less time waiting at the far end of the intersection for the light to change in the other direction than they would waiting for an opening to move safely from the far right bicycle lane to the leftmost turning lane.

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

only that the speed difference between cars and bikes is large enough that the increased adequate spacing to safely merge is not likely to ever actually happen in practice.

In my experience, it's easy to safely change lanes on a bike. I did it for, a few thousand miles one summer.

In practice, once you start signaling, cars let you in. Often because of the novelty of a bike in heavy city traffic.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

My experience is the opposite... a lot of automobile drivers are total jackasses to cyclist where I live (which usually means they speed up as soon if you signal to lane change just because they've decided they don't want you to be in front of them). To be fair, however, I have seen a disturbing number of cyclists completely disregard the rules of the road... going right through stop signs where pedestrians are crossing without even slowing down, for instance..

Re:What we need...

[AK Marc]

My experience is the opposite... a lot of automobile drivers are total jackasses to cyclist where I live (which usually means they speed up as soon if you signal to lane change just because they've decided they don't want you to be in front of them).

That works too. They rarely will slam on the brakes next to you. They like to be just ahead of you. Then you pull in right behind them. They would have accelerated, leaving a larger than normal gap behind them. And the car behind couldn't hit you without hitting them, so you are safe.

Re:What we need...

[mark-t]

Only if the guy behind him isn't just as much of a jackass. If he is, he'll accelerate too.

Re:What we need...

[Trogre]

The problem is that there are no license requirements for bikes, so many riders are totally unaware of the actual laws, and often highly inexperienced..
Drivers at least have to pass a test, and while there are plenty of bad drivers they should at least have some experience and understanding of the rules.

Well the solution to this is fairly clear...

Re:What we need...

[cmdr_tofu]

yeah but imagine if half the city started biking! It would stimulate local industries, people would get healthier (lowering healthcare cost and increasing lifespan of productive people) and it would reduce wear and tear more expensive thoroughfares (not to mention parking problems). I'd argue it's smart money, but maybe not for a city. This should be done at a national level!

Re:bikes not cars?!

[Intron]

bikse are not the raod people you make them pour out there money on this

I'll have one of what you're drinking.

Troll?

[drinkypoo]

Because I suggested that drivers should do something to avoid killing cyclists, who pay for nearly as much of the road but use much less of it? Or because I had the audacity to suggest that cyclists follow the law? Either way, double-plus blow me.

A heavy, complicated solution to a rare problem

[alphazulu0]

I commented elsewhere that this is heavy, complicated and no better than a tiny rear flasher. Plus, while getting rear-ended by a car sounds scary, it's one of the least common bike accidents. According to these stats (based on bike collisions in 3 cities in 1995), only 3.8% of crashes were car rear-ends bike:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/L...

There's some cool tech in this product, but it won't help with the most common bike collisions (#1 car pulls out in front of bike, #2 parked car door opens into bike).

Re:A heavy, complicated solution to a rare problem

[MrL0G1C]

According to that link regarding causes of accidents: Motorist left turn at same time as cyclist left turn is only at 4.5% but in London this is the cause of half of cyclist deaths because the cyclist gets trapped underneath the left turning vehicle (typically HGVs with poor mirror systems). Point being, cars moving slowly and pulling out are not likely to injure cyclists as badly as a motor vehicle moving at 30-50mph and hitting the cyclist from behind or causing them to fall off in to fast moving traffic.

I still think the product is bad, if every cyclist had one, cars would think they could pass too close and get the cyclist to pull to the side, potentially endangering themselves in the process.

Re:A heavy, complicated solution to a rare problem

[indytx]

There's some cool tech in this product, but it won't help with the most common bike collisions (#1 car pulls out in front of bike, #2 parked car door opens into bike).

Agreed. #1 is why I cut down on my biking. I would agree that bikes can be hard to see during the day, but most of the times I would commute would still be pitch dark in the morning with almost no one on the road. My bike is a rolling, blinking LED Christmas tree, and people STILL don't process it as a human being on a bicycle and pull out in front of me. Really scary. I decided that if people don't process the blinking object as a person, I was running the risk of being T-boned.

Re:A heavy, complicated solution to a rare problem

[hondo77]

Remember that a motorist making a left turn in Santa Barbara doesn't mean the same thing as it does in London.

who needs radar

[Anonymous Coward]

micro changes in air density

Re:who needs radar

[Anonymous Coward]

micro changes in air density

How else are you going to get your free testicle cancer?

captch: patents

Re:bikes not cars?!

[Ol Olsoc]

bikse are not the raod people you make them pour out there money on this

I'll have one of what you're drinking.

Sounds like a vicodin and wild turkey old fashioned.

Deaf people

[henni16]

I had the same reaction at first ("useless") .

Then I remembered my father whose hearing has gotten pretty bad over the years.
When my parents were out together riding their bicycles somewhere, my mom noticed that he clearly didn't hear some cars approaching from behind. She said that it was kinda worrying in some situations.
I guess when your hearing gets gradually worse, you can sometimes forget that not hearing a car doesn't mean there isn't one close by.

And thinking a bit more about it, I've already seen ("heard" would be wrong) an incredibly silent hybrid car; the loudest noise it generated was the dirt being crushed between the tires and the asphalt.

Then again, turning your head now and then or some of those rear-view mirrors for the handlebars will be a lot cheaper.

Not Elegant

[JimSadler]

Bicycles can be an art form in themselves. To look right a bike needs a very naked look. The idea of electronic systems on a bike will not be popular in my opinion. Now a system inside a car that makes a public record of how the car approached bicycles might be acceptable and not intrusive in a car. Lite weight and a clean look at all of the bike is what sells. Many bicyclists will not even keep fenders on their bikes as it spoils the entire designed goals.

you are not an ally.

[Anonymous Coward]

I modded you troll because of this sentence: "The only cyclists I can't abide are the ones who ride side by side when there's any kind of visible traffic around, or where the view distance is inadequate to permit passing them in those conditions. Cut that shit out."

That's a bit like saying "I agree with welfare, except welfare for all those lazy black people who rob convenience stores" and then complaining: "What? Why'd you label me racist? Because I suggested that welfare is good, or that I had the audacity to say black people are lazy criminals?"

Or: "I agree women should have equal rights and pay in the workplace, except for those stupid bitches who dress like sluts. What? Why'd you label me sexist? Because I said that women should have equal rights, or that I had the audacity to say that women exploit their sexual attractiveness to gain promotions they don't deserve?"

You damn well will abide "the ones who ride side by side", especially when they're explicitly allowed to do so by law in many states. It's the responsibility of the person who wants to pass, to wait until it is safe to do so. Go read your fucking driver's manual.

Re:you are not an ally.

[Bert64]

There's a lot to be said for consideration on the roads... And riding two abreast when doing so makes it hard for faster vehicles to pass is extremely inconsiderate, irrespective of legality.
If you're doing something which unnecessarily inconveniences others why should they show you any consideration in return? There are many instances where the slowness and instability of a bike could make certain manoeuvres impossible or extremely dangerous, and car drivers will often allow bikes to pass when they aren't legally obliged to. The more you do to unnecessarily piss drivers off, the less they will do to help you.

Re:you are not an ally.

[drinkypoo]

It's the responsibility of the person who wants to pass, to wait until it is safe to do so.

Yes, that's true. It's also the responsibility of the cyclist to ride in a safe manner, not obstructing the flow of traffic on their chosen route. Go read your driver's manual. Once you've done that, perhaps you will have sufficiently remedied your ignorance that you will gain the courage to log in. Driving defensively is not something done only by people with four wheels. Or at least, it should not be. Now share the road. You're free to take more of it than you need, but that will increase your risk of unplanned death, and I regret only that you will probably damage a car in the process, and that you may well have already bred.

If you are an inconsiderate fuckhead, I am not your ally.

Re:you are not an ally.

[dave420]

Two wrongs don't make a right. That is no justification for acting like a muppet.

Re:you are not an ally.

[drinkypoo]

Two wrongs don't make a right. That is no justification for acting like a muppet.

Do you mean singing and dancing with a hand up your ass, or what? Riding side by side where it causes a hazard is a total dbag maneuver. It's also unclear why you want to create a situation where every non-electric vehicle passing you is going to be creating additional emissions just as it does so, but that's what using more space than you need actually does. Enjoy sucking it, I guess.

Re:you are not an ally.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you need to read the fucking legislation, specifically the pre-amble that directs that all laws be interpreted within with the overarching goal of sharing the road. If you are backing up traffic, you are fucking required to get out of the way. If you want the legal term, it's called "blocking".

Re:you are not an ally.

[Rakarra]

You damn well will abide "the ones who ride side by side", especially when they're explicitly allowed to do so by law in many states. It's the responsibility of the person who wants to pass, to wait until it is safe to do so. Go read your fucking driver's manual.

Are you fucking serious? You do not ride abreast. You do not ride in tandem. That's one of the primary bicycling rules and has been drilled into me by the organizers on every ride I've ever taken part of. Rule 1 is share the road. Rule 2, ride single file, dammit.

urban myth

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that a blinking light can cause anyone to go into a seizure is an urban myth. Among other things, people who get seizures that easily aren't driving.

You have noticed that police, fire, ambulance, tow, utility, construction, etc. vehicles have flashing lights, right?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I've driven neutral support as well

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now I just help with the mountainbike races like the Wilderness 101. My kind of people."

Nothing like judging an entire community/sport you've already declared "asshats", based off one person who was immediately penalized by / ejected from that community. I'd love to hear what you think of women and people of color...

"One of the asshats on a bike seemed to think I was stalking them or something. Started yelling and gesturing at me, then dropped back to me and yelled to "get the fuck out of here and quit following us"

I'll answer your logical fallacy anecdote with an anecdote of my own (also, if you think they're "asshats", why were you volunteering for them?)

I was driving a neutral support vehicle for a race out in a rural bit of farmland. The race has run for years at the same date and place. The course is marked well in advance with signs warning about the race. There are volunteer marshals at each intersection.

I'm trailing the race as neutral support, and someone blew by a marshal at an intersection (there's cones out, someone in a vest, with flag.) She then starts tailgating me, honking, and flashing her lights. Then starts to move like she's going to pass me - and an ongoing race with 30-40 cyclists stretched over about a block - over a double yellow line.

I had to physically block her with my car to keep her from trying to pass, and she was stopped by a police officer shortly thereafter.

Re:I've driven neutral support as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for stopping her. At a local triathlon earlier this year, an idiot in an SUV blew past all the safety indicators, tried to pass a group of riders on a double yellow, and then suddenly came to a stop; one of the riders couldn't stop in time to avoid hitting her, and was seriously injured.

Re:I've driven neutral support as well

[Ol Olsoc]

"Now I just help with the mountainbike races like the Wilderness 101. My kind of people."

Nothing like judging an entire community/sport you've already declared "asshats", based off one person who was immediately penalized by / ejected from that community. I'd love to hear what you think of women and people of color...

"One of the asshats on a bike seemed to think I was stalking them or something. Started yelling and gesturing at me, then dropped back to me and yelled to "get the fuck out of here and quit following us"

I'll answer your logical fallacy anecdote

Looks like someone is spoiling for a fight, eh AC? Did you think I was calling all bike riders asshats? You even ask the question yourself - why I was assisting. Because it's something I do.

And my still working with Mountain bikers - No. I'm not a masochist.

That being said, the mountain bikers are more my kind of people. That's pretty simple, a different crew, both more laid back, and a little wilder, and haven't met one yet with a nasty-ass attitude. So hop off your high dudgeon horse for a while, and accept the possibility that someone can just be relating a story without condemning an entire group. I was responding to a post about militant riders, with my own story about running into one.

Relating an experience is hardly a logical fallacy. You might want to read things twice before you go into crazy talk mode.

Re:I've driven neutral support as well

[Rakarra]

That being said, the mountain bikers are more my kind of people. That's pretty simple, a different crew, both more laid back, and a little wilder, and haven't met one yet with a nasty-ass attitude. So hop off your high dudgeon horse for a while, and accept the possibility that someone can just be relating a story without condemning an entire group

Well, I'm not the AC, but this is the impression I got from your post as well, that you thought the road bikers were asshats, and mountain bikers are generally better people. You hang with them instead. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that you thought the road bikers in the ride were a bunch of dicks.

The OP you responded to copped an unreasonable attitude though. Probably a road biker, they tend to do that. ;-)

How about other uses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only posting as anonymous because I can't remember my password right now

Anyways has anybody brainstormed what other uses this might have? It may be a little dumb for bikes, but there must be other potential uses. I will have to try to find and study the details including the price, range, power, I'm sure some roboticists are considering applications?

Get a rear-view helmet mounted mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Just get a rear-view mirror. Third Eye makes a really nice one that's cheap and beautifully. Why you want some radar with some crap that may or may not work, when you can have a mirror and see *everything* behind you and in front of you.

http://www.amazon.ca/s/?ie=UTF...

Put on some pants

[angryfeet]

It's not socially acceptable to wear your budgie smugglers at a coffee shop.

More points

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh nice. The faster the light flashes the more point I get when playing PacMac on the road.

Something like that

[dargaud]

I was thinking of building something like that, but I would want to get the min distance of a passing car and its speed. Which would give me a good reason to beat the shit out of them when I catch them. I ride half an hour on a fairly large but winding mountain road every morning. Not much traffic (150 cars on average during those 30 min). But on average there'll be one car that passes within 10cm of me every day. At 90km/h. Assholes not fully awake yet who think they know their daily commute road by heart and cut all the curves no matter if there's a cyclist.

It gives me plenty of time to imagine remedial solutions. Yelling is no use. A 120dB air horn sometimes surprises the asshole afterwards. A paint gun in the windshield (not precise enough and I'm no Doc Holliday) ? A real one shot in the air (not in my country) ? A piece of ultra-hard sharp ceramic on a thin stick held at windshield level ? What I've been doing so far is writing down the license tags and then looking for them around my small town. So far I've caught two and made a very public scene. They've been plenty cautious since then.

Re:Something like that

[u38cg]

In the UK, you can take the plate number and make a report of careless driving to the police. Although they almost certainly won't prosecute with no evidence, they will speak to the driver and frankly for many people just having a cop knock on the door is sobering enough. In my experience it's never worth attempting to deal with it on the scene; people aren't willing to admit they're wrong, ever.

He doesn't know cyclers at all

[Ilgaz]

Even the legendary Shimano is having hard time selling their electronic gears and not even daring to make them automatic since...Bicycle riding people _hate_ electronic devices except head/tail lights, speedometers. It doesn't fit at all. No, they aren't luddites either. Some seriously high technology is in use by cyclers today but they are all fit into the "soul" of cycling. Not a radar.

Re:He doesn't know cyclers at all

[EmagGeek]

I don't even like cyclocomputers. I have nothing electronic on my bike. I wear a helmet headlight and hang a blinky off of my backpack when I commute, but there are no electronic gadgets anywhere on my bike, and certainly no Di2.

Re:He doesn't know cyclers at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the legendary Shimano is having hard time selling their electronic gears and not even daring to make them automatic since...Bicycle riding people _hate_ electronic devices

Shimano is having trouble selling their electronic/automatic gears because they cost as much as a high-end bike.

Also, you wouldn't believe how much water gets onto (and into) a bike, especially on race days in heavy rain.

...changing the FACE of cycling?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If they're going to install it so that it looks backwards, aren't they changing the butt of cycling?

Re:...changing the FACE of cycling?

[StripedCow]

aren't they changing the butt of cycling?

No, the idea is that this thing saves your butt.

Re:bikes not cars?!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"Martini. Shuffled, not spell-checked."

Flash?

[CurryCamel]

Why should a rear light flash in the first place? I don't think it adds at all to a rear lights functionality, and does cause - at least for me - a rise in adrenaline: flashing usually means something is out of order, or exceptional (e.g. emergency vehicles or someone hitting the breaks).

Re:Flash?

[EmagGeek]

A flashing light is more attention-getting than a steady one. The whole point of the rear blinky is to draw attention to yourself so drivers are aware of your presence.

Also, the batteries last a whole lot longer.

Re:Flash?

[CurryCamel]

In all these years, nobody has rear-ended me in the dark. Even if the back lights of my car doesn't blink.
The battery argument I understand, but to that I say "Luxury!". We used to have dynamos on our bikes, and we could not even dream about rear lights.

Re:Flash?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly... "something is out of order" - there is a bike in front of you. Don't hit it, or you will create an emergency :)

Re:What we need... enforcement, not licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that there are no license requirements for bikes, so many riders are totally unaware of the actual laws, and often highly inexperienced..

I don't think the examples you give (red lights, sidewalk, one-ways) are a matter of ignorance, but rather of simply being assholes.

If someone was raised by wolves, then they're going to be uncivilized regardless of whether they have passed a test and have a little piece of paper saying they did so. There are already laws on the books for all of these things, and the quickest way for people to learn is to hand them a $100+ lesson.

TL; DR: the problem is enforcement, not education.

(I say this as someone who cycles to work 9+ months of the year in Canada, and has both a car and motorcycle rating on my driver's license.)

Needed on cars

[Anonymous Coward]

This is needed on motor vehicles more than needed on bicycles.

Re:bikes not cars?!

[wonkey_monkey]

Hey, lay off the guy. He's driving.

Speed

[phorm]

Cars are potentially much faster than bicycles. In practice, a cyclist may reach typical vehicle speeds for downtown traffic, especially if there is congestion.

Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

So, All the people who have been side-swiped and/or rear-ended, were idiots because they were wearing headsets? That is one of the most moronic, presumpsious statements I have heard in a long time.

So, by your reasoning deaf people shouldn't bother to ride or drive, right?
I have been riding bicycles since 7 years old and headphones reduce my fear when driving in the city, because I don't hear all that vehicle noise.
I recently got doored by a passenger in a Taxi and she ended paying $250 for my hassle, so she wouldn't get charged in Toronto (I am 50 years old and look 30, my only real accident since I have been riding).

The most important skill a cyclist, rider, driver, or whatever needs is to be able to visually see what is going on in traffic, front to back......

Another tip I would give is not to drive in a straight line so cars can line up on you. I have yet to have a car come close to me, I always get 3 feet minimum when being overtaken by other vehicles including bicycles.

And finally do not rush to be the first on a green light, always always look before proceeding through intersections (I also do this when driving large transport trucks).

How exactly would a license help?

[dlenmn]

Do you really think these idiot cyclists don't know what a red light means? They know; they just don't care. A license would not fix that. (Altho it may make the idiots easier to fine.)

It's not like drivers really know the laws relating to cyclists either, and there are some unexpected laws (example). That said, I'm fine with cyclists having to get a license -- as long as drivers have to pass a rigorous test of laws related to bikes...

Do flashing turn signals annoy you too?

[dlenmn]

In all these years, nobody has rear-ended me in the dark. Even if the back lights of my car doesn't blink.

That's not a fair comparison; a car has large taillights, but most bike tail lights are low-power LEDs.

Are you mad when car turn signals blink? Even brake lights turn on and off in an attempted to get people's attention.

Maybe blinking bike lights don't help. Maybe they don't. You raise an interesting question, but your thoughts and anecdotal evidence don't contribute much. There are some actual studies out there, and they seem to indicate that blinking lights are more effective. (This has a number of references.)

Just a thought (unsubstantiated): a blinking light may help differentiate a bike from other vehicles, and that may be useful. if there's just one bike and one car on a street, then that isn't an issue. If a cyclists is on a road with many cars -- all with steady red lights -- then it may be hard to recognize that there's a cyclist in the mix. A blinking light could make it easier to tell that there's a non-car on the road.

Re:Do flashing turn signals annoy you too?

[CurryCamel]

Are you mad when car turn signals blink? Even brake lights turn on and off in an attempted to get people's attention.

This is the crux of my point. Blinking lights mean something exceptional is happening, like someone stopping, turning or overtaking. A cyclist going their way is not exceptional, and having the tail (or front!) light blink is "crying wolf".
Interesting link, thanks. Seems I am not alone in my opininon:

A flashing beacon on a bicycle yielded a greater detection but not
recognition distance when compared with reflectors (588m versus
444m and 59m versus 71m respectively).

I'm confused

[Excelcia]

A radar activated light... so that the driver of a car knows that the cyclist knows that the car is getting closer to the cyclist? Huh? How about just a light that blinks really fast to begin with, and a rearview mirror on the bike so the cyclist can see the car, rather than depend on LEDs to tell him there's a car behind him. Total savings, several thousand dollars and the heartbreak of putting your heart and soul into a project that will never go anywhere.

If the inventor was bound and determined to go high tech, then how about handlebar a mounted smart phone with a rear-facing bluetooth camera. Putting together some image processing software that recognizes something approaching from the rear and notifies the cyclist with a flash or a tone would be a lot easier than building a radar, and you get the added bonus of having the rearview camera image on the smartphone display too.

Either way you are using off-the-shelf hardware. As it stands, at the frequency he's working at, in any kind of weather that diminishes visibility to the point where you'd want to have it, it would be useless. 24GHz will give you returns off of humid portions of air, let alone actual smog, fog, or mist, and doppler isn't the be-all-end-all in an environment where air currents and gusts can move the stuff you're getting returns off of at the speed of a car.

I hope those venture capitalists haven't put real money into this.

Re:What we need ... is common sense and ...

[donak]

Courtesy for All!
My first issue is this phrase: " ... to cut off any traffic ... ".
The idea that one road user is "cutting off" another arises from
- one vehicle behind another, in another lane,
- approaching at a higher speed and
- the vehicle in front changes lanes in front of it
Does the vehicle behind not have brakes? Can the driver not use them, if fitted?
If the flow of traffic is so tight that there is literally no room for someone to change lanes, everyone is sitting in a traffic jam (rolling or otherwise).
If not, all it takes is for the following vehicle to show a little courtesy, a little regard for other road users (including bicycles) and apply the brakes!

Instead we get people sticking their heads out the car window, shrieking "You cut me off, you asshole" right after having run into the other vehicle.
I saw a police officer recently say on TV: "Everyone has a duty of care to drive safely". We need a little common courtesy as much as we need observation or enforcement of rights and responsibilities.

HOAX or SCAM ? Tough call ...

[fygment]

Unclear which, but there are no pics of the radar itself.
There are pics of boxes with the two LED packages. There is the picture of a box for a supposedly 10 GHz radar but with no obvious antenna or power supply.
The packages shown could house one or more half wavelength antennae ... but since there are no dimensions, it's a guess.
The packages shown could not house a power supply that would give the kind of ranges they are talking about, or if they can, perhaps there should be some technical specs to illustrate the radar's capabilities, not least of which might be beamwidth and power out.

24 GHz with a range of 100 yds, resolving multiple targets in something easily mounted on a bike ... really?! If you follow radar literature at all, you'll know that that is not trivial.

If you believe in this product, based on the info provided (and $26,000 worth of people apparently do), then you also bought sea monkeys and a time machine. How did those work out for you? There's one born every minute.

Re:What we need... enforcement, not licensing

[Bert64]

Well another part of the problem is that bikes are also not registered... Cars have license plates which allow people to easily identify the vehicle, bikes do not, which means bike riders feel far more anonymous and able to get away with illegal activities.