Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
. . . 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.
I am not a crackpot.
bikse are not the raod people you make them pour out there money on this
I'll have one of what you're drinking.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska
Suing someone isn't going to bring you back from the dead.
Restrict cars to roads, pedestrians to foot paths and cyclists to cycle lanes.
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).
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?
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.
"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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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...
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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).
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.
An even better solution is for police to finally start giving tickets out to bike riders who fail to obey traffic laws.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.