Comments: 856 +- Technology: Bike Projector Makes Lane For Rider on Thursday July 02, @12:21AM
Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday July 02, @12:21AM
from the don't-cross-the-laser-line dept.
from the don't-cross-the-laser-line dept.
hh4m writes "Whether it's San Francisco, New York, or any bicyclistic city in between, you're destined to witness biker after biker dancing with danger, especially at night when visibility is uncomfortably low. Alex Tee and Evan Gant's LightLane device was recently just a concept but is soon to enter reality as a much-needed visual declaration of personal biking space. With a dire shortage of dedicated lanes, LightLane provides urban cyclists with a solution that adapts to them and any route they make take. The compact projector mounts easily to the rear of a bike frame and projects a bike lane-inspired linear pattern that provides great visibility and a familiarity that helps catch a driver's attention."
Related Stories
I love treason but hate a traitor.
-- Gaius Julius Caesar
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Better than a tail light? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better than a tail light? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it's just projecting a false lane on the ground behind your bike. Basically the bike rider is insisting there's a bike lane where there isn't one, and the hope is that cars will see it and think of it like a real bike lane. In the meantime, the bike is constantly moving... making this just a bunch of flashing red light on the street.
FTA: Originally presented as a losing design competition entry, LightLane has continued onto a path to production thanks to widespread public interest and encouragement.
It's a shit idea, and I SERIOUSLY doubt there's been "widespread public interest and encouragement".
Parent
Re:Better than a tail light? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Better than a tail light? (Score:5, Funny)
This gives me an idea! screw this new device, what I want is a thing that leaves a wall behind me. somebody pisses me off and I just swerve out in front of them and BOOM.
Parent
yes but... (Score:4, Funny)
So... wait. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is using green lasers and the picture shows it with red? Okay, that's silly in itself, but more importantly, whenever it hits a puddle, any other reflective surface or god forbid is used in the rain, isn't EVERYONE GOING TO GO BLIND INCLUDING THE BICYCLIST?
It's not going to blind anyone. (Score:5, Informative)
The green line lasers used here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOU563OvpUY [youtube.com] look like they are in the 1mW to 5mW range type devices. These are eye safe under all conditions as it isn't possible to get all that light focused onto the back of you eye even if you hold it within a few mm of your eyeball. At 1m distance, the power entering your eye will be approx 1/100 of this so there is absolutely zero chance of eye damage from this sort of thing.
Dazzle on the other hand is far more of an issue. It is quite possible that a reflected beam could distract or dazzle a driver for a few seconds. Not something you want to happen.
Parent
Maybe on concrete (Score:4, Interesting)
but around here, the roads are black bitumen, so trying to paint them with a laser won't work so well, will it?
Except when the roads are wet, then it may work _too_ well.
Anyway, we have plenty of real bike lanes here, so I don't care.
Not to mention that green lasers are banned imports. Not sure if this will be a good enough reason
on my import permit application.
Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:4, Insightful)
The road is big enough if both parties just share. The real problem here is self-righteous assholes, not cyclists or motorists.
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this right.... you think it is the cyclists fault if a car driver passes them on a blind corner and then has an accident? If it's a blind corner then the car driver should wait until they can see! Would you blame a tractor or other slow moving vehicle if you had a crash while trying to overtake them on a blind corner??
Cyclists cycle out from the curb because it is the safest way to cycle, otherwise they frequently end up getting run over / pushed off the road as cars try and squeeze past while traffic is in the other lane. I've been run off the road by a car trying to squeeze past then suddenly realising there is a truck coming so they need to move over more.. right into me.
I used to try and cycle in a way that made it easy for car drivers to get past etc. But I've been nearly hit, cut up and run off the road too many times. Now I cycle out from the curb and car drivers pass me properly and I've had no issues with being cut up, it is by far the safest way to cycle.
Parent
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, let me just say that it's a good fucking thing that your wife is the lawyer and not you; perhaps SHE understands that federal law is just one layer, and there are others on top of it. If you tried to apply these laws in California, you would fail. My responses are California-centric:
cyclists can ride as 'close as practicable from the side of the road', meaning they do NOT have to ride within the boundary of the shoulder, especially if there is debris on the far side.
-motorists MUST obey all road laws when dealing with cyclists, including passing laws. It is against the law to pass cyclists with a solid yellow 'no pass' line on their side, just as it is when passing a car. Furthermore, motorists must use the same discretion when passing cyclists, say on a hill or around a curve, as they would when passing another automobile.
And yet, it is still illegal for a bicyclist to ride in a fashion such that they create a road hazard, and they must pull over to permit passing if five or more vehicles stack up behind them, regardless of the speed at which they travel. (Same for cars and bicycles)
-cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate
Just like motorcycles, except that you need to get out of my fucking way when it's possible.
cyclists MAY take up an entire lane if they deem the situation to be potentially hazardous to them, eg when going over a hill. If the cyclists suspects that their well being will be endangered by a driver wanting to pass them from behind while going over a hill or around a curve, they can effectively stop this from happening by taking up the lane. This is a tricky predicament because the aggressive driver behind you may want to pass anyway
It's also a tricky predicament because if you're going too slow up the middle of the lane, you're creating an unsafe situation, which is illegal even when your action is otherwise permitted by law.
cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights.
Not in California.
at night, bikes MUST have both front and rear lights, clearly visible to the driver, as well as side reflectors, and preferably reflective clothing.
In California, you need a front light and rear reflector, that's it.
in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway.
Which is why most of what you said is nonsense.
Parent
In NYC, we have less tolerance...for cars that is (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny to hear how much ire there is for bicyclists in other parts of the country.
As a Manhattan native I can confidently say that the most annoying thing on the road is the douchebags who feel like its a good idea to bring their massive cars in from Jersey, Westchester and Long Island -- and clog up traffic.
From a NY perspective, the traffic problems have nothing to do with cyclists at all. They have more to do with a perceived right to bring a massive metal and glass behemoth into the world's most crowded places. Keep that sh*t parked outside the city and take public transportation.
I'm all for a $50 toll for commuters. Clogging up the city should be incredibly expensive for non-commercial traffic.
Cities should be primarily mass transit, taxis, pedestrians and bicycles. Douchebags feeling like they have a right to bring their suburban into the city is a much bigger problem than some dude on a bike.
So what make this news now? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/submission/928767/Virtual-Bike-Lane-proposed-by-designers?art_pos=1 [slashdot.org]
Sheesh.
A 2 euro solution (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see why having fancy (but fake) laser-system-bike-lane would be any good. I have seen people driving around with a thin, flimsy reflector which sticks out 30 centimeters (about 1 ft) from the side of the bike. It won't damage cars if they get hit and also won't cause the biker to fall, because it will just fold backwards... but it does show cars to go around the biker. It's a 2 euro solution for the problem we're dealing with here. It does not require batteries. It can easily be built on any bike. It already exists.
In addition, real bike lanes are worth the money. Great experiments (Denmark, Netherlands) show that this really works. Perhaps there is no space in Manhattan, but on 99.9% of the surface of the earth, a 1 meter wide lane really isn't a big issue.
Funny ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the cyclist in the picture doesn't actually have any lighting on his bike apart from the lane-thingy :D
Anyway, as a dutch person who has biked in the states (Knoxville, TN area) I was absolutely appaled by the risks bikers have to take on americans roads. I was trying to make my way from my parents house to knoxville, a minor 10 mile ride, and at one point found myself forced to take an interstate ... holding to the shoulder of course but it was rocky and all ... worthless and dangerous.
To paint the picture, in the Netherlands you could cycle the whole country without having to share a lane with a car once ... we have a pretty good infrastructure with bike lanes and even seperate bike paths with run parallel to the roads.
My point being, this 'solution' sucks, is overengineered and impratical. If you want to really encourage people riding bikes instead of taking the car, build the infrastructure for it.
It can be done, even in formerly very car-centric cities. Take, for example, Paris, where the last years biking has taken off hugely because of a city push for more biking, including cheap rental bikes and massive new bike lane building.
Gonna be a tough sell.. (Score:4, Funny)
Inventor: Hey, bicycle enthusiasts! Want to buy a neat safety device?
Cyclists: Sure! We are all about safety, look at the styrofoam on our heads and these lycra shorts! We care about safety because many of us are killed or injured in the most baffling circumstances.
Inventor: Ah, ok! This is a device that projects a cycle lane onto the road so that traffic behind you is made more aware of your presence on the road.
Cyclists: 'Be-hind'? What is 'be-hind'? Is it something to do with my shorts?
Inventor: Not shorts related. Behind you. To your rear. The traffic coming up behind you.
Cyclists: Traffic coming up behind us? What are you talking about?
Inventor: You know, when you look behind you and..
Cyclists: LOOK BEHIND? Are you crazy? Your words don't make any sense.
Inventor: Well, when you turn your head..
Cyclists: TURN the HEAD? You are nuts! The head doesn't turn! The head looks down at the front wheel spindle. You are a crazy man!
Darwin: Dude, you are wasting your time with those cyclists.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, never mind, just found a video of it in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOU563OvpUY [youtube.com] No chance of anyone thinking that's a bike lane..
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Funny)
No to mention the danger of attracting friggin' sharks if you ride near the seafront.
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:4, Interesting)
If that thing's using lasers instead of just cheapo LEDs with something restricting the beam I REALLY don't want to be near it when it hits something reflective.
I assume they use something not terribly eye-burny if its made to be looked at by drivers.
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
-
I still cringe when I think about the time my friend tried to use his laser pointer in a rainstorm.
A few years back, I mounted a laser pointer to my nes blaster gun for duck hunt. Simultaneously the smartest and stupidest thing I've done. Laser sight is badass, but the reflection off the CRT was a bit alarming.
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
As a driver, I often have the reverse thought. I work weekends, and what is a nice ride out of the suburbs for lots of cyclists is my commute. What is it with convoys of cyclists? Either two (or more) abreast, stretching the overtaking distance substantially or preventing it completely, or in indian file leaving no gaps for cars to pull into, meaning you either have to try and overtake anywhere from 2 to 6 bikes at once, or not at all.
I'm a realist. I know we're going to have to throttle back on car use a lot in the future. I'm quite happy to pay more road tax to fund better public transport, and if it was better I would use it. Perhaps we can build more off-road cycle lanes too? Bikes and cars just don't mix - the size, vulnerability, and speed differentials are just too great.
In the meantime I wish cyclists would realise that some people still have to drive to make a living. We're not arseholes, most of us have good spatial awareness and don't really fancy the idea of killing anyone. Any chance of some consideration going in the other direction?
Rant over.
Parent
Re:If there's no room to overtake (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's no room to overtake, I don't overtake. As I said, I don't like killing people.
Cars overtake in smooth curves. The further out I have to move, the longer it takes me to get back in. Increased risk and fewer opportunities.
On wide-ish roads, there is often room from a car each way *and* a cyclist. Less often is there room for a car each way and multiple cyclists.
Tractors are usually driven by farmers who produce food, arguably a useful job. They have sometimes also been known to pull over to let cars past.
As I said, I accept the environmental, health and cost saving benefits of cycling, but in the current world, not everybody can use them for every journey. Let's please vote for more cycle paths, and while we're waiting, can cyclists please understand that drivers are not (all) the minions of the antichrist?
[Incidentally, I'm not picking on cyclists. The behaviour of pedestrians on the outskirts of my town is increasingly dubious, too (in the centre I feel they're more entitled to take right of way - there's no particular reason it should be clogged up with cars, after all.) When I was a kid, it was drummed in to me that I had a certain responsibility for my own safety when interacting with traffic. What the hell happened to that?]
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Funny)
Then perhaps you shouldn't cycle naked.
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya... did you stop to consider the impact of your choice to bike? Don't inconvience others and then expect them to like you.
Where I live, bikers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that its ok to ride on sidewalks (its not), ignore stop signs (they can't), ignore lanes clearly marked for them (why they DON'T right in the dedicated lanes that DO exist is beyond me) and ignore red lights.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm all in favor of making it illegal from them to ride ANYWHERE except dedicated paths in city limits.
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I live, car drivers seem to be their own worst enemy; there are laws about what they may and may not do, and yet they seem to feel that it's ok to drive faster than the speed limit (it's not), ignore stop signs (they can't), turn without signalling (nope), harass other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians (assault and sometime battery), talk on the cell phone (illegal here), text message or work on computers (I'm not kidding about this), read books, put on make up, and ignore red lights. Ever see someone stop right in the middle of road just to talk to their passenger oblivious to the traffic they are stopping? Every year, car drivers kill thousands of people and do millions of dollars of property damage.
So, I really have no sympathy for them, and they're such a nuisance that I'm in favor of making it illegal for them to drive ANYWHERE except on the freeways.
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Informative)
The LAW states that the bike has a right to the whole lane from the INSIDE of the white line to the yellow line.
Many states have laws that compel cyclists to keep as far right WITHIN THE LANE as safely practicable, but they are explicitly NOT compelled to ride on the shoulder (although it is permitted) AND they have a right to move leftward for safety purposes.
The law compels YOU, as a driver of a faster and heavier vehicle, to be aware of slower traffic and conduct yourself accordingly. YOU are the jackass, not the cyclists.
Do you honk and swear at tractors, funerals, and Amish buggies too?
DG
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, most of us cyclists are not trying to inconvenience you, but just trying to get home safely.
Parent
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most bicycle paths that run near roads are lower in elevation than the roads. It's entirely possible that the drivers in his situation were running with the low beams on, and that due to unfortunate positioning the glare of the lights still hit him. The same thing happens when you're driving in a car and approach a hill... if there's an oncoming car that crests the hill before you do, there will be a point where the headlights, even on low-beam, will shine directly in your eyes. If you're on a country road with no street lighting, you will be blinded.
It's also possible that he just encountered one asshole who didn't bother to turn off his brights. Carry a mirror for that, not a laser... when somebody's following me with his brights on, I turn the rearview mirror to shine them back in his eyes... usually doesn't last more than a few seconds before he either passes me or turns his lights down.
I still think it's a solution without a problem, though. When I drive, I have never had trouble seeing cyclists who use the proper equipment at night. There's laws in this country that require that bikes used at nights have lights on them, and they really do work, when installed properly. Have a red flasher mounted under the seat or on the back of your helmet, have a white light in front, and you've still got the reflectors in your wheels (which are also mandated by law), and a bike is *very* visible at night.
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's illegal to ride on footpaths here.
I don't ride '8 feet out from the curb', indeed that would be almost in the next lane in most cities.
I do however ride a fair distance from the curb when the lane is narrow. The problem with riding close to the curb is that doing so will give impatient motorists the incorrect impression that there is safe room to pass. By riding in the middle of the road drivers with poor spatial awareness won't attempt to pass me while there is insufficient room to do so. When the road is wide enough to allow a cyclist + a car, I hug the white line.
Ultimately, I don't care if you're pissed off that you have to slow down to 35k in a 50k zone as long as you don't crash into me.
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, I don't care if you're pissed off that you have to slow down to 35k in a 50k zone as long as you don't crash into me.
and that's the attitude that causes such ire amongst drivers. Lemme requote what the important bits are.
Ultimately, I don't care
And here's why you should revise the attitude
as long as you don't crash into me.
Cars drive away from a bike collision with nasty tickets (court dates, possible criminal charges), scratches, maybe some body damage. But the cars (and their occupants) drive away. Bikes don't drive away, bikers don't walk away, or possibly walk again, ever.
Cars always win, show some respect and don't be the jerk holding up 40 cars simply because you can't be arsed to pull over to the side and let people pass.
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
I love riding bikes and skateboarding but I stay the fuck off the goddamn road. I've rode on the sidewalk my entire life and I've never been cited, even as cops drove right by.
It's illegal for a reason, you know. Speaking as an experienced cyclist (I've biked more in a summer than many people drive), I can tell you that sidewalks are often more dangerous than the roads. Drivers entering and leaving the road are not watching for bikes (when's the last time you looked more than 5 feet down a sidewalk when crossing it at a driveway?). Pedestrians move unpredictably. Even worse, many of them are walking dogs, which have a tendency to chase bikes (which is usually a losing proposition for the dog). Riding on the sidewalk is unsafe for bikers, and it's unsafe for walkers.
I agree that many bicyclists need to improve their skills. I have a headlight and taillight, wear light-colored clothing, signal turns, and share the road with cars; many others do not. By all means, stay pissed as hell at the bikers that do stupid things - they annoy me too. But bicycles have just as much right to the road as cars do.
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:4, Informative)
What annoys me and other drivers is that cyclists will obey the law when it suits them.
You might not be aware of this since your powers of reasoning seem lacking, but cyclists are not one giant collective controlled by a hive mind. You know, the asshole who cycles the wrong way down a one way street at night with no lights (only one? lucky you) might be a different person from the one who wants you to obey the law and leave 3 feet. Even crazier, is that they might have never met in their entire existence and aren't in fact in a giant consipracy to piss you off.
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Just for the record, Edlll is an ignorant fuckwit who's oblivious to the law of the land.
In the grandparent he said,
I don't know where you live, but a bicyclist does not have the RIGHT to use any part of the road UNLESS there is a bike lane.
In the parent he said,
I live in the U.S. Where I am, unless there is a bike lane, you are not allowed to be in lanes designated for motorists.
It is clear that Edlll believes that cyclists do not have the right to use a road unless there is a bike lane.
In the UK this certainly isn't true. I'm not familiar with US traffic law so I thought I'd look it up,
New Jersey
39:4-14.1 Rights and Duties of Persons on Bicycles. Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway is granted all the rights and subject to all of the duties of the motor vehicle driver.
Montana
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable except when: (a) overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction; (b) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or (c) necessary to avoid a condition that makes it unsafe to continue along the right side of the roadway, including but not limited to a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Ohio
A motorist must: â Share the road with bicycles. The bicyclist has the same right to use the public road as any other driver, except freeways.
California
21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.
So in 4/4 states we fine three explicitly grant the cyclist the full rights and responsibilities of a motorist, and the fourth state clearly grants the right to use the roadway but adds some restrictions about not impeding traffic where possible.
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's wonderful to live in Copenhagen, one third of all personal transportation is on bicycle, a little less is public transportation (metro, trains and buses).
Motorists in this town actually feel that they have to fight to be allowed to stay in the city. Honestly, the city is doing what it can to ban gasoline vehicles from the inner city. Even though bicycles are slower, there's still a lot more room for these than for cars, and bicycles pollute less too.
So dear car-driver, get out off my town.
oh and to stay on topic. The real solution isn't to paint imaginary lanes, but to establish real bicycle lanes!
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Informative)
The top speed is slower, as is the average speed outside of rush hour.
But - during morning rush hour it is faster to get from Lyngby Station to Nørreport Station (in Copenhagen) by public transportation and bicycle than it is by car. For the uninitiated that's 11.5 kilometers most of which is highway from one of the larger suburbs of Copenhagen to the busiests place in Denmark as measured by the number of people passsing through it.
Top Gear has done two similar tests that I can recall. One was driving vs running the London marathon route at 10 AM on a tuesday and the runner won by about eight minutes. One of the somewhat silly things in that one in my oppinion was Clarkson stopping to buy a congestion charge thingie in the middle of the race instead of buying one before as most people who live in London would do. But it took him no more than five minutes to do, so he'd still have lost the race.
And the other was (again) during rush hour - bicycle vs boat vs public transport vs car from somewhere in London (can't remember where) to the London City Airport. In that one not only did the bicycle win the race, it was the first time public transport beat the car in any of their challenges. The bike won followed by the boat, then public transport.
Rush hour is a bitch for cars. It's fairly crowded on a bike as well, but with decent bikelanes it's easily managable.
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, when the speed limit is 30km/h and I am traveling at 36km/h, is that not sufficient? I can burst up to about 50 km/h - the limit in most residential areas.
You should try biking to work every now and then. You sound tense.
Anyway, I agree - some cyclists are douches. So are some drivers.
I bike to work, and I have for years. It's faster for me to ride than to drive, and that includes a shower and change when I get there. (I'm an Engineer, and I wear slacks and a dress shirt.) My view is that any time a car has to pass me or slow down for me then I have failed. I'm also of the view that the lanes are just paint and they don't magically protect you against a driver who - statistically speaking - has a 20% chance of impairment. I stick to back roads and trails whenever it is physically possible. When I am on a major road, I will either go onto the sidewalk if it is possible (risking a $125 traffic ticket for doing so) or I will take the entire lane as I am permitted and required to do so by law.
From personal experience, I know that if I am close to the curb, the driver passing me (and again, I have failed) will try to stay inside the lane. If they think there's a chance that they can pass without going into the other lane, then they will. If I come out about 1 metre (3 feet), then they will pass safely. I have no illusions about how I would fare in an car-involved accident. Bikes represent 1% of all traffic, but 2% of all fatalities.
However, I simply can't ride on the sidewalk if it is populated. I generally sustain 30 km/h, and it's just not feasible for me to navigate around the pedestrians. You know those people who walk into the pedestrian crossings without looking? Where do you think they are when they aren't on the road? Yep, the sidewalk.
But these points are mostly trivial - a painted line won't protect you. Add some distance, say 100m. Throw in some trees, a nice berm, maybe a house or retail setting between you and the traffic, and now you're talking. I plan my routes so that I'm avoiding traffic. There's a trail by my house that takes me downtown. I take that to work.
If someone is riding without lights at night and/or without lights, I can't imagine that you'd face charges. One guy here killed a cyclist who was drunk, no lights, no helmet, and wearing dark clothes at night. He was only charged with "leaving the scene". (Justifiably so)
Parent
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
Share the road.
You, too.
I bike a lot, but I tend to get fed up with the bicyclists who feel "share the road" means, "I get to do what I want and you have to watch out for me."
I don't care that it's inconvenient for you to stop because you're clipped to your bicycle. If you're riding on the road, that means you're going to have to stop from time to time. If the toe clips make that a problem, ditch them. The road is not your private training track. You must share it with others.
I appreciate that it is physically impossible for you to travel the posted speed limit. But you don't have the right to block traffic. Here in California, you are legally required to pull over if you are unable to drive the posted speed limit and there are 5 or more cars behind you. This is true whether you're driving an antique car or a broken car or a bicycle. If you must ride so that you block traffic, do so briefly. If you reach a stop light, let the traffic that you blocked go past you when it turns green.
Signalling does not give you the right of way. Again, the variation of the "I can't stop", I've seen bicyclists who will stick their arm out and merge into traffic when the lane they are riding in is blocked, expecting the cars to "let them in." Nope. You wait for traffic to clear--just like you were a car. If that means you have to stop and wait, then you have to stop and wait. You have no more rights to the road than anyone else.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Bicyclists are a scourge on the roads.
You're confused with cars. Bikes don't take up a lot of space, don't go very fast, don't kill people through carelessness. In general, bicycles are very undemanding. They just want to share the road. It's the car drivers who want the road all for themselves and andanger other traffic that dares to enter their domain.
For each single guy biking, the oil and gas used by other motorists to pass, evade, get stuck at stoplights, and make up for poor riders more than compensates for the people not using cars.
It's the cars that are using oil and gas, not the bicycles. Do you always blame all your problems on someone else?
This isn't to say bikes are OK, but cities spend millions for dedicated bike trails and bike lanes for them.
They should. They also spend many millions on roads, and if cars don't want to share those, you need dedicated bicycle paths. Where else do you expect cyclists to ride?
The intolerance of American car drivers amazes me (but Spain is rumoured to be even worse).
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:4, Insightful)
Bicyclists are a scourge on the roads.
You're confused with cars. Bikes don't take up a lot of space, don't go very fast, don't kill people through carelessness. In general, bicycles are very undemanding. They just want to share the road. It's the car drivers who want the road all for themselves and andanger other traffic that dares to enter their domain.
True, bikes don't take up a lot of space and don't directly harm other people and the truly good ones are smart about it: they signal, pay attention when nearing an intersection / parking lot / etc, ride on the side of the road or in a bike lane, etc. I have no problem when there's a smart cyclist around, and though I give him extra room and pay more attention, I have NO problem with them on the road.
However for every smart and safe cyclist I also see 1-2 jerk cyclists. The jerks ride their bikes on fast roads without a shoulder and don't signal while drifting to the other side of a fast multi-lane road so they can make a turn later... all without wearing a helmet. My favorite was this Monday when a jerk was riding against traffic on a 50 MPH road without a shoulder (yes, I'm being serious... none of the cars around me knew wtf was going on) and wasn't wearing a helmet.
The problem with the jerks is, I as a driver have to be VERY careful around them... more-so than a smart cyclist or even a flippin' 12-year-old on a BMX. They're erratic, don't pay attention, and don't know the rules and common courtesy an experienced cyclist knows. And god forbid the jerk leaves the bike lane and drifts in front of me without signaling and I hit him, besides ending a human life (or severely maiming them) my family's would probably be financially ruined with lawsuits.
I think the jerks are multiplying, as they used to be a rarity and rode on the weekends or away from commuter roads. It must be the economy and price of gas; inexperienced people deciding to ride their bikes to work, dusting off their bikes for the first time in 10 years, and thinkiit's just fine to hop on the road and do whatever they want.
So I have no problem with cyclists in general, just when a jerk makes things unsafe for himself and everyone else.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
You are not forced to overtake in the opposite lane ON A BLIND CURVE. Neither are you forced to CLOSE YOUR EYES, or LET GO OFF THE STEERING WHEEL. Instead you are supposed to stay behind the bike until you can overtake safely. Doesn't matter if its a bike, another car, or a horse drawn buggy. The road belongs to all of us and remember it's a speed limit not a speed requirement. It's only a few types of roads that have speed requirements, like motorways. But, I never see bikes there.
Where I live we have a very sensible rule called objective responsibility. It basically disassociates the responsibility from the culpability. So even if the it was the bike riders fault, the car driver will be held responsible, because they are using a two ton murder machine of steel. Much in the same way that if I decided to run around the office with a chain saw and someone gets up and walks into it, I should be held responsible even if it was them that walked into it. Basically the further to the left on this list the more responsibility: train>truck>car>bicycle>pedestrian. That is the price you pay for being allowed the use of increasingly dangerous tools in public.
Now I am a very law abiding biker, and I always use the bike lanes, stop for red etc. Sometimes, however, there are no bike lanes and I confess I will drive in the middle of a car lane. This is because of a little something called experience. I have biked in many countries in Europe, and I have never been hit by a car if I drive in the middle, because I'm easy to spot. When I drive as far right as possible I've been run into plenty of times. I've learned how to not die and that is unfortunately to be a nuisance to the car drivers.
In the big scheme of things what is more important: a 2 minute delay or a life? Would you like to have the death penalty if you ever inadvertently delayed someone for two minutes? Do you think that is reasonable?
So the next time you see a bike in front of you remember he is not putting you in any danger. It is your choice of maneuver that is putting you in danger. He might be annoying and slowing you down, but he has probably learned in the school of incredibly hard knocks, that that's the way to survive.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:4, Insightful)
You like many others responding to me are ignoring the fact, that the danger is simply by virtue of the bike being there in the first place on this mountain road. I may not be forced to do anything, but you are still ignoring that the level of danger is increased for everyone. If there are a LOT of blind curves and I have many cars already passing me out of frustration, my level of danger is GREATLY increased. You're right that I am making a choice to get away from the "problem". That problem is the bike. It slows down traffic a LOT, and that is the primary danger, right or wrong. I can choose to stay where I am, or drive closer to the bike and pass him. My only other choice is to wait 15 miles in some cases and then pass. Of course, I would have spent those 15 miles getting butt *$*%$% by other vehicles, and exposed to the very real and significant danger of frustrated drivers passing on SOLID YELLOW LINES.
You conveniently ignore my PRIMARY point above ALL others. The road does NOT belong to "all" of us. It belongs to those of us with "two ton murder machines". Your logic might also seem to mean that pedestrians have as much right to the "roads" as do all other forms of transportation. The laws are more specific than that, and the laws are clear where I live, and they state that bicyclists must be in bicycle lanes or off the roads. There is no variations, no ifs, ands, and butts.
Your objective responsibility rule I find reasonable, but it is predicated upon the fact, that the bicycles have the right to be there. If that is really true in Europe, then I would absolutely RESPECT that while driving in Europe. I never have driven in Europe. I live in the U.S.
If I am right, and you don't have any sort of legal entitlement to be there (for the sake of argument), are you not unfairly putting others at risk with your actions? I understand the logic in you doing so, since it greatly increases your safety, but my arguments are about your RIGHTS to do so.
You admit you are a nuisance, but I am more concerned by the increase of danger for all concerned, most especially yourself. Unfortunately, there is a fast growing population of drivers that are extremely frustrated by ANY impediment to the full speed, sometimes not allowed by law.
They might not be right, but that is irrelevant. It's not about right or wrong. It's simply about the increase of danger and the assumption that you don't have the right to be there to create it.
Of course, I don't find the death penalty reasonable, but the rest of your argument is reasonable. My problem is not with a 2 minute delay at all, but rather the substantial increase in danger having bicycles on certain roads creates.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically the further to the left on this list the more responsibility: train>truck>car>bicycle>pedestrian.
I agree with the spirit of your post, so this isn't an argument or anything, but I do think the above list is a bit off regarding trains. ;}
While that list is correct if you are listing 'what causes / can cause the most damage', but as far as responsibility, trains have almost no control over their situation. A loaded train moving at a quarter of the road speed limit when crossing it, still can require up to a quarter mile to come to a full stop. So hitting the breaks so to speak is not really an option without lots of advanced warning of the need to stop. And obviously swerving out of the way is out of the question
It would be quite silly to hold a train responsible for actions they have no control over...
The rest of the list is fair, even if not reflected in US law as you describe it as being over there.
Here, its partially the fault of whom broke the law at the time, and partially the fault of whomever is pissing the cop off the most at the time.
This is mostly a good thing. Yes, there are asshole motorists, but there are also asshole bikers.
If only everyone would use common sense and realize being delayed 30 seconds is not the end of the world.
I never understood how a person could be on the road, see no one in front of them, then see an insanely long line of traffic behind them which is being held up due to their driving behavior, how can they not feel ashamed at being so selfish and inconsiderate?
Giving up 30 seconds to get out of the way to not inconvenience many others, while not required by law, is just the right thing to do. This goes for both bikes AND cars.
This does go for cars too, when they try with all their assholish might to pass everyone for that 30 second advantage. It's just not worth it. It is equally dickish to do to others like the above, but arguably even more dangerous.
Back to the topic of the device in question... I conclude that a technical solution can not truly solve a social / human problem.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I am forced to almost be in the oncoming traffic lane while passing this bike ON A BLIND CURVE?
What the hell are you doing overtaking traffic ON A BLIND CURVE, you dangerous loon?
Why does this person on a bicycle have the right to put us all at risk?
You are the one putting everybody at risk with your reckless behaviour.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's flamebait that happened to stray near to valid points while insulting people.
I'm not a cyclist and I commute a considerable distance down country roads used by bikes, walkers, tractors etc and I find your self-centric view of who the road is for to be condemnable. Roads are for use by vehicles and any competent driver can share them with other forms of traffic without difficulty. More bike lanes would be great but spending a small fortune adding them where their isn't sufficient traffic to justify it is wasteful when so many other things could do with government expenditure.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:4, Insightful)
You're in a giant shield of metal with bright lights and and a law forbidding dangerous driving to protect you! If any goit in a suped up Vauxhall Nova overtakes you on a bend and hits you, it's going to be HIM hitting the oncoming traffic, not you! The cyclist might get knocked off, you might get a glance if the idiot tries to pull in again, but at the end of the day you did everything you could to keep the roads safe, and it's everyone else behind you with the problem.
If you let yourself become intimidated by people behind you on the road, you should not be driving. No amount of horn beeping, following closely, or swerving in and out of lane should make you do something dangerous, to you or anyone else.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
At the end of the day, you have a duty of care to not harm others with your 1.5tonne (conservatively) high speed machine of death; You take a test to ensure you're responsible enough for that task.
I say again, if you can't handle stressful situations on the road, you shouldn't be driving. It has nothing to do with the (bad) decisions of one particular cyclist. If it pisses you off that much, or you feel it puts you in danger, flag him down next time you see him and tell him he's not supposed to be there, present him with the legislation which says so, and say that next time you're calling the local police. Acting in any other way is irresponsible.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Informative)
The very first thing they told me in my defensive driving course is to not let the other vehicles drive your.
In other words, don't let someone force you to take an action you wouldn't have normally or already taken. As for being safe when someone passed you, you are no less safe because of that then when an on coming car passes you going in the other direction.
Now the bicyclist should be on the right side of the road and most roads are three to four feet wider then the largest cars (until you start getting in town with parking on the streets) that would be traveling on it. I think 8 foot or larger lanes for non interstates and 12 foot lanes for interstate traffic. While this may force you into oncoming traffic to pass them, it doesn't leave the oncoming traffic without an option to avoid a collusion.
I have a bunch of Amish where I live. It's worse then the bikes, the bikes generally do 20-30 MPG going down the road. Try coming up on a horse and buggy that's 4 or so foot wide and doing 3-5 mph with just a candle shoved into a box with colored red lens in the read and a clear lens in front. You learn really fast to not drive past your vision, be patient, and to wait for the proper times to pass.
Parent
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you're being silly, if you feel that unsafe and react to 'pressure' from drivers behind you then I'd say you probably be shouldn't be on the road in the first place.
The fact is that both cyclists and motorists are legally allowed to use the road, along with horses and carts, tractors, articulated lorries and all sorts of other things and the key to safe and relaxing journeys for everyone is for everyone to treat other road users with respect and make sure that your own driving/cycling whatever is considerate and safe.
Parent
Re:regenerative braking (Score:4, Informative)
Bikes do not suck at acceleration. They generally suck at top speed. I'm normally ahead of the cars when we get to the opposite side of an intersection. I can deliver a maximum of ~250 NM of torque(comparable to a cars output), and the bike and me weigh less than a tenth of a car. The problem is that I have trouble delivering more than a single horsepower sustained. So when I reach 30 km/h I'm out of steam.
Parent