Bike Projector Makes Lane For Rider 856
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."
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".
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.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:3, Informative)
He might have the energy, if only he could get it up [wikipedia.org].
To quote the article (ED = Erectile Dysfunction): "A study in 2002 found that ED can also be associated with bicycling. The number of hours on a bike and/or the pressure on the penis from the saddle of an upright bicycle is directly related to erectile dysfunction."
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:3, Informative)
Ah - found the videos for the big London race: Top Gear London Race - car vs bike vs boat vs public transport [topgear.com]
Couldn't find the one from the marathon run though
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
And that's exactly why the onus is *generally on the motorist to not run into pedestrians or cyclists.
Further, if asshole cyclists are that big of a problem, read up on the relevant laws and call the cops whenever a cyclist is breaking them.
*Your laws may vary
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..
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.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:2, Informative)
RTFA: super bright LEDs + lasers.
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.
Re:Nice thought, bad planning (Score:3, Informative)
That's just it. Sometimes I am incredible pressure to do so. A lot of traffic backs up behind me, and people behind me start to pass ME which scares the hell out of me. I have to slow down a LOT. Don't forget that too. I'm like a sitting duck for the traffic behind me.
So nobody may be forcing me to pass this guy on the bike, but it's not like I am safe while I am behind him either.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Insurance (Score:2, Informative)
No they're not. Did you forget the knee-jerk reference to "Road Fund Licence" that normally accompanies rants of this nature?
Vehicle Excise Duty is not a hypothecated tax - it's just a tax. In the UK, roads are paid for through general taxation, and everyone who pays tax, whether it be Income Tax, Value-Added Tax, Fuel Duty or whatever, driver, pedestrian or cyclist, is paying for road maintenance. Even those kids on your lawn are paying VAT on their sweets and crisps!
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:1, Informative)
I think you've misunderstood something fundamental.
Let me reiterate the laws in California, where I live and bike.
1. Bicycles must, when they are moving under the speed limit, move over as far to the right on the road as possible if there is room to pass.
2. If the bicyclist is doing the speed limit, or something close to it, then he can take the entire lane.
3. If there is not enough room to pass, the bicyclist may take the entire lane.
4. The bicyclist may bike in any lane.
5. The bicyclist may bike in the lane even if there is a bike lane.
Nobody is talking about the case where there's enough room to bike by the side of the road or in a bike lane safely. Obviously a bicyclist will bike there in that case if only because it's safer than traffic surfing.
But, if I have to make a left turn or if there's not enough room to pass, I'm going to put myself dead center in the lane and it's my right to do that. It's the safest thing for me, certainly, and my safety is the only important thing here. If you're driving a car, it's your resonsibility to treat me as a vehicle. If you can't safely pass, you slow down and wait until you get a chance to do so.
As many other have said, you're the one driving a car. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so if you don't treat it that way, you're not going to be allowed to do it for long. As the operator of a motor vehicle, which is a dangerous machine, it's up to you to act responsibly. It's more than just your life at stake when you drive recklessly. A bicyclist has little chance of damaging anyone but himself if he's reckless.
Re:Better than a tail light? (Score:3, Informative)
My lights can be set to steady or flashing. If there are street lights (i.e. in a city) I set them to flash -- a flashing light pretty much means "bicycle", where as a steady light can be from a distant traffic light, shop window, a reflector on a parked car etc.
If there aren't street lights they need to be steady.
Also, black shows up quite well under yellow street lights (apparently the contrast is good). Black with those silver reflective things is probably best, but under yellow light a yellow jacket isn't that great (everything else looks yellow too).
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.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:2, Informative)
Fuel tax has not gone directly to roads since the seventies - it goes into general revenue.
Rego + fuel tax does not fund roads.
Local, state and federal gov all subsidise the building and maintaining of roads. Federal receives fuel tax, state receives rego. All three levels of government spend more on roads that they receive from motorists.
Add to that our activities in Iraq, exclusion from the proposed CPRS (Carbon pollution reduction scheme), and the hospital costs to handle all these obese Australians, and most cancers are reduced by an active lifestyle.
We also subsidise our car industry to produce technologically backward large cars.
No. Cars are recieving massive subsidies at the expense of cyclists.
Also look around at all the extra infrastructure - traffic lights extra lanes, car parks, parking spaces, garages etc, that are required to support this system.
Bikes cause less wear and tear, require far less road to be built, and require less insurance because they can damage less.
But don't think you are incorrect because of mere facts, take comfort being surrounded by a large percentage of Aussies who share your beliefs, which is why politicians feel the need maintain this system.
The door prize (Score:3, Informative)
The city cyclists get out there like there's something to prove, riding 4 feet out into the lane
That's because they're used to there being a parked car lane next to the curb and they don't want to get doored [bicyclesafe.com].
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:3, Informative)
I think "dipped" is just British for "low beam". I don't have a driving license, but AFAIAA you must use low beam when there's oncoming traffic, when you're following someone, or there are streetlights. Full/high beam is for unlit, empty roads only, and typically there's a blue warning light to tell you it's on.
The angling knob thing is separate and meant to let you lower the full-beam angle in case you have fat people in the back of the car (or a trailer). It's generally only on larger vehicles (which is probably normal-sized in the US...).
The Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlights#Regulations_and_requirements [wikipedia.org] says the US regulation allows much more glare to other road users, so that's probably why I've never noticed a problem with oncoming cars' lights (except assholes with them on full beam).
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:3, Informative)
Biking side by side is legal in many places, such as California. If you can't pass safely, you shouldn't pass. It's the same as if there's a slow-moving car there.
But where I live (Indiana), a slow-moving vehicle is required to pull over if there is a line of three faster-moving vehicles behind it.
Re:Insurance (Score:3, Informative)
Yes folks, those lovely roads you cycle on are paid from the taxation of motorists
No they are not, please check your figures. The money raised by fuel duty, road tax and VAT on vehicles does NOT cover the cost of the UK road network. It has to be subsidised by general taxation.
Cyclists are (usually, heh) tax payers and have as much right to use the road as you do.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:2, Informative)
The laws regarding cyclists and motorists on the roads in the US are pretty clear. I've been commuting to work for about 8 years now, and have witnessed or been a part of practically every situation imaginable. Cyclists have all of the same 'rights' to the road as motorists do, except when stated clearly otherwise (eg, on highways- 'no cyclists allowed').
Tidbits:
-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.
-cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate
-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
-cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights. They have to make a concerted effort, however, to show responsibility and safety
-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 general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway. The problem is not with MOST drivers or cyclists- both parties share ignorance when it comes to cyclists. The problem is with a few, but I would say that most drivers are not aware of, or refuse to acknowledge, the laws regarding cyclists.
One last tidbit- someone mentioned in a prior post here that 'cars will always win the battle in a confrontation (paraphrase)'. While that may be true from a physical standpoint, in a court of law, if the motorist hits a cyclist, and the cyclists was obeying the laws of the road, then that's assault with a deadly weapon, and the motorist will be brought up on at least vehicular man-slaughter charges, if not murder (if the cyclist dies).
If an aggressive motorist makes a movement of any sort towards you, or threatens you even if you are not touched or physically harmed, that is assault (if you even fear an aggressive driver, that's assault).
There are some great books regarding the laws surrounding cyclists. And it also helps that my wife is a lawyer!
Re:Funny ... (Score:3, Informative)
And illegal. Bikes are not allowed on to interstate highways.
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:3, Informative)
It does not, however, give them carte blanche to ride in the middle of the lane, in the absence of hazards on the right side.
It is not illegal in my state to pass a cyclist within a lane, even where there's a solid yellow. Furthermore, if you actually expect motorists to sit behind cyclists in a no-passing zone simply because there's a double yellow line and insufficient room to pass within the lane (perhaps because the bicyclist is in the middle of the lane), you're dreaming.
Varies by jurisdiction.
In my state, there is no such exception to the rule that cyclists must remain as far to the right as practicable
There is no such law in my state; cyclists are required to stop at stop signs and are not permitted to travel through red lights.
My state does not require a rear light, and the law is silent on clothing.
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
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.
Re:Better than a tail light? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Better than a tail light? (Score:1, Informative)
You seem to miss the fact that there is a bike lane already, and all this is doing is demarcating a portion of that. You see, the entire lane belongs to the biker, and he has as much right to the road as the car behind him.
In fact, this invention is dangerous because it implies the biker only needs his two feet of lane and cars should squeeze by him.
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:3, Informative)
-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.
There are also laws usually against impeding the normal flow of traffic. So yes, the cyclist DOES have to move out of the way.
-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.
It is legal to overtake a slow moving vehicle on the left, and the slow moving vehicle MUST stay right.
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/veh/21750-21759.html [justia.com]
cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate
I call bull. Show me. Motorcycles can't ride side by side, why would bicycles be any different?
cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights. They have to make a concerted effort, however, to show responsibility and safety
Bullshit.
in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway. The problem is not with MOST drivers or cyclists- both parties share ignorance when it comes to cyclists. The problem is with a few, but I would say that most drivers are not aware of, or refuse to acknowledge, the laws regarding cyclists.
This contradicts your assertion about stop signs and red lights.
Also, in my experience, its the cyclists that don't know the laws (see running of stop signs / red lights, but pretty much any rule you have they break).
Statistics say both are equally at fault.
So take the high road; when its 94% the fault of the driver for the accident with the bike, I'll bite. But as it stands now, its 47% driver fault, 47% cyclists fault.
Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (Score:1, Informative)
+ general use funds (state and local income and sales taxes), + federal road tax layout, + property taxes, etc
And all of those are paid by the folks driving cars, as are the taxes and fees the GP poster mentioned.
Is it true about ignorance being bliss?
Considering your blissful state of ignorance I'd have to venture a guess that the answer is yes.
Re:Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (Score:1, Informative)
Another idiot self-righteous commuter who makes up rules as they go along, relying on books written by those making a dubious political statement:
"-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. "
Except it's not. You're wrong. While true a motorist must obey all laws, you aren't very knowledgeable about road laws.
I suggest you read more state laws. For example, most states allow passing of any vehicle that is travelling less than half of the posted speed limit. Doesn't matter if there is a solid yellow or double solid yellow. It's legal as long as it is safely done. It has crap to do with yellow lines, it has more to do with the posted speed limit and distance from formal intersections. In doing so, a vehicle operator is obeying the law and, in turn, passes the cyclist, which you stated as fact that this was prohibited.
Most cyclists can hardly maintain 17mph on a road. Where I am, most aren't pushing 12. iow, they are legal to pass on most through streets where I live. You seem confused as if the yellow means absolutely no pass, and it doesn't. It simply means road laws are in force, as opposed to a residential area, where in some states the road laws are relaxed, i.e. no posted speed limits but lawfully it's 25mph.
"-cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights. They have to make a concerted effort, however, to show responsibility and safety"
This depends on the laws of the state and case law. For example, in my state, if you are operating a bicycle on a road, acting like a vehicle, and in particular hold a driver's license of any sort and put that argument forward in court, you in turn must operate like a vehicle. That means coming to stops and signaling. You can be cited (albeit hugely unlikely).
If the state considers the bicyclist a pedestrian, then he can be cited for jaywalking or moving against a light.
You seem to come to a similar conclusion later when you state "-in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway." Weird that you have exceptions when stating these tidbits or points of "fact" that are so blatently against most states road laws.
"While that may be true from a physical standpoint, in a court of law, if the motorist hits a cyclist, and the cyclists was obeying the laws of the road, then that's assault with a deadly weapon, and the motorist will be brought up on at least vehicular man-slaughter charges, if not murder (if the cyclist dies)."
BS. You've given numerous examples above where you think the cyclist was EXEMPT from rules of the road, even giving straight point blank blowing stop signs and red lights. Give me a case where a cyclist was hit in an accident where the motorist was brought up on typical murder chargers. At best it's manslaughter, and the prosecutor better have a solid case before proceeding or threatening to.
It's attitudes like yours which makes it a worse world for all of us. Many states, mine included, have more recently passed laws to hold bicyclists on motor vehicle roads as pedestrians (unless the bicyclist offers up they are a vehicle because the rider has a valid driver's license, see above), and have since passed laws that pedestrians are 2nd to vehicles on roads unless in crosswalks or intersections obeying the light. This puts all pedestrians, mainly walkers, at risk, because of a few jackasses.
It's simply wishful thinking of you to cite everything advantageous to bicycles when clearly it's not.
"If an aggressive motorist makes a movement of any sort towards you, or threatens you even if you are not touched or physically harmed, that is assault (if you even fear an aggressive driver, that's assault)."
First, in practice, simple and pure assault charges are rarely given in physical confrontations, much less road cases. Usually they a