Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Build Technology

Radar Changing the Face of Cycling 235

Posted by samzenpus
from the don't-hit-me-bro dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Radar Changing the Face of Cycling

Comments Filter:
  • Useless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jam42 (607637) on Thursday July 03, 2014 @10:22PM (#47381187)
    As a long-time road cyclist I can say this is a completely useless product. Obviously if one is riding on the road one is going to be passed by cars. And so long as one is not an idiot listening to music while riding, one can *hear* vehicles approaching from the rear. This device can't discern how closely a vehicle is going to pass you, which would be the only useful information - warning you if the vehicle is going to pass, say, less than three feet away horizontally.
  • Re:What we need... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03, 2014 @10:30PM (#47381205)

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

  • Re:What we need... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rob the Bold (788862) on Thursday July 03, 2014 @10:44PM (#47381249)

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

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

  • Re:What we need... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by viperidaenz (2515578) on Thursday July 03, 2014 @11:04PM (#47381333)

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

  • Troll? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday July 03, 2014 @11:14PM (#47381363) Homepage Journal

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

  • Re:Useless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt&lynx,bc,ca> on Thursday July 03, 2014 @11:44PM (#47381439) Journal
    If you're a motorcycle, you should be capable of going a lot faster.... and I wouldn't have any reason to suspect that you aren't going to be trying to keep up to the flow of traffic... If I know that you are a bicycle, I know roughly what to expect of your top speed, and will try to safely navigate past you... not try to hit you just because I know that you won't damage my car. Because even if you don't make a scratch in my car's paint job, I'll still have to face all of the other repercussions of being in an accident... which would include an insurance report at the very least... plus being on the hook financially for any damages to them or their bicycle -- unless I intended to do a hit-and-run (which is a jailable offense, so I better hope there are no witnesses who can take note of my license plate).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 03, 2014 @11:50PM (#47381459)

    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.

  • by sumdumass (711423) on Friday July 04, 2014 @12:14AM (#47381519) Journal

    Yes, epileptics can drive. It varies by state.

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

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

  • Re:What we need... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04, 2014 @12:16AM (#47381527)

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

    They are allowed to do so.

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

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

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

  • Re:What we need... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt&lynx,bc,ca> on Friday July 04, 2014 @12:33AM (#47381589) Journal
    To leave the bike lane, you still have to yield to vehicles that are not in the process of changing lanes. Since cars are typically moving faster than you, you generally wouldn't be able to do this safely unless there was absolutely no other traffic moving in the same direction (which isn't impossible, but is unlikely on a road that has high enough traffic volumes that it would warrant having a controlled intersection), and if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.The safest thing to do, in my experience, is just stay on the right hand side and manually walk the bike across to get onto the road you intended to turn onto.
  • Re:What we need... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt&lynx,bc,ca> on Friday July 04, 2014 @12:40AM (#47381609) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04, 2014 @01:51AM (#47381785)

    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... [amazon.ca]

  • Re:What we need... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PvtVoid (1252388) on Friday July 04, 2014 @08:43AM (#47382929)

    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.

How often I found where I should be going only by setting out for somewhere else. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Working...