Radar Changing the Face of Cycling 235
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."
What about pedestrians? (Score:3)
I always thought it'd be interesting to have an alert for pedestrians--particularly small children--who run out onto the bike path without looking because "Ooh! The Beach!"
Granted, it wouldn't work for the little moppets that run between parked SUVs, so it wouldn't be a perfect solution...
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, it wouldn't work for the little moppets that run between parked SUVs, so it wouldn't be a perfect solution...
That's why I have been proposing that for robot cars they also have cameras/sensors/radars/lidars at bumper height. It's often easier to spot (from a distance) people/animals obscured by vehicles from bumper level than it is to spot them from driver or roof level. But I'm no car or robot car engineer, so someone else will have to actually do it.
You might be able to do something like this for "kiddie" sensors mounted on bicycles/motorcycles, but given the front wheel of those vehicles is movable it's probabl
Useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Useless (Score:5, Interesting)
Putting a pair of amber lights out to the sides of your red center light, and having a sufficiently bright headlamp in front that illuminates a good chunk of road.
Those work because drivers assume that you're a motorcycle, and if you're a motorcycle then you're a lot heavier, and more likely to cause damage to their car.
With modern battery technology and modern, super-efficient lighting, it should be easy to fake a bicycle to light up like a motorcycle well enough to fool drivers at night.
Re:Useless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Useless (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that the driver thinks it's a motorbike and gives extra consideration. It's that with multiple co-linear lights, a driver is far better able to judge how far away the cyclist is. As another poster noted, if a driver thinks you're a motorbike, they'll also assume you are travelling at or faster than the traffic flow.
On a bicycle, a single point source of super bright light will let a driver know that you're somewhere in that direction - while partially blinding them if you angle it up like I see done far too often.
Whereas, a wider (multi-element) lamp that isn't overly bright will let the driver's eye far better estimate and track how far away you are - while not blinding them to the other surrounds.
Re: (Score:2)
So in his instance the bicycle is bigger than normal and going faster than normal too.
Re: (Score:3)
Any kind of unusual light seems to work. I've written a small app (Better Bike Light [google.com]) to use my cell phone as a rear light. When I use it, cars are considerably more considerate when bypassing me. I'm not sure if they're more careful when encountering something unfamiliar or are just curious, but it seems to work.
Re: (Score:2)
I wear an orange reflective vest. (the $4 kind from the hardware store). Clipped to the reflective vest is an LED blinker which is super bright and flashy. Clipped to the back of my bike rack should be an additional LED blinker, but it broke off and I haven't had time to install the 2nd blinky yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Nifty. Personally I don't think I'd risk attaching my phone to my bike in any way that left me unable to see it, but that's a neat solution you've got with the signalling.
Re: (Score:2)
The real effect to put a bright light on a bike, instead of no lights at all or some puny single-lamp lights, is that having bigger lights makes the cyclist more visible.
Re: (Score:2)
I've experienced similar. Simply having a very bright bike light on the front stops the b******ds who will pull out or front of you simply because you're a cyclist and don't count). And of course it massively increases the chances of you being seen in the dark.
Re: (Score:2)
hahah I guess all the driver's think I'm retarded because I wear an orange reflective vest and 1-2 LED blinkies (and a helmet which I think I'm going to paint with glow in the dark paint)
Driver's still pass me too closely. I don't usually mind, but when there is broken glass/broken pavement or other obstacles on the side of the road and I can't get to the left, it starts to feel pretty dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I'd trust it vs taking a look over my shoulder. That would be my main issue. I've tried va
Re: (Score:3)
Deaf people (Score:2)
I had the same reaction at first ("useless") .
Then I remembered my father whose hearing has gotten pretty bad over the years.
When my parents were out together riding their bicycles somewhere, my mom noticed that he clearly didn't hear some cars approaching from behind. She said that it was kinda worrying in some situations.
I guess when your hearing gets gradually worse, you can sometimes forget that not hearing a car doesn't mean there isn't one close by.
And thinking a bit more about it, I've already seen
Get a rear-view helmet mounted mirror (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Indeed. Basically, the light tells you to "prepare for impact".
But of course, after 20 cars have passed you, the message wears off.
Re: (Score:2)
I just had an accident as a biker. I was hit from behind in my own lane. maybe that flashing light would have made the driver of the car more aware of me
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little deaf in my left ear from bicycle-touring on busy roads. I'm not sure range/quality of this radar, but if it detects things that you cannot possibly detect, it could be at least a tiny bit useful. For instance you are riding into headwind down a windy one lane dirt road at night. If I car is trying to pass you at the 20 mph speed limit that's fine, but if some joyriding kids are "offroading" on road at 30-50 mph, they aren't going to be able to stop.
Sure if you hear them you will get off the
A heavy, complicated solution to a rare problem (Score:3, Informative)
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... [bicyclinglife.com]
There's some cool tech in this product, but it won't help with the most common bike collisions (#1 car pulls out in front of bike, #2 parked car door opens into bike).
Re: (Score:2)
According to that link regarding causes of accidents: Motorist left turn at same time as cyclist left turn is only at 4.5% but in London this is the cause of half of cyclist deaths because the cyclist gets trapped underneath the left turning vehicle (typically HGVs with poor mirror systems). Point being, cars moving slowly and pulling out are not likely to injure cyclists as badly as a motor vehicle moving at 30-50mph and hitting the cyclist from behind or causing them to fall off in to fast moving traffic.
Not Elegant (Score:2)
Something like that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't know cyclers at all (Score:2)
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.
...changing the FACE of cycling? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
aren't they changing the butt of cycling?
No, the idea is that this thing saves your butt.
Flash? (Score:3)
Why should a rear light flash in the first place? I don't think it adds at all to a rear lights functionality, and does cause - at least for me - a rise in adrenaline: flashing usually means something is out of order, or exceptional (e.g. emergency vehicles or someone hitting the breaks).
Re: (Score:2)
In all these years, nobody has rear-ended me in the dark. Even if the back lights of my car doesn't blink.
The battery argument I understand, but to that I say "Luxury!". We used to have dynamos on our bikes, and we could not even dream about rear lights.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why bike cams are important. You may not avoid getting hit, but you can have the guy thrown in jail, license permanently suspended, and sue his ass into poverty.
Re: (Score:3)
Suing someone isn't going to bring you back from the dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why bike cams are important. You may not avoid getting hit, but you can have the guy thrown in jail, license permanently suspended, and sue his ass into poverty.
Remember though, the car might have a driver cam that shows 5 cyclists riding abreast but not one of them in the bike lane.
Re: (Score:2)
First, I'm not a bike nazi or whatever they call those people who seem to always be in the way because their biking is better than a car so don't think I'm coming into this prejudiced.
It doesn't matter where they are riding. You need to drive at a speed which you can react to everything you see and come to a complete stop safely. That is drivers ed 101. It's annoying to slow down and pa
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
But the bottom line is, if they are in the lane you are driving in, it is no different then another car except you can pass them without completely changing lanes.
Worth pointing out that the British highway code says that you give bikes as much room as you'd give a car (i.e. you must pull all the way out into the next lane). I say this as someone who still has a bunch of painful cuts from about 3 weeks ago when a driver decided that it was safe to overtake me on a single track road, leaving around 2cm between his car and the end of my handlebars (I swerved to avoid getting hit by his wing mirror, lost my balance and wobbled into the side of his car, which is exactly
Re: (Score:3)
Worth pointing out that the British highway code says that you give bikes as much room as you'd give a car (i.e. you must pull all the way out into the next lane).
That's a excellent law, and certainly what I do. I do know a lot of auto drivers don't do this.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Restrict cars to roads, pedestrians to foot paths and cyclists to cycle lanes.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why dedicated lane posts are being marked troll, but that's the safest option considering the difference in speed and the relative fragility of bikes. As shown in this article [nrdc.org], extra space (as opposed to the current 6 inches space) between bike and car lanes is crucial for safety.
An even better solution is a protected and dedicated bike lane [streetsblog.org] where there are concrete barriers preventing cars from entering bike lanes. Of course, all this requires a lot of city planning.
Re: (Score:3)
An even better solution is for police to finally start giving tickets out to bike riders who fail to obey traffic laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedestrians and cyclists just get in the way, get rid of sidewalks and cycle lanes, ban pedestrians and bikes so that drivers can move freely with ease (sarc).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . 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: (Score:2)
What can be really useful is a short, flexible, pole, about 2 feet long, with a red flag tied to the end, and a glass cutter. Given how in many places, there is a minimum of 3 feet, 1 meter or in some places even 1.5 meters, anyone hit by it would be breaking the law. Ireland, unfortunately, has no such law yet (the law says "Give sufficient distance" and not a specific value for sufficient distance).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That, and do something about the assholes on bikes that think that little white line and bike lane are some sort of magic force field that protects them from massive hunks of steel inches to their left...
I agree, with the caveat that we need to do something about the drivers who don't. Only by working together can we avoid vaporizing cyclists.
The only cyclists I can't abide are the ones who ride side by side when there's any kind of visible traffic around, or where the view distance is inadequate to permit passing them in those conditions. Cut that shit out.
Troll? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
you are not an ally. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 audacit
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot to be said for consideration on the roads... And riding two abreast when doing so makes it hard for faster vehicles to pass is extremely inconsiderate, irrespective of legality.
If you're doing something which unnecessarily inconveniences others why should they show you any consideration in return? There are many instances where the slowness and instability of a bike could make certain manoeuvres impossible or extremely dangerous, and car drivers will often allow bikes to pass when they aren't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two wrongs don't make a right. That is no justification for acting like a muppet.
Do you mean singing and dancing with a hand up your ass, or what? Riding side by side where it causes a hazard is a total dbag maneuver. It's also unclear why you want to create a situation where every non-electric vehicle passing you is going to be creating additional emissions just as it does so, but that's what using more space than you need actually does. Enjoy sucking it, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the responsibility of the person who wants to pass, to wait until it is safe to do so.
Yes, that's true. It's also the responsibility of the cyclist to ride in a safe manner, not obstructing the flow of traffic on their chosen route. Go read your driver's manual. Once you've done that, perhaps you will have sufficiently remedied your ignorance that you will gain the courage to log in. Driving defensively is not something done only by people with four wheels. Or at least, it should not be. Now share the road. You're free to take more of it than you need, but that will increase your risk of unp
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, with the caveat that we need to do something about the drivers who don't. Only by working together can we avoid vaporizing cyclists.
The only cyclists I can't abide are the ones who ride side by side when there's any kind of visible traffic around, or where the view distance is inadequate to permit passing them in those conditions. Cut that shit out.
This. I always go completely in the other lane whenever possible when passing a rider. Most of them appreciate it. But several riding abreast are really scary, especially the ones who are just out for a very casual ride, and want to chat with each other. I've had more than one occasion where they've made a sudden swerve into the opposite lane. There comes a time when I can't go any further around someone.
Re: (Score:2)
I always go completely in the other lane whenever possible when passing a rider. Most of them appreciate it.
I go way, way around cyclists. If not all the way into the other lane, then at least halfway, even when it seems like I could pass them just fine. And I even wait to pass them until it's safe, regardless of how long that takes. In exchange, I expect them to do what they can to make it safe, permit passing, and generally behave as predictably as possible. That's the "social contract" that permits cars and bicycles to "share the road". And bicyclists had better hold up their end, because there are many more d
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What we need... (Score:4, Interesting)
Turning left on a bicycle would generally mean that you just come to a stop at the far right corner of the intersection, where pedestrians would wait to cross, and walking your bike across the street as a pedestrian when you get a walk signal. After clearing the intersection, you can get back on your bike and continue riding, completing your the left turn.
Really... it's not a remotely hard concept to grasp.
Re:What we need... (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe the anti-bike nuts hate bikes because they don't even know the bike rules.
Re:What we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.
How would that go with "I changed lanes when he was about 2 football fields behind me, and over 10 seconds later he hit me, failing to take due care."
And I find your suggestion amusing when I see roughly 0% of cars following
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you exactly how that woud go.. You'd get as far as "I changed lanes..." and the insurance company would rule against you. Immediately.... automatically. 100%. Every time.... you will need irrefutable proof to support absolutely any claim you could ever hope to make that the behavior of the other driver was actually unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
To leave the bike lane, you still have to yield to vehicles that are not in the process of changing lanes. Since cars are typically moving faster than you, you generally wouldn't be able to do this safely unless there was absolutely no other traffic moving in the same direction (which isn't impossible, but is unlikely on a road that has high enough traffic volumes that it would warrant having a controlled intersection), and if you got rear-ended by a car while you were trying change lanes, you would be 100% at fault for the collision.
Once you have merged left and taken the lane, any traffic behind you must yield right of way (i.e. slow down) to you. They can't just indiscriminately run you over and say its your fault because you're going slower than they are. Bikes have the right to use the full lane when it is necessary for safe operation of the bicycle, and that includes making a left turn.
Going slower than the speed limit in the center of the lane is not illegal, for a car or for a bike. And it certainly shouldn't be punished wit
Re: (Score:2)
*ONCE* you have merged, yes.... but if you are moving much slower than that traffic lane, then again... unless there's almost no traffic in the lane you intent to pull into, you're not going to finishing merging before the car behind you is going to feel that you've pulled in front of them. If there is an accident, all they would ever have to do is say that you changed lanes and pulled in
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What we need... (Score:5, Informative)
Such a simple concept that you managed to get it wrong, apparently.
From my state's laws:
s. 316.151 – Required Position and Method of Turning at Intersections
(b) Left turn . A person riding a bicycle and intending to turn left in accordance with this section is entitled to the full use of the lane from which the turn may be legally made.
If you are making a left turn at an intersection on a bicycle, you get in the turn lane just like a car. Laws could of course vary by state, but in every state I've biked in, this was the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 of
Re:What we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether they are "entitled" to use it or not is irrelevant if they cannot safely enter the lane in the first place, because cars move much faster than bicycles, preventing a cyclist from being able to change lanes from the rightmost lane (designated bike lane) to the leftmost without causing an accident that they would actually be considered entirely at fault for.
Going slower than the traffic behind you wants to go is not "causing" an accident. What causes accidents is idiotic responses to a slow vehicle in the lane. Just slow down, be patient, and there won't be an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
If you slow down to change lanes, then you only make the matter worse, and that much more difficult to safely merge.
Bear in mind that legally speaking, merging requires that you are already moving with the flow of traffic in the target lane, and that other vehicles will not need to slow down to accommodate you because of your speed (they may have to slow down to accommodate you for purposes of vehicle spacing, but because bikes move so much slow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is exactly what is generally going to be the case when there is a moderately heavy flow of traffic moving in the same direction as the bicycle, and why it isn't possible for the bike to safely change lanes... hence my recommendation about just manually walking the bicycle across the road at the crosswalk on
Re: (Score:2)
I read this (I think on slashdot) about tube bikeways over toronto. Will it ever happen? http://www.treehugger.com/cars... [treehugger.com]
I guess we can dream and until then maybe radar and goretex will help ;-)
Re:What we need... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that there are no license requirements for bikes, so many riders are totally unaware of the actual laws, and often highly inexperienced..
Drivers at least have to pass a test, and while there are plenty of bad drivers they should at least have some experience and understanding of the rules.
On a daily basis i see bikes ignoring red lights, while to see a car go through on red is pretty rare. Just yesterday i saw a bike come off of a footpath, go directly across a 2 lane road without slowing or checking for vehicles (causing several cars to hit the brakes) and into the wrong end of a one way street.
And it's no better as a pedestrian, i was shouted at by a bike rider who took issue with the fact i was in her way by walking down the sidewalk causing her to hit the brakes. It's illegal to ride there, why should i be forced to get out of the way of a bike speeding down the hill ringing a bell and shouting?
Also when trying to cross a road, you get a group of vehicles which pass you, and then a long spaced out stream of bikes that fill in the gap before the next group of vehicles - giving you no time to cross.
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you hear cars honking there horns because some idiot car driver is doing something wrong. In a few places that they made the mistake of introducing licenses for cyclists they revoked those rules because they outright didn't work.
London Bicycle Hire scheme has about 10k bikes and millions of hires, not once was the big readable number [google.co.uk] taken and reported to the police. With a time+date, the number can say who the rider was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What we need... (Score:4, Interesting)
That would never work in Seattle with our militant bike riders.
I was helping with a bike race once. We'd have a car pace behind the groups of riders at a safe distance to keep other cars away from them. One of the asshats on a bike seemed to think I was stalking them or something. Started yelling and gesturing at me, then dropped back to me and yelled to "get the fuck out of here and quit following us". Told him who I was, and radioed his number to HQ. His raceday ended at the next checkpoint.
Never did figure out his problem. Either 'roid rage, or just a bike rider with a bad attitude.
Now I just help with the mountainbike races like the Wilderness 101. My kind of people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 drive
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they're wearing Lycra pants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The eyes in the back of your head?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but in front of a rear-view mirror...
Re:bikes not cars?! (Score:4, Funny)
bikse are not the raod people you make them pour out there money on this
I'll have one of what you're drinking.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, lay off the guy. He's driving.
Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what do you avoid? 8-70 Hz? More? Less? There isn't a single perfect flash to trigger it (the most reliable triggers are multi-color, which this is not, and the studies indicate that color of the monochromatic flashes matters, so red may not have the same "optimal" frequency as white, or other colors.
Re:They avoid epileptic frequencies, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I also noted that India and China, as well as much of Africa don't allow any driving after a seizure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 the
urban myth (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
One of the big issues with flashing lights is that they have to avoid frequencies which set off epileptic seizures. The last thing you want is for the driver of that hunk of metal behind you to have a seizure behind the wheel, stomping on the gas and jerking to the right as they collapse in a frothing fit...
One sure way to prevent a drive from hitting you r bicycle is to send them into a seizure. So that sounds like it would work even better!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, it's forbidden in Romania to use intermittent (red) lights (that is, if you're not the police).
I still use them on my bicycle... but they're illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure fella, or your fucking epileptic ass can TRY A DIFFERENT PRODUCT.
I think it's pretty obvious he meant an epileptic would be driving a car and get a seizure due to passing by a biker with this. Use your brain, asshole.
In most online discussion of cyclists vs car drivers the use of brain seems to be frowned upon.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
I'm a much better judge of the behavior of an overtaking vehicle than a bunch of electronics.
Perhaps some optics/mechanics to help steady the image. Other then that, its pretty straightforward tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Now how am I going to connect that to my anti-collision missile system?
Re: (Score:2)