Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bike Projector Makes Lane For Rider

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the don't-cross-the-laser-line dept.

Transportation 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."

cancel ×

856 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

About an Autobahn lane projector ? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554081)

Where this projector would be adapted on a car to project an autobahn lane with no speed limit while driving on the highway ;-)) ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Zeichen_330.svg/100px-Zeichen_330.svg.png [wikimedia.org]

Anyway, would this type of device be legal everywhere even for bikes ?

Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (2, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554109)

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 still cringe when I think about the time my friend tried to use his laser pointer in a rainstorm.

Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (4, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554183)

No to mention the danger of attracting friggin' sharks if you ride near the seafront.

Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (3, Interesting)

Random Destruction (866027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554703)

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.

Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (1)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554783)

Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.

The last time I went cycling on a major road, I got honked at more times than I can count, and cursed at four times. Maybe an onslaught of coherent radiation is well deserved.

Re:About an Autobahn lane projector ? (3, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554807)

Let's say there is a car coming up directly behind the bike. Assuming this works as it should and for a moment it fools the driver into thinking it's a bike lane, his natural response might be to move to the left (or right in UK) to get off the bike lane. Given that the bike could be anywhere, including in the middle of the road, this could be a head on collision waiting to happen.

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..

Nice thought, bad planning (1, Insightful)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554105)

Lasers? We're worried enough about people shining them at airplanes on purpose. Now we'd have to worry about one straying off the road and hitting a driver in the eye who would then likely cause an accident. Good intentions, possibly rethink the implimentation.

Re:Nice thought, bad planning (0, Flamebait)

CosmicRabbit (1505129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554157)

That's the purpose. So Mr. car driver, you're afraid of my bike-frame-mounted piece of laser awesomeness? Then GET SOME DISTANCE OFF ME.
Or in other words, if you're blind enough to ignore me on the road, I'll make sure you stay blind for good. Besides the lane projected in the image is red, and everyone knows in the animal world red means "don't mess with me".

Re:Nice thought, bad planning (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554279)

"Gee officer, the bicyclist pulled out this device, blinded me, and the next thing, he was decorating my bumper."

Juries would find for the motorist, and charge the bicyclist with a criminal charge of reckless endangerment, perhaps assault with a deadly weapon.

Bicyclists are a scourge on the roads. 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. Some bicyclist gets whacked because they blow a light or stop sign, and the whole community comes out in the stupid critical masses to jam up roads in an act of moronic revenge.

This isn't to say bikes are OK, but cities spend millions for dedicated bike trails and bike lanes for them. However, even the best paved bike roads are usually not good enough for some, so you will get the blokes jamming up the highway and playing chicken, hoping that they get struck by someone unwary or distracted so they can win the lawsuit lottery.

Re:Nice thought, bad planning (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554447)

Actually the car driver will carry on driving like normal. The bike isn't perceived as a threat. One of those paddles that stick out the side would be more effective. This is an expensive high tech solution looking for a problem that has already been solved. And its no good when the road is lit.

Re:Nice thought, bad planning (1, Offtopic)

MouseR (3264) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554391)

RTFA: super bright LEDs.

Re:Nice thought, bad planning (2, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554507)

As I understand it, if it's not collimated then it's no worse than an LED. It's not like coherent light carries more energy, and most diode lasers have very short coherence lengths anyway - a laser is no more likely to blind you than an LED of the same power if you stick it a millimeter from your eye and turn it on. The difference is that with the laser, you can get the same effect from 100m away (or more depending on how well collimated it is). Put a laser through a lens that spreads it out into a divergent beam and it's not going to be any danger.

Re:Nice thought, bad planning (1)

cathector (972646) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554617)

ot, but re "It's not like coherent light carries more energy", i recently learned that while it's true that coherent light doesn't strictly carry more energy, in tactical situations it does pack more of a punch. consider a laser versus a non-coherent light source with the same photon density/make-up. the coherent photons will have greater destructive power because they're all in phase and don't cancel each other out.

Re:Nice thought, bad planning (2, Informative)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554763)

Interesting! So for military lasers (woah, that just took me back to my days of playing Elite!) with a high degree of coherence, the fact that it's laser light rather than just intense collimated light is actually relevant to the purpose of burninating things? I shall have to read up on this... :)

"gets drivers attention" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554115)

As they swerve/drift into another car or biker..... misaimed lasers notwithstanding....

Better than a tail light? (4, Insightful)

Ifni (545998) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554119)

It doesn't say anywhere I can find, but does the device just "paint" a lane with you always in the center, or does it try to detect a curb and give you a steady guide so you don't drift out into traffic? I'm guessing the former, which makes me wonder how exactly this is better than a head and tail light.

Re:Better than a tail light? (5, Informative)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554221)

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:Better than a tail light? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554311)

Yes, it's just projecting a false lane on the ground behind your bike.

So, even if the roadway on our side is only seven feet wide and you're dawdling along at fifteen miles an hour, you're projecting a three-foot wide "My Bike Lane" thingie?

Kiss my Hummer 1, you moron. I can wash the stains off my bumper and grille when I get home.

Re:Better than a tail light? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554557)

Hard to wash your Hummer while rotting in prison.

Re:Better than a tail light? (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554257)

I think it's just a rear light without any curb sensing.

I bike basically everywhere, and for night biking, I have:
four front lights - two LED and two Halogen
two armbands - both blinking LEDs
LED-equipped reflective vest
tire lights (blue LEDs that make blue streaks when moving)
a helmet LED
1/2W rear red LED
(and, of course, all the reflectors and striping I can find - I have a bigger RADAR signature than a bread van.)

And I still try to stay the hell off the roads. If you're in a car and you get hit by a truck, it'll ruin your day. If you're on your bike, it won't.

Would this be useful? Probably, if they could get rid of the reflective problem. I'd be likely to buy one if it was cheap and... uh, that's really my only criteria. Maybe I'll work on my own out of an old laser pointer I've got kicking around.

Re:Better than a tail light? (5, Funny)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554383)

DUDE! you must look exactly like a lightcycle from Tron!

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.

Re:Better than a tail light? (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554409)

Both are better than either individually, of course.

yes but... (3, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554123)

...are the laser-lines legally binding? What will the local constabulary think of people re-writing the road lanes ad hoc? And does it run line-x?

Re:yes but... (1, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554263)

And does it run line-x?

Har-de-har. I guess a Critical Mass would be like a beowulf cluster of them.

So... wait. (3, Insightful)

Kuroji (990107) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554127)

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?

Here's a thought... (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554173)

Cyclists are already huge douches (atleast here in the twin cities). They ride 8 feet out from the curb, blocking the lane to motorists, and yet bitch when periodically one of them becomes a speed bump. We have dedicated lanes for bicyclists downtown -- and everywhere else there are sidewalks. Yes, it's a little more work. Yes, you'll have to use your brakes and be more alert to pedestrians -- but a bike/pedestrian accident usually results in profanity. A bike/motor vehicle accident almost always ends in tears. Not only that, but it's not like they're helping their cause -- mounting strobe lights as a "safety feature"? Events like "Critical Mass" that clog streets and result in clashes with the police?

I'm sorry, but nobody's going to be fooled by your latest bike accessory -- they're still going to side-swipe you in the middle of the night because you're in the middle of the lane and it's hard to have compassion for someone doing 15 in a 45, especially when nobody's around to protest reducing them to a twisted mass of aluminum and hamburger. If you have a problem with this, ride on the shoulder or near the curb, which is what every safety instructor has told you, along with wearing a helmet and reflective clothing. But you don't do either because you want to feel liberated when a twig jams your front wheel and you face plant, or get run over by a car because wearing all black at night makes you feel like a bad-ass. Don't laugh -- it's more common than you think. Every motorist in the Twin Cities that has more than about 20,000 miles under their belt has witnessed one of these kamikazi nut jobs.

Americans will tolerate just about anything so long as it doesn't obstruct the flow of traffic. Many bicyclists are the anti-thesis of this statement. You may now mod me down, because it's easier to write a pleasant fiction that sounds socially sophisticated and intellectual than to write down a blunt truth.

Re:Here's a thought... (1, Funny)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554259)

I always wanted to make a bumper sticker that was similar to the share the road stickers [flickr.com] except change the graphics a little (use your imaginations, i'll wait, done? Ok, good.) and change the line to something like "Use the sidewalk" or "Roads are for Cars" or, "Pithy bumper stickers won't keep me from honking my modified train horn as I drive by."

Possibly "Wearing spandex makes you a tool."

Add your own! Its fun!

Re:Here's a thought... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554415)

Your ex-gf dumped you for a cyclist with enough energy to go all night didn't she...

sucks to be you dude...

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554593)

But it was a one-nighter cause the next day that shit head got run over by a granny.

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Informative)

jamesh (87723) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554737)

Your ex-gf dumped you for a cyclist with enough energy to go all night didn't she...

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... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554511)

Actually, roads are for cyclists as well, except as otherwise explicitly posted.

Share the road. It's not going to kill you. Not sharing the road kills cyclists. These are real lives -- this is not a game.

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554549)

"Use the sidewalk"

So ... you want them to break traffic laws, just so you don't have to worry about them?

Interesting. Why don't you just use the sidewalk yourself? It's easier to do in a car (people WILL move out of your way, and if not you're driving a ton of steel - just run them over) AND you'll get to your destination much quicker. You don't even have to worry about rush hour.

You might want to get an old banger for the trip though. You might end up with quite a few dents in the car, and it will probably need to be washed daily. But think of the time you'll save.

Re:Here's a thought... (4, Interesting)

shermo (1284310) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554265)

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.

Re:Here's a thought... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554317)

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.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554733)

Cars always win...

No they don't. Sooner or later you have to stop at a traffic light, and if you behave like an asswipe and insist that "you get outta my way 'cause I'm bigger'n you", then you have some humility therapy due. Here, it's quite common for car drivers to find a boot through their side window and their faces smacked into the steering wheel. I've also seen them yanked out of their BMW 4WDs and kicked into a pulp by irate cyclists.

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554785)

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:Here's a thought... (0, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554357)

Oh noes, it's "illegal" to ride on the footpaths! Trust me, that cop in the right lane will thank you for staying the fuck off the goddamn street, and every other motorist will also.

Girlintraining has a point - bike riders are fucking douches who need to stay the fuck off the goddamn street. Most of them are baby boomer scum and their douchebag offspring who've bankrupted the country and are now living out their mid-life crises and only-child entitlements in their obnoxious bike shorts and neon spandex and their stupid-looking dickhead helmets which are a slap in the face because they're playing chicken with multi-ton armored shells while swerving into busy streets at 3mph.

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. I like it better that way because I know I won't be knocked the fuck off my bike. Motorists like it that way because they don't have to deal with your 50-million dollar lawsuit and medical bills.

2 things in life will always succeed in pissing me the fuck off. The first is fucking religious morons, Jesus and Allah suck my cock etc. The second is fucking silver-spoon douchebags or dumb-shit starving students, breast-fed and ass-wiped by mommy till age 20, riding their fucking bikes in the street. They make me want to do a Grizwold European Vacation [youtube.com] [skip to 5:00] on their ass.

-1, motherfuckers!

Re:Here's a thought... (4, Insightful)

Macman408 (1308925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554469)

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.

Re:Here's a thought... (0, Troll)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554509)

"But bicycles have just as much right to the road "

Why?

Does my unregisterable dirt bike have that right? What about a horse? Can I just start walking down the middle of a lane to my destination?

Bike riders don't pay for the roads, they don't pay for rego, nor do they have insurance.

So where do *push bikes* get this "right" from?

And I'd like this "right" to apply to motocross bikes, so where do I apply?

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Insightful)

Macman408 (1308925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554587)

So where do *push bikes* get this "right" from?

It's the law. Legally, a bicyclist has all the rights AND all the responsibilities of any other vehicle. That means that you must give me 3 feet of clearance when passing. It also means that I must give you 3 feet of clearance when passing (so none of that darting down the middle of two lanes of stopped traffic that some bikers and motorcycles like to do).

I have no idea where you're from, or what this "rego" you speak of is - but quite frankly, bikes cost less for society. In my locale, roads are not paid for entirely by gas taxes, registration fees, etc.; money for them also comes out of income or property taxes. So maybe you pay slightly more than I do - but you also require a more sturdy road, use the roads more, and cause more wear on them. Semi truck drivers undoubtedly pay more than you do too - and they cause more wear and require a heftier road, and probably put on a good number more miles than you. Is that some great injustice too?

Think of it this way; every biker you see is one less driver that's getting in your way, and one less car parked between you and that perfect parking spot right next to the door of your destination. Most of us are smart enough to use residential streets, bike lanes, or bike paths, rather than highways and main thoroughfares. If you take all the bikers off the road and replace them with the cars, you can bet they'll be in between you and the next stoplight (which you would otherwise indubitably race towards at top speed, only to slam on the brakes, repeating at each successive block).

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

_generica (27453) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554615)

> "Bike riders don't pay for the roads, they don't pay for rego, nor do they have insurance."

Not sure what country you're from, but here in Australia roads are paid for by Federal and State taxes. Every tax payer pays for roads, not just car drivers.

Rego, here at least, pays for the cleanup of car accidents.

And I'm a cyclist who has insurance, provided for by the State Bicycling Club.

Re:Here's a thought... (0, Flamebait)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554395)

Until you start paying rego, compulsary third party insurance and obeying the road rules you don't have any moral right to make use of the road.

Also one person holding up 10, 20 or 100 others while freeloading on the road that the others are paying for isn't exactly the way to make friends.

Or in other words, move the fuck over.

And I ask you this, would it bother you if I ride my unregistered dirt bike, horse or skateboard in the "bike lane" slowing you down? Goddamned right it would, you pricks are as aggressive as, it even shows in your attitude in internet postings.

Ultimately I don't care if you have to ride in the gutter because you want to do 20k in a 80k zone as long as you don't crash into me.

I ride three or four times a week and know my place when I hit the road, that is I'm living on borrowed time at everybody elses expense, patience and convenience riding my bike on a piece of government infrastructure that was not designed for nor payed for by push bike riders. When your in that position it's best to at least be a little coy about it, strangely there's a type of person who thinks that they're somehow entitled to freeload and intentionally piss everyone else off just because they feel like it.

Attention whores generally.

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554471)

Here's the thing, how many cyclists DONT pay rego, not many at all. You will find that virtually all cyclists riding on the road also own a car and pay rego. I own a car and a motorcycle so I probably pay more rego than you. I also have a UCI race license so with the insurance I pay for my car, motorcycle and my bicyle means I am also paying more insurance than you. I do, indeed have more 'right' to use the road than you do due to my rego and insurance fees.

Re:Here's a thought... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554503)

Until you start paying taxes and obeying the road rules you don't have any moral right to make use of the road.

Fixed that for you. Insurance doesn't pay for roads.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554629)

And I ask you this, would it bother you if I ride my unregistered dirt bike, horse or skateboard in the "bike lane" slowing you down? Goddamned right it would, ...

We know what assuming does, right?

If you weren't being a dick about it, no, it wouldn't bother me much. I would simply wait for a break in the real traffic lane and pass you. (If you sped up to prevent that, that would qualify as you being a dick.) Cyclists get behind slower cyclists all the time, and motorists get behind slower motorists all the time, and we seem to deal with it reasonably well.

Re:Here's a thought... (0, Flamebait)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554829)

It's a difference in scale. A 10-20% slowdown from a car in front of me going slow is annoying, and 80% slowdown because of some douchebag on a bike who won't get over to the side is fucking unacceptable, especially when I've got somewhere I need to be, like work.

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554875)

Fortunately, the law is on the GP's side, and bikes may take the lane whenever they feel like it.

You don't like it? Change the laws. Alternatively, you can wait until it's safe to pass, and pass the "freeloader" (who pays taxes like everyone else) just as if they were a horse & buggy or an especially slow gas-guzzler.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554417)

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 tha

hear hear! I do the same thing. I woul like to add to that : if you're already close to the curb, you don't have any space left to evade - very necessary.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554591)

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.

It's also the case that, on a lot of roads, the edge is in pretty poor shape... more bumps, cracks, and gravel that you don't have to deal with if you ride in the lane a bit.

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554623)

Ok, I've been a bike rider and a car driver. One thing I have learned as both, if the bigger vehicle can cause you considerable harm, MOVE THE F&^% OUT OF THE WAY!!!!! If you're a bicyclist on what is known to be a very busy street and you are riding in the middle of the friggin road, don't be surprised if a pissed off driver decides they own the road instead of you. If the bicyclist is going 35 in a 50, fine. That's an inconvenience but not a biggie. If the bicyclist is going 20 in a 50 they are a HAZARD!!!! Just like there are upper limits, there are lower limits as well and if you don't feel you can stay between those two limits you don't belong on the road, I don't care what entitlement you think you have, YOU ARE A DANGER!!!!! I'm SO sick of this in the town I live in. There are cyclists that truly belong on the road. They know the road rules, they follow them, they keep a good solid, consistant speed, and don't take stupid risks. Then there are the ones that ride slow, swerve all over the place, ride right through red lights because they feel they can, and generally are complete utter assholes. Just to give everyone a hint and see how many agree or disagree, I live in Christchurch NZ. Tell me I'm wrong about what I just ranted about.....

Re:Here's a thought... (-1, Flamebait)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554881)

and.... you're the jerk that causes accidents. You have a baseless sense of entitlement. The road IS for CARS. When there is a BIKE LANE, it is for BOTH CARS and BIKES.

Your complaint about "safe room to pass" completely, and in accordance with your poor attitude, ignores the fact that those roads were not designed to have both a car and a bike in that space. If it were, after all, there might be a bike lane.

While you're "pissing off" the cars behind you that have to slow down do you realize that by doing so you are creating an environment where it is more likely for accidents to occur? I bet not.

Bicyclists like you wear shirts, "Share the road" and whatnot, and force yourself upon the rest of us on the road and damnit all, if we just don't have to bow down and kiss your asses. It's either that, or KILL YOU. Which nobody with a car really wants to do, being human you know.

So how are you any different than a terrorist? You're not.

Get over yourself. Go where there are bike lanes, and yield as much as possible to cars where there are not, but "ultimately" respect that you don't have a right to be there.

You're fairly stupid too. Do you realize that you are directly, and petulantly, confronting people in multi-ton objects that can move faster and with more force than you, and have considerably more safety features (and the ability to withstand crashes) than you do? That's not flaming, but an honest assesment of your behavior. But, that's okay. Be right. DEAD right.

If you're upset that you don't have enough bike lanes where you are then get together and form a group. Press your local politicians to add access for bicyclists. That maybe if it was much safer for all of you, that more people would choose it. More of a green solution and get's people exercise. Heck, even go militant and start painting bike lanes yourself.

Just stop foolishly engaging in a war with cars that you just can't possibly win. It's statistics and physics. The saddest part is that you might take somebody's else's life along with your own with your piss poor attitude.

Re:Here's a thought... (4, Interesting)

Xiph (723935) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554289)

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!

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Interesting)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554565)

So long as bike riders pay for the roads to be built and maintained.

Where I live roads are exclusively paid for by car registration and fuel tax, so bike riders are indeed freeloading.

If they wish to submit themselves to the registration process, including safety checks in order to help maintain the roads then all the better and they would earn the same right to be on the road as cars.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

_generica (27453) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554635)

Where I live roads are exclusively paid for by car registration and fuel tax, so bike riders are indeed freeloading.

Got proof of that? I find it very hard to believe that in any country roads (which are damn expensive to build and maintain) are paid for by rego (which is not much at all), instead of general taxes paid by everyone.

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554709)

Stuff it, troll.

I got 3 cars, all paid up. By your reasoning, I have more right to the road than you do. Get off my fucking road and leave the bikers be.

Re:Here's a thought... (4, Informative)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554697)

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... (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554319)

In my city, bike lanes were recently placed in the middle of the street on several one-ways which run north-south. A large area of downtown's sidewalks are supposed to be off-limits to bikes... but I personally always use the sidewalks, which are very wide and only heavily trafficked near the bar area at night. Riding amongst the cars is very intimidating, and on at least two of these bike lane streets, drivers going straight down the street are forced to change lanes in order to avoid lanes which end in a turn, forcing them to change lanes across the bike lane twice in the course of two blocks.

I ride in the street on residential streets which have narrow/bumpy sidewalks and no ramps at intersections, but I prefer the sidewalk along any busy street. Front and back lights are required at night, although I see no more than 25% of riders actually have them.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

pirogoth (856284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554327)

I'm not going to comment on how well this device would actually work in practice. I would however like to point out that it is largely believed to be illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk (and in most places, it's true). San Francisco comes to mind, for example. It's illegal where I live as well, although it's rather selectively enforced.

As a cyclist, I can unfortunately attest that the majority of street riders are indeed idiots. To be fair however, that's just as true for motorists. ;)

Mod Parent UP (0, Troll)

Psychotic_Wrath (693928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554371)

This person is not a troll and whoever modded them troll will probably mod me down too. Don't mod people down because you disagree with them! dipshit

Re:Mod Parent UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554465)

This person is not insightful and whoever modded them insightful will probably mod me up too. Don't mod people up because you agree with them! dipshit

Re:Here's a thought... (5, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554381)

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)

Re:Here's a thought... (1, Troll)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554451)

You sound like a reasonable person.

Unfortunately you are absolutely in the minority when it comes to road bike riders who are generally growth hormone taking, tantrum throwing, pink lycra wearing, Tour De France wannabees. Who have a chip on their shoulder the size of their over inflated egos and ridiculous helmets.

They're the problem, they're the high visibility riders who ride three abreast up hill at 20k/h with 100 cars behind them, who run red lights and cut across intersections giving the drivers they cutoff the finger. And they deserve every bit of derision and every beating they get, not just from drivers but also from ordinary decent bike riders like you for the *enourmous* amount of ill will they generate towards people who ride pushies.

And yes I ride.

Re:Here's a thought... (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554707)

Unfortunately you are absolutely in the minority when it comes to road bike riders...

As someone who is an occasional biker, it is unfortunate that so many bikers ride so recklessly, because it gives the sport a bad name and leads to things like all the posts around here about "get off the roads onto the sidewalk" which sounds like a much more reasonable idea then it actually is if you don't actually try to bike for transportation purposes. (Not saying you fall into that category.)

Personally, I try pretty hard to uphold what I see as my end of the deal. I'm a firm believer that bikes belong on the roads, but in exchange, bikes have to follow the rules of the road: stop at stop signs, wait a red lights, etc. (I don't view "stay against the curb" in that set, though in the absence of passing opportunities for cars, pulling over to let people pass is a good idea.) Accordingly, I usually follow said rules, and would be in favor of increased policing of moving violations committed by cyclists.

I am not going to claim that I always hold to that ideal, but when I break a rule I basically follow four guidelines: (1) is it safe for me, (2) is it safe for everyone else, and (3) will it affect the decision making of anyone else, and (4) leave a substantial safety margin. Often (3) translates to "there aren't other cars on the road". (Incidentally, I follow similar guidelines when jaywalking.) I have a variety of reasons for how I justify this to myself, which you might think are justified or not.

Regardless, I at least think I'm pretty courteous when I'm biking around, at least given the constraints of riding a me-powered vehicle. The problem isn't with bikers on the road; it's with the dumbass and selfish bikers who give us a bad name. (Which I'll admit to be a sizable proportion.)

Re:Here's a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554717)

you sound like an insane person.

> And they deserve every bit of derision and every beating they get

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

bronney (638318) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554769)

Good for you, sir. That's exactly how it's done but the wobbly peeps I see on the road are nothing like you. I don't have a problem with pro riders. And very good point on the "just paint" thing. Just take a trip to Bangkok or mainland China and see the paint magically disappears. :)

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

Dahan (130247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554869)

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.

Sure, that's perfect--but where do you find roads that have a speed limit of 30km/h? You say that the limit in most residential areas is 50km/h, so 30 is even slower than the limit on residential streets, which generally have the lowest speed limit of any public roads (at least where I'm from). I generally take the back roads to work, and the speed limit on those roads are 40 mph, with a short 45 mph section. If I wanted to take major roads, the speed limit would be 55 mph, with some 45 mph sections.

FWIW, biking's fairly popular around here, and I generally pass a biker during my commute every other day or so. The road is two lanes wide in each direction, and has very light traffic, so I don't have any problems with moving to the left lane to pass.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

indianropeburn (669243) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554483)

Yes, it's a little more work. Yes, you'll have to use your brakes and be more alert to pedestrians

As a driver, you're supposed to yield to people on bikes. Yes, it's a little more work. Yes, you'll have to use your brakes and be more alert to cyclists. However, you might avoid killing someone while trying to gain an extra 5mph until that next street light.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

Strange Ranger (454494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554567)

Mod up! Get them out of car lanes. Nothing more dangerous than rounding a corner at 45 and seeing a cyclist pop up in front of you going 15. Sometimes I think they WANT to get hit.

Re:Here's a thought... (1)

H310iSe (249662) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554577)

Usually it's clear to me but this time I can't decide if I'm feeding the trolls or not.

I'm in SF, but this applies to DC and NYC as well, not sure about others.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Only*. Streets are for wheeled vehicles. Cars have as much and as little right to the streets as bikes do. legally, that's a fact, but I think it's right as well.

let's get this straight - first off 15 in a 45? wtf? city speed limits are 25 unless posted @ 30. I can do 20-25 on a flat, 30 with a little downhill, so let's not worry about the speeds. I *constantly* pass cars that are doing 15-20. Let's just say it sucks to be behind someone slow but it happens, deal with it.

8 feet from the curb? well, 4 of those are taken up by a parked car, another 2 or so by their opened door, so that leaves 2 feet. you're right, 7 feet from the curb is better. apologies for that extra foot someone took, they were wrong.

kamikazi nut jobs? i guarantee there are more of those in cars than on bikes. and they can do SO much more damage in a car, don't you agree? so be glad if a few have climbed on a bike, might save your life that they have, and you just worry about those in cars, or worse, SUVs. I'll take 10 kamikazi on bikes over 1 in an SUV any day.

Finally, can't beat'm? join'm. no worries about parking, work some fat off your ass, do a little tiny bit to save the environment and free the country from dependence on foreign oil (and all the benefits that entails).

K, I think I'm done, sorry for making the trolls fatter but this was just too... very.

*maybe skateboards, and of course, wheelchairs

How about if bikers just get off the streets? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554177)

I live in California, where there are shitloads of annoying bikers riding on the road. They're most often an extreme hazard.

Half of them ride against the flow of traffic, either because they're illegal immigrants who don't comprehend the laws (but understand the basic concept that "bikes on streets == ok"), because they're hoodie-wearing gangsta poseurs who want to rebel, or because they're just plain stupid.

Of the remainder that does it correctly, half of those wear dark black clothes at night and don't equip their bikes with lights.

Of those who do it perfectly, 100% are still a hazard. They weave back and forth (since their position is determined on balance rather than precise control) and the "bike lane" space is frequently blocked by pulled-over or parked cars.

Get the fucking bikes off the road. If you want to save the environment, buy roller skates and hit the sidewalk. There is no good justification for bikes to share the same space as automobiles. I honestly can't believe it's legal at all. May as well let joggers run on the road.

Re:How about if bikers just get off the streets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554309)

As someone who rides a bike, lives in california, and has been more often nearly killed by cars on foot walking both with and against traffic (some areas where I line are 4 lane roads with over a mile between crosswalks, and the sidestreets I need only accessable from one side), I can tell you that legally skateboarders and skate/rollerblades are NOT supposed to be on the sidewalk, and in many of the 'old town' cities it is explicitly forbade in county ordinances and with signs against biking, rollerblading, or skateboarding on the sidewalk. As such you're limited practically to
A. walking
B. driving, or
C. bicycling
And honestly as someone who regularly does all three I can tell you that the two douchiest groups on the road, at least around here are *NOT* bicyclists, they're either driver's too busy talking on their cellphones/texting, or wannabe gangsta punks (either gradeschoolers or adults) who walk three abreast at LEAST half a lane into the street.

Re:How about if bikers just get off the streets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554403)

Texting drivers should be exiled from America forever as punishment.

Bike riders (and for that matter, motorcyclists) should be banned from travel on any paved road, and de-limbed if they violate this edict.

All "gangsters" should be forced into cryogenic storage so that their psychological problems can be more-easily dealt with by future science.

Rollerbladers and skateboarders should be dropped in the ocean with sharks. If they manage to survive, so be it. Let them ride.

Re:How about if bikers just get off the streets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554427)

Apart from the fact that you're an intolerant ass (oh, wait, you're in California - the "we hate them gays" state - nevermind, intolerance expected), there are at least two justifications for what you say there is no good justification for: 1) it's *illegal* in some California municipalities to ride a bike on a sidewalk, and 2) there are also a lot of places that don't have sidewalks.

And 3) intolerant ass.

Re:How about if bikers just get off the streets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554519)

Who said anything about bikers riding on the sidewalk? Get them the fuck off the streets, and they can rot in hell if they don't have a place to ride.

Same goes for Segway users, parachuters, hanggliders, Go-Karters, jetpack wearers, Big Wheel users and any other ridiculous, dangerous form of transportation that random idiots want to use that doesn't belong on a road system explicitly designed for 4-wheeled motor vehicles.

But hey, yeah, maybe I should be more tolerant. Let's let acrobats do fucking cartwheels down the highway and let preschoolers play leapfrog in the middle of the highway. Those are totally valid forms of transportation, after all.

mega fail. (2, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554187)

some retard is going to get this and think there's a bike lane no matter where he goes. when a mac truck disagree's with him, he will claim it was in the bike lane.

Re:mega fail. (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554401)

when a mac truck disagree's with him, he will claim it was in the bike lane.

Hmm... no, I don't think he'll be claiming much of anything.

Re:mega fail. (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554477)

He may survive and be able to tell his story. Remember, one beep for yes, two for no.

Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554189)

is old.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/16/light-lane-concept-would-protect-cyclists-bring-tron-to-life/

Alcohol to an alcoholic (1)

get_your_guns (1380583) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554195)

As if the high intensity LEDs and Laser that can blind the approaching drivers is not enough, now you are providing many brazen bicyclists a fake lane to think they are safe? There is a reason for bike lanes in high traffic zones, to keep them safe because they never win a battle with a car. Wait for the lanes!

Maybe on concrete (3, Interesting)

quenda (644621) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554199)

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.

Is the risk worth it? (1)

overkill1024 (1016283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554253)

I don't see anything in the article about how much one of these might cost, but I'm guessing it's not cheap. From the image it looks like anyone with an allen wrench could remove the device and pocket it. In it's defense it just looks like a light and I doubt many potential thieves would care, but it's something to consider. They could incorporate a quick-release but having to put it somewhere removes some of the appeal of the device.

Re:Is the risk worth it? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554349)

bolt it to the seat, most bikes come with quick release seats and I know quite a few people who take the seat with them when they lock up. It makes the ride "home" more painful for any would be thief.

Re:Is the risk worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554429)

There are various mechanisms to secure something down on a bike so it can't be removed with a quick release flip.

Zefal's Lock N' Roll system looks the easiest, although it may be awkward flipping the bike up to an angle so you can open the quick release.

The accepted standard are Pitlocks, which can be used to lock the brake bolts, stem, seatpost, and front/rear wheels. They have a large number of different keyed sockets. Pinhead locks are also good, although Pitlocks are made to an exceptional quality level.

Of course none of these are going to be of any use with a determined thief and a Dremel tool, or a vandal, but good enough to get a crackhead to move to an easier target.

Just what we need... (-1, Troll)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554303)

more holier than though wanker cyclists.

I have nothing against cyclists per see, it's a bit annoying that they're too slow for regular traffic and two fast for the foot path, but I can live with that if the cyclists respect others on the road and/or they have dedicated lanes(which I approve of).

The problem is that most cyclists(like a lot of people on motor bikes for that matter), really don't respect others on the road, they don't signal properly, they don't keep to safe sides of the lane, they ride down between cars to avoid having to wait their turn like everyone else, and do things like ride in packs slowly to anger drivers for some political bloody reason.

Giving those asshats the belief that everywhere they go is their own dedicated bike lane is just stupid, we all have to share the road, and acting like an ass whether you're in a car or on a bike, is bad form and not helping anything. When you drive like an idiot on a vehicle that provides you with no protection and expect everyone to get out of your way as you ride like a drunken maniac, then you're a darwin award waiting to happen.

Re:Just what we need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554531)

You see, all those things make sense if you understand the mind of a cyclist.

They're a car when it means YOU have to slow down and wait for something, but they're a pedestrian when THEY have to slow down and wait for something.
At least get off your damn bike and walk it through the crosswalk. If you stay on the bike, either you're blowing through a red light or you're a pedestrian and I'll treat you as such on the road. ie, get the fuck out of my way.

Re:Just what we need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554631)

Off topic, but ...
Being an ass on the road isn't exclusive to bicyclists.

Having your headlights aimed too high, driving with heavy tinting, changing lanes without signaling are just a few examples of people who do things for their own motivation without any care for those they share the road with. Or suv's driving like they own the road because they are so much bigger - sounds a lot like the way some of these motorists are treating cyclists as well. Then there's suv's driving through flooded lanes "because they can" faster than the speed limit and making it impossible for others to see through the wave of dirty water ..

Of all of the above, I find the headlights to be the most annoying, and it doesn't help that trucks and suv's have theirs so much higher either.. but it's kind of a problem when you light up the roof of my car so that, even if i dim my rear view mirror, i see nothing but the roof of my car.

(I cite tinting because it does make it harder to see through your car, something that makes it easier to anticipate dangerous situations. Much more of an issue if you have a large suv, as they are also much harder to see around naturally.)

Asses are asses, at least cyclists have their lives on the line for it.

Re:Just what we need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554855)

In some areas, heavy window tinting is protection. If some crackhead can't see inside, they are not going to be breaking windows to rip off anything seen on the seats. So, rather than mess with a heavily tinted SUV (which likely means that it belongs to someone who is likely packing something more than a Pez dispenser), they will go the nearby VW Beetle, smash the windows and take the iPod from that.

Of course, there are a few cyclists who actually respect the law. The majority consider traffic signals as more of a dare than anything else. A good number of cyclists out there are pedaling as opposed to driving because they do not have a license due to DWI convictions, or are uninsurable. They lost their privilege to use motorized vehicles on the roadways, and now forced to use self powered ones. So its the same behavior except that they can't get the bicycling ability taken away from them until they get injured or killed.

thank god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554421)

I for one am getting god damned tired of pulling bikes out of the grill of my hummer H2

maybe now you bike riding hippy fucks will be easier to see... I mean a few of the bikes scratched the grill and all

Re:thank god (1)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554501)

maybe now you bike riding hippy fucks will be easier to see... I mean a few of the bikes missed my grill and all

There fixed that for you...

Cities breed misplaced self-righteousness (4, Insightful)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554485)

I live in a very rural area where there are no bike lanes and cyclists tend to ride on the road very often. The bikers who live around here tend to ride on the white line, one abreast. Motorists give them room and slow down to pass, since there's little traffic usually and the roads are wide enough for a bike and a car to ride side by side. There's no problem with this setup. Until, of course, there's a bike race and hundreds of city dwellers descend on the town. The city cyclists get out there like there's something to prove, riding 4 feet out into the lane, often 2 abreast for no reason. The people here have no desire to hit a cyclist and aren't used to this asshole road-blocking behavior. I haven't seen any bikers get hurt, but I HAVE seen more than one car wrecked or off the road while trying to pass a cyclist who keeps drifting farther and farther left while oncoming traffic keeps whipping by around blind corners. And the they try to brush it off like they had nothing to do with it. Oh, like a goddamned rolling roadblock ignoring your horn and shouts for 2 miles wouldn't cause you to make some less than ideal choices.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554689)

often 2 abreast for no reason

FYI - it's social. It's much more pleasant to ride & chat.

The real problem here is self-righteous assholes, not cyclists or motorists.

Bingo.

In NYC, we have less tolerance...for cars that is (4, Insightful)

popo (107611) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554597)

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.

Re:In NYC, we have less tolerance...for cars that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28554879)

$50? Like people need more reasons to stay out of big cities.

regenerative braking (1)

H310iSe (249662) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554651)

Want to hijack this trollfest and see if I can get some useful information - the thing city bikes REALLY need is regenerative breaking - compared to cars, bikes suck at acceleration, and trying to conserve precious momentum makes breaking traffic laws way too tempting - some regenerative breaking would solve both problems and more.

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Regenerative_20Brake_20Bike [halfbakery.com] here are some http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-206514.html [physicsforums.com] links but it seems while everyone agrees 'it's tricky but can be done' no one has actually done it.

Not sure why that is, any additional info/ideas would be welcome. I think it would really transform the urban environment if it could be worked out. And I have fantasies of keeping peddling at stoplights then shooting off @ proper street speeds.

So what make this news now? (4, Interesting)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554713)

Instead of when it was first reported in January?

http://slashdot.org/submission/928767/Virtual-Bike-Lane-proposed-by-designers?art_pos=1 [slashdot.org]

Sheesh.

Re:So what make this news now? (1)

guardia (579095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554843)

samzenpus was hibernating in January...

But does it etch the lane in the road permanently? (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554837)

No? That's good considering how meandering most bike riders actually are. Besides a laser powerful enough to etch the lane in pavement or concrete would likely slice off your legs. The one benefit is that you'd not need to have an external power source as the bike could have a generator installed. Think of how much fat you could burn in no time! What's that smell?

A 2 euro solution (5, Informative)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554861)

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.

3 hour life? (1)

Rufus211 (221883) | more than 5 years ago | (#28554901)

What on earth is the point of something with a 3 hour life that you have to recharge every day, and yet barely puts out any light? You could trivially power a massive, blinding LED array off the same power source and be 10x as visible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>