6 ms·

I'd be afraid that the laser light could damage children's eyes if they happend to get in the way and look into the light. Experience from Copenhagen shows tha

I'd be afraid that the laser light could damage children's eyes if they happend to get in the way and look into the light. Experience from Copenhagen shows that the best solution is to have the bike path on the inside of the parked cars so the parked cars function as a buffer against the moving cars. Putting it on the inside makes it possible to make it a different level (like the footpath) so the cars cannot go into the bike lane. 37% of people in Copenhagen bike to work, so they have a significant amount of experience with bike paths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDs83Ud6Zss&t=1m24s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDs83Ud6Zss&t=1m24s

tomjen3 15y ago
It nearly never happens that cars get on the bike lane (except when they park there) -- this is to protect bicyclist in the event that a driver does a right turn.
ollysb 15y ago
In the UK there are very few cycle lanes, generally you're sharing the road with other traffic. The city roads are small here so there isn't space for parking let alone dedicated cycle paths. I can think of numerous "squeezes" that I've been in where this device would have been great.
- nodata 15y ago
  I don't really see how a dim green picture of a bike will help. If a driver can't see the cyclist, would he see the flat picture on the tarmac?
  - arethuza 15y ago
    Hopefully, car drivers would be looking at where they are going so they might notice something being projected by a cyclist into that space.
    - lloeki 15y ago
      ... something projected AND moving into his way.
  - davedavedave 15y ago
    This projects onto the road ahead of the bike, hopefully making your presence known even if you weren't visible (blind spot, for example).
    - nodata 15y ago
      If it only shows up on the ground, near the side of the front of the car, this won't work. I'll never see it. If this is more like a visible beam, that is also very visible before it hits the tarmac (which I doubt), then it's essentially a torch. We have those.
Natsu 15y ago
Lasers aren't really that dangerous, unless they're especially bright. They have a classification written on the side which should give you some indication of whether they're weak or strong. The really weak laser pointers won't do any worse than make you see spots for a little while, as I can tell you from personal experience. That said, there are lasers that you have to be very careful of. The laser-pointer level, though, is generally quite safe.
- hugh3 15y ago
  It's very hard to get blinded by a laser, but it's quite easy to get dazzled for a few seconds if one goes in your eye. Being dazzled for a few seconds usually isn't that dangerous unless you're, say, driving a car. No sir, I don't like the idea that the inconsiderate laws-don't-apply-to-me cyclists I carefully avoid running over every day will suddenly be equipped with lasers which can shine into my eyes by accident.
  - Silhouette 15y ago
    It's a valid concern, but is it any different to dealing with a car with poorly adjusted headlights?
    - hugh3 15y ago
      I've only been hit in the eye with a laser a couple of times, but I'd say yes.
      - Natsu 15y ago
        And I've zapped myself several times deliberately, even holding the weak little class IIIa laser pointer right up to my eye to show people that the "dangers" are too often overstated. Granted, that's only for low-wattage laser pointers. There are high power lasers where the "do not look into laser with remaining eye" warning is absolutely correct, after all, as well as a lot of different things in between. Lasers aren't inherently dangerous after all simply because they're lasers, it's a matter of how much energy they're zapping your eyes with and for how long. So I'd have to say, no. If reasonably engineered, this would be less likely to be harmful than someone's headlights shining in your eyes. They're so focused that they wouldn't hit you in the eye for very long given that you're a moving target likely to be several meters away from the bike.
gst 15y ago
My personal experience shows that it's best to have no bike paths at all. I typically only use my bicycle as means of transportation here (in Vienna) and the only accidents that I had so far were at locations where the bike path crosses a street. This is also confirmed by statistics. Compared to this, on streets I almost never have any risky situations - even on busy multilane streets. Cars see you earlier, because you ride on the same street as they do. You don't appear unexpected (for car drivers) because you overtake on the left side like everyone else. The right of way is clear, as there are no exceptions as in the case of bike paths. In cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam bike paths have an advantage, because you are faster (no traffic jams) and because car drivers expect bicycles at crossings due to the high amount of bicycles. In cities such as Vienna where the amount of cyclists is relatively low most car drivers don't expect to encounter them - so even if you have the right of way on a bike path they just ignore it.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  Here in Cambridge, UK we have a similar issue and an unusually high concentration of cyclists. There is a significant effort to install so-called "continental-style" cycle lanes along some major routes. These really are lanes of a decent width in their own right, typically a couple of metres, modelled after the kinds of place you mentioned. However, the opinion of local cyclists is fairly consistently that if you can't have proper facilities like that, you're better off with nothing at all than with a bit of paint on a normal width road that marks a "lane" barely wide enough to contain handlebars even if you're cycling in the gutter. It is now very clear that such lanes just encourage cars to pass far too close, and drivers to complain when cyclists do crazy things like riding in the main traffic lane because the gutter is full of water/broken glass/etc. There is plenty of evidence now that having no lane at all actually results in drivers being more patient and giving more space when passing cyclists than having a lane too narrow to be sensible but marking it out clearly.
- zwieback 15y ago
  That works well in dense inner cities, not so sure about less densely populated areas. I think bike lanes work ok when the blocks are long and straight but there's always a problem at intersections. Also, although shrinking, cars are bigger in the US and drivers seem to be more distracted. Most close calls I've had were either with seniors, cell phone talkers, distracted moms or young kids, probably roughly in that order.

tomjen3 15y ago

It nearly never happens that cars get on the bike lane (except when they park there) -- this is to protect bicyclist in the event that a driver does a right turn.

ollysb 15y ago

In the UK there are very few cycle lanes, generally you're sharing the road with other traffic. The city roads are small here so there isn't space for parking let alone dedicated cycle paths. I can think of numerous "squeezes" that I've been in where this device would have been great.

nodata 15y ago
I don't really see how a dim green picture of a bike will help. If a driver can't see the cyclist, would he see the flat picture on the tarmac?
- arethuza 15y ago
  Hopefully, car drivers would be looking at where they are going so they might notice something being projected by a cyclist into that space.
  - lloeki 15y ago
    ... something projected AND moving into his way.
- davedavedave 15y ago
  This projects onto the road ahead of the bike, hopefully making your presence known even if you weren't visible (blind spot, for example).
  - nodata 15y ago
    If it only shows up on the ground, near the side of the front of the car, this won't work. I'll never see it. If this is more like a visible beam, that is also very visible before it hits the tarmac (which I doubt), then it's essentially a torch. We have those.

Natsu 15y ago

Lasers aren't really that dangerous, unless they're especially bright. They have a classification written on the side which should give you some indication of whether they're weak or strong. The really weak laser pointers won't do any worse than make you see spots for a little while, as I can tell you from personal experience. That said, there are lasers that you have to be very careful of. The laser-pointer level, though, is generally quite safe.

hugh3 15y ago
It's very hard to get blinded by a laser, but it's quite easy to get dazzled for a few seconds if one goes in your eye. Being dazzled for a few seconds usually isn't that dangerous unless you're, say, driving a car. No sir, I don't like the idea that the inconsiderate laws-don't-apply-to-me cyclists I carefully avoid running over every day will suddenly be equipped with lasers which can shine into my eyes by accident.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  It's a valid concern, but is it any different to dealing with a car with poorly adjusted headlights?
  - hugh3 15y ago
    I've only been hit in the eye with a laser a couple of times, but I'd say yes.
    - Natsu 15y ago
      And I've zapped myself several times deliberately, even holding the weak little class IIIa laser pointer right up to my eye to show people that the "dangers" are too often overstated. Granted, that's only for low-wattage laser pointers. There are high power lasers where the "do not look into laser with remaining eye" warning is absolutely correct, after all, as well as a lot of different things in between. Lasers aren't inherently dangerous after all simply because they're lasers, it's a matter of how much energy they're zapping your eyes with and for how long. So I'd have to say, no. If reasonably engineered, this would be less likely to be harmful than someone's headlights shining in your eyes. They're so focused that they wouldn't hit you in the eye for very long given that you're a moving target likely to be several meters away from the bike.

gst 15y ago

My personal experience shows that it's best to have no bike paths at all. I typically only use my bicycle as means of transportation here (in Vienna) and the only accidents that I had so far were at locations where the bike path crosses a street. This is also confirmed by statistics. Compared to this, on streets I almost never have any risky situations - even on busy multilane streets. Cars see you earlier, because you ride on the same street as they do. You don't appear unexpected (for car drivers) because you overtake on the left side like everyone else. The right of way is clear, as there are no exceptions as in the case of bike paths. In cities such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam bike paths have an advantage, because you are faster (no traffic jams) and because car drivers expect bicycles at crossings due to the high amount of bicycles. In cities such as Vienna where the amount of cyclists is relatively low most car drivers don't expect to encounter them - so even if you have the right of way on a bike path they just ignore it.

Silhouette 15y ago
Here in Cambridge, UK we have a similar issue and an unusually high concentration of cyclists. There is a significant effort to install so-called "continental-style" cycle lanes along some major routes. These really are lanes of a decent width in their own right, typically a couple of metres, modelled after the kinds of place you mentioned. However, the opinion of local cyclists is fairly consistently that if you can't have proper facilities like that, you're better off with nothing at all than with a bit of paint on a normal width road that marks a "lane" barely wide enough to contain handlebars even if you're cycling in the gutter. It is now very clear that such lanes just encourage cars to pass far too close, and drivers to complain when cyclists do crazy things like riding in the main traffic lane because the gutter is full of water/broken glass/etc. There is plenty of evidence now that having no lane at all actually results in drivers being more patient and giving more space when passing cyclists than having a lane too narrow to be sensible but marking it out clearly.
zwieback 15y ago
That works well in dense inner cities, not so sure about less densely populated areas. I think bike lanes work ok when the blocks are long and straight but there's always a problem at intersections. Also, although shrinking, cars are bigger in the US and drivers seem to be more distracted. Most close calls I've had were either with seniors, cell phone talkers, distracted moms or young kids, probably roughly in that order.