4 ms·

::Ponders tying system to speedometer so that the bike lane logo stays fixed to a point on the ground and then repeats:: Thankfully I'm now living in Amsterdam

by furyg3 18y ago

::Ponders tying system to speedometer so that the bike lane logo stays fixed to a point on the ground and then repeats:: Thankfully I'm now living in Amsterdam where the problem virtually doesn't exist due to a heavily funded, well-maintained bicycle network (where lanes are generally separated from cars). This would be a godsend back in the bay area, though. Until then you can use the almost-as-effective strategy of not wearing a bicycle helmet: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article636281.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article636281.ece

tlrobinson 18y ago
That's an interesting article. However, I suspect the additional protection provided by wearing a helmet more than makes up for the slight increase chance of being hit by a car. Especially when considering being hit by a car isn't the only way to crash.
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  I've also seen the argument advanced that requiring helmets makes cycling less safe: Some people will refuse to wear them and won't bike at all, and others will get the impression that cycling is more dangerous than it is because a helmet is being required. (Are drivers or pedestrians nagged to wear helmets? Besides, the most common injury from cycling isn't a head injury - it's a broken wrist from trying to stop a fall.) The decrease in cyclists on the road reduces the likelihood that drivers know how to share the road with them, that cyclists will learn from each other how to ride safely in traffic, etc.
neilc 18y ago
One thing that's unclear about that article is whether the reported conclusions are the result of a rigorous study, or just the anecdotal conclusions of an individual professor. Also, the idea that a biker with a helmet is more experienced than one without a helmet seems strange: in my experience, a lot of the most experienced bike riders don't wear helmets. I don't think there's a widespread stereotype about it, anyway.
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  But so do many of the people who are essentially homeless and just riding a broken Huffy against traffic. (Also, the article is from the UK. Cycling there is probably sufficiently different from in the US (due to city layouts, cultural acceptance of cycling, etc.) that there may be too many other variables to compare them.)
11ren 18y ago
Similar to your idea, if the laser wasn't rotationally stabilized, the image on the ground would jitter around as slight angular tilts of the bike frame would be exaggerated the further the distance the image was projected. Imagine standing to pedal hard up a hill - the lanes would swing wildly left and right. How about a lighted fog beneath the bike (like those under some hotted up street cars), giving it the same visual footprint, and territory, as a car?
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  Or even just a spoke POV system[1], so there is quite a bit more light visible from the sides? [1]: http://www.ladyada.net/make/spokepov/ http://www.ladyada.net/make/spokepov/
  - 11ren 18y ago
    hey, that's really cool. I like your point that it's lateral visibility that matters. But I think in practice, the side of the bike is visible only for a very short time (as a car passes it), and the driver is looking forwards (not to the side). The bike needs to be visible from behind. Another projection idea is a downward-facing rear light - perhaps angled so that the light reflected from the road hits the eyes of the drivers behind?
    - silentbicycle 18y ago
      I've biked as primary transportation for five years (including through Michigan winters), and in my experience ensuring that other drivers see you at intersections is most important. They're often unclear about intent, who has right of way, etc., when they see you at all, and that's where paths cross. Being visible from behind is also important, but doesn't take anything extravagant: A five-red-LED blinker on your bike and a blinker on your helmet or large reflective strips on your bag is almost certainly sufficient. As long as you're not weaving from lane to lane and not terribly unlucky (e.g. being followed by a drunk or a car full of reckless teenagers), it's unlikely you'll get hit from behind. (Fog/glow under the bike would be awesome, though.)
rjprins 18y ago
Even more important in Amsterdam: Pretty much every one driving car also rides a bicycle from time to time. So cars almost always have a sympathetic attitude towards cyclists.
- furyg3 18y ago
  Except cabbies, it seems. :/
  - billroberts 18y ago
    It's the tram drivers that really take no prisoners :-)
rufo 18y ago
Speaking as someone who lost a close family friend to an accident where a helmet would've saved him... I still think I would wear the helmet. Even if you do get injured, I'd think it would be far less likely to be the kind that puts you into a vegetative state.
- _phred 18y ago
  Sorry to hear about your friend. I've personally decided that my skull and its contents are worth protecting, and worth protecting well, and feel naked riding without a good and properly-fitted helmet.

by furyg3 18y ago

tlrobinson 18y ago

That's an interesting article. However, I suspect the additional protection provided by wearing a helmet more than makes up for the slight increase chance of being hit by a car. Especially when considering being hit by a car isn't the only way to crash.

silentbicycle 18y ago
I've also seen the argument advanced that requiring helmets makes cycling less safe: Some people will refuse to wear them and won't bike at all, and others will get the impression that cycling is more dangerous than it is because a helmet is being required. (Are drivers or pedestrians nagged to wear helmets? Besides, the most common injury from cycling isn't a head injury - it's a broken wrist from trying to stop a fall.) The decrease in cyclists on the road reduces the likelihood that drivers know how to share the road with them, that cyclists will learn from each other how to ride safely in traffic, etc.

neilc 18y ago

One thing that's unclear about that article is whether the reported conclusions are the result of a rigorous study, or just the anecdotal conclusions of an individual professor. Also, the idea that a biker with a helmet is more experienced than one without a helmet seems strange: in my experience, a lot of the most experienced bike riders don't wear helmets. I don't think there's a widespread stereotype about it, anyway.

silentbicycle 18y ago
But so do many of the people who are essentially homeless and just riding a broken Huffy against traffic. (Also, the article is from the UK. Cycling there is probably sufficiently different from in the US (due to city layouts, cultural acceptance of cycling, etc.) that there may be too many other variables to compare them.)

11ren 18y ago

Similar to your idea, if the laser wasn't rotationally stabilized, the image on the ground would jitter around as slight angular tilts of the bike frame would be exaggerated the further the distance the image was projected. Imagine standing to pedal hard up a hill - the lanes would swing wildly left and right. How about a lighted fog beneath the bike (like those under some hotted up street cars), giving it the same visual footprint, and territory, as a car?

silentbicycle 18y ago
Or even just a spoke POV system[1], so there is quite a bit more light visible from the sides? [1]: http://www.ladyada.net/make/spokepov/ http://www.ladyada.net/make/spokepov/
- 11ren 18y ago
  hey, that's really cool. I like your point that it's lateral visibility that matters. But I think in practice, the side of the bike is visible only for a very short time (as a car passes it), and the driver is looking forwards (not to the side). The bike needs to be visible from behind. Another projection idea is a downward-facing rear light - perhaps angled so that the light reflected from the road hits the eyes of the drivers behind?
  - silentbicycle 18y ago
    I've biked as primary transportation for five years (including through Michigan winters), and in my experience ensuring that other drivers see you at intersections is most important. They're often unclear about intent, who has right of way, etc., when they see you at all, and that's where paths cross. Being visible from behind is also important, but doesn't take anything extravagant: A five-red-LED blinker on your bike and a blinker on your helmet or large reflective strips on your bag is almost certainly sufficient. As long as you're not weaving from lane to lane and not terribly unlucky (e.g. being followed by a drunk or a car full of reckless teenagers), it's unlikely you'll get hit from behind. (Fog/glow under the bike would be awesome, though.)

rjprins 18y ago

Even more important in Amsterdam: Pretty much every one driving car also rides a bicycle from time to time. So cars almost always have a sympathetic attitude towards cyclists.

furyg3 18y ago
Except cabbies, it seems. :/
- billroberts 18y ago
  It's the tram drivers that really take no prisoners :-)

rufo 18y ago

Speaking as someone who lost a close family friend to an accident where a helmet would've saved him... I still think I would wear the helmet. Even if you do get injured, I'd think it would be far less likely to be the kind that puts you into a vegetative state.

_phred 18y ago
Sorry to hear about your friend. I've personally decided that my skull and its contents are worth protecting, and worth protecting well, and feel naked riding without a good and properly-fitted helmet.