Hacker News Reader

Comment by braunshedd | Hacker News Reader

When I was commuting daily in the SF fog, I discovered that putting on of these [1] on my helmet did wonders to keep cars further off my tail. It moves the brake light up to eye level for people in SUVs and also triggers on engine braking.

Wish it were cheaper, but was a worthwhile investment for me.

Also, consider looking into airbag vests if you ride regularly. Also expensive but (supposedly) make a huge difference in crash outcomes.

[1] https://www.brakefreetech.com/products/brake-free

View on HN

Motorcycle fatality rates have been trending upwards, not downwards[1]. Brake lights on helmets may illuminate one of the culprits: An ever increasing number of American trucks with poor visibility. Sitting on a bike, you're even shorter than a pedestrian and more likely to be completely out of sight. Perhaps its time to start regulating for better visibility, as Europe has done.

[1]https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcyc...

I recently had to frantically wave at a driver about to turn right over a child in the crosswalk. He literally could not see them from his vantage point in his giant SUV.

Some “militant” urban cycling commuters do things like attach a pool noodle horizontally and vertically to create space and visibility. I’d probably hazard a guess that avoiding highway miles also lowers your risk profile substantially.

Freeway driving tends to be the safest driving, in any vehicle. This is because speed deltas are typically low, and there are no cross-streets or stopping.

https://safetrec.berkeley.edu/2023-safetrec-traffic-safety-f... (Ctrl+F "Crash Location of Motorcycle Fatal Crashes")

Complex thing to analyze, no?

Most Americans use freeways, and most do not use motorcycles. It's always hard to compare a rare thing to a common thing, it always has surprising problems. It's like when people on Reddit worry about radon in their basement, but the incidence rate of whatever cancer it was associated with is so low anyway.

What about agency? "Don't worry about kids choking on Legos, kids don't die from choking on Legos" - but that's because parents well informed and really vigilant about it, compared to say batteries. Motor riders avoid freeways.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. There are plenty of statistics available showing that freeway driving is the safest driving vehicles do. There's not as much available for motorcycles specifically, which is why I dug up a relevant link and shared it. It seems to hold true for MCs too (and I have no reason to suspect it wouldn't.)

I think the confusion may be that you commented on freeway safety, whereas the comment you replied to discussed highway safety. Freeways are limited access highways; not all highways are freeways.

That's a regional difference in terms. I would generally call a limited access highway, a "highway".

https://brilliantmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/big-fast-road.j...

'Freeway' is a regional term, but the Federal Highway Administration describes them as limited-access with directions of travel separated by a barrier.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/relate...

The Federal definition of highway is basically any public road.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D...

Yes and I believe when OP said highway they meant it colloquially, as in a freeway, hence using that term in my reply. A highway wouldn't really make sense since it encompasses just about every road, as you say.

Limited vs controlled access.

Nobody is cycling on either unless there's dedicated infra anywhere even the slightest bit urban. In rural areas cycling on a limited access road is generally "fine"

I had not heard of/seen the pool noodle idea - looks like a simple and effective way to draw attention to cycling safety.

Here's a video of the NYC Pool Noodle Bike Ride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97YJOQRQ4Ds&ab_channel=Stree...

The fact that people describe someone on a bicycle placing less than a pound of foam sticking out from their bicycle, usually shorter than the legally mandated passing distance, as "militant" when trucks and SUVs are purposefully designed by car companies to look as aggressive and angry as possible, really tells why US vulnerable road user safety is plunging while European vulnerable road user safety is going up.

It was tongue in cheek

“Looking” aggressive is irrelevant.

Fatality rates are actually pretty flat I would say if you look at the relative numbers.

When I am sitting on my motorcycle I am taller than most people's sitting position in their trucks. While filtering I can look down into their vehicles and see what they're doing on their phones.

At first glance I want to strongly disagree, but who am I to argue with your experience.

What bike do you ride, and what vehicles are you calling trucks? Specifically.

An F750GS and a DRZ400SM are my main bikes (out of an entire garage full of stuff). For trucks I'm talking about F-150s and similar.

Do those two bikes have a higher / more upright riding position that a typical sportbike?

Sportbikes are lower, but they're not typical. Sportbikes sales trended way down over the past decade, with models being discontinued entirely in some regions. Current sporty-style bikes are generally more upright seating and share engines and platforms with non-sport models. Dual sport/off road bikes have trended upwards, even for riders who never go off pavement, because they're cheap to run and very practical as general purpose motorcycles. More recently, there's been a trend towards large touring bikes as well.

https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/motorcycle-industry-q1...

I see, thanks for the info. I’m licensed but haven’t owned a bike in years.

Do we have stats on whether more sports bike riders are involved in crashes that bikes with better visibility?

Not really. Outside of a few groups at places like Virginia Tech, motorcycle safety studies don't get much funding. Too niche.

You can use insurance rates as a loose proxy- sportbikes are between one and three orders of magnitude more expensive to insure than adventure bikes, touring bikes or cruisers. But I suspect that has more to do with the average age of the riders.

And bike power. Sportsbikes are often road-legal versions of actual racing bikes, with all that it entails. If a third of cars on the road were tuned-down Ferraris and McLarens, you bet they'd crash left right and center.

Weirdly, an adventure bike with higher horsepower will have cheaper insurance than a race replica with less horsepower.

Kinda. Power delivery is wildly different between an ADV and a sports bike.

On a sorta dual sport like a Kawasaki KLR650 you get peak torque from the engine at around 2500 RPM, which is comfortably in school zone speed limit territory.

Something like the Yamaha R6 won't really start feel like it's pulling until you get the engine above 8000 RPM at least and then you getting peak torque until around 12,000 RPM. By then you're doing 70kph to 90kph in first gear.

Sports bikes are more comfortable ridden aggressively. Unfortunately that also gives a lot of riders a false sense of skill; right until they moment run into a situation above their skill level and they crash while panicking.

A 1300GS has significantly higher horsepower than an R6, variable valves so it pulls across the rev range, and yet still costs a fraction of an R6's insurance cost; it would appear that the riders have a much larger role in the premium than the engine.

Doesn't seem that weird to me. Having lots of horsepower available doesn't mean you have to use it. Conversely, having only modest horsepower is still more than enough to drive at a truly reckless speed on most if not all roads. The psychology of the biker, their inclination to go fast, plays a more important role than the raw horsepower statistic. It seems safe to assume that people who deliberately purchase a race replica, even one with only modest horsepower, are more likely to go way too fast.

In any case, insurance companies have a monetary incentive to go by the data. Whatever the cause, they evidently have data that says race replicas correlate with insurance claims.

Absolutely. I have a meagre Honda ADV 350 with some 28 HP (can't start biking on higher models in Europe, first 2 years its this or lower level), and hell 0-50kmh is blisteringly fast, 50-90kmh still much faster than our BMW with 245HP in sports mode. Sure above 100kmh it gets slower but I use it for non-highway commute, winding roads through vineyards and such so I don't even ride it that way. It makes bike much lighter while its pretty big for a big guy like me, and being nimble is priceless for enjoyment and safety too.

I literally don't need more, it becomes just an ego or emotions game. Faster only gets you to places way sooner than other drivers expect you to, massively increasing risk exposure.

Yeah, bike power has increased significantly. Iirc the age distribution of fatal crashes is double peaked, with one peak in the 20s from young riders who don’t know what they’re doing yet, and another in the late 40s or so from older riders who haven’t ridden in 20 years but still think they know what they’re doing. The skills needed to handle a modern 600cc sports bike with 160+ hp are on another level compared to the skills needed for a 600cc sports bike from the 90s with 110hp.

Also slower reaction times (and less testicular fortitude!) in someone older, along with the lack of practice.

There are some situations you can get yourself out of (and many more you can get into!) as a 20 something that will just outright result in death when you’re older.

Source: rode a 1400cc bike for almost a decade, awhile ago. Never went above 140mph on it though.

I think you mean one and three times more expensive. 3 orders of magnitude is 1000 times more expensive!

Yeah... I've gotten quotes with that kind of spread between "old man" bikes and very fast sport bikes. IIRC if you buy a cruiser or certain ADVs the insurance company expects to never hear from you with a claim, while certain sport bikes, the insurance expects you to total it within 18 months.

Yes your enduros and such are taller than sport bikes, but a Harley would be much lower, yes?

Somewhat yeah, the GS is a tall bike for sure. I have a zrx1200 and I'm still a ton taller than when I am in the miata. Miata is probably one of the lowest riding vehicles you can get and headlights are a problem at night shining in my eyes, where on the motorcycle it is not an issue.

I don't have a brake light on my helmet on motorcycle but I added DOT-C2 tape to the back and sides of it, stuff like this: https://www.amazon.com/THKULKME-Reflective-Reflector-Waterpr...

Yes. The DRZ especially is a dirt bike which is noticeably higher set than a supersports. You pay for it a bit in on-road manoeuvrability though.

Mine is the SM, which is a little shorter, but is ultra-maneuverable, far more so than a normal street bike.

"sumo is love, sumo is life"

Hello fellow dizzer enjoyer

Kind of meta, but you deserve recognition for this demonstration of self-awareness. You expressed skepticism politely, then asked specific questions instead of making assumptions. Sometimes HN gives me hope for the rest of the internet.

You either don't live in the US/Canada or you don't ride in areas where people drive full-size and "heavy duty" pickup trucks. The Ford F250 for example has a roof that's 7 feet high.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/10vb432/f250s_just_...

The roof on the old F150 is barely above the door sill on the new truck.

...and then people go and put bigger rims and lift kits on them.

I wish the USA had similar regulations to Australia where modifications require engineering signoff - typically these lifted trucks would fail a rollover test amongst other broken standards (wheelbase wider than the vehicle, for example).

Australia where there's no enforcement of that engineering signoff if it's done after the initial sale.

or where ADR non compliant vehicles are fine because they're imported under the low volume\non manufacturer paths. (there's more than a few tosser owned gmc denali with lifts that bring the bonnet up to 1.7ish metres)

What's interesting is fatality rates are increasing but injury rates are decreasing.

Seems like something else might be at play. If it is more SUVs and Pickups then I think a brake light helmet would do a lot considering the danger those cars present is being harder to see those below them. But if it is something else, then maybe not as good of a solution.

Vehicles with a tall, flat face are more likely to kill instead of injure, from my recall of previous discussions on HN. That's been a trend in vehicle design for a few years now.

Fortnine did a video on Grilles That Kill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU

They're hideous too.

We desperately need vehicle safety regulations which consider pedestrians and cyclists.

Trucks in particular are apparently being purposed built to kill.

It's more complex than that.

The bulbous styling on your average "we would have called this a station wagon 40yr ago but now we call it an compact SUV because stupid laws" vehicle is driven in large part by a need to have big floofy plastic moldings full of airspace for a "soft" place for a pedestrian to land.

On the other hand you've got stuff like the Chvey 2500HD trucks that everyone screeches about that aren't designed that way and will propel a pedestrian back onto the pavement.

That seems unfortunately unsurprising. With shorter vehicles (sedans), when you get hit (as a pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcyclist), you are more likely to be pushed over the hood of the car. But with a taller vehicle (truck, SUV), you're more likely to either be propelled forward after hitting the high, flat face of the grille, or get pulled and dragged under the vehicle.

While going over the hood is going to hurt, and can kill you, the other options are much more likely to kill you.

There was a news story this week in my area about a car driver who intentionally side-swiped a motorcyclist. The police said what normally kills motorcyclists is that they get thrown and then they hit something solid like a barrier or another car. This guy got lucky that there was an exit nearby and he just slid down the exit lane with minor injuries.

As an almost-daily motorcyclist with 15k miles on my current machine (Suzuki DL650), I absolutely agree that the increased proportion of pickup trucks on the road increases the risks for riders, however I suspect it is mainly because the larger, heavier vehicles aggravate the effects of a general deterioration in driving skills and attitudes. One thing about riding a motorcycle is that you are, unless you have a death wish, an active and observant participant in what you are doing, which alone separates you from a seeming majority of those driving cars and trucks. You become much more aware of what others on the road are doing, and what they are doing, in large numbers, is acting like twits.

Driving crazily fast in residential areas, rolling through stop signs, blowing off yellow and even red lights, ignoring turn signals, aggressively tailgating cars, trucks, even motorcyclists like myself, tapping away at their phones and steering with their knees. I think I see just about every variation of all of these things at least several times a week, to the extent that I have thought about the idea of creating some kind of org or foundation or even just a blog to advocate a return to taking driving seriously. I don't have a lot of confidence that I could make a difference though. I suspect a lot of the problem is simply many more cars on infrastructure that we haven't put enough money into for decades, but I'm no expert.

It's a really complicated issue, but you might find some of stuff related to Strong Towns, 15 minute cities, and sorta general modern urbanist things interesting. If we had better transit, more connected communities etc, people who are less interested in driving and driving well would have other options than hours long commutes.

[Answer scope limited to the US]

The problem is that these people want to drive, and don't care about it. They want to drive for sociological reasons - driving is seen as a symbol of American independence and financial stability. Look at the people who get weird reactions because they chose to walk to work, or schools that object on spurious grounds when they walk their kid to school.

The car is seen as an assumption, a bare minimum. And any attempt to replace it is taking away a personal right.

I think these are really the same thing looked at from opposite side of the circle. When all of your coworkers are driving 45 minutes in on the highway because nothing is local to good housing, public transit isn't available at all, or the public transit available is so bad (in multiple ways) as to beg questions why you'd use it, then it drives the sociological assumptions about other types of transport in the same way the mindset itself drives the conditions which lead to even more assumptions.

One could say it's that people need to want to see better public transit as a good idea for normal people or one could say it's that public transit needs to be made better so people see it that way. In both situations, it's when public transit actually gets improved anything will actually change.

I don't think this is limited to the US, I have exactly the same viewpoint as a Brit and so do many people I know.

People like walking to work and like taking the tube after a night out, but ultimately, the car is just vastly more convenient and comfortable for such a large amount of stuff.

You may as well ask me to give up running water because technically I could just carry it from the well.

Realistically if public transport advocates want progress they need to demonstrate that they also understand the utility of cars because otherwise they come across as simply being wilfully ignorant.

I think there are two different things though, and in the UK the bar is (mostly) just a practical one.

Lots of my colleagues cycle to work, because the cycling infrastructure is great (both from Cambridge City, and from my employer). For those along the Guided Busway corridor, quite a few get to work like that because it is convenient.

Step 1 is to make the public transport good enough so that it is at least as good as taking a car. But the US has Step 2 - convince people that they aren't looking poverty stricken if they take a bus.

I find those authoritarian "people should live their lives how we want them to" sites more annoying than anything. They also tend to be overly dismissive of residential solar, EVs, rural life and homesteading

> I don't have a lot of confidence that I could make a difference though.

My recent conclusion is that efforts are worth it even if we're pessimistic about outcome. Often times it is hard to get positive feedback from people you're helping to consider their own behavior even if they don't acknowledge you.

A friend of mine is a volunteer fireman. Since the fire engine sits higher than just about anything, he can see what people are doing behind the wheel in their SUVs. I’d be shocked, he reports, to know just how many of them are absorbed in their devices while driving.

And since using your device while driving can mean a hefty fine -at least where I live- most of them do it by lowering/turning their gaze from the road so that the device stays more hidden instead of lifting the device and keeping their eyes "mostly" ahead.

It's just so stupid...

I recognise this picture. For example I remember when I used to commute by motorcycle getting cut off by a guy driving a van who had his phone clamped in the crook of his neck and was writing something in a notepad with a pencil and steering with a combination of the notepad and his knees. This is turning at a really busy junction in London[1] during rush hour traffic.

[1] just south of the river at Vauxhall bridge

Vision Zero exists and its entire output, at least in the US, seems to be some somewhat clever yard signs and good vibes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero

> its entire output, at least in the US, seems to be some somewhat clever yard signs and good vibes

That's confusing to me. Many cities have worldwide have implemented vision zero techniques and saved many lives, including in the US.

i agree with this esp. when the parent linked a wiki page that, if you go beyond the single photo on the page and read it, is completely counter to the comment.

i'm confused too, but ty parent for making me aware of vision zero.

And I also noticed it's impossible to chat on the phone while riding a motorcycle due to heavy gloves :)

The USA is an anomaly amongst developed countries:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-03/why-us-tr...

Live expectancy is also dropping in the US, it's notably different to other developed countries.

I think cars becoming safer has ironically driven a lot of this behaviour. People feel safe themselves and don't take care. It's called risk compensation.

I agree modern cars are much better engineered to increase passenger survivablity.

Can’t remember the program (it was a very long time ago) but the crash investigation expert said a 6 inch spike on the driver steering wheel would improve driver’s perception of risk as it would be a very pointed reminder of risk.

I don't think that's what's motivating people. Nobody was dying in droves before. The expected outcome of the mean and median example of distracted driving been purely financial ever since cars grew seatbelts and accidents are more expensive than ever. There's probably some other explanation, though I have no clue what.

> a general deterioration in driving skills

Is that a measured observation? Not trying to nitpick - genuinely curious if this is your observation from experience or there are some studies that you are referring to.

My gut feel is that people drove very badly in the before-times but often also very slowly and cautiously at the same time. Speed felt dangerous in old vehicles. Modern computers with wheels are like living rooms with great acceleration and decelaration. Maneuvers which would had taken great skill to perform with an old rear-wheel drive car with bad tires, are now executed routinely like it's nothing, thanks to antispin, traction control etc etc.

Cars are much safer now, especially on the inside, but when you get hit on the outside by a several tonne projectile, it's about the same as it ever were.

this is definitely a big part of it. in the past, cars were either small with tiny engines or big "boats" with massive engines and super soft suspension. those old suspensions weren't really about control - they were for comfort or just trying to deal with all that weight. now basically every car, no matter the size, comes with lighter parts, way smaller but way more powerful engines, smarter computers, better tires, and most importantly, way better suspension. all that means a lot more grip, way faster acceleration and braking, and a much bigger feeling of control - even for people who might not be paying full attention (or really know what they’re doing).

we've kind of made every car a sports car, and that means when people make mistakes, those mistakes get out of hand way quicker before physics wins.

then there’s the whole manufacturer's arms race - the classic prisoner's dilemma. trucks and suvs just keep getting bigger, faster, heavier, packed with screens and gadgets. all the old luxury stuff is standard everywhere now. so everyone is more and more isolated from the actual consequences of bad driving ... until they're not.

>> Is that a measured observation? Not trying to nitpick - genuinely curious if this is your observation from experience or there are some studies that you are referring to.

It is from my experience as a rider, as I said in my post, but there are also plenty of studies showing increased deaths and injuries among pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.

I am not a motorcyclist but I have to agree with your assessment based on my personal experience driving. The risks that morons take while driving is absurd, but I've seen how it affects motorcyclists more. I once saw a motorcyclist nearly get hit because they were being tailgated by a driver and another driver want to pass the tailgater, thinking they were just a slow driver. So the other driver speeds up and attempts to cut off the tailgater, only to realize at the last moment there was a motorcycle there.

After see that, I make sure to give any motorcycle I'm behind an extra buffer of space to make sure I'm not obstructing anyone's view of them.

Yes, driving has become a necessity for everyday life in most places, but we need to pump the brakes and remind everyone it is a privilege, not a right.

> Perhaps its time to start regulating for better visibility

I argue we should start with the A-pillar. It's not just the big fat American trucks. Every car that is allowed to roll onto the streets is required to have a certain amount of airbag and the push for this seems to have really bad side effects on aspects of safety for everyone not inside the vehicle.

Look at the visibility difference in a 1980s pickup truck and compare it to 2024 model year anything and you would likely feel claustrophobic pretty quickly.

> Perhaps its time to start regulating for better visibility

I wish my town in NY would ENFORCE laws for tinted windows. It’s epidemic. As a moto rider I rely on being able to see the driver, because if you can’t see their face, they can’t see you.

Of course you can’t see the driver’s face if their car windows are blacked out.

>Sitting on a bike, you're even shorter than a pedestrian and more likely to be completely out of sight.

Not true at all except for the lowest-sitting cruisers. Most bikes put you eye level with an SUV driver and taller bikes above.

Can you explain why?

I see other people saying the same thing, but it totally defies my intuition.

Isn't the seat in an SUV objectively much higher up than the seat of a bike? Aren't your feet much higher on the floor of an SUV, than on a bike?

What am I missing here?

They are not. You step up over the sill to get into an SUV, then your feet go down into the footwell. Your eyes end up slightly lower than a person standing (and much lower in a sedan), while a motorcycle is very close to exactly standing (they have to be able to put their feet down when stopped).

Thank you!

Sitting on my bike, I am taller than any pedestrian. I have visibility and I am visible over most European cars. Just saying.

Fatality rates for all vulnerable road users have skyrocketed in the US. You're three times more likely to die if you're a pedestrian and struck by an SUV than a passenger car. They're also horrifically bad for congestion and pollution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo

And trucks and SUVs continue to further dominate the marketplace with some automakers no longer selling sedans at all, making it increasingly difficult to not buy an SUV or "crossover."

Those trucks and SUVs, particularly those made by American and Japanese companies, are focused on "aggressive" looks, which means a giant, angry looking, flat-face nose which is incredibly lethal when hitting a person.

https://www.indieauto.org/2022/11/28/designer-of-2020-gmc-si...

"The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look."

And of course who do these vehicles appeal to? What kind of behavior do they encourage? Every time I'm tailgated it's some dickhead in one of these giant angry-faced trucks.

It's taken the auto "journalists" a while to catch up but they're finally pointing it out:

https://tech.yahoo.com/transportation/articles/mean-machines...

Very much depends on the style of motorcycle. Sitting on my dual-sport BMW F650GS[1] I can see well over sedans on the road and this is with a slightly lowered version of it.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_G650GS

The vast majority of motorcycle crashes are due to excessive speed and inexperience of the rider. Also a car turning into the lane and failing to see the oncoming bike causes many, many accidents.

I ride in Spain, and I don’t know anything about “better visibility” requirements” compared to the U.S. — out here there are giant trucks everywhere: delivery vehicles, industrial trucks, and even Ford Raptors. My close calls have almost always been exclusively with small VW Golf and the SEAT equivalents — distracted, young drivers are (anecdotally) the biggest culprits.

Also in the U.S., you’ll have some 18 year old kid on an R1 that has no business being on an R1, often killing themselves because they think they are Fabio Quateraro at 2am.

I could be wrong, but I’m not seeing data suggesting that “big trucks” in the U.S. are causing more motorcycle deaths. When I drove a Suburban in the U.S., my visibility was far better than when I had a Maserati car. Being able to see over cars allowed me to see more easily when a moto was approaching from the front or rear.

If you want to improve moto safety in the U.S., you need harsher laws against distracted driving, you also need potentially a graduated motorcycle license system like they do in Europe so you don’t have rookies running 1000cc bikes when ten minutes of riding experience.

Trucks are not really the problem.

I think distraction and lack of experience is the main issue regardless of the vehicle.

Also there is a big difference I think with proper motorcyclists who actually get teached how to ride a bike, anticipate drivers behavior and act as if you were invisible at all time, with people riding <125cc motorcycles and moped with a car driving license who just don't take proper safety measures. I see so many 125cc riders overtaking on the right side, splitting lanes at excessive speed without anticipating a driver deciding to switch lanes, etc. Whenever I see a motorcycle rider down in an urban area it is usually on a 125cc or lower scooter.

Exception being the Yamaha T-Max users. They are supposed to have a motorcycle license but they all ride like complete retards with no exception. I think there is something in the nature of that bike, noise combined to instant throttle response and userfriendlyness of the clutchless/gear variator system that attract only the most stupid people of this planet. Yamaha should be ashamed of this.

In Ireland, you can't ride a motorcycle above 125cc unless you've held your license for four years. It forces people to get genuine experience before hopping on a litrebike and sending it.

> Motorcycle fatality rates have been trending upwards, not downwards

Doesn't seem to be the case in the UK [1], but I don't think we have nearly as many large vehicles as in the US.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...

I helped Alex invent that product! I built the first prototype that helped him get funding and hand assembled some of the first PCB designs. My (old) name is on the patent.

I’m glad to see this was already posted. I wear mine when I ride my 1500w ebike around and I feel so much safer with it. It’s really bright too!

That's cool. What principles is it based on and was it difficult to clean up the signals to get a reliable input?

I did not write the production code but I imagine they are tracking the velocity and acceleration vectors using a kalman filter and lighting up the lights when acceleration is negative in the direction of travel. By tracking the velocity vector in addition to acceleration one can eliminate the effects or the driver turning their head. I.e you are not just looking for a specific accelerometer axis to go negative, you have to use a more complex filter to determine the actual physical direction of travel of the device even as it rotates, and check for negative acceleration in that direction. To learn more:

https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_AHRS

https://learn.adafruit.com/how-to-fuse-motion-sensor-data-in...

I got one for my birthday! What a great product. It does exactly what it says it does, and has no more complexity than required.

Yussss I’ve been really impressed that Alex has made such a solid product. He was starting up just as my business failed and I warned him it can be a difficult road, but he stuck with it and has delivered something really special.

I have a smiley face rendered in retroreflective tape on the back of mine. I figure it's both bright and triggers the very sensitive human visual system for detecting faces. It's hard to say how much it helps, especially since I put it on basically the same time I started riding at all, but I don't often have people tailgating me. ed: and it was only a couple bucks, that's nice.

Nice idea! Cars owner sometime use a "children inside" sticker. Won’t work for a solo bike obviously but wonder if some other messages might be effective like "Dad of toddlers", "I might be a cop", "vulnerable human"… the smiley is easier to read through.

heh, or you could join an OMC (outlaw motorcycle club) and get patched up * for an implied 'i will literally kill you if you get close to me'

* don't do this

Ha, I have heard a couple motorcyclists sincerely recommend open-carrying a gun to scare off murderous asshole drivers (which, to be clear, absolutely exist). Neither of those options are on my to-do list though. :)

IMO, there are very few circumstances where "more guns" is an improvement. I don't think introducing guns to motorvehicle altercations is one of them.

Anyone who open carries anywhere other than the wilderness or in the field while hunting is at best an attention whore with main-character syndrome . . . at best.

What's more, notwithstanding the freakouts from Europeans and blue-staters about so-called "gun culture," you have no right to employ a firearm anywhere in the US unless someone is actively threatening to kill or maim you or a person near you. Not because you got in a road-rage pissing contest.

If anything, bringing a gun into a situation like that is a great way to get a felony assault/brandishing charge and lose your ability to own a gun period.

I didn't say it was a good idea, rather the opposite. But people do try to flat out murder motorcyclists.

Agree, but does the comparaison of "threatening to kill" and "flat out murder [while driving, right?]" stands? I’m not sure you’re allowed to use you gun to clear out your way because the priority violation was intentional.

I have a negative visceral reaction to the "baby on board" stickers on cars. It feels really entitled; to me it says, "be extra careful with me, because my small child is more deserving of safety than other people".

That's unnecessary.

Think more like "I can be really distracted and suddenly swerve because my toddler threw their drink at me".

Like with L-plate drivers. Be very careful, don't hate, they're just danger to themselves and everyone else around. They're not entitled, they're warning.

I interpret them similarly. I also think, "I might be lacking sleep, in a hurry, or have way too much on my mind."

Becoming a parent brought upon quite an increase in my empathy for other parents.

Yeah I get the logic but its still flawed and wrong (saying this as a father of 2 small kids who drives them around frequently).

You either are road-worthy driver who can drive safely or not. L ones are an approved exception and the list and law and expectations ends right there.

Nobody is babysitting 27 categories or potentially distracted or otherwise dysfunctional drivers. If you can't drive safely either have somebody else drive, use public transport or stay home. No excuses, you can very easily kill people including your own kids.

If you'd like to be less unnecessarily cynical, you can instead read it as "there's someone in the vehicle who is more fragile, and less likely to survive an accident."

I’d like to see it like that too but we don’t observe much « oldie inside » stickers. I don’t think he’s cynical and understand the sticker as a polite way to say the driver have more care for his baby than others human being, which is not to blame of course.

IIRC it's also there so that in the case of an accident, people will look for the baby in case it's trapped somewhere or somehow left the car.

Then there's the guy in the "armed cyclist" jersey who goes on a cross-country ride every year.

If I was putting a sign on my bike, it would be "Put down your phone [you asshat]". Personal insults optional, but definitely deserved. Maybe a graphic of a mangled and cracked phone would do it.

When I was into road cycling I find having a banana sticking out my rear jersey pocket would make drivers treat me better. I later saw a study that drivers think cyclists are less human, so my theory is it reminded them that I am, in fact, just a person using the road.

Alas, even the banana stopped working, though. Road cycling is horrible now. Too many cars.

Riding with a pannier does wonders to reduce close passes. The more drivers see you as a person on a bicycle rather than as a vehicle, the better.

Another reason may be that they are more concerned about scratching their paint than they are about your well-being.

> moves the brake light up to eye level for people in SUVs

Sad that this would be needed. At that price it's insane to me. OP's article is about democratizing safety and keeping it at a low price, while this over engineered brake light is $160 plus tax. Then a 3350 mAh battery and it lasts only 8-12 hours. Crazy

I wonder if that's the one the author refers to when they say, "I purchased one of the few similar products on the market. To my surprise, it relied solely on a basic tilt switch, rattling excessively during rides despite claims of “advanced technology."

I have one of the Brake Free lights and it uses an accelerometer, it's NOT just a basic tilt switch. Nor does it rattle when riding, it's a very solid unit.

I've had friends following me (both in cars and motorcycles) who comment later they can't believe how much more visible it makes me.

It does attach to a helmet and require that you periodically recharge the battery but I'm very happy with the purchase (as opposed to just flashing the brake lights on the bike when slowing)

Does it use an accelerometer to turn on?

Is it safe in case of an accident? The helmet is quite round, and the not round shape may be a problem.

Californian motorcycle commuters are on another level in terms of risk imo. People are lane splitting at like 30mph over the speed of the rest of the traffic and absolutely no one checks for bikers before merging. It is a miracle more people don’t die on the 5 or the 101 every day.

No kidding. The only time I've ever seen motorcycle accidents is on the 10 and 101. Highways in California in general are ridiculous; I'm constantly amazed driving on the 110 that more people don't get killed at the on-ramps with blind curves and everyone going 20 mph over the speed limit.

Retroreflective tape on your helmet is also pretty good, and much cheaper.

There are some ridiculously cheap "smart" bicycle brake lights that already react to slowing down

I saw one of these last week and just assumed it was tied into the brake lights but it was always on.

Oh, now I see that it's just based on an accelerometer. Marketing it as "wireless" seems to suggest that it is monitoring the brake lights rather than "automatically" flashing based on motion.

Tbf, even cars put the brake lights on based purely on deceleration nowadays in addition to triggering when the brake pedal is pressed. It's covered by legislation in both EU and US, since BEVS and PHEVs can have very aggressive regen braking, and the legislation basically says if your rate of deceleration is above X, then lights need to be on even if the brake pedal hasn't been pressed.

Yes and my Kia ev6 needed a software update to do that. I had a couple incidents where people were surprised by my deceleration before the update.

Now in regen the brake lights come on above a certain harvest level.

In addition, some cars - I don't know if this is legislated or a feature - will blink the brake lights or even the alarm lights if it detects a sudden hard brake (emergency brake). But people would do that themselves anyway if they for example had to slow down suddenly due to a traffic jam or whatever.

If you read the article then you will see that the accelerometer is a feature that makes it safer. Apparently, motorcycles can brake even if you don't use the brake, and then you really want the lights to turn on.

    > Apparently, motorcycles can
    > brake even if you don't use
    > the brake

They've even made cars with that "motorcycle" feature, it's most commonly activated by moving a sort of "stick" situated between the driver and passenger seat.

'avar' is talking about "engine braking" with a manual transmission car. Most motorbikes have a manual transmission.

If you gear down (you are cruising in fourth gear and 'gear down' to third gear), your vehicle's speed will reduce.

Brake lights are triggered by the brake pedal or lever/pedal on a motorcycle.

In the case of engine braking, the brake lights are not triggered. Drivers behind them can't anticipate stopping without such a signal.

Try it yourself! Some automatic cars, you can gear down, or just pull your parking brake a little. Cars behind you will come dangerously close to hitting you. Also, don't try this.

Wait, do new cars' parking brakes trigger the brake lights? I also wonder about regenerative braking in electric cars where they slow down simply by lifting your foot off the accelerator.

Lifting your foot off the accelerator in a Nissan Leaf triggers brake lights when in e-Pedal mode (one foot driving, no need to use the brake pedal except in an emergency). It reminds me of a feature that car manufacturers declined to install (due to cost) many years ago, in which brake lights would be triggered by rapidly taking your foot off the accelerator. The idea was that this scenario would usually be followed by emergency braking and that anyone following would see the brake lights come on a fraction of a second earlier.

> it's most commonly activated by moving a sort of "stick" situated between the driver and passenger seat

It's not even specific to the ones with the stick. I happen to enjoy and prefer vehicles with three pedals, but I can say from personal experience that a Ford AODE, 4R70W, or 4R100 will hit hard enough to scare passengers when you drop a gear at highway speed.

A Chrysler 45RFE on the other hand will make a lot more noise but basically no braking effort when you downshift.

Weirdly, this happens with every vehicle as soon as I take my foot off the accellerator, except when it's downhill.

(kidding. IIRC EVs do regenerative braking (and trigger the brake lights) when you lift off the accellerator.)

That is a great tip. Thank you! I wonder if they’ll ship to the UK?

Yes, they will:

> Where do you ship to?

> Basically to every European country (-including Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), but in fact we accept and ship orders worldwide. However some markets might not be setup for automated checkout. If you are experiencing difficulty for shipping to a certain country, contact us so that we can manually create a draft order for you to review and complete.

https://www.brakefreetech.eu/pages/support

I've seen several of these on the few riders down here, so I guess yes, one way or another.

Also a helmet cam does wonders for wannabe-tailgaters

Thank you! This is cool. I hadn't seen it before.

Take a look into Lumos bike helmets: https://ridelumos.com/products/remotes-and-mounts

They started via a kickstarter in 2015: https://www.google.com/search?q=lumos+helmet+history

...they kindof "always" had reliability issues w/ detecting braking accurately, I think switching between the handlebar remote/sensor or phone sensors. It's an existing product with a direct analogue to your project goal, and minimally you could trawl for contacts within customer reviews or online reports to get some ideas about the good/bad in this problem space.

Beware of patents (as relevant), but it's a noble and useful project and goal.

I ride a bicycle, and I deliberately mount the rear light directly at the eye level of typical sedans and SUVs. It's not connected to the brakes, but I find that having the light pulse is enough.

Are you on a penny farthing? A tallbike?

I've got the rear flasher on my road bike tucked as high under the seat as it can get, but even with a large frame bike and relaxed commuting (non-aero) posture I'm shorter than the hood lots of full-size SUVs and pickups, much less the seat.

I agree with the other commenter that a 360 cam on top of the helmet has been the most important thing for deterring tailgating and road rage. I've added reflective tape on the frame, the blinking blinking lights under the seat, a headlight on the handlebars and a headlamp with front white and rear red light, and my backpack has a nearly fluorescent neon green cover. Those all help reduce the "Oops, didn't see you there while looking at my phone" close calls, but do nothing to reduce intentional harassment - that's the function of the camera.

Sorry if I was unclear. I have two rear lights. The first one is mounted on the seat post near the eye level of sedans. The second one is mounted at the bottom of the helmet near the eye level of large SUVs.

If you have a hub generator system, they sell rear lights with controllers which detect changes in the frequency of the wheel rotation and start pulsing when you decelerate.

That is so cool! Do you know of any brands/models?

Yeah, I have the Busch & Müller Toplight [1]. "The Toplight Line Brake Plus senses when the bike slows under braking and glows brighter. It does this by monitoring the AC frequency from the hub. During braking, the AC frequency slows quickly, and then makes the LEDs pulse or flicker, hopefully getting the attention of that fool in the jacked up SUV behind you."

[1] https://www.rivbike.com/products/dyno-rack-light?srsltid=Afm...

Why not just connect them to the hand brake levers?

That would be more difficult, expensive, and unreliable. The light is powered by the rotation of the wheel so it already has a reliable braking signal.

How is that difficult, expensive, or unreliable? What could be simpler than a switch that closes when a lever is closed, and turns on a light?

That sounds much simpler, cheaper, and reliable than "detect changes in the frequency of the wheel rotation".

Also, it works like a car's brake lights, which drivers are accustomed to, rather than "start pulsing when you decelerate", which is when you stop pedaling (unless going downhill).

The light is already by necessity hooked up to the wheel for power and adding a switch and wires to the brakes adds another point of failure making the system less reliable, makes installation more difficult because you have to wire up to the hub generator and the brakes, and more expensive because more components.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com