Bike light that projects the symbol of a bike down onto the road
kickstarter.com
kickstarter.com
The £50 that this light costs will buy you an extremely bright set of conventional lights, giving out several hundred lumens rather than 80. These lights will illuminate a large area of the ground ahead of you, allowing you to see, and provide dazzlingly bright points of light several feet off the ground, allowing you to be seen. These lights focus their beam where it is needed, projecting light directly towards the eyes of motorists, rather than bouncing it off the ground for no clear reason. Spend a bit more and you can buy a Magicshine set, which is on a par with motorcycle lighting.
Drivers are not looking at the ground. They're not looking out for weird green symbols. They're looking for red or white points of light, a few feet off the ground. Cars and trucks have large blind spots on the nearside of their vehicle, which a cyclist can best avoid by using their height - a cyclist is as tall as a large SUV, providing good opportunities to mount your lights above the doorline of most cars.
If you're worried about drivers turning across your path, your road position is wrong. You can buy some silly gadget that won't really help the situation, or you can get some training to give you the confidence to get out of the gutter.
I cycle around London all the time and the one thing you have to do is be aware of the situation as a driver sees it. I've seen too many accidents or close shaves where I think to myself "You could have anticipated that situation". e.g. cyclist racing up the inside of a stationary line of traffic slams into the side of a car turning right through the line of traffic. Easy to anticipate that as you approach the junction there might be danger.
Equally, I drive through London as well and am very aware that cyclists are hard to see. But I have noticed that cyclists wearing fluorescent jackets are way more visible (day and night) than others. I can't see this particular invention being a big help to me. If I'm turning left I'm looking in the mirror and then doing the last check over the shoulder for anything. A cyclist in a fluorescent jacket is going to be visible to me in the mirror or through the window on the final check because of their height. And if I'm pulling out a fluorescent jacket also helps because I am looking at around body height (at cars and pedestrians).
Although lighting is a very important factor of being safe when cycling on the road, being aware of traffic and the law of the road is far more beneficial. I have cycled around London for years, usually with no lights at all and perhaps it is luck, but I have never had an accident.
You need a strong position in the road and decisive action that allows other road users to see your intentions - just act as if you were a car.
This.
As much as I hate to say it, maybe there should be some sort of guidelines/laws to cycling on the road; I know there are plenty of drivers that would want this and I have seen some awful cyclists on the road who are not only a danger to themselves, but also to others.
Such as the highway code?
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-t...
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of going around without lights on, if you do get involved in an accident, you won't have a leg to stand on. So no bike replacement, and no payout for missing teeth.
When you think about the impact hand injuries can have on your career - let alone anything more serious - frankly I'd recommend lighting up for that reason alone.
But please, do wear lights - you'll only be making life easier for everyone else around you.
It will probably not, these devices are dangerous and almost certainly prohibited.
That said, I don't think a weird green symbol on the ground is a particularly great solution either. A headlamp with a decent spread aimed slightly at the ground ahead should function just fine as both ground and elevated illumination.
[1] Forester's book argues for headlamps aimed slightly at the road ahead as well as bicycle-as-car riding.
That said, the people doing the work seem bright. I just hope their next project is something they could use jsmin for without violating its license.
Re. The brightness of the light: At the minute you are right, BLAZE is not a 'to see' super high-wattage light for use off-road, it is a 'to be seen' urban light for use on city streets. We are looking at developing a brighter for people commuting out of the city, but this will require a far larger battery.
Re. Dangers of riding into the blind spot: We completely understand and agree that by far the best way to stay safe as a cyclist is to not put yourself in vulnerable positions and to not take risks, for example undertaking large vehicles. That being said, in London as a cyclist, you will certainly and unfortunately find yourself in the blind spot of large vehicles when cycling in a cycle lane that allows you to travel faster than the traffic, for example. Or when a vehicle overtakes you and then later slows, they don’t know where you are behind them. I have been speaking to bus and HGV drivers, the police and driving psychologists on this scarily frequent scenario. A bus driver explained that you often have cyclists on their inside due to no dangerous riding on their part. Even once they’ve seen them, it is hard to keep track of them around the vehicle. Even with the extra mirrors (typically 6) it takes a few seconds to check them all properly, which is plenty of time to miss a cyclist in one of them. I believe someone who is interested in BLAZE, a product with such a strong message of cyclist safety and improving visibility, will not be the kind of person who puts themselves in a risky riding position intentionally. That being said, we will be sending out a message with the product to encourage people to ride safely and if anything be MORE aware of blind spots and other vehicles limited visibility.
Re. Seeing the projection: BLAZE is designed purely to increase your chances of being seen, and in time. Above and beyond a normal light. It increases a cyclist’s otherwise small footprint and gives them a presence AHEAD of their current position, warning road users ahead that they’re coming through. And pedestrians! So many times I’ve had someone step out through slow moving traffic into my path, probably not hearing my approach.
Re. The projection distance, 4 -6m is what we recommend as that’s just over half a bus’ length, so if you were alongside it, in its blind spot, the projection would appear out ahead of their cab. Their windscreens are completely vertical, so the road immediately in front of them can be seen clearly. You are of course right that a car can see less of the road immediately around them and if you worry more about cars pulling out in front of you, you may prefer to fix it projecting further. I agree people won’t be looking at the road for danger signs, but they can’t help seeing a flashing green symbol. It sounds daft, but it’s attached to a moving vehicle and once you see it it’s intuitive that it’s attached to a bicycle.
Re. Classifying the laser. It is the entire product that is classified, not the module, which is more powerful that 1mW. The lens is fixed across the aperture of the module and disperses the light to make it safe to human eyes.
Re. Legality of using the green light as a bike’s headlight. Just to clarify it is a white bike light first and foremost but also has the green laser as an added feature. Thank you so much for everyone’s engagement and comments! If anyone has any further questions I’m happy to answer them.
If a stationary cyclist is waiting at the nearside of a stationary LGV, then your device may potentially signal to the driver that there is a cyclist in his blind spot; Of course, this is a situation which no cyclist should ever allow to occur and is a mistake that kills several women every year in London. Encouraging people to take such a position would be a disastrous own-goal.
If a cyclist is undertaking an LGV, then the symbol will precede them into the driver's blind spot, only emerging when it is already too late. Cyclists usually travel at between two and eight metres per second. The reaction time of a healthy driver to a visual stimulus is between 0.7 and two seconds. If your device allows a cyclist to be noticed by an LGV driver in this scenario, they will be noticed too late for the driver to abort their manoeuvre and prevent the right-of-way violation.
Speak to an expert on the subject and model the scenario - the mathematics is quite straightforward. I'm sorry to shit on your dreams, but it's human lives we're dealing with.
80% of cycling casualties are men.
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling...
The relative speed of a cyclist to a bus is rarely 8 m/s in built-up areas in my experience, particularly not in circumstances where a bike has found its way inadvertently into the blind spot. But then I'm not an expert and won't claim to be.
Combine for red/green Christmas holiday theme goodness?
I'll give you that it looks cool and other cyclists see it and like it, but as soon as a car with bright headlights comes anywhere near you it disappears... It has no practical use in helping keep cars at bay.
I'd also agree with some comments above that drivers are looking a few feet up, not at the road.
I find 3 LED lights the best for the rear - one at bottom of seatpost, one on my back and one on my helmet - can easily be seen from all angles - where as a single seat mounted can be hidden for a range of reasons.
From the front a Cree T6 from ebay is stupidly bright - keep it aimed at the road. Great for off roading and city riding.
No money is ever spent on cycle infrastructure and the roads are treacherous, many motorists are very antagonistic towards cyclists and as a result of this most people are scared away from it.
I'm not sure whether this light is a useful thing anyway, I just felt like having a rant :)
I learned my lesson about getting a good light the first time it got dark early and I found myself hoping for cars to go by so I could see where I was on the road
(and I had a front light at the time as well)
The sustrans folks seem to do what they are able to. But, for instance, there are four local hybrid/casual routes in my area that the council produced maps for about 15 years ago.
I don't think the council has paid any attention to the routes since, and it's a shame as the routes are good lengths (10-15 miles) with pretty scenery and the right amount of hill and off-roading for the average weekend warrior and their family.
I'd vote for a candidate (at local council or parliamentary level) that promised to give more consideration to a poper network of cycle paths in Britain.
Now Perth (the one in Australia, not Scotland) has a great network, most of the paths are separate to the roads and follow train tracks or even motorways. I guess they do have a lot more space over there though.
Cycle facilities (cycle lanes - dedicated or not, off road cycle paths, advanced stop line boxes, etc) all help encourage people to cycle; this is great as the more people on bikes on the road the safer it is for everyone (see TFL's "Safety In Numbers" campaigns). But a 2mm high strip of white paint on the road isn't going to save me from an idiot that is texting whilst driving and not looking where they're going. Ideally we wouldn't need any on-road cycling provisions at all.
I've ridden a bike quite a bit in France and have had no problem with the car drivers there, they give plenty of space when overtaking and have no problems being temporarily held up behind a cyclist until it is safe to overtake. No special facilities, just courteous drivers.
Segregation works both ways. This is anecdotal, but on one long distance ride in the UK there were sections where the riders were overtaken by the support vehicles of other riders (mainly the european riders). By far the worst (in terms of least distance given when passing) for overtaking were the cars with "NL" markings on their european number plates. My guess is that the years of segregation have put them out of practice with sharing the roads with cycles. Again, that's just my experience.
FWIW I cycle commute almost daily in London (I took the train today as I've got a horrible cold) and have grown used to London traffic. The closest times I've come to an accident were all my own fault. I've read "Roadcraft", I've had a full driving license (both car and motorcycle) for 15+ years, I did do cycling proficiency at school, yet I'll still take the opportunity for more training if it comes up (the local London boroughs to me often provide free cycle training every so often). I don't undertake vehicles approaching left turns, or overtake vehicles approaching right turns. I avoid cycling in the 'door zone' and I'm especially careful passing stopped cabs as the doors are invariably opened by passengers without looking. I'll be assertive but not aggressive. I smile at the lemming pedestrians that walk a step or two out into the road before looking. etc.
Some areas in the UK are removing all road markings. This is scary. The scariness is good - everyone slows down and looks around and is more courteous.
"Naked Roads" are pretty good. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4213221.stm)
That's what they all say. I am sure some said the same in Paris before the recently build cycle lanes. Cars and other stuff can give more space to other means of transportation. If needed, just crush some old constructions, it will give work to those who need it and it will give an axe to grind to those who need it.
Neither do we in Haarlem/Amsterdam, where I live/work. We just sacrifice the roads.
When I'm driving, if such a cyclist would be in my blind spot (behind me, in a lane to my right), I wouldn't see the projected symbol as well. It would be simply obscured by my car - I have no way of seeing the asphalt so close to me; if a pedestrian would be standing on that illuminated spot, I'd see the person, but not their feet.
That's assuming the suggested 4-6m distance. 10-15m would be different, but that makes much higher requirements on the power of that light.
It has a steady mode, and such needs to conform to BS 6102/3, which it won't, so it means it can't be used as the main light. As an additional light it doesn't need to be BS 6102/3 stamped, but does need to be white (not green) and the flashing mode needs to be between 60 and 240 flashes per minute (which it may do, but doesn't say).
When I'm driving, a green picture of a bike going down a road might distract me from the actual bike, especially when its projected 4-6m ahead of it as they plan. In inner-city cycling as a cyclist, you rarely need the light to see where you're going, more to allow other traffic to see you.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_lighting#Legal_requirem...
There's a thing I never understood about bike lights - why people use flashing lights? They are distracting like hell, and could probably cause some serious discomfort for people with photosensitive epilepsy.
EDIT:
http://speakingupanyway.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/flashing-li...
also, it tells me it's a cyclist and not a small moped.
As a cyclist I like to have a blinking rear light, and two front lights, a blinking one and a steady one. (as a driver, cyclists with a blinker and a steady are the easiest for me to pick out)
They're more visible than a steady light, but it's very hard to gauge closing distance of just a flashing light. For these reasons I use a combination of flashing and steady lights (both front and rear).
As for triggering PSE. They won't. 240 flashes per minute = 4Hz. Perfectly safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strobe_light
" Strobe lights and epilepsy ... There have been no known seizures at or below the 8Hz (or 8 flashes per second) level. Most fire alarms in schools, hospitals, stadiums, etc strobe at a 2Hz rate, which is obviously completely safe. "
Think about that.
I've seen the epilepsy caused by bike lights thing mentioned a few times, but never by anyone who has directly experienced it (the author of the article you link, and indeed the person she links to, don't appear to have). In the absence of any hard numbers, my intuition is that the number of people suffering from a bike-light-induced-epilepsy incident would be much lower than the number of people suffering a hit-by-car-when-not-using-flashing-light incident, due to the lower number of suffers than cyclists and the requirement to come across a cyclist with light flashing at an appropriate rate, in their direction, with sufficient brightness. I'm happy to be proved wrong of course, and I do have an open mind on that.
Edit: Having read the 8 flashes a second figure mentioned below, and looked it up on other sources online, I no longer have an open mind on the issue!
Edit2: Ok, thats not strictly true, I always have an open mind about everything, but I'll need some hard numbers to pull me the other way...!
There seem to be some people in the comments of your link disputing this, but the blog author seems to acknowledge it. There also seems to be some confusion around the difference between strobing and flashing lights (depends on the frequency maybe?).
Movement is another key reason for flashing lights - motorists have a great deal of difficulty in accurately judging the speed of cyclists, who are travelling more slowly than them and at a much broader range of speeds. Flashing lights make it much easier to judge speed and distance, which is why the FIA require flashing rear lights to be used on the rear of Formula 1 racing cars in wet weather conditions.
As another commenter stated, bicycle lights flash at the wrong frequency to trigger photosensitive epilepsy.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/01/2255234/bike-project...
From 2009: http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/exhibitions/Hyperlinks/...
But a powerful LED light source is great as an additional gadget. (Although, at 4-6m range, this item is not sufficient to illuminate the road ahead).
I guess I'll opt for a very bright (hub) dynamo-powered light instead, but my main concern currently is not visibility but that I can still see the ground when there's a car coming at me with blinding lights.
(Side note, anecdotal evidence: No cyclist I know ever had problems with the police for using battery-powered lights instead of dynamo-powered ones. Most of the time they're happy when cyclists have light at all.)