Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists | Hacker News Reader

Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists

dragoninnovation.com

82 pointsjimzvz44 comments

There's so little focus on the front component, that I still have no idea if it could be worthwhile to me. Seems like there's lights that show how far behind you the nearest car is? But that's a total guess - what I could gather from a few glimpses at the design; and this is the main selling point.

Almost the entire video talks about the rear censor/blinking light. I could care less about the light, those cost $5 and don't need to be intelligent at all. The video definitely needs to be redone to showcase why exactly anyone would want to spend $200 on this.

The second and third video show more details.

http://vimeo.com/99653723

http://vimeo.com/99038775

> http://vimeo.com/99038775

Finally the video with some info.

But does it log the info? Is the log available and verifiable?

If the car still hits you, could you make a persuasive argument about the information you had available to you? Could you argue the vehicles speed, and that you thought the vehicle threatening?

You're given some info that may affect your riding behaviour. It seems to me this info needs to be available when the day comes that someone using this is in court trying to obtain damages from a driver that has hit them.

If the info is not available or verifiable (inc' source code for the radar), then I personally think it's better to not have this device and spend the money on brighter lights to begin with.

I doubt that data would be useful in court without a lot of other supporting evidence. To sue the imbecile who ran you over despite this device, you'd be far better buying an additional actioncam instead - that would likely show license plate and the driver's face.

But you do have a point that some research on the effectiveness of this device - compared to brighter lights or other cheaper measures - would make it a lot more desirable.

I think this product would be well served by alerting the user about car distance through some channel other than visual. When biking all visual attention should be focused forward, and the extra information sensed by this device could be delivered through some form of haptic feedback.

Vibrate the seat!

Except the road does that fairly regularly and there's padding explicitly for that.

True, one option is to integrate haptic feedback into a sensor in the shoe. But even then, what action would one take based on this feedback. Should I stop, pedal faster or switch a lane. Just the radar feedback of 'something is about to hit you from behind' is probably not enough.

> But even then, what action would one take based on this feedback

Activate a rear-mounted grenade launcher, of course. Well, in some of my violent daydreams regarding jerks in cars, at least.

What if you wore a band around your back and sides, that would vibrate at a certain location to communicate angle, and intensity to communicate distance?

One of the things they mention in the Kickstarter is an open API. I guess that would make it more straightforward to make custom additions to the system.

What I imagined when I read "sixth sense" was something that you stick in your backpack close to your back where it vibrates stronger the closer the car behind you is.

Excellent hands-on review with photos and video: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/07/hands-on-backtracker-rada...

I don't get how this works. The only dangerous situations that you can't prevent right now are a car coming from around a blind corner or a car that wants to turn while you go straight. In the former case you'd need to look around the corner, something I can't imagine how it would do. In the latter case it would need to magically know when a car, which might or might not have been close to you for the last mile, suddenly decides to turn, and far enough in advance that you can react to it. That too seems impossible without something to detect a turning light.

Maybe I'm missing something by watching the video without sound (I'd wake people up if I did), but it just doesn't seem possible to me to help in any way. Detecting that there is a car behind me at all is something we commonly do with a utility called "ears".

This isn't for city riding. It is for riding on country roads. If you've ever done any road cycling outside of city centres, it can get very risky as the cars are going so much faster and there isn't the same road shoulder. Your ears are not enough. Personally I hate cycling on country roads because of this so I would definitely use this radar.

I agree with an earlier comment about non-visual feedback. An audio queue would be good (thinking like the trackers in the Aliens movies)

Most of the country roads I cycle along (even the ones shown in the video) have enough curves that by the time this device detects a car you would be able to hear it.

Even then I'm not really sure what the point of this device is. If a car comes speeding up behind you what you are supposed to do? Pull over and stop? Drive on the edge and get covered in mud?

Most of my riding is this, and I think the risk here is perceived risk, not actual. Generally getting smooshed from behind is a low-likelihood event. When it does happen it's on fast trunk roads (pretty nasty to ride, but also usually avoidable).

This looks like another techy boondoggle to reassure people. Cycling is littered with 'em.

> Generally getting smooshed from behind is a low-likelihood event.

Doesn't this directly contradict the numbers given in the original linked post (40% of accidents)?

Edit: there's some discussion about this on[1]. Although, even a 20% number seems very relevant, and not a low-likelihood event.

[1] http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/07/hands-on-backtracker-rada...

I have been in a number of driver at fault cycling collisions. Although I was never hit from behind I have had 3 near misses by cars going over 40 mph. It isn't a low likelihood event.

I looked at the deaths for one year in London and 9 out of 10 where cased by undertaking HGV (heavy goods vehicles) turning left - this wont help in that case.

Though it could be useful for touring cyclists - but they often have a review mirror.

If it took pictures of the plates and drivers of all the cars that pass from behind, it would be a quite useful gadget.

I'm someone who has seen too many Go Pro videos on YouTube, here's an example of such a video, this is a scary video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i556e3qyt58

The comments, scarier still. "The cyclist screaming like a girl cracked me up!"

also "good thing he got hit, cyclists shouldn't be on the road, they don't even pay road tax so they have no right to be there!"

Where the fuck do these people come from? Which retarded part of the world has spawned such brain-dead idiots?

I bet this is why Google tries to merge G+ and YouTube accounts.

But then, Facebook comments are hardly much better even though they often have real identities.

If this thing beeped rather than having a second unit it would be better in two ways: first it wouldn't force you to look at something; second it wouldn't need two pieces and bluetooth, and I guess the price could be sliced in half.

It has an open API which could be really useful on mobile apps, especially as smart watches and glass (potentially) begin to become more popular. So removing Bluetooth doesn't seem like a huge win. And the beep idea was probably considered (?), but it looks like one of their goals was to remove dependence on hearing.

Make two versions: one without bluetooth ($50-100) and one with (I guess the late bird price is $200). I wouldn't buy the bluetooth one, because I don't plan on using wearables (especially not cycling).

I've heard that a solid light is better because a drunk driver will be attracted to the blinking light, and naturally turn that way, hitting you instead of passing you. And since this blinks faster as they approach, it seems that it would have this effect even more.

Here's /r/bicycling's comments from last week...

http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/2bp2c8/handson_wi...

Great idea.

Wish they could also detect when they throw bottles and other garage at you and take a photo.

But at least knowing they are coming is great, especially with hybrids and electric cars being nearly silent.

Hybrids and electric cars should broadcast their position.

I just don't understand how this could be better than either looking behind you or a mirror. I guess I would have to try it though.

For me, looking behind is dangerous, as I will swerve slightly in doing so.

I like this! I cycle in SF. This device could alert me when a car turns onto the street behind me.

Interesting how the verb "back" has taken on the meaning "pre-order."

Technology is good, the human interface sucks.

How about a Google Glass-esque helmet indicator?

I tried a Skully Helmets prototype a while back and they had an in-helmet display. Also the capability to show you a wide degree of vision squeezed together so you could monitor around you: http://www.skullysystems.com/

Will this trigger radar detectors? That could be a major unintended benefit if so.

I was curious about this too, definitely a nice benefit if it could purposefully trigger all types (where legal).

Don't make me waste minutes of my time watching vague videos before i can actually find out what it is. Give me a technical drawing first, or at the very least have the decency and courtesy to have your video display what it does, accurately, in the first ten seconds instead of making me watch someone pump their bike.

Also, holy shit, blinking backlights are a massive danger source. They may be nice when you're riding on a narrow country road with nothing at all for miles but you, your bike, and a psycho car driver; however when you're in a city, on a bike path, and there's a person behind you, your blinking light will rob them of the ability to effectively concentrate on the surroundings because your blinking light will keep drawing their attention. And don't try to tell me you'll switch it off/set it to no-blink when you switch from riding on the road to riding on a bike path. You'll be too lazy to. I'd be too lazy to.

In effect this project is badly marketing a thing that will increase traffic danger.

I'd actually like this if it wasn't for the latter point.

I don't think this is very useful for cycling in cities anyways. It's perfect for road cyclists, though.

* In cities, I always expect cars to be behind me, and cars expect cyclists

* There is more protection from wind in cities, so the chance that I can hear those cars is higher. Outside the city it's more dangerous. When going downhill at more than 50 km/h, or on a flat stretch with side winds, the chance that I can hear cars behind me is close to zero.

* The speed limit in cities is lower

>There is more protection from wind in cities

The opposite can also be true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_canyon#Effect_on_wind

It seems to me this product attempts to address the exact scenario you are talking about:

It blinks more intensively when cars are approaching (road riding) and much less so when their are none nearby (bike path).

> holy shit, blinking backlights are a massive danger source

Any citation for this? I've never experienced this supposed effect.

The amount of various safety lights on cars/bikes/road works in London is getting ridiciulous. I wonder if at some point the safety feature of lights/high vis just becomes a distraction. I would much rather have proper street light everywhere in big cities than thousands of different individiual distractions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com