Latest version of Dragons' Den backed bicycle indicators pitched as way to prevent close passes

burtthebike wrote:

Yet another brilliant invention seeking a problem.  With no justification or evidence, they assert that this device will make close passes a thing of the past.  While I'm sure this team of passionate cyclists are really keen to solve the problem, they appear unaware of the cause, which this invention does nothing to address.  Also, it implies that the fault is the cyclist's for not being seen, when as we all know, the fault is the driver's for either not observing and/or not caring.

I'm sure it's brilliantly designed and well made, but the first time you come off, or the bike falls over, you'll find out why nobody puts anything delicate on the ends of the handlebars.

Might have helped if they'd got a professional voice over artist, that guy spoke so quickly it was hard to follow.

I think that this may be (at least part of) a solution to a problem, just maybe not the one stated.

I read a study a year or so ago about reasons behind cars pulling out on bicycles. One conclusion that it came to was that drivers can't accurately judge the speed of the bicycle coming towards them. This is because we judge the speed of something based on two fixed points moving further apart as it gets closer. For a car, this judgement it based upon the headlights and how fast the distance between them increases. As bikes do not have lights at a set distance apart there is not the data available so the judgement is based on pure assumption.

If the above is correct then having a set of lights either end of the handlebars could (at night at least) help motorists judge our speeds and stop (some of) them pulling out in front of cyclists.

ClubSmed wrote:

I think that this may be (at least part of) a solution to a problem, just maybe not the one stated.

I read a study a year or so ago about reasons behind cars pulling out on bicycles. One conclusion that it came to was that drivers can't accurately judge the speed of the bicycle coming towards them. This is because we judge the speed of something based on two fixed points moving further apart as it gets closer. For a car, this judgement it based upon the headlights and how fast the distance between them increases. As bikes do not have lights at a set distance apart there is not the data available so the judgement is based on pure assumption.

If the above is correct then having a set of lights either end of the handlebars could (at night at least) help motorists judge our speeds and stop (some of) them pulling out in front of cyclists.

Only relevant if you've got flat bars - not going to make a blind (!) bit of differnce to anyone fitting them on drop bars.

I think they're a useless idea!

LastBoyScout wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

I think that this may be (at least part of) a solution to a problem, just maybe not the one stated.

I read a study a year or so ago about reasons behind cars pulling out on bicycles. One conclusion that it came to was that drivers can't accurately judge the speed of the bicycle coming towards them. This is because we judge the speed of something based on two fixed points moving further apart as it gets closer. For a car, this judgement it based upon the headlights and how fast the distance between them increases. As bikes do not have lights at a set distance apart there is not the data available so the judgement is based on pure assumption.

If the above is correct then having a set of lights either end of the handlebars could (at night at least) help motorists judge our speeds and stop (some of) them pulling out in front of cyclists.

Only relevant if you've got flat bars - not going to make a blind (!) bit of differnce to anyone fitting them on drop bars.

I think they're a useless idea!

As the image at the top of this story has them on flat bars I assumed that is what they were designed for. I have not actually followed the links so I may have missed something, sorry.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

According to CYCL: “Whilst traditional front and back lights do the job of highlighting cyclists’ presence, they do not give an idea of the bike’s width, leaving drivers to estimate the rider's exact position and potentially leading to dangerous overtaking situations.”

It won't work.

Close passes are nothing to do with whether or not the cyclist indicated.

If the motorist can't tell the width of the bike, they probably shouldn't be driving... 

Indeed. Not yet seen a bike that is much wider than the average human.

Yet another solution to the wrong problem.

CygnusX1 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

According to CYCL: “Whilst traditional front and back lights do the job of highlighting cyclists’ presence, they do not give an idea of the bike’s width, leaving drivers to estimate the rider's exact position and potentially leading to dangerous overtaking situations.”

It won't work.

Close passes are nothing to do with whether or not the cyclist indicated.

If the motorist can't tell the width of the bike, they probably shouldn't be driving... 

Indeed. Not yet seen a bike that is much wider than the average human. Yet another solution to the wrong problem.

I have pretty wide shoulders, if I'm riding a bike with narrow bars I wouldn't want these to suggest to a driver that I'm narrower than I am, or in that situation do I attach them to my shoulders?

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

According to CYCL: “Whilst traditional front and back lights do the job of highlighting cyclists’ presence, they do not give an idea of the bike’s width, leaving drivers to estimate the rider's exact position and potentially leading to dangerous overtaking situations.”

It won't work.

Close passes are nothing to do with whether or not the cyclist indicated.

If the motorist can't tell the width of the bike, they probably shouldn't be driving... 

Plus they are supposed to allow the same room as when passing a car, so that gives them a pretty large tolerence even if they are not very good at estimating width.

brooksby wrote:

If the motorist can't tell the width of the bike, they probably shouldn't be driving... 

In case you haven't noticed, most motorists can't tell the width of their own cars.  Luckily for cyclists, the majority of them overestimate the width (just watch them trying to drive between parked cars or through gates) and thus leave us enough room.  However, a small number of them seem to think that their fat* saloon is a minimalist sports car.

*Totally off topic:At the rate that cars are adding girth, there will soon be enough space between the driver and passenger, to accomodate a cycle lane between the driver and passenger.

ObCycling: I've noticed that a distress strobe light, strapped on the upper right arm, has a marked effect at night.  (It may invoke occasional verbal abuse, but that's better than getting hit.)

ObCycling: I've noticed that a distress strobe light, strapped on the upper right arm, has a marked effect at night.  (It may invoke occasional verbal abuse, but that's better than getting hit.)

[/quote]

That's a good idea - one of these or similar?

https://www.wetsuitoutlet.co.uk/2018-acr-strobe-personal-distress-strobe...

nniff wrote:

 

ObCycling: I've noticed that a distress strobe light, strapped on the upper right arm, has a marked effect at night.  (It may invoke occasional verbal abuse, but that's better than getting hit.)

That's a good idea - one of these or similar?

https://www.wetsuitoutlet.co.uk/2018-acr-strobe-personal-distress-strobe...

[/quote]

Yes, not exactly that one, mine's at least 20 years old and uses a Xenon arc and two "D cells"  The one you show probably has a brighter LED and only needs 2 "AA cells". Back in the '70s I used an "Ampec Belt Beacon" (still in a drawer somewhere:).  I originally bought a distress strobe for motorcycling in fog, but then found it is useful on a bicycle at night. 

The old Belt Beacon used a special filament lamp to make flashes that were like the warning lights on skips back then.  It was bright enough to make motorists take notice on dark country roads and, to my distress, cause an unlit cyclist to shriek and swerve into a ditch.  (They were probably drunk in charge of a bicycle and there was no serious injury.)

When Cateye started making decent pulsing LED rear lights, the Belt Beacon was outshone and superfluous.

Long motorcycle commutes in the noughties made me look for some fog defence and I realised that the construction and use regulations only applied to lights fixed to a motor vehicle.  As a scuba diver and boat owner I was familiar with distress strobes and realised that it would be resonable to wear one in fog.  It was easy to switch off while another vehicle was following at a safe distance. I only used it occasionally, but if you have a 95 mile, each way, commute it's too much for a bicycle and I didn't always want to have to turn back and find accommodation for the night. 

janusz0 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

If the motorist can't tell the width of the bike, they probably shouldn't be driving... 

In case you haven't noticed, most motorists can't tell the width of their own cars.  Luckily for cyclists, the majority of them overestimate the width (just watch them trying to drive between parked cars or through gates) and thus leave us enough room.  However, a small number of them seem to think that their fat* saloon is a minimalist sports car.

*Totally off topic:At the rate that cars are adding girth, there will soon be enough space between the driver and passenger, to accomodate a cycle lane between the driver and passenger.

ObCycling: I've noticed that a distress strobe light, strapped on the upper right arm, has a marked effect at night.  (It may invoke occasional verbal abuse, but that's better than getting hit.)

There is a certain irony in motorists complaining about cyclists taking up the whole lane, while they sit in their SUV-built-for-six all by their lonesome, taking up way more road space than a cyclist ever could.