See.Sense AIR anti-theft bike tracker doubles Kickstarter target – in 24 hours; Happy Transport Planning Day; US’s first car-free neighbourhood coming to Arizona; Strava unveils Metro 3.0; Steve Cummings retires + more on the live blog

hawkinspeter wrote:

Usually I try not to touch electronic devices on Kickstarter as they tend to go south a lot of the time, but I'm intrigued enough by that bike tracker to give it a punt. My ideal tracker device would be one that you can fit into the frame and charge easily (e.g. through wireless charging from the outside of the frame or integrating with electronic shifting to use the same charge port).

Yes exactly. I like the look of the See Sense device, but feel it's just too visible and open to vandalism. Not sure how much effort would be needed to wrench if off the saddle, then all you'll be doing is sending the police to a ditch somewhere about half a mile from where the bike was stolen. Although given resources I suspect by the time plod got round to it the battery would have given up.

Something that made the same noise, but far more difficult to locate would be ideal.

Kendalred wrote:

Yes exactly. I like the look of the See Sense device, but feel it's just too visible and open to vandalism. Not sure how much effort would be needed to wrench if off the saddle

Difficult to tell without actually knowing what's everthings made of. Squinting at the funding page i'd guess not much, maybe a couple of seconds, if that mount and/or fixing spur are rigid plastics like they sort of look like. Decent hammer or bolt-cutters would make it a moot point.

visionset wrote:

cycling nirvana

I couldn't agree more.If the lanes are that quiet they won't need infra. I'm a forager myself,poking around looking for abandoned and self-sown fruit trees.

ktache wrote:

On the Strava thing, I was thinking similar brooksby, perhaps Strava is not as popular in the 20-35 age group.

I doubt if they get many commutes registered by those on cheap bikes either, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of  people out there.

Cambridge has a lot of cyclists, but by the look of a lot of them, I doubt many were subscribers.

Exactly.  I suspect they've - if anything - under estimated cycling figures.  I don't appear in their numbers, because I don't use Strava.   And I imagine even a real hardcore roadie doesn't use Strava for their commute / run to work, so how many more people are invisible to their data-gathering?

brooksby wrote:

And I imagine even a real hardcore roadie doesn't use Strava for their commute / run to work, so how many more people are invisible to their data-gathering?

You imagine wrong. How else would you track the mileage you'd done on the commute bike ?

brooksby wrote:

ktache wrote:

On the Strava thing, I was thinking similar brooksby, perhaps Strava is not as popular in the 20-35 age group.

I doubt if they get many commutes registered by those on cheap bikes either, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of  people out there.

Cambridge has a lot of cyclists, but by the look of a lot of them, I doubt many were subscribers.

Exactly.  I suspect they've - if anything - under estimated cycling figures.  I don't appear in their numbers, because I don't use Strava.   And I imagine even a real hardcore roadie doesn't use Strava for their commute / run to work, so how many more people are invisible to their data-gathering?

Well I'm a roadie (Hardcore? That's debatable!) and use Strava every time I commute, and always make sure I click the 'Commute' button as I was aware that they gathered the data. My colleague does even more mileage than me (he IS hardcore - 75km every day, cyclocross at the weekend etc) and does the same.

Kendalred wrote:

brooksby wrote:

ktache wrote:

On the Strava thing, I was thinking similar brooksby, perhaps Strava is not as popular in the 20-35 age group.

I doubt if they get many commutes registered by those on cheap bikes either, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of  people out there.

Cambridge has a lot of cyclists, but by the look of a lot of them, I doubt many were subscribers.

Exactly.  I suspect they've - if anything - under estimated cycling figures.  I don't appear in their numbers, because I don't use Strava.   And I imagine even a real hardcore roadie doesn't use Strava for their commute / run to work, so how many more people are invisible to their data-gathering?

Well I'm a roadie (Hardcore? That's debatable!) and use Strava every time I commute, and always make sure I click the 'Commute' button as I was aware that they gathered the data. My colleague does even more mileage than me (he IS hardcore - 75km every day, cyclocross at the weekend etc) and does the same.

OK, fenix and Kendalred, I stand corrected.  I didn't realise you could describe the 'type' of ride you were doing in Strava.

ktache wrote:

On the Strava thing, I was thinking similar brooksby, perhaps Strava is not as popular in the 20-35 age group.

Do you mean students and working adults riding around towns on sit-up bikes? Because all the young 'uns in our club are totally into Strava, 10 years and upwards. There are only a few Luddites like me that don't use it. I'm a roadie (but unlikely to ever be called 'hardcore') and have clocked up 100 miles+ a week for a number of years now. The people I see cycle commuting around Shrewsbury don't generally look like they'd be using Strava.

Nice to see Laura Kenny doing something for women cyclists, and I agree that confidence makes a huge difference, but free lessons - even if rolled out nationwide - won't make any difference to that dreadful 4% figure. Segregated infrastructure is the only way to do it. And I can see absolutely no way of doing that for less densely populated areas or country roads.

Simon E wrote:

 And I can see absolutely no way of doing that for less densely populated areas or country roads.

No and you don't want to either, that'd be massively detrimental

visionset wrote:

Simon E wrote:

 And I can see absolutely no way of doing that for less densely populated areas or country roads.

No and you don't want to either, that'd be massively detrimental

 

After lots of opposition,railtrails have done wonders for several country towns.Many new ones are being built,or are in the pipeline.I can't see a downside.

Argus Tuft wrote:

After lots of opposition,railtrails have done wonders for several country towns.Many new ones are being built,or are in the pipeline.I can't see a downside.

I'd say that's wildly optimistic. AFAIK the only railtrail that could be converted near here, a handful of miles between 2 villages, was blocked by farmers. Even if it was built it wouldn't help anyone commuting into Shrewsbury. I'm sure many large towns are the same.

Simon E wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

After lots of opposition,railtrails have done wonders for several country towns.Many new ones are being built,or are in the pipeline.I can't see a downside.

I'd say that's wildly optimistic. AFAIK the only railtrail that could be converted near here, a handful of miles between 2 villages, was blocked by farmers. Even if it was built it wouldn't help anyone commuting into Shrewsbury. I'm sure many large towns are the same.

I was responding to Visionset,wondering how separate infrastructure in rural areas could be detrimental. Railtrails are only one example.

Argus Tuft wrote:

I was responding to Visionset,wondering how separate infrastructure in rural areas could be detrimental. Railtrails are only one example.

 

Because when you remove cyclists from roads driving gets worse. I would speculate that the major safety factor on roads is the presence of cyclists.  Since you will never infra everywhere you need lots of cyclists on roads. In numbers we are safer.  Obviously a disused railway line is not a problem. My main (bit of a soapbox really) argument is against those (typically Londeners et al)  who can only see infra as the solution and in fact are completely unhelpful & counter productive when it comes to the drive to make the roads we already have (that are completely fit for purpose, bar the odd pothole eh),  safer.

visionset wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

I was responding to Visionset,wondering how separate infrastructure in rural areas could be detrimental. Railtrails are only one example.

 

 

Because when you remove cyclists from roads driving gets worse. I would speculate that the major safety factor on roads is the presence of cyclists.  Since you will never infra everywhere you need lots of cyclists on roads. In numbers we are safer.  Obviously a disused railway line is not a problem. My main (bit of a soapbox really) argument is against those (typically Londeners et al)  who can only see infra as the solution and in fact are completely unhelpful & counter productive when it comes to the drive to make the roads we already have (that are completely fit for purpose, bar the odd pothole eh),  safer.

I follow your reasoning,but fear you're swimming against the tide.The overwhelming perception is that cycling with traffic is dangerous.What you or I think is irrelevant.Better driving is not going to happen,neither is improved enforcement.If the carnage of the last few decades hasn't forced a change,what will? Actually it has,and the change is bikeways.

Have you ever been able to ride wherever you choose on a car free, cycle only path?Once you have you never want to go back to sharing the road.

Inner City real estate serviced by bike infra commands higher prices  and outlying estates provide it as a development condition.Politicians love to announce the opening of x new ks of bikeway. The motoring lobby loves it.As for not being everywhere,if Wagga can build 45ks of new cycle paths,anywhere can.  

Argus Tuft wrote:

Have you ever been able to ride wherever you choose on a car free, cycle only path?Once you have you never want to go back to sharing the road.

Have you ever ridden on quiet country lanes? Who would ever want to give that up? How is cycling infra ever going to replace that? I can do a hundred mile ride where at least 80 miles is like that.  Cycling through 100s of years of historical countryside.  The only reason that feels safe is because most drivers drive expecting cyclists, you never want that reversing.

visionset wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

I was responding to Visionset,wondering how separate infrastructure in rural areas could be detrimental. Railtrails are only one example.

 

 

Because when you remove cyclists from roads driving gets worse. I would speculate that the major safety factor on roads is the presence of cyclists.  Since you will never infra everywhere you need lots of cyclists on roads. In numbers we are safer.  Obviously a disused railway line is not a problem. My main (bit of a soapbox really) argument is against those (typically Londeners et al)  who can only see infra as the solution and in fact are completely unhelpful & counter productive when it comes to the drive to make the roads we already have (that are completely fit for purpose, bar the odd pothole eh),  safer.

Not sure I like the idea of being treated as a human traffic-calming measure (doesn't that fail Kant's categorical imperative? Treat people as ends, not means?). And, while I simply don't care as much about what happens in rural areas (by definition there aren't as many people in such areas to be affected or benefit), it seems to me that separated routes are often possible. If they can build new roads they can build a few new properly-surfaced cycle routes.

FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote=visionset wrote:

Not sure I like the idea of being treated as a human traffic-calming measure.

And, while I simply don't care as much about what happens in rural areas (by definition there aren't as many people in such areas to be affected or benefit), it seems to me that separated routes are often possible. If they can build new roads they can build a few new properly-surfaced cycle routes.

Like it or not it's always going to be the case.  I'm sure many of us here appreciate the difference between cycling on equally busy roads of similar types but in different areas of the country that have a different cycling uptake. For me Nottm isn't too bad, but parts of Lincolnshire are terrible.  It's just adjustment.  Not only for drivers directly encountering cyclists but for the (admittedly pitiful) enforcement of road laws.  Nothing would ever have been done about close passes 20 years ago. But now, at least it's starting to happen.  If cycling volume on roads drops due to infrastructure or any other reason, there's no need to enforce anymore, that's a vote winner with the motorist, they can carry on with car is king mentallity.  It isn't just about our cycling concerns, it's about the whole nice place to live, tavel, work etc thing for everything/one that isn't a car. Cyclists on the road is vital.

Jack Sexty wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Am I missing something?

Surely all that Strava can accurately say is that - for example - "Bristol is the top city for cycle commuting in terms of numbers numbers of Strava users who have uploaded the data", etc?

This is back to making use of / money out of the behavioural surplus type stuff , isn't it? (why yes, I did just finish reading 'The Age of Surveillance Capitalism', thanks for asking).

That's kind of what I was saying, perhaps I phrased it clumsily - but of course they can only go off of uploads to Strava, which indeed may not be reflective of some age-groups/demographics.

Sorry, Jack - I totally agree.

brooksby wrote:

Am I missing something?

Surely all that Strava can accurately say is that - for example - "Bristol is the top city for cycle commuting in terms of numbers numbers of Strava users who have uploaded the data", etc?

This is back to making use of / money out of the behavioural surplus type stuff , isn't it? (why yes, I did just finish reading 'The Age of Surveillance Capitalism', thanks for asking).

Well if they've done it properly they will have normalised the data taking into account what they know about strava adoption.  Of course they may know nothing about that...