University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Mike Sales
Posts: 3952
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby Mike Sales » 30 Oct 2012, 5:22pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:
How many people does passive smoking kill each year?


"At war with the motorist" site reports an estimate of 6,000 pa dying from passive smoking before the ban on smoking in public places.

They also report 12,000 to 35,000 deaths pa from air pollution. From memory about 80% of air pollution in cities (where most people live) is from traffic.

The references for these figures are given in the site. Search within the site using "passive driving."

http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/passive-driving/

As it happens I was reading this a couple of hours ago.

Edited to point out bold lettering of "before". I'm told its easy to miss.

SuperHarbl
Posts: 2
Joined: 1 Nov 2012, 8:57pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby SuperHarbl » 1 Nov 2012, 9:08pm

hubgearfreak wrote:i fail to see how any product will improve the situation?



Image

? :D

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17061
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby [XAP]Bob » 1 Nov 2012, 9:42pm

Can you justify that with a superlight bike?

Who is it that points out that a thermos of soup wipes out any difference in bike weight anyway :)
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

michael42
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 May 2012, 6:42pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby michael42 » 5 Nov 2012, 10:24am

sore thumb wrote:Sorry but we don't need any new products to improve cycle safety.


Something that makes you look like you're a policeman on a bike might work.
That tends to improve driving ability.

Laws won't make any difference, not the least because they already exist but also because there are simply too many miles of road and millions of motorists to have them all policed to prevent accidents - and you can do what you like after someone's hit it, won't change the fact they were hit. "Safety" is not what happens after someone is killed, it's what's done to try and reduce or prevent things happening in the first place.

Sure, some aspect of that is changing the attitude of drivers, but I think it's a mistake to decide that bad drivers are like bank robbers in the sense that you believe if you lock up the few that are bad you've somehow made the roads safer. You'd have to lock up nigh on every driver to make the roads safer and half the cyclists too but, even if you did that, you're still acting after the fact. You're not making cycling safer, you're just hoping the police and state will give you a bit of retribution against a driver.

But as I've said numerous times, the solution is making the car drive itself - and a lot of work has been done on this by Stanford if not other universities - and google are taking it further. Perhaps there's room for a technology specifically for British roads that could improve upon where google are now - I'd talk to them about where they are. Obviously getting to the stage where these cars would be legal, let alone mandatory could takes decades, but some aspects of the technology itself are likely to be included in cars years before (in fact this is already happening and other manufacturers are developing systems to take over control from the driver to avoid accidents)

This is probably phd level research though, but like the others I feel you're making a mistake if you're looking at the bicycle and cyclist market and thinking of trying to sell them something to make it safer. What makes cycling dangerous, in the main, is obvious, the risk of being hit by cars and lorries being vehicles that travel at high speed that have considerable mass whilst you are balanced on 2 wheels on 12kg or less of recycled coke cans. At which point it's fairly moot whose fault it was, you're no less dead if you made the mistake or the driver of the car did. Most of the rest is our own misadventure causing us to fall off, but generally speaking that only results in cuts and bruises except in extreme cases.

Cars and other motor vehicles are what makes the roads the most dangerous - that's what you should be looking at.

michael42
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 May 2012, 6:42pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby michael42 » 5 Nov 2012, 10:46am

[XAP]Bob wrote:Can you justify that with a superlight bike?

Who is it that points out that a thermos of soup wipes out any difference in bike weight anyway :)


Is carrying extra soup mandatory if your bike is light then? Or does soup weigh more on these bikes?

Because, surely if your bike is 12kg and you've 5kg of soup and equipment, it weighs more than if your bike is 6kg and you've the same 5kg of soup and equipment?

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17061
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby [XAP]Bob » 5 Nov 2012, 11:11am

michael42 wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Can you justify that with a superlight bike?

Who is it that points out that a thermos of soup wipes out any difference in bike weight anyway :)


Is carrying extra soup mandatory if your bike is light then? Or does soup weigh more on these bikes?

Because, surely if your bike is 12kg and you've 5kg of soup and equipment, it weighs more than if your bike is 6kg and you've the same 5kg of soup and equipment?


The point merely being that a ride out with the intention of having something to eat on the way kind of reduces the weight obsession seen in some cyclists to absurdity.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

michael42
Posts: 219
Joined: 19 May 2012, 6:42pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby michael42 » 5 Nov 2012, 11:58am

[XAP]Bob wrote:The point merely being that a ride out with the intention of having something to eat on the way kind of reduces the weight obsession seen in some cyclists to absurdity.


Yeah, granted. My understanding is that aero is far more significant anyway.

But, as I said in the long thread I joined in shortly before I bought my bike, you can't really market aero, whereas it's trivial to build parts out of something light and stick a bigger price tag on it.

So, cycle marketing is inevitably going to push the idea of a light bike and light components - because, it's relatively speaking easy for them to do and they've got to sell them on the back of some idea whether it's true or not (and bikes are otherwise piles of junk without wrapping some myth around them)

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby meic » 5 Nov 2012, 12:00pm

Aero is significant on the flat and weight makes itself felt on the hills.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
7_lives_left
Posts: 798
Joined: 9 May 2008, 8:29pm
Location: South Bucks

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby 7_lives_left » 5 Nov 2012, 2:08pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Who is it that points out that a thermos of soup wipes out any difference in bike weight anyway :)

It was from www.tweed.cc . I went on a search to find it but it seems to have disappeared because the domain is up for sale on one of these domain parking sites. I think Si used to have that quote as the signoff for his posts he before he changed to that wierd quote about owls.

Elizabethsdad
Posts: 1158
Joined: 15 Jan 2011, 7:09pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby Elizabethsdad » 5 Nov 2012, 8:17pm

It occured to me this morning riding in that some sort of device that converts the air behind you into a non-Newtonian fluid would be good. That way a car coming up fast behind you will hit a solidifying wall of air slowing them down and probably end up pushing you along without actually pushing you off.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17061
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby [XAP]Bob » 5 Nov 2012, 8:53pm

michael42 wrote:
But, as I said in the long thread I joined in shortly before I bought my bike, you can't really market aero, whereas it's trivial to build parts out of something light and stick a bigger price tag on it.


Only the uci can't stand the idea of marketing aero, the rest of us ride bents :lol:
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

AlaninWales
Posts: 1551
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby AlaninWales » 7 Nov 2012, 12:51pm

WaterLab Rat wrote:It occured to me this morning riding in that some sort of device that converts the air behind you into a non-Newtonian fluid would be good. That way a car coming up fast behind you will hit a solidifying wall of air slowing them down and probably end up pushing you along without actually pushing you off.

I came close to that when a passing car caught my pedal in his wheel arch: I'm not sure why you seem to imply this might be a good thing? :P :twisted: :lol:

Elizabethsdad
Posts: 1158
Joined: 15 Jan 2011, 7:09pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby Elizabethsdad » 7 Nov 2012, 2:57pm

AlaninWales wrote:
WaterLab Rat wrote:It occured to me this morning riding in that some sort of device that converts the air behind you into a non-Newtonian fluid would be good. That way a car coming up fast behind you will hit a solidifying wall of air slowing them down and probably end up pushing you along without actually pushing you off.

I came close to that when a passing car caught my pedal in his wheel arch: I'm not sure why you seem to imply this might be a good thing? :P :twisted: :lol:

A non-Newtonian fluid gets more solid with increasing resistance. Custard is a good example - if step into a lake of custard you sink in, if you run you stay on the surface because the increased force of feet slapping down solidifys the custard. If you could get the air behind you to behave in the same way, a fast moving vehicle coming up behind meets a bubble of increasing resistance which will slow them down. Since the bubble is sort of attached to you you should then pick up some of the speed the other vehicle has lost but only a small ammount and it would be delivered more smoothly than you'd get from direct physical contact such as being rear ended. Of course cycling to work will be made obsolete when I go on to develop the matter transposrter beam, and going to work at all will be obsolete when i can iron the bugs in my matter replicator. In the meantime I will continue to rely on my trusty particle beam energy weapon to disuade dangerous drivers. :-)

AlaninWales
Posts: 1551
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby AlaninWales » 7 Nov 2012, 3:34pm

WaterLab Rat wrote:
AlaninWales wrote:
WaterLab Rat wrote:It occured to me this morning riding in that some sort of device that converts the air behind you into a non-Newtonian fluid would be good. That way a car coming up fast behind you will hit a solidifying wall of air slowing them down and probably end up pushing you along without actually pushing you off.

I came close to that when a passing car caught my pedal in his wheel arch: I'm not sure why you seem to imply this might be a good thing? :P :twisted: :lol:

A non-Newtonian fluid gets more solid with increasing resistance. Custard is a good example - if step into a lake of custard you sink in, if you run you stay on the surface because the increased force of feet slapping down solidifys the custard. If you could get the air behind you to behave in the same way, a fast moving vehicle coming up behind meets a bubble of increasing resistance which will slow them down. Since the bubble is sort of attached to you you should then pick up some of the speed the other vehicle has lost but only a small ammount and it would be delivered more smoothly than you'd get from direct physical contact such as being rear ended. Of course cycling to work will be made obsolete when I go on to develop the matter transposrter beam, and going to work at all will be obsolete when i can iron the bugs in my matter replicator. In the meantime I will continue to rely on my trusty particle beam energy weapon to disuade dangerous drivers. :-)

Well, the contact on my pedal was a pretty smooth uptake, what I objected to was being pushed along at a speed over which I had no control. Sounds like this is what your custard bubble would achieve. What happens if the driver pushes the custard bubble into a brick wall? It appears the cyclist has become a disposable part of the car bumper :shock:
ETA: I've got a container of non-Newtonian putty bouncing ball stuff in my desk somewhere - soft, sticky putty that nevertheless bounces around nicely if thrown at a wall (then melts stickily into the carpet) - remember those?

User avatar
scottmac
Posts: 46
Joined: 1 Jul 2011, 7:47pm

Re: University Project - Product to Improve Cyclist Safety

Postby scottmac » 7 Nov 2012, 4:38pm

A product to improve on a cyclist's safety?

How about 30 years in jail, breaking rocks every day from dawn til dusk if a motorist kills said cyclist?

Maybe that would improve road safety?