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.
Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists
41–47 of 47 posts
Re: Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists
#42If 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.
Re: Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists
#43If 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).
Re: Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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...
Re: Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
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.
Re: Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists
#47Great 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.