"Blaze," a bicycle light concept by Emily Brooke, a product design student at the University of Brighton, has been getting some buzz in the cyclo-sphere lately. The handlebar-mounted laser projects a bright green virtual bike lane in front of a cyclist in order to increase visibility, especially in automobile blind spots.
Brooke explains her thought process:I wanted to tackle the issue of safety of cyclists on city streets by increasing the visibility, footprint, and ultimately the awareness of the bicycle. Eighty per cent of cycle accidents occur when bicycles travel straight ahead and a vehicle manoeuvres into them. The most common contributory factor is 'failed to look properly' on the part of a vehicle driver. The evidence shows the bike simply is not seen on city streets.
Even when lit up like a Christmas tree a bicycle in a bus's blind-spot is still invisible. With BLAZE, you see the bike before the cyclist and I believe this could really make a difference in the key scenarios threatening cyclists' lives on the roads.
Many of the articles refer to Evan Gant and Alex Tee's "LightLane" concept (above), which projects a lane behind and to the sides of a cyclist (as opposed to in front of him or her). We got a first look at it when Gant and Tee entered it in a commuter cycling competition nearly two and a half years ago.
For her part, Brooke's concept has earned her a place in an Entrepreneurship Program at Babson College in Massachusetts. While "LightLane" hasn't made it out of the prototype phase, hopefully "Blaze" will move forward with the vigor that its name suggests. Of course, if it were up to me, the three of them would team up with Ethan Frier and Jonathan Ota of "Project Aura" to create the safest, most visible bike ever.Still, in a case of what is surely more than mere coincidence, I also happened to see Gant and Tee's "LightLane" concept at the Art Institute of Chicago this weekend. I'd rather see it in situ, on the streets, but at least it's getting exposure, and it's interesting to compare each designers' disparate approaches to the issue.
While "Emily worked with road safety experts, Brighton & Hove City Council, the Brighton & Hove Bus Company and driving psychologists in developing BLAZE, an idea that has won her international recognition," Gant and Tee conducted their research independently. According to the Art Institute:A series of brainstorming sessions resulted in a range of ideas, some more guerilla-style such as attaching a can of spray paint to the side of a bicycle so that cyclists could paint their own lane as they rode along, while other ideas were more threatening, such as suspending a key from the side of the bike that would warn drivers not to get too close ("keying a car" being a common form of vandalism).
Meanwhile, Gant and Tee found that bike lanes "establish a well-defined boundary beyond the envelope of the bicycle, providing a greater margin of safety between the car and the cyclist." Since it costs $5,000 to $50,000 per mile to install bike lanes, there is an understandable disparity between the rise of cycling as a mode of transport and the existing infrastructure: "Instead of adapting cycling to established bike lanes, the bike lane should adapt to the cyclists."
Nevertheless, there's no guarantee that the bike lane represents the safest place for a cyclist to travel... which filmmaker Casey Neistat cheekily demonstrates in this semi-viral video from last week (a serendipitous response to the egregious violations in this video from just a few days prior, which I didn't have the heart to post).
While I do not condone the rampant salmoning (i.e. riding against traffic) in the "3-Way Street" video, Neistat's video demonstrates that the bike lane may not be the safest place to ride (let's not get too hung up on the fact that he's not wearing a helmet; that's entirely besides the point). In fact, New York law makes provisions for these instances:(1) Bicycle riders to use bicycle lanes. Whenever a usable path or lane for bicycles has been provided, bicycle riders shall use such path or lane only except under any of the following situations (bold text added): (i) When preparing for a turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. (ii) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, pushcarts, animals, surface hazards) that make it unsafe to continue within such bicycle path or lane.
I'll leave my own opinions out of the discussion, but readers are more than welcome to share their thoughts in the comments...
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
I remember the light lane concept. This one reminds me of the same thing: did these students read the book "Traffic"? Or do any kind of secondary source research (there is a lot of literature out there on traffic management and accident avoidance).
One report that I've read about showed that roads without bike lanes were safer than ones with them (the non-divider variety). Also, it found that drivers will drive closer to a biker who appears experienced (ie Lance Armstrong, with helmet and $5000 carbon fiber frame) than with klutzy looking ones (no helmet, rear wheel like a potato chip, trying to balance 4 grocery bags on the handle-bars. Not only that, but drivers will slow down for the klutz and maintain their speed for Lance.
All of this adds up to safe bicycling might mean looking more like an impending accident to an auto. I'd like to see a concept based on that psychology, although it would probably be laughed off and too hard to explain (ie, no scholarships won on this).
Interestingly, yesterday, I read that the three wheeled Reliant Robin was one of the cars involved in the least accidents. Safety is not easy...