And I have to wonder why? Why is this thing supposed to be better than a decent headlamp?
I mean it looks all techy and bike-tactical and stuff. But at the end of the day it doesn’t seem to alert cars to your presence. Cars ahead of you want see anything when they check the mirror, cars coming towards you won’t get any real alert unless they are looking at the ground.
Pedestrians? It says it projects 5 meters ahead of the bike which is less than a second of travel for a bike going 15mph. Not much warning.
Did you look at the picture? It projects a huge glowing laser-green image of a bicycle on the ground in front of it. Based on that photo, I’d guess it’d be visible a mile away, assuming you could see the pavement. It’s certainly a ton more visible than the bike itself.
Indeed. The article shows it being used in an urban environment, where visibility lines are pretty broken. It kind of reminds me of riders who get a helmet lamp instead of a headlamp but then get tired and have their head tilted towards the ground all the time.
If the cyclist was approaching an intersection, a car approaching from the crossing direction would see the bike projected in the middle of the intersection before the cyclist comes into view, and the headlamp on the bike isn’t going to be doing much to illuminate the intersection. Granted, the odds that this is going to save any particular cyclist’s life is pretty slim; I think the cyclist would be better aided by adding more side-reflectors and (around Berkeley, at least) stopping at the damn stop signs.
Safe for the eye doesn’t necessarily mean safe for the road - there are levels of brightness below that which will damage the eye that could still be too bright for the road. Green lasers are already under threat of being banned in the UK, because of idiots shining them at planes.