# Ways to deter motorists?



## Dengineering GCSE (15 Sep 2019)

Can you please let me know any ways to deter motorists in the countryside when riding?


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2019)

You'll find there's almost no way a light will deter motorists.

Despite what was said on your other thread, blue lights ceased to be a deterrent to motorists a good few years ago. Witnessed on Friday when the officers in the rear of the car got out to move cars on, to allow the car through.


----------



## roadrash (15 Sep 2019)

Dengineering GCSE said:


> Can you please let me know any ways to deter motorists in the countryside when riding?



hang on a minute , in your other thread you state you invention will have lights to deter motorists , ive asked a couple of times now, how will lights deter motorists and from what , instead of answering the question which arises from your original post, you start another thread asking how to deter motorists, so I ask again deter them from what exactly


----------



## Dengineering GCSE (15 Sep 2019)

classic33 said:


> You'll find there's almost no way a light will deter motorists.
> 
> Despite what was said on your other thread, blue lights ceased to be a deterrent to motorists a good few years ago. Witnessed on Friday when the officers in the rear of the car got out to move cars on, to allow the car through.


Ok, thanks. Is there any other way to deter them?


----------



## roadrash (15 Sep 2019)

Dengineering GCSE said:


> Ok, thanks. Is there any other way to deter them?




from what


----------



## Dengineering GCSE (15 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> hang on a minute , in your other thread you state you invention will have lights to deter motorists , ive asked a couple of times now, how will lights deter motorists and from what , instead of answering the question which arises from your original post, you start another thread asking how to deter motorists, so I ask again deter them from what exactly


deter them away from the cyclist


----------



## Dengineering GCSE (15 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> from what


deter them from the cyclist


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2019)

Dengineering GCSE said:


> Ok, thanks. Is there any other way to deter them?


None that I know are legal for the general public. 

Watch the next time you see an Emergency vehicle trying to get through traffic.


----------



## Grant Fondo (15 Sep 2019)

There's an actual adjectival situation goin on here.


----------



## roadrash (15 Sep 2019)

maybe im missing something but deter them from the cyclist doesn't make sense, im not rying to be awkward I genuinely don't understand what you mean, repeating the same answer twice doesn't explain anything, your other thread states you will use lights to deter motorists , how exactly...……..actually , it doent matter..... I will leave it there im out, good luck with it, whatever "it" turns out to be


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Sep 2019)

The issue is distraction. Motorists are distracted and not properly paying attention to what they should. They also aren't really anticipating things they should, such as deer crossing a road at night. They will get positively angry at anything that may delay their progress. they feel they have a right to progress at the speed limit or above, nothing less. This is what you are up against.

Do you have a mobile phone? Ever seen someone walking towards you staring at their phone? Stand in their path, and to not move, stay still. 9/10 they will walk into you , or not realise you are there till they are on top of you. It's the same with many car drivers. So the problem is how do you get a driver to not be distracted, be alert, paying attention, anticipating and driving accordingly ready to stop in an instant? There is no easy solution, if there is one at all.


----------



## sleuthey (15 Sep 2019)

Dengineering GCSE said:


> deter them from the cyclist


That would be quite difficult seeing they have paid road tax and cyclists haven't


----------



## MichaelW2 (15 Sep 2019)

12 guage can deter most things. It really depends what you want to deter them from doing and how much you fear legal consequences.


----------



## Slick (15 Sep 2019)

I would've mind a couple of land mines on occasion.


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2019)

Slick said:


> I would've mind a couple of land mines on occasion.


Picture a small space heater(gas), in place of the rotating beacon.






Seemed to be wary of getting too close.


----------



## mjr (15 Sep 2019)

classic33 said:


> Picture a small space heater(gas), in place of the rotating beacon.
> View attachment 485389
> 
> 
> Seemed to be wary of getting too close.


Towing a trailer containing a gas bottle had a similar effect (see recent post in "tales from today's utility ride"


----------



## classic33 (15 Sep 2019)

mjr said:


> *Towing a trailer *containing a gas bottle had a similar effect (see recent post in "tales from today's utility ride"


More chance of it being the trailer, rather than the contents of the box on the trailer.


----------



## Sharky (16 Sep 2019)

"Ways to deter motorists" is not a good way to start a discussion. Roads are shared between all road users and the ultimate aim is surely to have harmony.

Would be better to rephrase the opening stance with "Ways to safely share the roads with motorists"

One strategy is education. There are a few schemes in place such as "stay wider than the rider". Motorists need to be educated, but also the cyclists in "defensive" riding. There is much talk of "primary position", but I feel this gives a false sense of security. I prefer being in "primary control". Knowing when to ride out and knowing when to keep in and being the one to choose when a car overtakes, by indicating to the car when you want to be passed.


----------



## HMS_Dave (16 Sep 2019)

Dengineering GCSE said:


> Can you please let me know any ways to deter motorists in the countryside when riding?



I think (hope) i understand what you are trying to say and achieve but as a motorist myself i seldom see how you can 'deter' motorists away from you. We share the roads with each other, i dare say unfortunately so but no one mode of transport owns the road... Country roads by definition are twisty, narrow and have limited visibility owing to poorly maintained hedgerows and trees. Cars will swing around blind corners at national speed limits and will sometimes slam the anchors on when they see a cyclist right there. How do you prepare for that? Tow a beacon? Honestly, other than making yourself as visible as possible i see no other way. Those long flag poles you often see on recumbent trikes are not a bad idea, hopefully they'll be seen over the hedges. Also bare in mind, pedestrians and joggers use country lanes often with no pavement. Its the way of our networks unfortunately.

Long term, i hope for better cycle and pedestrian networks because as i have said before, this puts a lot of people off before they get started!

Good luck either way and if you invent something, do share!


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Sep 2019)

Deter motorists from what?

Driving on the road? No. They are allowed to do that.

I think you need to be a bit more specific.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2019)

Dressing up as Ronnie Pickering, the police, or wearing a face mask featuring some now discredited 1970s DJ is all you need to keep Attilla the Motorist at bay.


----------



## DaveReading (16 Sep 2019)

Dengineering GCSE said:


> Ok, thanks. Is there any other way to deter them?



Deter:
discourage (someone) from doing something by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences

We're still waiting to know what it is that you want to deter motorists from *doing*.


----------



## roadrash (16 Sep 2019)

DaveReading said:


> Deter:
> discourage (someone) from doing something by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences
> 
> We're still waiting to know what it is that you want to deter motorists from *doing*.






give up, I did , its easier


----------



## Phaeton (16 Sep 2019)

Increase the cost of fuel that will certainly deter some


----------



## sheddy (16 Sep 2019)

Dress like a brickie - hard hat, boots, hi-viz.

I would recommend just the hi-viz, get an XL, let it flap, makes you look bigger.
Slows you down but might make em pass wide.


----------



## mudsticks (16 Sep 2019)

Affix a flashing LED, and an old record player stylus to the end, of one of them sticky out 'keep yr distance' thingies..

Enjoy the satisfying sound of paintwork being modified, on any vehicle that doesn't respect your personal space. 

Badgers??

I just shout at em to get out of the way


----------



## Shut Up Legs (16 Sep 2019)

Sharky said:


> There are a few schemes in place such as "stay wider than the rider".


But motorists are already wider than the riders: the latter get FAR more exercise!


----------



## Arjimlad (16 Sep 2019)

Aforementioned gas bottle, paint it green, fashion a pointy nose-cone on it, affix some tailfins and point it in their general direction perhaps ? Otherwise, mock up a piece of pipe to resemble a Panzerfaust ?


----------



## Phaeton (16 Sep 2019)

Slightly seriously a 3rd wheel which when fastened to the bike is 1.5M from the frame with a pole on it with flashing red LED's to the rear & white/amber to the front. It should be made of as lightweight material as possible (carbon fibre) & if it is hit it should detach from the bicycle so as to protect the rider. But it should also be capable of being moved 90 degrees from alongside the cycle to being trailed behind the cycle for when you are on cycle paths or narrow situations.


----------



## Edwardoka (16 Sep 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Slightly seriously a 3rd wheel which when fastened to the bike is 1.5M from the frame with a pole on it with flashing red LED's to the rear & white/amber to the front. It should be made of as lightweight material as possible (carbon fibre) & if it is hit it should detach from the bicycle so as to protect the rider. But it should also be capable of being moved 90 degrees from alongside the cycle to being trailed behind the cycle for when you are on cycle paths or narrow situations.



Sounds overly complicated. I once rode a few miles with a boat hook balanced on my handlebars couched like a jousting lance (long story).
I see no reason that this cannot be adapted into a delivery mechanism for one of those Saving-Private-Ryan-style sticky bombs (and a remote detonator paired to a garmin/wahoo)


----------



## winjim (16 Sep 2019)

Calthrops.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2019)

Mount a fake Gatso on the rear of your bike.


----------



## classic33 (16 Sep 2019)

Drago said:


> Mount a fake Gatso on the rear of your bike.


If a VHS2000 video camera didn't work, can't see that working.


----------



## Phaeton (16 Sep 2019)

Are you sure it wasn't a Philips 2000 camera?


----------



## icowden (16 Sep 2019)

This seems to be terribly popular in the US:

https://lifehacker.com/a-pool-noodle-isnt-the-worst-way-for-cyclists-to-keep-a-1787965236

That said, motorists aren't foxes. You can't deter them. You can devise ways to encourage wider passing, but the ultimate improvement will take place over the next 20 years as more and more cars start self-driving and there are many fewer cars being driven on the roads. Their programming should always ensure safe passes, and the volume reduction in traffic should create safer roads.


----------



## Sharky (16 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> ……. will take place over the next 20 years as more and more cars start self-driving …. should create safer roads.



I'm looking forward to my 90th birthday ride!


----------



## Phaeton (16 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> ultimate improvement will take place over the next 20 years as more and more cars start self-driving ........ should create safer roads.


Not according to the insurance industry they are expecting a rise in accidents


----------



## Edwardoka (16 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> This seems to be terribly popular in the US:
> 
> https://lifehacker.com/a-pool-noodle-isnt-the-worst-way-for-cyclists-to-keep-a-1787965236
> 
> That said, motorists aren't foxes. You can't deter them. You can devise ways to encourage wider passing, but the ultimate improvement will take place over the next 20 years as more and more cars start self-driving and there are many fewer cars being driven on the roads. Their programming should always ensure safe passes, and the volume reduction in traffic should create safer roads.


Yeah, sorry, no.

The trolley problem used to be an interesting thought experiment but with autonomous vehicles it now has real world application.

The driving algorithms which make constant decisions about what to do will also be able to detect an unavoidable collision and will need to make risk-analysis calls.

Given the history of cars and how trivial it was for lobbyists to make cars king, combined with how utterly dreadful techbros are when it comes to ethics (hi, Facebook), I find it super difficult to imagine the developers of an AV setting it up to do more than protecting the car occupants when presented with a no-win situation. Once AV is normalised, any victim of an AV will be blamed for their own death.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Sep 2019)

Drago said:


> Mount a fake Gatso on the rear of your bike.



Don't you mean Gatling Gun?

Maybe tandems will become more popular with the rear rider known as rear gunner.


----------



## Drago (16 Sep 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Not according to the insurance industry they are expecting a rise in accidents



The same insurance industry that claims to base premiums upon a measure of "risk", when often they demonstrably do not? They couldn't lie straight in bed.


----------



## icowden (16 Sep 2019)

i'm with Drago on this one. As for the Trolley problem, it's a red herring. If the vehicle is not put into scenario where there is an unavoidable collision it is a non-problem.

Why would it not be in that position? It's not human. It has multiple inputs - visual, IR, etc. It can see further. It can use prediction modelling to work out what is going on. It has reaction times vastly faster than a human. It can talk to other vehicles which are also autonomous. The more cars you have talking to each other, the more information the system can have about danger vectors. The development scenario is for the car to take action *before* the scenario happens.

The trolley problem is a binary choice. Autonomous AIs will never have a binary choice and all AI development is around the car learning to read the world around it using its enhanced senses. That's why it is still some time away. Tesla have the biggest archive of input data in the world from their vehicles. Elon Musk has stated that Tesla will have Grade 5 capable vehicles by the end of next year. That's probably over optimistic, but by 5 years? I wouldn't bet on it - and once Tesla has Grade 5 autonomous vehicles expect networks of quick hire self-driving Tesla taxis to become commonplace.


----------



## Phaeton (17 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> expect networks of quick hire self-driving Tesla taxis to become commonplace.


I'm 60 & I very much doubt I will see it happen


----------



## slowmotion (17 Sep 2019)

Stop p#ssing about and do to properly, FFS!


----------



## Drago (17 Sep 2019)

Stick a big picture of Germaine Greer on the back of your bike.


----------



## theclaud (17 Sep 2019)

Tough crowd. I quite like the idea of generalized motorist deterrents.


----------



## Edwardoka (17 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> i'm with Drago on this one. As for the Trolley problem, it's a red herring. If the vehicle is not put into scenario where there is an unavoidable collision it is a non-problem.
> 
> Why would it not be in that position? It's not human. It has multiple inputs - visual, IR, etc. It can see further. It can use prediction modelling to work out what is going on. It has reaction times vastly faster than a human. It can talk to other vehicles which are also autonomous. The more cars you have talking to each other, the more information the system can have about danger vectors. The development scenario is for the car to take action *before* the scenario happens.
> 
> The trolley problem is a binary choice. Autonomous AIs will never have a binary choice and all AI development is around the car learning to read the world around it using its enhanced senses. That's why it is still some time away. Tesla have the biggest archive of input data in the world from their vehicles. Elon Musk has stated that Tesla will have Grade 5 capable vehicles by the end of next year. That's probably over optimistic, but by 5 years? I wouldn't bet on it - and once Tesla has Grade 5 autonomous vehicles expect networks of quick hire self-driving Tesla taxis to become commonplace.


Quite a lot to unpick here so I've warmed up the waffle iron.

Your central argument seems to rest on the theory that everyone on the same road as AVs are good model citizens and rational actors and that the system is infallible, but as the road network is neither a closed loop nor is anyone using it a rational actor, and unless you make wearing beacons mandatory for every person and animal then there will still be unexpected elements that the system will have to deal with on the fly.

I can think of several real world no-win situations that an AV cannot prevent but where the AV can alter the outcome by making a decision.

Here's just one, I can provide more if necessary.

You don't have to go far back to see a massive pileup on a motorway caused by people driving blindly into fog. Yes, an AV can see the obstructions through the fog and will react accordingly, but:
- what about the non AV car behind that has no way of receiving data from the AV's beacon and fails to slow down? The AV will certainly be aware of it
- what evasive manouevres will it take? If it's only going to be a minor collision probably none
- what if, in this scenario, it's not a car but a truck behind the AV that fails to slow down, and the AV slowing down to avoid the crash ahead would cause the death of the occupants of the AV?
- what if the AV detects someone standing on the shoulder that the AV could otherwise use as an escape route?

These are not hypothetical scenarios but real world ones that AVs need to solve via computation and analysis rather than humans making split-second decisions with imperfect information and relatively terrible reaction times.

Also, any machine learning trained with real world data will pick up the unconscious biases of the people who provide the training data. There's a lot of study into this. In particular. Look up computer vision and racism.
Do you really want life-or-death decisions to be made by an AI trained by a data set comprised mainly of those who drive Teslas? 

If I'm going to be killed on the road I'd really rather it not be because of a techbro with terrible ethics and whose training methodology informed an AI that in the event of a no-win situation that I was expendable.


----------



## mudsticks (17 Sep 2019)

Edwardoka said:


> Quite a lot to unpick here so I've warmed up the waffle iron.
> 
> Your central argument seems to rest on the theory that everyone on the same road as AVs are good model citizens and rational actors and that the system is infallible, but as the road network is neither a closed loop nor is anyone using it a rational actor, and unless you make wearing beacons mandatory for every person and animal then there will still be unexpected elements that the system will have to deal with on the fly.
> 
> ...



I can totally see this is a tangled Web of ethics that's going to need a lot of sorting out.

But I'd have thought before anything it's the lorries and other large vehicles that need the strictest controls first.

Lorries cause a disproportionately high number of fatalities compared with their numbers on the roads.

Not surprising given their size, and how the drivers are so hard up against it, to fulfil their time sheets, but also at the same time probably bored with the endless driving.

We'd preferably should have a lot more freight on rail.

And maybe (whisper it) we just don't need so much stuff shifting about anyhow.


----------



## Phaeton (17 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> And maybe (whisper it) we just don't need so much stuff shifting about anyhow.


Or we do but with longer timeframes so it can all be bundled together by a more ecological method, trains, canals, something new?


----------



## Drago (17 Sep 2019)

But if we don't move stuff about then how will everyone get the latest smart phone to replace their perfectly serviceable existing model?


----------



## GM (17 Sep 2019)

I rather like the idea someone posted a few years ago, can't remember who it was. Brilliant idea, do away with drivers seat belts, keep the passengers belts and stick a dirty great big spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That should do the trick!


----------



## mudsticks (17 Sep 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Or we do but with longer timeframes so it can all be bundled together by a more ecological method, trains, canals, something new?





Drago said:


> But if we don't move stuff about then how will everyone get the latest smart phone to replace their perfectly serviceable existing model?



We definitely dont need so much stuff.

I'm a very light shopper by most folks standards.. 
And I've _still _got way too much cr@p kicking about the place.

I always thought that after about the age of forty the best 'present' would be for someone to come round your house and relieve you of at least five unnecessary items..

My smartphone has just passed its third birthday!!

And despite having being taken on lots of hiking and biking and tractor trips.. 
It's still in one piece.. 

Cue - catastrophic accident this avo


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Sep 2019)

slowmotion said:


> Stop p#ssing about and do to properly, FFS!
> View attachment 485540



Need I say more...


----------



## icowden (17 Sep 2019)

Edwardoka said:


> Quite a lot to unpick here so I've warmed up the waffle iron.
> 
> You don't have to go far back to see a massive pileup on a motorway caused by people driving blindly into fog. Yes, an AV can see the obstructions through the fog and will react accordingly, but:
> - what about the non AV car behind that has no way of receiving data from the AV's beacon and fails to slow down? The AV will certainly be aware of it
> ...



All of those scenarios are possible, but are they likely? How likely is it that a driverless car needs to make that decision, and how likely is it that a human driver could make a better decision. You have already demonstrated that the human driver has no time to make a decision due to reaction times. The AI that has time to think about it could make a better informed decision. 

But in essence, you seem to be saying it is much better for 40000 people to be killed by human drives in a year than two people being killed as the result of a driverless car making a bad decision (stats based on USA 2018)?


----------



## winjim (17 Sep 2019)

theclaud said:


> Tough crowd. I quite like the idea of generalized motorist deterrents.


Yes, but you can't fit a farking massive tax hike in a bottle cage.


----------



## Phaeton (17 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> But in essence, you seem to be saying it is much better for 40000 people to be killed by human drives in a year than two people being killed as the result of a driverless car making a bad decision (stats based on USA 2018)?


WOW that's an nice out of context quote, how many miles did the non automatants cars travel compared with the automatants cars in that year?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Sep 2019)

Drago said:


> But if we don't move stuff about then how will everyone get the latest smart phone to replace their perfectly serviceable existing model?



It will be beamed down from the moon base.


----------



## icowden (17 Sep 2019)

Phaeton said:


> WOW that's an nice out of context quote, how many miles did the non automatants cars travel compared with the automatants cars in that year?



Hi @Phaeton, there is quite a good article here which explains why that's quite difficult to calculate:

https://medium.com/@mc2maven/a-closer-inspection-of-teslas-autopilot-safety-statistics-533eebe0869d

Tesla themselves report that 1 death in 325 million miles traveled for a "driverless equipped vehicle" vs 1 in 86 million miles for ordinary vehicles. The article above goes into some detail as to why the comparison is not really valid, but still estimates that autopilot has 35% lower crash rates than a human. It is still a fact though that every death due to a driverless car has been reported internationally, and can be listed on one very short wikipedia page.

I have found no statistical evidence to back up the assertion that humans with two eyes, two ears and poor reaction times are better at driving than an AI which has many sensors and far superior reaction times. AI doesn't get drunk, or angry, or upset. It follows the rules it is given. The biggest risk is hacking.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (17 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> I have found no statistical evidence to back up the assertion that humans with two eyes, two ears and poor reaction times are better at driving than an AI which has many sensors and far superior reaction times. AI doesn't get drunk, or angry, or upset. It follows the rules it is given. The biggest risk is hacking.



An AI doesn't follow rules it is given else it isn't an AI. Who sets the rules, what are they, and are they infallible? We can't judge how well a given AI will do in a given situation if its decision making is opaque. It's no good being fast at something if you keep coming up with the wrong answer.


----------



## classic33 (17 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> Hi @Phaeton, there is quite a good article here which explains why that's quite difficult to calculate:
> 
> https://medium.com/@mc2maven/a-closer-inspection-of-teslas-autopilot-safety-statistics-533eebe0869d
> 
> ...


How many of those miles were on roads where pedestrians could be reasonably be expected to be in conflict with cars though.

Even the US has limits on where a driverless, driver still required if on the road, can legally be used.


----------



## winjim (17 Sep 2019)

classic33 said:


> How many of those miles were on roads where pedestrians could be reasonably be expected to be in conflict with cars though.
> 
> Even the US has limits on where a driverless, driver still required if on the road, can legally be used.


Cage off the sidewalks, break the law to follow convention, and switch your car to _aggressive_...

https://jalopnik.com/the-autonomous-vehicle-industry-would-turn-sidewalks-in-1836911778


----------



## classic33 (17 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> Hi @Phaeton, there is quite a good article here which explains why that's quite difficult to calculate:
> 
> https://medium.com/@mc2maven/a-closer-inspection-of-teslas-autopilot-safety-statistics-533eebe0869d
> 
> ...


Technically speaking the first fatality from a driverless car has yet to happen. This due to the simple fact that a human driver is still required behind the wheel, with the driver reacting before the car decided to "act". 

The resulting two actions led to the pedestrian being hit.


----------



## Phaeton (18 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> Tesla themselves report that 1 death in 325 million miles traveled for a "driverless equipped vehicle" vs 1 in 86 million miles for ordinary vehicles.


This to me is yet another number plucked out of the ether by the marketing people, I very much find it hard to believe that autonomous cars have actually driven 325 million physical miles. They may well have driven 325 million simulated miles, but not physical tyre on the road, or even more relevant physical miles with other non autonomous vehicles around.

Sorry but having over 30 years experience in software development I find it inconceivable that this software will work as expected, the number of unconceived edge cases will be huge. A human powered vehicle trying to navigate down a crowded street will use an element of 'bullying' to ensure it makes progress, whereas a autonomous vehicle that has been instructed to put humans first will just sit there going nowhere. 

It would be far easier just to ban human drivers, that would work, but not a mix of humans & automatons


----------



## KneesUp (18 Sep 2019)

theclaud said:


> Tough crowd. I quite like the idea of generalized motorist deterrents.


I think some posters may have missed that the username of the OP rather implies that they are aged 14 to 16 and trying to do something positive.

That said, hopefully @Dengineering GCSE has learned that one of the most important parts of solving a problem is being very clear about what the problem you are trying to solve actually is.

I *think* what you want to design is some sort of device that will ensure that cars pass cyclists at a reasonable distance. However, you may mean that you want a device that will give motorists a warning of a cyclist in front of them - many country roads are quite windy, so it's easy for an inattentive motorist to come up behind a cyclist with a large speed difference but relatively little warning (as I assume you can't drive yet, to be clear, one ought to drive so that you can stop in the distance you can see, which means that on twisty roads one ought to drive at a speed that means you can stop mid-corner if you need to, but in reality most drivers do not)

If you want to do the former I would guess you need something that will physically deter motorists from driving too close - perhaps a stick-y out thing. You can still get the fold-out reflective flags that were common in the 70s/80s that try to do this - image shows one set up for riding on the right:-






You may wish a more high-tech solution?

The other method is to encourage drivers to move over - off the top of my head I can think of perhaps projecting an image of a cycle lane on to the road - but this would be almost impossible in daylight, and take a lot of power at night. I don't think the blue light idea is an option because it's illegal afaik.

In terms of giving drivers more notice of an upcoming cyclist - I don't really have any ideas other than one that would not work - some sort of retractable trailing light whereby you could 'release' a cable with an led cluster on the end which would then bounce chaotically on the road metres behind the bike. Whether this would simply distract drivers I don't know - and you also have the issue of it bouncing into a hedge and getting stuck, or a car tyre accelerating on it and pulling it back - and that's assuming you can make it reliably tough enough. It would need to be retractable because in the city it would be a liability - I imagine some sort of system like a retractable tape measure, with a 'retract' button on the handlebars? Like I say, it's not really workable, but it's all I have!


----------



## Phaeton (18 Sep 2019)

How about something that shows drivers via their sat nav that there is a cyclist on the road in front


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Sep 2019)

Phaeton said:


> How about something that shows drivers via their sat nav that there is a cyclist on the road in front



That route would require people cycling to have beacons fitted, not something I'd be in favour of.


----------



## Milzy (18 Sep 2019)

This thread is as mad as a bag of weasels. 
Double the price of fuel & watch more people cycling & taking the bus.


----------



## winjim (18 Sep 2019)

Milzy said:


> This thread is as mad as a bag of weasels.
> Double the price of fuel & watch more people cycling & taking the bus.


Double? I wonder what the threshold is for people not just complaining but actually changing their actions. For carrier bags it was 5p, for fuel I suspect it might be rather more. But yeah, double it and if that doesn't work, double it again.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Sep 2019)

Milzy said:


> This thread is as mad as a bag of weasels.
> Double the price of fuel & watch more people cycling & taking the bus.


I get the impression the OP needs to design and make something for a GCSE project, and is therefore unlikely to be in a position to influence the price of fuel.


----------



## icowden (18 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> Double? I wonder what the threshold is for people not just complaining but actually changing their actions. For carrier bags it was 5p, for fuel I suspect it might be rather more. But yeah, double it and if that doesn't work, double it again.



It wouldn't work. You can still buy a carrier bag, and they are easy to carry round. If you live somewhere with poor public transport, how do you go anywhere? My kids go to school with my niece via granddad cabs for example. One hours walk, or a 25 minute cycle. Yes, it is a cyclable distance for the two older children, but not for a 4 year old. Plus even I wouldn't cycle to their school unless I had to as the road is long, fast and narrow. 

There are no buses that go that route from our house. To get there by bus would take hours. You would have to vastly improve public transport to get people out of their cars. Hence, driverless electric cars - environmentally friendly, always available and very safe. Your phone is your bus stop and your bus is private. No need to pay a driver so much cheaper.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> ... driverless electric cars - environmentally friendly, always available and very safe. Your phone is your bus stop and your bus is private. No need to pay a driver so much cheaper.



Where is the electricity being generated, how is it being stored for use, where are all the materials to make the cars coming from, and how are they all being assembled?


----------



## icowden (18 Sep 2019)

KneesUp said:


> Where is the electricity being generated, how is it being stored for use, where are all the materials to make the cars coming from, and how are they all being assembled?



They are assembled in factories like ICE cars. They are made from mined and extracted materials like ICE cars. The electricity is being generated where it is generated now. It is stored in batteries which have a very long shelf life indeed and improving year on year. 

Unlike ICE cars, they don't sit on the driveway for 23 hours per day. Unlike ICE taxis they don't sit idle at any time (yes I know some taxi drivers car share). There is some question around lithium supply but that's about it.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Sep 2019)

icowden said:


> They are assembled in factories like ICE cars. They are made from mined and extracted materials like ICE cars. The electricity is being generated where it is generated now. It is stored in batteries which have a very long shelf life indeed and improving year on year.
> 
> Unlike ICE cars, they don't sit on the driveway for 23 hours per day. Unlike ICE taxis they don't sit idle at any time (yes I know some taxi drivers car share). There is some question around lithium supply but that's about it.


Well, kind of - I agree it's probably better, but it's still taking tons of raw materials to do a job that really, if we thought about things a bit better, we could do ourselves - I don't imagine that the Dutch and the Danes would see the need quite so much, because they've designed their cities more with humans in mind, rather than cars. 

The energy to move a ton or so of electric car and a person is way more than the energy required to move a person and a bike, and really, I'd rather not burn something to get that energy, and nor would I like the open areas we have left to be covered in wind turbines, solar cells and wave power generators if at all possible. 

In short, I'd like to think that the alternative to the car (which I agree we need) is not going to be 'another sort of car'.


----------



## icowden (18 Sep 2019)

I agree. I wasn't suggesting substituting bikes for cars, only that self-driven cars are likely to much safer to cyclists than the moron driven ones.


----------



## Edwardoka (19 Sep 2019)

Milzy said:


> This thread is as mad as a bag of weasels.
> Double the price of fuel & watch more people cycling & taking the bus.


Hahahahahahahahahahaha *deep breath* hahahahahahahahahahaha 
Price is straight up no deterrent to drivers, given how much money some people spend on a new car every year or two. People are ideologically wedded to their hunk of metal and nothing short of societal collapse or a 1970s Amsterdam-style total reversal of policy will change that. No-one in government will even dare raise fuel duty because it's a guaranteed vote loser.


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

Milzy said:


> This thread is as mad as a bag of weasels.
> Double the price of fuel & watch more people cycling & taking the bus.





Edwardoka said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahaha *deep breath* hahahahahahahahahahaha
> Price is straight up no deterrent to drivers, given how much money some people spend on a new car every year or two. People are ideologically wedded to their hunk of metal and nothing short of societal collapse or a 1970s Amsterdam-style total reversal of policy will change that. No-one in government will even dare raise fuel duty because it's a guaranteed vote loser.




I reckon price rise / scarcity would help a lot.
The roads were so much nicerer and quieter when we had those fuel shortages however many (eight?) years back.
People suddenly found ways to reduce the number of journeys, or combine them

- that was my experience, living in the country where there's not much public transport at all. 

Increase the availability of public transport, lower the cost, and make it more bike friendly with carriers.

Electric cars for the Incapacitated, and small electric trucks for local deliveries.

Oh and I'll need a small tractor that runs on hydrogen fuel cells too, please, if our young inventor op has any time to spare.. 

I've already invented the Record player stylus, attached to the 'keep your distance' sticky out thingy.


You can have that one for free, in return for the hydrogen powered tractor and loader


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> I reckon price rise / scarcity would help a lot.
> The roads were so much nicerer and quieter when we had those fuel shortages however many (eight?) years back.
> People suddenly found ways to reduce the number of journeys, or combine them
> 
> ...


Get yourself some oxen, surely.


----------



## KneesUp (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> I reckon price rise / scarcity would help a lot.
> The roads were so much nicerer and quieter when we had those fuel shortages however many (eight?) years back.


I don't recall there being a significant difference apart from on the first 'Fuel Protest' which was 19 years ago! Time flies.


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> Get yourself some oxen, surely.



Too much ground taken up for their grazing.

Whereas the solar panels for powering the hydrogen cells can be mounted on the barn roof.

Plus you can't attach a pto* shaft to Oxen.

But milking buffalo, also used for motive power, and trailer work.. Hmn perhaps.

* I did know a guy who had adapted a standard combine harvester to be driven by eight Suffolk Punches..

Now that was inventive..


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

KneesUp said:


> I don't recall there being a significant difference apart from on the first 'Fuel Protest' which was 19 years ago! Time flies.



Dargnabit I'm getting old. 

Everything significant happened nearly twenty years back


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Too much ground taken up for their grazing.
> 
> Whereas the solar panels for powering the hydrogen cells can be mounted on the barn roof.
> 
> ...


I'm flattered that you think I might have the first clue as to what a pto is, or how its shaft attaches.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> by eight Suffolk Punches..


That is some pulling power


----------



## Phaeton (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> I'm flattered that you think I might have the first clue as to what a pto is, or how its shaft attaches.


Power Take Off, shaft that comes out of the back of a tractor to power auxiliary machinery


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> I'm flattered that you think I might have the first clue as to what a pto is, or how its shaft attaches.





Phaeton said:


> That is some pulling power



Pto..

Power Take Off.

It's the spinny round shaft that comes out of the back of the tractor, to drive the machine such as a mower, that is attached to the tractor.


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Pto..
> 
> Power Take Off.
> 
> It's the spinny round shaft that comes out of the back of the tractor, to drive the machine such as a mower, that is attached to the tractor.


So you need to convert the pull of an ox to a high torque rotation? Where's that GCSE project thread?


----------



## Edwardoka (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> So you need to convert the pull of an ox to a high torque rotation? Where's that GCSE project thread?


I'm amazed that we're talking about the infeasibility of converting muscular power output to radial motion... on a cycling forum


----------



## DaveReading (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> So you need to convert the pull of an ox to a high torque rotation? Where's that GCSE project thread?


----------



## Phaeton (19 Sep 2019)

No more like


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

Edwardoka said:


> I'm amazed that we're talking about the infeasibility of converting muscular power output to radial motion... on a cycling forum



It can be done with a bit of ingenuity, and gearing. 

You might not get quite the torque as with an infernal combustion engine. 

But tbh a lot of machinery.. 
Especially stuff like power harrows are over aggressive on the soil, and very bad for it. 

So an overall reduction on power availability, would be no bad thing in many cases.

I use my tractor mounted rotovator. at something like one third of the recommended rpm, so as to avoid pulversing the soil so badly. 

I get some looks* askance from the conventional lot, but it works for me.

* Teflon coated against charges of 'weirdness' at this stage in my game..


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

There are even some fiendishly clever, bicycle adapted bits of kit, used by us intermediate scale farmers


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2019)

Edwardoka said:


> I'm amazed that we're talking about the infeasibility of converting muscular power output to radial motion... on a cycling forum


OK, I've got an idea. Any farriers reading, could you shoe a shire horse with SPD cleats?


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> It can be done with a bit of ingenuity, and gearing.
> 
> You might not get quite the torque as with an infernal combustion engine.
> 
> ...


Fight the power. ✊


----------



## Phaeton (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> OK, I've got an idea. Any farriers reading, could you shoe a shire horse with SPD cleats?


Yes it is feasible but getting their legs over the crossbar is problematic


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Yes it is feasible but getting their legs over the crossbar is problematic


Mixte frame?


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> OK, I've got an idea. Any farriers reading, could you shoe a shire horse with SPD cleats?



Shires are quite inefficient in terms of size to power out put ratio though

They're massive, so take a lot of feeding, you don't get a proportionate, return on work done.

They just look impressive pulling brewery dreys.. Kinda like a status truck..

Tbh you'd be better off with a pair of Percherons or somesuch..

Plus a spare.

A lot of the soley field (as opposed to tarmacked road) working hosses, are going barefoot these days.

Much cheaper, and nicer for their hooflets..


----------



## Phaeton (19 Sep 2019)

I was out riding weekend before last & happened upon a ploughing match, it was spread out over multiple fields, appeared there are different classes couldn't work out if it was age or size of the tractors, then of course the horses, absolutely impressive, if I had of known about it beforehand I'd have gone to watch rather than going for a ride.


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> Shires are quite inefficient in terms of size to power out put ratio though
> 
> They're massive, so take a lot of feeding, you don't get a proportionate, return on work done.
> 
> ...


You may have gathered that I don't know a great deal about horses, although as it happens I am walking through a stables as I write this.


----------



## classic33 (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> I reckon price rise / scarcity would help a lot.
> The roads were so much nicerer and quieter when we had those fuel shortages however many (eight?) years back.
> People suddenly found ways to reduce the number of journeys, or combine them
> 
> ...


You need the New Holland nh2 ™.


----------



## KneesUp (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> OK, I've got an idea. Any farriers reading, could you shoe a shire horse with SPD cleats?


Burn the witch!


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2019)

KneesUp said:


> Burn the witch!


I know, I know. I just think that proper road pedals might give them problems.


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> You may have gathered that I don't know a great deal about horses, although as it happens I am walking through a stables as I write this.



Come to cycle chat for all your equine knowledge... 

Soz about the hossy thread drift op


----------



## classic33 (19 Sep 2019)

mudsticks said:


> It can be done with a bit of ingenuity, and gearing.
> 
> You might not get quite the torque as with an infernal combustion engine.
> 
> ...


Summat along these lines, with many converted to work from a PTO?


----------



## classic33 (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> OK, I've got an idea. Any farriers reading, could you shoe a shire horse with SPD cleats?


You'd need a tandem!


----------



## mudsticks (19 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> Fight the power. ✊



Too much wasted effort, I'd rather just duck down, go my own way, and prove the naysayers wrong.. 

Much more productive. 

- And energy efficient


----------

