
Backtracker: Radar sixth sense for cyclists - jimzvz
http://www.dragoninnovation.com/projects/41-backtracker-by-ikubu/
======
CaveTech
There's so little focus on the front component, that I still have no idea if
it could be worthwhile to me. Seems like there's lights that show how far
behind you the nearest car is? But that's a total guess - what I could gather
from a few glimpses at the design; and this is the main selling point.

Almost the entire video talks about the rear censor/blinking light. I could
care less about the light, those cost $5 and don't need to be intelligent at
all. The video definitely needs to be redone to showcase why exactly anyone
would want to spend $200 on this.

~~~
andor
The second and third video show more details.

[http://vimeo.com/99653723](http://vimeo.com/99653723)

[http://vimeo.com/99038775](http://vimeo.com/99038775)

~~~
buro9
> [http://vimeo.com/99038775](http://vimeo.com/99038775)

Finally the video with some info.

But does it log the info? Is the log available and verifiable?

If the car still hits you, could you make a persuasive argument about the
information you had available to you? Could you argue the vehicles speed, and
that you thought the vehicle threatening?

You're given some info that may affect your riding behaviour. It seems to me
this info needs to be available when the day comes that someone using this is
in court trying to obtain damages from a driver that has hit them.

If the info is not available or verifiable (inc' source code for the radar),
then I personally think it's better to _not_ have this device and spend the
money on brighter lights to begin with.

~~~
foxylad
I doubt that data would be useful in court without a lot of other supporting
evidence. To sue the imbecile who ran you over despite this device, you'd be
far better buying an additional actioncam instead - that would likely show
license plate and the driver's face.

But you do have a point that some research on the effectiveness of this device
- compared to brighter lights or other cheaper measures - would make it a lot
more desirable.

------
doctoboggan
I think this product would be well served by alerting the user about car
distance through some channel other than visual. When biking all visual
attention should be focused forward, and the extra information sensed by this
device could be delivered through some form of haptic feedback.

~~~
deepGem
True, one option is to integrate haptic feedback into a sensor in the shoe.
But even then, what action would one take based on this feedback. Should I
stop, pedal faster or switch a lane. Just the radar feedback of 'something is
about to hit you from behind' is probably not enough.

~~~
davidw
> But even then, what action would one take based on this feedback

Activate a rear-mounted grenade launcher, of course. Well, in some of my
violent daydreams regarding jerks in cars, at least.

------
mleonhard
Excellent hands-on review with photos and video:
[http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/07/hands-on-backtracker-
rada...](http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/07/hands-on-backtracker-radar.html)

------
lucb1e
I don't get how this works. The only dangerous situations that you can't
prevent right now are a car coming from around a blind corner or a car that
wants to turn while you go straight. In the former case you'd need to look
around the corner, something I can't imagine how it would do. In the latter
case it would need to magically know when a car, which might or might not have
been close to you for the last mile, suddenly decides to turn, and far enough
in advance that you can react to it. That too seems impossible without
something to detect a turning light.

Maybe I'm missing something by watching the video without sound (I'd wake
people up if I did), but it just doesn't seem possible to me to help in any
way. Detecting that there is a car behind me at all is something we commonly
do with a utility called "ears".

~~~
d4m0
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
would be good (thinking like the trackers in the Aliens movies)

~~~
andygates
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.

~~~
pflanze
> 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...](http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/07/hands-on-backtracker-radar.html)

------
Flow
If it took pictures of the plates and drivers of all the cars that pass from
behind, it would be a quite useful gadget.

I'm someone who has seen too many Go Pro videos on YouTube, here's an example
of such a video, this is a scary video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i556e3qyt58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i556e3qyt58)

~~~
m0nty
The comments, scarier still. "The cyclist screaming like a girl cracked me
up!"

~~~
gambiting
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?

~~~
Flow
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.

------
carlob
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.

~~~
mholt
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.

~~~
carlob
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).

------
rando289
I've heard that a solid light is better because a drunk driver will be
attracted to the blinking light, and naturally turn that way, hitting you
instead of passing you. And since this blinks faster as they approach, it
seems that it would have this effect even more.

------
8ig8
Here's /r/bicycling's comments from last week...

[http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/2bp2c8/handson_wi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/2bp2c8/handson_with_backtracker_dc_rainmaker/)

------
ck2
Great 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.

~~~
sitkack
Hybrids and electric cars should broadcast their position.

------
glomph
I just don't understand how this could be better than either looking behind
you or a mirror. I guess I would have to try it though.

~~~
taeric
For me, looking behind is dangerous, as I will swerve slightly in doing so.

------
mleonhard
I like this! I cycle in SF. This device could alert me when a car turns onto
the street behind me.

------
chasing
Interesting how the verb "back" has taken on the meaning "pre-order."

------
retroencabulato
Technology is good, the human interface sucks.

How about a Google Glass-esque helmet indicator?

~~~
lnanek2
I tried a Skully Helmets prototype a while back and they had an in-helmet
display. Also the capability to show you a wide degree of vision squeezed
together so you could monitor around you:
[http://www.skullysystems.com/](http://www.skullysystems.com/)

------
cypherpunks01
Will this trigger radar detectors? That could be a major unintended benefit if
so.

~~~
mentat
I was curious about this too, definitely a nice benefit if it could
purposefully trigger all types (where legal).

------
Mithaldu
Don't make me waste minutes of my time watching vague videos before i can
actually find out what it is. Give me a technical drawing first, or at the
very least have the decency and courtesy to have your video display what it
does, accurately, in the first ten seconds instead of making me watch someone
pump their bike.

Also, holy shit, blinking backlights are a massive danger source. They may be
nice when you're riding on a narrow country road with nothing at all for miles
but you, your bike, and a psycho car driver; however when you're in a city, on
a bike path, and there's a person behind you, your blinking light will rob
them of the ability to effectively concentrate on the surroundings because
your blinking light will keep drawing their attention. And don't try to tell
me you'll switch it off/set it to no-blink when you switch from riding on the
road to riding on a bike path. You'll be too lazy to. I'd be too lazy to.

In effect this project is badly marketing a thing that will increase traffic
danger.

I'd actually like this if it wasn't for the latter point.

~~~
andor
I don't think this is very useful for cycling in cities anyways. It's perfect
for road cyclists, though.

* In cities, I always expect cars to be behind me, and cars expect cyclists

* There is more protection from wind in cities, so the chance that I can hear those cars is higher. Outside the city it's more dangerous. When going downhill at more than 50 km/h, or on a flat stretch with side winds, the chance that I can hear cars behind me is close to zero.

* The speed limit in cities is lower

~~~
mthoms
>There is more protection from wind in cities

The opposite can also be true.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_canyon#Effect_on_wind](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_canyon#Effect_on_wind)

