Blind spots are blind because there's no direct path from any part of the bike to the driver's eyes. If the design is specifically worried about being in a blind spot, ironically the better design is to concentrate the LED power with narrow beam of light so the bike can cast light further away outside the blindspot.

Anyway, being in a blindspot is dangerous even for cars that have those ridiculously overpowered bright headlamps. When a driver says the "cyclist came out of nowhere" it just means the driver was driving carelessly. More lamps won't solve that.

Interesting idea but I'm not sure the benefit is worth the cost and the bulky gadget. Regular bike lights don't have such a narrow beam of light, unless by "regular" they mean the most laser-focused bike lights of the market. My two lights are pretty diffuse.

In what situations are said cyclists hard for motorists to see that a combination of normal bike light and high viz material won't work? Foggy day, cyclist and driver are perpendicular on an intersection? If it's foggy, the fog works as light diffuser. If it's not foggy, any piece of reflective material would do the trick... unless truckers are not turning on their headlights in total darkness, at which point normal bike lights are enough again.

Having spent that much time in a truck, he understands what makes cyclists difficult to see.

lol no, that's not how it works, there are professionals that dedicate their lives to studying vehicle lighting

It's exactly as (un)secure as I expected. It's a wireless device made by bike part manufactures... can't expect better, realistically.

Still, I wouldn't recommend someone against buying one because of this. The threat model for cyclists is getting maimed by vehicles or psychopaths laying booby traps out there. Hackers messing with my gear shifting is the least of my worries.

I’m tired of trying to convince drivers.

It looks like to me the goal isn't to convince drivers to behave, but to recreate some momentum ahead of election year. It's already a big win just to increase election turnout among people who are already convinced we need more/better cycling infrastructure and improved road designs. Another big win would be to get those people to show up on council meetings, and just voice their opinion louder. Visibility for local advocates has that organizing power.

There are many ways to make that work, and what happens is usually a combination of one or more of these factors:

1. Living/working a short distance away from a grocer, so it's a quick trip that can happen any day of the week
2. Having a grocer in the commuting route such that a quick stop doesn't really add any extra travel time to your day
3. Shop for the next week or two of groceries instead of buying a lot of things in bulk for the month
4. Forego big wholesale purchases like getting 3 month's worth of toilet paper at once for big savings
5. Having a cargo bike or at least some extra pannier/baskets to increase capacity

Using an e-bike helps, but I wouldn't say it's as big of a factor as those above. I don't have one, don't think I will any time soon.

I'm good with having 1, 2 and 3. I still get wholesale stuff at a discount, but I get those delivered to my place instead. The delivery fee is offset by purchasing in bulk. But for everything not wholesale, I get it sorted with a 15 minute detour on my way back from work once a week. This is all pretty easy to make it happen, but only because I live somewhere (Vancouver downtown) that has a decent urban fabric and passable cycling network.

My work is 2km away from my place so I gladly commute by bicycle, though sometimes I take the bus and sometimes I walk.

I wouldn't do 17km, but 10km I might. Really the biggest factor to me isn't the distance, but the safety of the route. Though I'd guess it's hard to find 17km of contiguously safe commutes out there.

Indeed! Everyone that yearns for this infrastructure, engage the local Vision Zero community!

The real solution here is to educate people about the importance of helmets and about the importance of other safety measures such as safe cycling practices.

So the real solution to cyclists getting run over is teaching cyclists about safety?

I'm not against teaching the importance of helmet and cycling safely - I think those are relevant ingredients - but this is FAR far away from a real solution.

I can't say for sure if it's exactly the same, but I'd say it's very close to what you get filtering for highway=cycleway

AAA = All-Ages-and-Abilities. In Vancouver it almost always is a protected bike path, but in theory it also includes off street bicycle paths (like the Stanley Park seawall, I think). Meaning, the really nice lanes.

Tried brouter, really liked it! The no-go circles is way faster than adding hundreds of "Avoid road" markers on OsmAnd! Thanks :-)

Edit: spent two hours customizing BRouter's routing algorithms with my own cost factors based on OSM cycling related tags, it's now working like a charm without me having to put a single no-go zone! Thanks again for the recommendation!

Strava helps because I can easily see which paths have lots of traffic and those tend to be AAA or similar, but it doesn't do much more than adding the CyclOSM overlay in OsmAnd. And while I really dig the Route creation & mgmt, that's mostly useful after I already know the route I need. I'll take a look at Komoot and ORS, thanks.

Edit: ORS already got major points for having the CyclOSM layer as well! Still, it doesn't allow me to prioritize AAA routes :-/

Really cool. I’d host some if not for some very personal reasons, but I’ll take a look at the repo and see if there’s something I can contribute.