DCSConcepts

Hi, I'm an inventor, Dave Cutler. I'm working on a safety product for cyclists that I'm trying to get licensed (to a major brand).

Since admittedly I'm not an avid cyclist, I'd like to ask road cyclists out there for their opinion. The feedback, good and bad, will help me create a better product. It'll also help increase the likelihood of getting a licensing deal and getting the product out there.

Hoopdriver

Your invention does not align with what a typical motorist processes while driving. I reckon you can make the argument that it's a good thing because they would tend to notice the effect; however they would be more likely to filter it out, just as they would do with bright adverts, landscape lighting, etc. Drivers are conditioned to see red and amber lights from the rear and side, and white from the front. Because of all of the distracting lights, they easily filter out things that are odd. Your invention may make things less safe for cyclists. Best to stick to the convention - and there are already very good lighting systems for bikes.

You have invented a gimmick, which would probably sell to folks that like gimmicky things. Go for it, but don't sell it on safety unless you can back it up with real research. Your web site says it's "amazingly effective! At what? Find yourself a good Human Factors Consultant and gain some insight before you spend much more time on this.

DCSConcepts

Thanks for the candid feedback, although I don’t agree with your opinion that HALO is a gimmick. My intent for the design was to create a simple, affordable and effective way to make cycling safer at night. I worked on many prototypes to arrive at this one and although there’s definitely room for improvement and refinement, I believe the product to be effective.

During the process of creating HALO I learned of other products on the market that were creating a downlight. No surprise, and for a variety of reasons, I believe HALO is a better product. Regardless, online comments and reviews about these products indicate that some type of downlight surrounding the cyclist can be effective.


Below is from an online article about Michelin Tires promoting the concept of BikeSphere, a much more elaborate and expensive solution that projects a ring of (red) light around the cyclist.

“A study conducted my Michelin regarding bike safety revealed that at least one in five drivers fails to give cyclists adequate room on the road. The BikeSphere helps make it easier for drivers to see the “safe” zone around a bike and help them avoid inadvertently muscling in where they don’t belong. According to Michelin’s statistics, 1 in 5 drivers doesn’t respect this distance, causing more that 5000 avoidable accidents every year.”


Below is from a website for a product similar to, but not the same as, HALO. It’s called Ding and it projects a very bright rectangular-shaped white light down onto the ground:

“Cyclists using DING Lights tell us that drivers pass them more considerately, giving them more space on the road. They notice overtaking cars leave more room and turning cars stopping and letting them go by.”


Below is from a review of the Tern Tizy light by Momentum Magazine. Note that the Tizy’s red light is not nearly as visible as HALO’s (see a video comparison at bikehalo[dot]com):

“I don’t have concrete data to prove this works but when using the light I felt I was always being given an safe amount of space by passing drivers. Maybe it’s because my bike was lit up and they knew I was a cyclist sooner allowing them to react sooner. Or maybe they tried to avoid the red circle being projected onto the ground. Either way I found it removed some of the stresses of a late night commute.”

* * *

Unfortunately, I’m not in a position at this time to hire an expert on human behavior to determine the effectiveness of HALO. From my own experience riding at night with prototypes attached to my bike, it was obvious to me that cars were giving me more space. Granted, that's anecdotal evidence, but as the website BikeRumor points out, “The more you can stand out, the better.” I feel with confidence that HALO does just that.

Thanks again for your thoughts- Dave

Hoopdriver

All of your "data" is subjective as you describe. Once you start to market, your customers will no doubt perceive positive results, and perhaps this will be the occasional case, but all of this will still be subjective. There are so many factors that affect how much passing distance a cyclist gets. I would opine that position in lane is probably more significant that type of lighting system.

Inventions like yours are gimmicks until they become conventions. In order to become conventional (i.e. anticipated and recognised by motorists) you will really have to develop more reliable data, and I don't think it would be that tough in your case. See this report of a study that gauged passing distances (with curious findings). Why not try to connect with a cyclist on faculty in a nearby University.

"The more you stand out, the better" - This sounds true, especially since most cyclists barely stand out; however you have to keep in mind that too much of a show could lead to target fixation, where drivers are prone to collide with the object on which they are focused. This is why motorists hit lit up police cars on sides of roads. Will your device be a cognitive focus attraction that results in the cyclist being "targeted"? Who knows? Until you understand a lot more about driver cognition you shouldn't be making the claims that you are.

Bottom line is that spending money on product research is wiser than spending on a glitzy web site. It will also be of value if you get sued.

DCSConcepts

Hoopdriver- I wonder if I'm being sensitive to the word "gimmick" because here in the US it typically implies something being deceptively marketed. In any case, I'll take your thoughtful advice and speak with our local university to see if they can offer some assistance. As for the spending money on a "glitzy web site" I'll take that as a compliment as I personally created the bikehalo(dot)com site at very little cost. Again, thank you for your comments.