Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Blaze Laserlights to be rolled out across Santander Cycles fleet

Star Wars-themed film launched to coincide with announcement

Formula 1 star Jenson Button, athlete Jessica Ennis-Hill and golfer Rory McIlroy all  feature in a new Star Wars – The Force Awaken-themed advert that celebrates the Blaze Laserlight being rolled out to all of London’s 11,500 Santander Cycles public hire bikes.

Transport for London has been piloting the award-winning light on 250 bikes in recent weeks, with three in four of the riders using them saying that their confidence increased as a result of using the lights, which project an image of a bicycle onto the road six feet ahead of the rider.

The announcement follows a successful pilot which saw 75% of cyclists who were riding bikes fitted with a Blaze Laserlight reporting that the lights made them feel more confident.

> Santander Cycles to trial lasers to reduce blind spot danger

Mayor of London Boris Johnson said: “It's fantastic that our Santander Cycles will be able to bring light to the dark side of the street with these nifty Laserlights.

“We're always looking to develop new and innovative ways to help people cycle around the Capital more safely and these green lights will help all our cycle hire users to stay seen at night.

“I'm delighted that through this great partnership, we're able to help improve safety and support the enterprise of another brilliant London start-up.”

Blaze CEO & Founder Emily Brooke, who has a cameo role in the advert, said: “We are truly thrilled our Laserlight technology is being integrated into the entire fleet of Santander Cycles.

“Although we have been shipping the consumer version for nearly two years, and now to 52 countries, this incredible partnership immediately takes things to the next level and will make thousands of cyclists more visible and safer on our roads.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

19 comments

Avatar
hampstead_bandit | 8 years ago
0 likes

so this explains the confusing green mess I have seen coming towards me recently during my commutes? I thought it was some idiot with a laser pen trying to blind oncoming cyclists.

seems a huge waste of money, considering how ineffective the rear lights are on a boris bike, its surprising that the rear lights are even road legal?

if you look carefully, you have 2 dim red lamps mounted on seat stays at rear axle height, way below where they should be (i.e. seatpost height) to catch the attention of distracted drivers in busy traffic

When we fit lights to customers bikes in many bike shops I've worked in, we always aim to fit as high as possible on the rear to catch the driver's eye line, if you cannot get the light onto the seat post or its obstructed by the rear panier rack, we'd fashion a mount and bolt the light to the rear of the rack so its as high as possible

In the photo I took of one of these bikes at the Design Museum, you can just see the cover for one of the lights above the chain tensioner box (grey) behind the bike's serial number. 

//ep1.pinkbike.org/p6pb13018915/p5pb13018915.jpg)

Recently, I've also spotted a good number of people riding Boris bikes at night with no working lights? 

perhaps Serco should concentrate on fixing the existing bikes, and TFL on upgrading the poor rear lights, than wasting money on a gimmick

Avatar
StuInNorway replied to hampstead_bandit | 8 years ago
0 likes

hampstead_bandit wrote:

 

When we fit lights to customers bikes in many bike shops I've worked in, we always aim to fit as high as possible on the rear to catch the driver's eye line, if you cannot get the light onto the seat post or its obstructed by the rear panier rack, we'd fashion a mount and bolt the light to the rear of the rack so its as high as possible

 

I can strongly reccomend this one as an option for when you have a rear luggage rack.  I use one of these here in Norway as my main rear light as I'm not out in "full darkness" so often, and have a secondary brighter one on seatpost for night training runs. Fixed, blinking or "sequential" mode (Think knight rider front lights)  going centre-middle-edge-middle-centre, so always lit up.  
It scares me the number of people who fit good rear lights on the seat post hidden by luggage racks, rear mudguards, saddle back and of course nice warm winter jackets.   (When it's dark here it's REALLY dark away from street lights)

Avatar
PhilRuss | 8 years ago
0 likes

[[[[[[ Test-send

Avatar
thereverent | 8 years ago
0 likes

The ides of this is quite good, although the ones I have seen in London seem to suffer from the image bouncing around and not being that recognisable.

As for the cost, the bulk order would make them much cheaper than the retail version.

 

Avatar
arfa | 8 years ago
1 like

Personal injury cases have long been deemed unsuitable for jury trials so I wouldn't worry about the impact of these lights on outcomes in civil cases. I am just curious as to how it was decided these expensive unproven lights were money well spent as there were other more cost effective improvements that could have been made as other posters have pointed out.

Avatar
KiwiMike | 8 years ago
3 likes

This has just re-set the contributory negligence barrier a hell of a lot lower. Anyone smashing into a London cyclist will have their barrister argue 'they should have had those TfL-approved laser lights on'. Juries will no doubt agree. A fucking stupid idea that again shifts the onus away from drivers paying attention and onto vulnerable road users expected to deploy ever-brighter 'safety' accessories. Obviously the company was tanking due to poor reviews, so did a deal.

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to KiwiMike | 8 years ago
2 likes

KiwiMike wrote:

This has just re-set the contributory negligence barrier a hell of a lot lower. Anyone smashing into a London cyclist will have their barrister argue 'they should have had those TfL-approved laser lights on'. Juries will no doubt agree. A fucking stupid idea that again shifts the onus away from drivers paying attention and onto vulnerable road users expected to deploy ever-brighter 'safety' accessories. Obviously the company was tanking due to poor reviews, so did a deal.

It's more worrying that juries are showing up in civil courts to be honest.

Avatar
the little onion | 8 years ago
1 like

I notice that the article mentions "improved confidence" twice, as if just feeling more confident will make cycling safer. Is there any evidence that this light makes cycling safer, e.g. by reducing close passes? Or is just there to make cyclists feel better about themselves - the Gok Wan of cycling technology!

 

Avatar
davsear | 8 years ago
2 likes

I doubt it has anything to do with safety! I imagine Santander noticed that few tourists were hiring their bikes at night. Stick a gimmicky light on the front and boom, sales go up! 

Avatar
Hilton | 8 years ago
1 like

Ther are a lot of flaws with this and I think it is quite a cynical way for the city of London to be seen to do something for cyclists, without really addressing the underlying causes of 'accidents'.  The TRL report found that "in static tests, with drivers sitting in a bus, car, van and tipper lorry, the Laserlight made the bike more visible AT NIGHT in various positions around the vehicle."  

So given 80% of accidents happen in DAYLIGHT hours during the commuter rush hours or morning and early evening, it doesn't make sense to go to the expense of fitting this expensive device. 

Unless of course, they just want to be seen to do something to help cyclists rather than actually spending the money that is needed to put in quality infrastructure.

Love the caveat that is in the TRL report:  'Whilst the tests described in this report indicate the conditions under which the Blaze Laserlight can be seen, they do not ensure that the Blaze Laserlight will be noticed by drivers who may be concentrating on other events'. Ha! 

Quotes from the TRL report are from this article in The Guardian 

Avatar
brooksby | 8 years ago
0 likes

On the other hand, do you think motorists would pass us properly if we fitted a three foot lightsaber pointing out from the side of the bike?  "Hmm, the force is strong in this one, think I'll give him some room..."  It might be more effective than a projector light.

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 8 years ago
0 likes

There are many problems with this...can't be arsed spelling them out. Yes it's a gimmick, yes it's expensive and yes if this were made by a big company I'd be wondering about backhanders.

 

The front light (stupid lazer thing aside) is a decent upgrade (at a far larger cost than need be) but what about the rear?? Pretty important no???

Avatar
arfa | 8 years ago
1 like

I backed Blaze on kickstarter as I really liked the idea of a forward light projection. The trouble is that it doesn't really work as our roads are so bumpy that you don't get a clear projection, more of a green squiggle a short distance ahead. At best people saw it but didn't think where it might be coming from as they focused their attention on the green squiggle. I no longer use mine as a result as the cateye volt is cheaper and more effective.
I do wonder who decided to roll these out across the bike fleet and what the reasoning was as I don't think the case has been conclusively made.

Avatar
Prosper0 replied to arfa | 8 years ago
4 likes

arfa wrote:

I do wonder who decided to roll these out across the bike fleet and what the reasoning was as I don't think the case has been conclusively made.

Especially considering the integrated lights are really weak, the rear lights dangerously so. Why not upgrade those first?

 

 

Avatar
Zebulebu | 8 years ago
3 likes

Don't necessarily think they're a distraction - just don't think they do anything. It doesn't make a shred of difference to whether someone is going to pull out in front of you, or across you, or step into the road ahead of you. If they're going to do that, no stupid little lighted bicycle will make a difference. 125 quid a pop? SOmeone is making a f*** of a lot of money from nowt more than a gimmick.

Avatar
putmebackonmybike | 8 years ago
4 likes

I've ridden a few Boris bikes with presumably the test models on. They are a mistake. As much as they seem a great idea, there is something quite disorientating about the projected bike picture in front of you and the way it moves off the road, on to backs of bikes ahead, nearer/further over speed bumps and undulating surfaces, and esp when you turn the handlebars and it appears to 'shoot off'. And you're attention turns downwards to it, instinctively, at the loss of left-right peripheral vision. Like a donkey and a stick.

Also, pedestrians do the same, and I expect drivers. They look down and away at it - not at you projecting it. It's adding a lot of distraction to already busy London streets. Silly.

Avatar
bendertherobot | 8 years ago
1 like

Rrp is 125 quid. Guessing these must be dynamo powered? Not cheap is the answer

Avatar
Prosper0 | 8 years ago
1 like

Very gimmicky lights. How much did this cost?

Avatar
bendertherobot | 8 years ago
1 like

11,500 sales? No wonder she's thrilled......

Latest Comments