Helmet? Check. Hi-vis? Check. Animated smart backpack with a widget that allows you to indicate using a wireless remote? Check, if you want to splash out $199 for the new Pix backpack, which is currently crowdfunding on Kickstarter.
Lumos helmet available to buy in Apple stores
Revolve wheels fold down when not in use
As demonstrated by the over-enthusiastic hipsters in the video above, you can choose from lots of stock images to display on your backpack when you’re in da club or hanging out in gentrified New York suburbs; and you can even customise the images (some of the suggestions in the road.cc office might not go down too well with the general public). It’s all controlled through a smartphone app that you can use on the go via Bluetooth, so you can change your animation from smiley to sad face emoji if your day takes a turn for the worse and you want folk to leave you alone.
The cycling application is thanks to the Pix signalling widget. Via the supplied wireless remote that mounts to your handlebars the bag shows animated turn signals, and it also has a big red stop sign for when you’re coming to a halt.
Pix is water resistant and shock resistant, with the full colour screen built into the shell and plenty of space for gear inside. Although this might be the first backpack we’ve seen with customisable animations, the concept of bike indicators on clothing, accessories or anywhere else you can put them isn’t new; in fact you can read a round-up of them by our own John Stevenson here.
Pix say they are “excited to help people unleash their creativity” with their invention and are currently around halfway towards crowdfunding $50,000 to go into full production. Check out the Kickstarter here, and the Pix website here for more info.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
20 thoughts on “The Pix backpack with animated turn signals is crowdfunding on Kickstarter”
Anyone know how that London
Anyone know how that London Taxi driver’s cyclist indicator went?
Not a good idea to put an
Not a good idea to put an illuminated keep left sign on your back if you intend to turn left
If you cannot see this thing
If you cannot see this thing because it is on your back then you can only assume that it is working correctly and signalling in the correct direction, if at all. It would be a calamity if you were turning right and the backpack was signalling to the vehicle behind that you were turning left.
So drivers are assumed to
So drivers are assumed to know that a big arrow on your back is to indicate YOUR intentions and not a message to them requesting them to pass?
Fail on so many levels.
We have a indicator system that has been perfect for over 100 years and the majority of us are born with them. Arms.
I can think of a few more
I can think of a few more useful symbols that this could display to tell idiot drivers where to go
CygnusX1 wrote:
My first thought too: will a middle finger salute be one of the options?
Do you think someone could
Do you think someone could invent an indicator system for cars that drivers actually used?
Deeferdonk wrote:
Some of them are taught to not indicate unless they can see who they’re indicating for.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You should be thinking sufficiently when driving to determine whether it makes sense to indicate. After all, if there’s no one else around, or only drivers in front but not behind, why indicate? It makes no sense. To do it automatically suggests you aren’t thinking about what you’re doing any more than someone who never indicates.
vonhelmet wrote:
Almost word-for-word what my driving instructor said to me.
To which I replied ‘if I was omniscient I wouldn’t be taking driving lessons’. Almost word-for-word.
davel wrote:
You should be thinking sufficiently when driving to determine whether it makes sense to indicate. After all, if there’s no one else around, or only drivers in front but not behind, why indicate? It makes no sense. To do it automatically suggests you aren’t thinking about what you’re doing any more than someone who never indicates.
— hawkinspeter Almost word-for-word what my driving instructor said to me. To which I replied ‘if I was omniscient I wouldn’t be taking driving lessons’. Almost word-for-word.— Deeferdonk
To me, the point of having recommended ways of doing things is to reduce the impact of mistakes, whereas the “only indicate when it makes sense” does the opposite of this. As a cyclist I’d much rather that motorists indicate whenever they are doing a maneouvre (though not when it is ambiguous or misleading) including pulling out from a parking space or driveway.
vonhelmet wrote:
One kind of collision is the “SMIDSY”. Indicating when you don’t think there’s anyone around may help them* to mitigate your mistake.
*The Y in SMIDSY.
vonhelmet wrote:
I have a pet hate as a pedestrian: waiting to cross a side road, deciding whether or not to cross, when the car coming toward me on the main road doesn’t bother to indicate a left turn because there are no other cars that they can see. Pedestrians are also counted as road users, I believe.
brooksby wrote:
Me too.
Again, some motorists might have forgotten to include pedestrians in their “targets” to indicate to. It’s another situation where indicating by default is beneficial.
brooksby wrote:
I get this a lot, actually.
It doesn’t help that I’m about half the height of an average pedestrian, what with the wheelchair and all.
If this happens when I’m halfway through a crossing, and they get arsey about my being there, I bring my ‘chair to a complete stop, twist to face them, hold my hands up on an invisible wheel, and pointedly move my left hand as though actuating an indicator.
They usually get the point and oh, there’s that indicator, good boy. Now wait for me to clear the road, I’ve got priority.
It’s not quite as irritating as the arsebiscuits who park right against junctions – I can’t see through, because wheelchair, and it’s especially dangerous when I’m on my recumbent, because then I can’t see until roughly half my 2.2m length is out into the road.
But would you rather deal
But would you rather deal with, say, a driver who always looked in their mirrors and around them but never indicated, or one who always indicated but never looked?
I’m not saying you shouldn’t indicate, I’m just saying that if you’re indicating without thinking about what you’re actually doing and why, then you’re not really driving very well.
After all, it makes no sense to indicate when you’re moving off from the roadside if you’ve looked in your mirrors and there is no one behind to see you. Conversely, I am sure we will all have encountered drivers who stick an indicator on and pull out even though you’re right there. Sure, they indicated, but they clearly weren’t thinking about what was actually going on or they wouldn’t have moved.
Worth remembering that it goes mirror, signal, manouver. Also worth remembering that use of indicators in the Highway Code is a should, not a must. Finally, the IAM will also reportedly fail you for indicating when no one is around to see it.
vonhelmet wrote:
Personally, I’d rather deal with motorists that always signal as in general motorists have poor visibility, so at least I’ll have a good chance of knowing what they are planning to do.
If you consider when someone pulls off from the roadside, if a cyclist is in their blindspot, then they’ll just pull straight out in front of the cyclist with no warning. However, if the same driver just indicates as a matter of course, then the cyclist has a chance to brake and react.
Also, consider if a motorist is going relatively slowly (15mph) along a residential road and wants to turn right. They check their mirror, but unfortunately don’t spot a faster cyclist going to overtake them (again, in their blindspot perhaps). The car turns right and squishes the cyclist. Alternatively, the un-thinking driver indicates anyway and a mistake is not compounded by arrogance.
I think you’ll find that it should be mirror, signal, mirror, maneouvre.
The Highway Code should be updated to make indicating a “must” and IAM should change their policy on indicating as there are clearly instances when people are not making the right choices when driving.
Hope you have a stock of
Hope you have a stock of squirel imagery handy. I have a feeling this one will run.
Personally, if I’m sure there is no other traffic / pedestrians / other road users around then I don’t signal, if I’m not sure then I give myself a mental kick up the arse about paying attention and check again.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I’m confident that my stock of squirrel images will not be exhausted any time soon.
I forgot to mention in previous post that it’s a false dichotomy between thinking and indicating. I’m all for drivers thinking and observing, but the important point is what happens when mistakes are made (we all make mistakes from time to time). I think it’s complete hubris to assume that if you don’t think someone is around that they are not around.
There’s also reaction times to consider. If a motorist is about to do a maneouvre and there’s no-one around, they might decide to not indicate. Imagine then, that a cyclist comes racing out of a one-way side road (the motorist didn’t realise that there’s a bike lane going the opposite direction along that side road) and is about to go right into the motorist’s path. How long does it take for the motorist to react to the cyclist and then start indicating and then for the cyclist to react to the indicating? Compare to the situation when the motorist was already indicating “just in case”.
I cannot think of any instance when not indicating provides any benefit (except when your indicators have been wired into your fuel tank).
Me, I’d rather drivers looked
Me, I’d rather drivers looked and indicated. They are not mutually exclusive. Thinking a bit as well wouldn’t hurt.