TechCrunch reports on a new bicycle path built in the Polish city of Pruszków. The surface of the path is phosphorescent: after a sunny day, it will glow through the nightime.
According to BBC News, there was a similar project in the Netherlands in 2014: phosphorescent paint was applied to 500 m (547 yards) of a highway. The hope was that the markings could replace electric lights.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Phosphorescent Bicycle Path Built in Poland
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 13 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @11:26AM
Nope. It's sexist blue and it doesn't turn pink for week once a month.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday October 09 2016, @01:55PM
No, it's worse dan dat! It's LIBERAL blue!!!! In dat dere SOCIALIST cuntry!!! They all be CUMMUNISTS!!!! Dey don' got no GUNS!!! Dere GODLESS FASCIST COMMIES!!!
*Inspired by the many comments on the political message boards. I'll leave it to you to figure out who they are....
**You better mod me funny, it cost 30 IQ points to write that!
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @02:21PM
Nope. It's sexist blue and it doesn't turn pink for week once a month.
Holy crap, can we ever have an article where the MRAs don't come out and start whining, usually (as in this article) completely off-topic, about what victims they are?
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 09 2016, @02:53PM
Let me tell you about cyclists.
The adage, "Separate but Equal" comes from a rather dark chapter in American history, but applied to bicycles vs. automobiles it is most appropriate.
I don't know what dumb son of a bitch decided that it was sane for bike riders and car drivers to share the same road, but we need to put a stop to that. We need sufficiently separated, with as much equality in convenience, infrastructure to accommodate both cars and bikes. Future communities should be designed around that principle. Making roads bike-friendly shits up traffic, causes more danger to walking pedestrians, and generally clusterfucks up the whole area.
Cyclists are usually also douchebags of the highest order, ones who keep M3's and Priuses in their garages. They ignore traffic rules and swerve in and out of turn lanes. They believe that the right-of-way gives them license to douchebaggery. But in spite of all that, changing the mentality of every cyclist will not solve the problem of cycling on the streets. Separate infrastructure must be built.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday October 09 2016, @07:52PM
I agree completely on the need for separation. Your next paragraph.. if you replaced "cyclists" with "drivers" (and ignore the bit about "M3s and Priuses", your sentence still makes sense.
where is the +1 insightful, -1 crass stereotyping mod?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09 2016, @08:48PM
If I had mod points, I'd mod that up as insightful. However, judging by the douchbag bikers in my community, they would eschew the trails and use the roads anyway, especially during rush hour.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday October 09 2016, @03:20PM
Does anybody have an idea of how much phosphorescent paths should theoretically contribute to light polution? It seems like a lot of light pointing generally upwards to me, but I could be missing something. The pedestrian path in TFA is only illuminated on the edges, which should help mitigate the problem (if there even is a problem), but the bike path is solid -- I assume to make obstacles like rocks more apparent. Most of the stars are pretty well hidden from city-dwellers already, and I doubt that making bike paths glow will hide very many more. But if the entire US Interstate Highway System started glowing I could see there being a significant loss of star visibility across the country. I'd love to know whether or not this is a reasonable fear.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday October 09 2016, @03:27PM
Welp. I suggest moving to the White Mountains of Arizona. [wikipedia.org]
The night sky looks like this [pixabay.com] to the naked eye. Plus, property is cheap and you can have lots of guns and smoke weed.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday October 09 2016, @04:40PM
Light is already going upwards, it just generally bounces off the path. If we're concerned with light pollution, it would probably make sense to use less intense lights more frequently and try to keep the blacktop regularly replaced so that it absorbs as much of the light as possible. And in that respect, this is likely to help a lot as you'll have smaller, weaker light sources all along the road.
In terms of something like this, it is being directed directly upwards, but I doubt it's anywhere near as bright and it's not covering as much area. Those lights they used to light up streets and bike paths are usually focused more widely so you can see what's going on adjacent to the path as well as in the path. This looks to light the path well, but I doubt it gives a good look at the sides.
I doubt this is going to work for that reason. When crime rates spike along these paths because an attacker was able to hide next to the path, there's likely to be discussions and the experiment will probably be terminated.
There's also the possibility of negative health effects from the chemicals they're using. I didn't see a mention of what they're using, but a lot of the things we've used for phosphorescence in the past have been radioactive or otherwise toxic.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday October 09 2016, @05:18PM
We're told it's "a light-emitting material that charges in the sun." I don't know what the material is, but if it were radioluminescent it would be self-contained.
The bitumen used in plain old tarmac emits a variety of hydrocarbons, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons--which are carcinogenic, especially when it's being laid.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol103/mono103-001.pdf [monographs.iarc.fr]
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday October 10 2016, @02:12AM
Presumably it wouldn't be radioactive, but, given the history of these substances and ones used for road markings, I'd personally like to know what it is if I were going to be living near it. The lead compound they used to use for those yellow lines on the road isn't exactly something that you'd want to be inhaling if you can help it.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Sunday October 09 2016, @05:31PM
This is similar to the glow-in-the-dark stars you would stick on your bedroom ceiling. Not as bright as source lighting every couple hundred feet. And, additionally the sidewalk will taper in intensity with time, so by the wee hours of the morning there is no light coming off them.
However I think neither of these are replacing major sources of light pollution, such as road way lighting or parking lot lighting. Those security lights are bright enough to read by, and really drive the light pollution of a city.
(Score: 2) by Username on Sunday October 09 2016, @08:58PM
If there isn’t enough power to power lights at night, then the solution would be to allow companies to build more power plants. Even if it’s the cost of the lights, more competing points of power would lower the cost.
Amount of light it gives off doesn’t do much other than guide people to stay on the path. You wont see anything already in it, until you’re on top of it. Doesn’t help determine what will intersect the path either.
If you wanted more safety, pass laws that require cyclists and pedestrians to wear reflective clothing and lights at night.