[CaveTech]

There's so little focus on the front component, that I still have no idea if it could be worthwhile to me. Seems like there's lights that show how far behind you the nearest car is? But that's a total guess - what I could gather from a few glimpses at the design; and this is the main selling point.

Almost the entire video talks about the rear censor/blinking light. I could care less about the light, those cost $5 and don't need to be intelligent at all. The video definitely needs to be redone to showcase why exactly anyone would want to spend $200 on this.

[andor]

The second and third video show more details.

http://vimeo.com/99653723

http://vimeo.com/99038775

[buro9]

> http://vimeo.com/99038775

Finally the video with some info.

But does it log the info? Is the log available and verifiable?

If the car still hits you, could you make a persuasive argument about the information you had available to you? Could you argue the vehicles speed, and that you thought the vehicle threatening?

You're given some info that may affect your riding behaviour. It seems to me this info needs to be available when the day comes that someone using this is in court trying to obtain damages from a driver that has hit them.

If the info is not available or verifiable (inc' source code for the radar), then I personally think it's better to not have this device and spend the money on brighter lights to begin with.

[foxylad]

I doubt that data would be useful in court without a lot of other supporting evidence. To sue the imbecile who ran you over despite this device, you'd be far better buying an additional actioncam instead - that would likely show license plate and the driver's face.

But you do have a point that some research on the effectiveness of this device - compared to brighter lights or other cheaper measures - would make it a lot more desirable.