Response:
Much of outer areas are transit poor and would make even better use of this even at an increased cost which may not be justifiable since everyone benefits from inceased mobility across the city including real estate values. Hybrid human-electric vehicles and systems would likely be crucial to deployment in remote areas.

In advanced systems highly-integrated with other New York City services such as the City University of New York (CUNY), advanced university and public research library access, local communications (potentially), reduced rates on entertainment and sports venues, medical (potentially), the cost structure could be similar and depend on whether individuals/commuters pay city income tax, and the city could subsidize those most in need which would also be good for the local economy.

These Bikes would help the Downtown SI greatly, especially with the tourist industry. I don’t think that any SIer would argue for the whole boro to be included; 2/3s of the boro is too suburban. And when you consider that NYC does not allow islander to ride bikes over our only bridge connection to the city, a bike share program would be under utilized. But on the North Shore especially Downtown it would work great.

But even if they decide to ignore Staten Island once again, SI at least needed one place to return the bikes by the Ferry in St. George. It will be a night mare trying to return the bikes in Manhattan or Brooklyn when our stuck on SI.

Rapid deployment of public bicycle systems is the first real step in mitigating many of the stultifying and often terrible disparities of current transportation systems.

If a broadly implemented public bicycle system improves New York City real estate values by one percent, the equivalent dollar value improvement of the New York City one-trillion dollar real estate business is a whopping 10 billion dollars.

To your response:

a. (and c.) Perhaps "blinding" was too strong a term, and I meant it in the relative sense. I say "hyper-illumination" to mean something beyond what is required by law what others have. In my view the techniques you describe will make the cyclist who is not "retro-equipped" relatively less visible, enough to create a tangible threat to them. In other words - in fact, perhaps to paraphrase you - you want cyclists to stand out, and this will in relation to everything else out there. You are saying it makes them safer and I am saying that it makes other less safe for the same reason.

The static applications are fine, and how these are implemented is decided by authorities and I imagine is or will become a legal standard. On the other hand with bikes it is a personal choice and will only be on some of them.

b. To repeat what I wrote off this list to email addresses I found on the Halo and Worksman sites, I am sorry I unfairly criticized the coating process itself. Hopefully other readers recognize like I do that powder coatings don't just protect the frame but also the environment, relative to the other method you describe.

d. You want to do the same thing with all these other users! You also don't address the pedestrians vs. cyclists thing.

e. Sure, we both are speculating... or perhaps I am not sure what you saying with this item.

f. Do you want the police to give out free bike helmets?

a. Retro reflectivity is not blinding. It is not hyper-illumination. Retro reflectivity is the efficient return of light straight back to the light source. Retro reflectivity allows drivers (sitting behind headlights) to see stop signs, dotted lines in the road and the tape on the bottom of trucks - none of which is blinding. Retro reflectivity has long been proven to enhance safety on the streets - and not cause accidents.

b. Powder Coatings are the most environmentally friendly coatings that exist - far more eco friendly than the liquid coatings that are currently applied to most bicycles. Powder coating creates no waste - whatever powder doesn't stick to a target object is reclaimed and sprayed onto the next object - and powder coatings emit zero voc's (volatile organic content). The greater durability of powder coatings enhances their cradle to cradle superiority over liquid coatings. Most bikes are made in China where they use liquid coatings - because they are slightly cheaper (in the short run) and the environmental regulations are more lax.

c. Halo Coatings were not developed exclusively for the bike industry. Halo's primary target markets are highway and rail safety. Imagine guardrails that appear like ribbons of light at night and trains and train crossings that are fully side visible - and you get the picture.

d. Halo Retro reflective Coatings will be enhancing the visibility and safety of pedestrians and pets and is working with numerous consumer products companies to introduce a new and cost effective level of night visibility - including zipper, buckle, backpack, helmet, leash and stroller manufacturers.

e. Halo Coatings will not prevent or promote vehicular congestion or reckless driving by motorists or cyclists.

And finally, thanks - I think - for assuming we're some large corporation with massive funds. We're actually a few guys with a breakthrough technology for safety that we developed in the proverbial American garage and have the had good fortune to team up with some great companies ( like Worksman )to bring our technology to market.

Bicycles ridden at night already have requirements for lights and reflectors. I wish more people had these things and kept them in order. A little friendly reinforcement couldn't hurt (e.g a fix-it ticket doubles as a discount coupon for legal illumination equipment.) Pedestrians have no requirements, and I hope it stays that way.

I suggest that "hyper-illuminating" a bike (or cyclist) can create the following problems:

* During the time a ride is happening - I will call this the acute situation - a hyper-illuminated cyclist blinds drivers to others in close proximity who are normally illuminated (per regulations). In other words, normally-illuminated cyclists are caught in a relative shadow or absence of light;

* In general - the chronic scenario - if some bikes are "super-reflective" than people will start to think it's a good idea and start passing laws to make it mandatory;

* The hyper-illumination you describe is indeed only super-reflectivity: It does nothing for pedestrian-cyclist interactions;

* Related to that, it could make a cyclist overestimate their amount of visibility to pedestrians, and in a manner similar to what has been said about helmets, could make a cyclist more reckless, canceling out any safety benefits.

Perhaps I didn't see it on your website, but it seems like including built-in lights (with hub generators,etc.)as standard equipment on your non-industrial models could actually increase safety more than a new paint job. Powder-coating is great for durability, but I also wonder if the chemistry required for a reflective variant also creates toxicity issues during manufacturing which you would rather not deal with.

Finally, beyond including lights, it would be great if the funds you are using for developing these glowing wonders could instead be given to Bikes Belong and other groups lobbying for carfree streets, slower streets and more street-like roads.

Since mass transit normally tries to accommodate those people that have trouble using their systems such as the special seats at the front of buses, elevators in subway stations, handicapped parking spaces, attended wheelchairs in Amtrak and airport stations, bike systems should also have these accommodations.

Recumbent hybrid human-electric tricycles with the necessary safety improvements will provide a huge leap in making universal accessibility possible at the same time creating extremely convenient, practical, comfortable systems. More advanced systems will start to include mechanical (rail and guide way systems), electro-mechanical (to include use of radio frequency IDs), and increasingly intelligent automation with manual overrides.

Twenty-six million dollars buys 16 subway cars capable of carrying 3,055 people maximum at any given time. Alternatively, it buys 10,000 bikes capable of carrying more than three times the people and, in these difficult financial times makes much better economic sense.

Halo and Worksman are teaming up to make the world's sturdiest and safest bikes - bikes that can be seen in their entirety from 1,500 feet away at night - in a factory in Queens that is powered by solar panels. Our mottos:

"Think global. Act local" "Be safe. Be seen."

"Bikes that look like ghost riders at night result in fewer ghosts by day."

But, it ignores the likes of recumbent tricycle hybrid human-electric capabilities suitable for pretty much everyone and the necessary safety initiatives; and, the small and large technology and business incubator initiatives that could potentially make this town the new Detroit and window into a remarkable future.

As scenario sizes expand to cover larger, less trafficked portions of the city (Queens, the Bronx and southern Brooklyn), other funding sources, such as advertising, would become necessary in order to maintain reasonable membership rates. In the scenarios that focus exclusively on New York’s most densely populated, highly trafficked areas (Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn), the $60/year pricing produces net revenues after accounting for operations costs.

This, along with the map on the following page, show that the operating costs can be paid with membership and fees if it's confined to the area in blue on the above map plus Manhattan to 86th Street, Greenpoint and Crown Heights. If it's extended beyond that area, it begins to lose money, requiring operating subsidies.

I think we should be very careful about subsidizing bike-sharing in these outer areas, making sure that the political will is there to sustain such subsidies indefinitely. The last thing we want is people complaining about "a program that doesn't pay for itself." Advertising franchise revenue is not available, because the city has already traded it to Cemusa for the construction of the street furniture.

The car dependence of southern Brooklyn, Queens and the eastern Bronx is not sustainable. Eventually, the market for bike sharing will emerge there. All we have to do is wait.

This is good news - but I am also curious to see how adequate funding can be secured in the near future. Federal assistance seems necessary to me to cover the initial costs.