Edit: to clarify: the message in the ad is actually ironic/satirical, mocking the advice for cyclists to wear high-viz at night.
It uses the same logic but inverts the parts and responsabilities, by suggesting to motorists (not cyclists) to apply bright paint on their cars.
So this ad is not pro or against high-viz, it’s against victim blaming
Cross-posted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113544508246569296
It’s not victim blaming, it’s practicality. You can be right, and still be dead. Motorbikers have the same problem as us pedalbikers
It’s victim blaming because you are acting on the wrong side of the problem: in every field where you need to mitigate some danger, self protection is the last thing to do, not the first. The first thing to do is to act on the source of danger: avoid (es. bike infrastructure) and mitigate (es: redice speed, less cars, less dangerous cars…)
I actually fully agree with the message. Bring back bright colors for cars!
Also participating in traffic at night is always a risk so wearing at least a bit of high-viz is just to minimize that. It’s not like we are wearing it in jobs for the look.
The number of dumbasses I see biking against traffic with no lights wearing black well after dark is too high for me to find this remotely serious.
Also, cars have a dozen reflectors, daytime running lights, and a ton of safety mechanisms.
Tldr: meme better, this is wrong and unsafe
deleted by creator
The satire misses the mark since cars already have strict mandatory visibility requirements by law. In the EU, you must have working headlights, brake lights, turn signals, daytime running lights (since 2011), fog lights, reverse lights, and reflectors. Driving without any of these gets you fined, points on your license, and fails vehicle inspection (TÜV/MOT). These aren’t optional safety suggestions like cyclist hi-viz - they’re legal requirements with real penalties.
I don’t know about yankee laws…
Huh? Could you explain once more why this doesn’t work?
Keep in mind that cycling also has a lot of visibility requirements, it is illegal to drive without lights at night, you need to have reflectors front, back, in the spokes and on the pedals. This also results in fines and points on your drivers license. Keep any remarks on enforcements for yourself, car drivers don’t check or even fix their headlights the moment they break either as my last few drives showed me.
Comparing the optional wearing of hi-vis west to the optional painting cars a brighter colour makes sense when the goal is to mock the immediate question “well, was the cyclist wearing hi-vis?” that always seem to pop up when a crash happens.
deleted by creator
“You can’t make stupid people safe.”
🤣
State dependent. Maryland for example legally requires a front headlamp and a rear reflector in low visibility conditions. Also must have a bell or horn but can’t have a siren (?).
It’s less state dependent than you think. The feds have the last say in the safety equipment that comes on your car from the factory. They write the regulations on safety equipment for all highway vehicles.
What is interesting is that the NFPA, (the US National Fire Prevention Association), which writes the guidance for US public safety departments, has learned that you can have too much flashy-flashies and woo-woos and sparkles hanging on your vehicle. We used to hang as much as that stuff as we could on fire trucks and ambulances. Now, new rigs are toning it down to reflective chevrons and marker lights on the back end to prevent dazzling and confusing traffic as they approach a scene. The NFPA national tracking has shown a marked decline in tertiary accidents.
Reflectives and markers are important, but you can do too much can have worse outcomes because of it.
If you need a rear light or not actually varies state to state. The reflectors are fed policy and that’s why all bikes sold in the US have them. The siren thing seems to be because kids were rigging sirens to their wheels attached to a chain and being a general nuisance at some point in the 50s. That said, that’s about all a car would hear that’s not electronic. That or an canned air horn.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PpQFt3biKMA
A video of the wheel siren in action.
deleted by creator
It’s funny, but as a driver and a cyclist, the amount of times I barely saw the person on the bike, because they had no hi viz, no lights and no reflectors (and black/dark clothing), even in moderately good visibility conditions is too damn high.
It’s not that big of a deal in cities, but I’d be really pushing it to ride my bike out on a 70+ kmph road, and you’d have to hold me at gunpoint to do it without any lights, because I’d be as good as dead anyway.
Of course black cars are kinda the same, except here in Poland every car is required by law to have at least position lights on at all times (yes, sunny daylight too), and it makes a world of a difference no matter the paint color.
I prefer when all people occupying the road, whether its a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car, or horse rider be as visible as possible.
Its why I refuse to drive a gray or silver car. They blend in with the pavement at certain times in the am and pm and if it’s raining really hard they disappear. In a lot of ways they are worse than black cars.
What’s wrong with making sure you are visible? Why is that something to make fun of? (I’m not asking you directly, I just don’t get the joke in the ad.)
also grey and silver are boring as fuck
I think any bike intended for road use should be equipped with lights
We have daylight running laws here as well, but those lights are different than the regular headlights and weaker.
In driving school they taught me to just put on my regular lights all the time.
They’re a lot stronger than the daylight ones and make you more visible
When I’m on the road, I want to be visible. On my red motorcycle I wear a bright yellow helmet and a jacket with hi-viz strips. The problem is that car manufacturers only offer boring colors and charge an exorbitant fee for a cool color if they offer them at all.
Removed by mod
A cyclist us never to blame for a car hitting a cyclist. It is always always always the drivers fault, because they chose to drive a car.
That’s an insane take, right? If I as a cyclist blindly ride across a road directly in front of a heavy vehicle, surely it’s on me. In what way would that be the heavy vehicle drivers fault?
This ‘take’ is close to the law in NL. The shift in responsibility is there to even out the differences in safety mechanisms. The law acknowledges this disparity and seeks to provide additional protection to vulnerable road users. This rule encourages car drivers to exercise extra caution, knowing that they will likely bear legal responsibility in the event of an accident.
It’s important to note that the rule imposes strict liability, which means that the motorist is presumed responsible for damages unless evidence strongly indicates otherwise. If the cyclist is partially at fault (e.g., running a red light), liability might be shared, but the motorist is rarely absolved entirely.
I actually saw someone do this on El Camino Real in rush hour traffic. Probably the only reason they didn’t die is cars were going 20.
Removed by mod
Again, insane comparisons, driving a heavy vehicle is in no way similar to intentionally assaulting someone. A more appropriate comparison might be if your lover was punching a punching bag and you dove in front of it mid hard swing, and they had no time to avoid hitting you. Is that your fault or theirs?
If a cyclist runs over a child, who was not visible at all until they ran into their path with no time to stop, on a path designated for bicycles where a pedestrian has no right to be, is the cyclist at fault?
Anyway I think I might be responding to a crazy person, so I’m probably wasting my time, but I’m interested in how deep it goes.
It’s not insane, even if it’s an unfamiliar concept. @invalid_name@lemm.ee is advocating for what is basically the legal concept known as strict liability. It means that a person is held liable for the consequences of an action, even in the absence of negligence or intent. American courts have applied it to things like crop dusting, or use of explosives, but this exact scenario is the law in the Netherlands. A driver hitting a bicyclist there is strictly liable for at least half of the damages in all unintentional crashes. (That is, when the driver can’t prove that bicyclist was trying to get hit.)
I’m not against the law you mentioned, in my opinion everyone should be driving/riding defensively and crashes are often a failure of both parties to some extent. Even if you’re technically at fault often the other party could have done something to avoid or minimise the accident.
The insane part was the comparison to scenarios where a party is clearly at fault. How is beating the shit out of a child anywhere near equivalent to hitting a cyclist that has blindly ridden in front of your car with no chance to have predicted it?
Removed by mod
Oy, here I thought that a “fuck car” was the motor vehicle analogue of a fuck boy.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
More like shooting a gun at a shooting range, where you have a space you’re supposed to shoot, and someone is running across that range and gets hit. Are you a murderer then?
I get the “fuck cars” mentality, I’m with you, but making bad arguments doesn’t help our cause.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
No, that’s a dumb take in all of the ways.
Removed by mod
OK weirdo
That bimmer looks sick
Not sure if the intended message is really coming through…
Seconding this opinion; I really wish non-commercial vehicles were prohibited from defaulting to black/white/silver/grey - being back the skittles colour palette!
So double consonant rule, that’s pronounced like dimmer but with a ‘b’, right?
Apparently (this is like 2nd/3rd hand and I could be misremembering) - BMW motorbikes are ‘Beemers’, while BMW cars are ‘Bimmers’ (rhymes with dimmers).
I’ve heard them used interchangeably, but I’ve got family who are into both the cars and the motorcycles so I may have been getting confused
Bringing back that yellow-ass SER Sentra paint for your BMW lmao.
Because if too many people and things use hi-viz, that will make it regular-viz.
so some cyclist should wear black to help their fellow cyclists
Cars should be bright as fuck. A bright red, orange, green, or yellow car stands out way more than the black, white, beige and gray shit that dominates the road.
I especially love those bright headlights that blind you and the ones that have flashing LEDs on their undercarriage to distract you. (But actually I mostly agree, just pointing out the extreme cases which universally suck)
Cars used to have lots of reflectors on them in the 1980 and 90’s. Especially I’m the head and taillight clusters.
Cars should also be required to have high vis strips like commercial vehicles.
I get the sentiment here but as I’ll always say the car wins.
You can’t call it a death machine and then act like it’s not one.
Cars have lights built in. Humans don’t. Wear the fucking highvis and save your life.
Either that or start wearing light strips all over yourself.
Okay but hear me out here, we design streets where bikes and cars don’t have to share a lane. Crazy idea i know.
We should design streets for the cyclists and drivers we have, not the ones we want.
Fair point that roads should be designed a lot better, but in the mean time, if you’re going to be driving on roads that got put down originally 50 years ago without cycling paths and no lights in the middle of farmland. Wear the high Viz gear or make sure you have working lights and reflectors.
Your standard bicycle has light too? If it’s about being the safest cyclist possible, you’d also need a loud siren declaring that a bicycle is on the road. At some point it is ridiculous how many non-mandatory rules you need to follow until drivers accept that they are to blame for the crash, how about we stick to the actual laws and people who can’t see a vehicle fitted with reflectors and lights get off the road.
Hint: seeing the lights on a bicycle is easier when your wind shield isn’t 2 meters of the ground.
Your standard bicycle has light too
No it doesn’t. It has reflectors but not actual lighting. I’ve almost hit a few cyclists who relied only on the reflectors on the wheels, front peg, and rear peg.
Hint: seeing the lights on a bicycle is easier when your wind shield isn’t 2 meters of the ground.
I’m not arguing pro cars here. My point is keep yourself fuckin safe. Don’t be stupid just because “bUt CaRs ArE tHe PrObLeM”
You can’t say they’re a problem and then act like they’re not a problem.
Complain all you want it’s perfectly valid. But do the shit you have to do to keep yourself the fuck alive.
Goddamn, forgot that the USA considers bikes as exercise machines.
Your standard commuter bike has lights, and is required by law to have it in most countries.
I personally prefer the option of equipping a comically bright headlight to the bike to emulate a lifted truck.
Congratulations! I’m now blind and have a legitimate reason to run you over.
I only wear hi-vis to take one more excuse away from the driver when they hit me. It doesn’t actually help people see me in my experience.
In my city, the roads are not lit very well so high vis helps me see bikers a lot better.
I drive a Smart 451 which was silver initially. I can‘t count the amount of times that trucks and cars on the highway cut me off. At first I thought they were just assholes, but now I think its partly because its such a small car that the silver blends in with the street.
Two years ago, I wrapped my car in bright neon orange as part of an ad campaign from my company and it feels like I‘m getting noticed much more often. It‘s literally like a high vis west for my car.
Seeing as many people drive WITHOUT LIGHTS
Which country? I have not seen a car build after 2005 that turn on the light automatically every time where the weather is a bit gloomy, let alone during the night.
