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
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
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!
Bringing back that yellow-ass SER Sentra paint for your BMW lmao.
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).
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 have lights on them?
Bikes have lights on them too.
Ideally. In the US you regularly see peeps riding without even reflectors. It’s insanity.
Where? I haven’t seen a bicyclist using lights in months.
Unless you’re in the Netherlands, where 2/3rds of the bikes will have the shitty “this is legally a light” LEDs from the convenience shops… Oh, and 2/3rds of those will be either out of battery, or installed facing the wrong way.
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.
You’re missing the point.
Its saying not killing cyclists is the job of the people who would be killing cyclists. Its saying operating dangerous heavy machinery is a privilege and it comes with responsibilities. 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.
In my opinion a much too common privilege with responsibilities we dont take near seriously enough.
No, that’s a dumb take in all of the ways.
Sorry, when I wrote it I thought this was /fuckcars like ‘fuck you’ and not fuck cars like ‘fuck me now, I don’t even care who’s watching’. My mistake, and I now realize this was not the correct place to post this take, whether I believe in it or not.
I’m sorry, I thought this was satire not erotica. I’m not here to cockblock anyone.
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?
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.
If my lover breaks my jaw in anger, thats not my fault.
Under no conditions is that my fault, and youre a terrible person if you say it is.
If an adult beats the shit out of a young child, that is, in no circumstance, the child’s fault. Youre a terrible fucking person if you say it is.
You can say its not the abusive parent’s fault and blame structural issues or whatever, and maybe thats fair sometimes, but still pretty suspicious.
This is like that. Cars are violent, they are inefficient, and they are a choice. You choose to (statistically) sacrifice innocents every time you get behind the wheel. Everything you do while driving is on you. Or possibly the civil engineers and lawmakers who created the situation. Do not blame the victim. The victim is not at fault for having been hurt, for cracking your windshield and stealing bits of safety glass with their face. Under no conditions is a victim at fault. You are at fault for hurting them.
Unless they hacked your car and remotely piloted it to kill them in some sort of elaborate suicide/frame-up, and you literally did not have control of the vehicle. In which case I’d still put some of the responsibility on you, because you put the weapon where they could get it, loaded it, and got in.
Edit: the California DMV and basic drivers ed class from high school at least partially agree with me. If you don’t, you’ve already failed one of the questions on the drivers test.
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?
Wow, you don’t sound very horny for cars. Maybe you dont belong here?
Oy, here I thought that a “fuck car” was the motor vehicle analogue of a fuck boy.
‘She stood in front of my fist, your honor.’
More like shooting a gun into a dark room. Maybe it’s empty. Maybe you’re a murderer.
Can’t see, dont drive.
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.
No. There is nowhere I, as a pedestrian, can go that is not downrange. I’m in one of the more walkable areas of my city, and I think fully half the square footage, between roads and parking is devoted to cars. No way for me to reach a grocery store restaurant or even bus stop without being downrange.
You’ve built your life around spraying automatic weapons fire into every room you walk into before you even look, so admitting that this is wrong is essentially admitting that your way of life is monstrous and your regard for humanity is at best disdainful in the shadow of your precious ford F1488 with spiked reaping grill.
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.
You can’t make stupid people safe. I drive home in the dark now and I typically see at least one person driving with their lights turned completely off per day.
I also knew one guy who had a light that didn’t work but his highbeams did, so he just used his highbeams 100% of the time. When I told him he was being dangerous he said something to the effect of “I’m not going to jeopardize my safety for some rando on the road”. And was legitimately confused why I would want to put him in danger, and upset that people kept flashing their beams back at him. Some people have absolutely no desire to be a functioning member of society.
Edit: and that’s completely ignoring the idiots who go in the complete opposite direction and use cheapo light bars they got off amazon that are 600x brighter than led headlights on urban roads. I hope there is a special place in hell for them.
“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.
I wish those laws were enforceable. I passed someone the other day whose car was completely covered in Christmas lights. I don’t mean, “they had a lot of lights”, I mean every square inch of the exterior was covered in blinky flashy lights.
It takes a special kind of stupid to think that is a good idea, and a special kind of police incompetence to allow it on the road.
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
I’d even argue (this is what the Internet is for) that gray cars in rain are the absolute worst. They just disappear without any kind of lights on. I don’t know why we don’t just have headlights and taillights on all the time. It’s how I’ve driven for the past 15 years, to me it just makes sense. I’m never caught forgetting to put them on when it’s raining or when it’s dark, because they are always on. I like people to see me, I do not want to be involved in a collision.
They just disappear without any kind of lights on
My area has a law where you must have lights on when raining
Anyone who isnt a fucking dumbass that turns off auto mode will have a vehicle that does so automatically. Sometimes rain sensors, sometimes light, sometimes just turning on the wipers, but they all have it.
Some drivers are dumbasses and refuse to use auto mode that’s been around for 30 years, and those people should have their license taken away.
Mine too.
The funny part is that it is actually “headlights on when wipers required”, which is quite strange. When I am in heavy rain and I have a freshly rainx’ed winshield, I don’t even need wipers. But I still need lights
Here in Spain is much simpler, if it’s cloudy lights go on. Anything besides a blue sky basically means lights on. Its way easier since you just always have them on and that’s basically it.
Yeah, that’s what I want. Car manufacturers should just have them be always on, and that turning them off uses some mechanic where you have to be in park or something. I’ve just seen too many people who don’t use them in the rain, and of course the folks who think their daytime lights are their headlights at night.
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)
To be fair, cars have headlight and taillights.
Here in Sweden cars are required to allways have their headlights on when the car is moving, making them far easier to see even during the day.
It us frankly one of the most annoying things about crossing the street when being abroad, cars having their headlights off during the day, it is much more difficult to see if a car is moving if it has the headlights turned off, than if they are on.
Right. You’re not going to see the car color at night.
Bikes have lights too though?
That is not a requirement, you to have to have front and rear reflectors, I don’t remember if side reflectors are required or not.
One thing that a lot of bikes has that is illegal here but ignored by the police, is a flashing front light.
Rear lights can absolutely be flashing, but front lights can’t.
Depends on the country you live in 😂 here they are absolutely required and also are not allowed to be blinking.
They are actually required at night. https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/vagtrafik/Trafikregler/Cyklist-mopedist-motorcyklist/Trafikregler/Regler-for-cykel/
Reflectors are also required.
And yeah the rear light are allowed to flash.
I still agree that cars are way more visible.
That is not a requirement
It is, actually: https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/vagtrafik/trafikregler/cyklist-mopedist-motorcyklist/trafikregler/regler-for-cykel/
You’re liable to pay 500 SEK if you bike without lights when it’s dark outside.
Ah, nice, I didn’t know that!
The front lights are allowed to flash in Denmark and it’s super annoying, and dangerous in my opinion. The lowest allowed blinking frequency is also way lower than rear lights in Sweden, so it’s like being flashed by a camera repeatedly.
I still don’t understand why lights even have a flashing option
As others have said, this depends on the jurisdiction.
In the UK, you have to have lights on at night: white at the front, red at the back. They can either be steady or blinking.
I think you’re also supposed to have orange reflectors on pedals which is consistent with orange flashers for slow traffic.
but I find it hard to buy decent pedals that actually met this requirement.
In Belgium at least they are required (reflectors aren’t on all styles of bikes), problem is that cyclists often have battery powered lights which are not very bright to the point you could say they are not even working. And in my experience it really renders cyclists invisible at night until you almost run into them.
In that sense high-viz vests definitely help because they usually make them stand out more than even normal lights.
Ofcourse this is mostly needed in the places with no separate infrastructure and no street lights. (Edit: which is what the situation is in near where I live, the shortest route to bike is through farmlands with no infrastructure for bikes and no streetlight ms for sections of it. I’d personally love better and separate infrastructure since it’s basically part of the reason why avoid biking there during the lang dark winter)
Their visibility is quite different tho
So is their mortality rate when they hit a pedestrian, and their speed.
And what would be the point of your comment? The lights on a bike are for protecting the bike from cars, not pedestrians from bikes.
Wait what? There are countries where you can drive without headlights?
Here in the U.S., (and I’m assuming it’s the same elsewhere, but just explaining for simplicity), cars used to have a simple headlight switch, which also lit up the instrument cluster on the dashboard. It was an easy heuristic: If you can’t see the gauges because it’s dark, turn on the headlights.
Now, every car has a marketing-gimmick dashboard lit up all the time with all sorts of multi-color lights. In the cars I’ve been in, the headlight indicator just a small, green light in the corner. Drivers accustomed to the old way think that their headlights are on because the dashboard is lit up. The Toyota Prius was notorious for this when it was new; I used to joke that they didn’t come with headlights as a way to save fuel.
It’s not as bad now, but people just forget o sometimes. It’s worse when cars have day-time running lights, because then the drivers see light coming from the front of the car and think all the marker lights are on.
Places I’ve lived in the US people keep them off as the default. Here in Seattle people don’t even turn them on at night half the time, I guess they think the street lighting is good enough. I try and signal people to turn on their lights if I’m biking at night and so far none that I know of have actually turned them on
It’s currently raining and foggy in SLC and probably 1/3 of the cars I passed on the road today had no lights at all. Almost hitting a grey car running dark in the fog does not put one in the holiday spirit.
ho, you are still using street ligths?
It’s been years that we cut them on a lot of major axis and after midnight in my town for all the classic roads.
It’s mainly to reduce the electricity bill, have less night pollution (more stars in the sky!) and reduce the speed of the cars when the road is empty (quite effective!).
Side note: since now few years, our cars are sold with front lights always active for visibility purpose (these small lights are cut only when we switching to the big ones)
At my previous apartment the lights outside were so bright it was unreal. Sixth floor, curtains, I could still read books at night without turning on an inside light. Can’t remember the last time I saw more than a dozen stars in the sky even at my new place. Light pollution is a very present thing here
Yes, here in Austria you are allowed to drive without headlights in bright conditions, only are required to turn them on when there is impaired visibility (night, rain, snow, fog, etc.).
E g. Germany
Only for motorcycles it is mandatory all day
Modern cars also tend to have daytime running lights that are switched on automatically when the ignition is turned on, and are meant purely for visibility.
With modern cars, you mean cars since some time early 2000s? Actual modern cars (5 yo cars), are the only ones I see not have headlights turned on during day time.
Apparently, it’s not required under EU law to have the headlights turned on during daytime, and manufactures will rather have a couple of cm longer milage…
not have headlights turned on
Running lights, not headlights. Different things both practically and legally.
Yesterday I was paying attention specifically to the front lights of cars. Almost all cars that had license plates registered in the last ten years also had independent running lights. Mostly in the form of a white LED strip around or under the headlight cover, an element built into the headlight (e.g. a ring around the main lens in BMWs), or annoyingly, a separate amber-colored light that I often mistake for a turning signal.
Legally, running lights might not even exist at all where I live. Traffic laws (and common sense) require proper headlights to be used in any kind of reduced visibility condition.
Whatever law required headlights on totally backfired. Rear lights are off and people don’t realize or don’t care, and now they won’t switch on the actual lights manually because there’s an automation.
IIRC there was only a short window when turning the rear lights off was a thing, and the law has since gone back to having to turn them on when the car is turned on. While there are still people in cars like that, they’re a minority.
And in the States cars are required to have side markers, as well.
Corner markers?
I remember that Volvo had those for a few years here, but that was in the very early 2000’s I haven’t seen the on normal cars for a long time.
Seems like a good idea though.
Side* markers. lol
They can be on the corners or not, i believe.
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 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.
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.
Seeing as many people drive WITHOUT LIGHTS
Can confirm. My car is that colour. Am yet to collide with a cyclist.
