679
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by lgsp@feddit.it to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 110 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] sepiroth154@feddit.nl 21 points 5 months ago

Bikes have lights too though?

[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 12 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] sepiroth154@feddit.nl 28 points 5 months ago

Depends on the country you live in 😂 here they are absolutely required and also are not allowed to be blinking.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 5 months ago

Wait what? There are countries where you can drive without headlights?

[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago

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

[-] Enoril@jlai.lu 6 points 5 months ago

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)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Mac@mander.xyz 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

And in the States cars are required to have side markers, as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FatCat@lemmy.world 65 points 5 months ago

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...

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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 (?).

[-] bluewing@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[-] magikmw@lemm.ee 43 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 10 points 5 months ago

I think any bike intended for road use should be equipped with lights

[-] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Emerald@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

They just disappear without any kind of lights on

My area has a law where you must have lights on when raining

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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

[-] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 29 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] M600@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

In my city, the roads are not lit very well so high vis helps me see bikers a lot better.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 25 points 5 months ago
[-] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago

Bikes have lights on them too.

[-] Mrfiddles@feddit.nl 9 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago

Ideally. In the US you regularly see peeps riding without even reflectors. It’s insanity.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 21 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

Can confirm. My car is that colour. Am yet to collide with a cyclist.

[-] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 18 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 18 points 5 months ago

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

[-] DarkSirrush@lemmy.ca 15 points 5 months ago

I thought I bought a blue car. It was advertised as blue, paint job clearly said blue, the rendered image of the color was blue. My insurance paperwork states it is blue (as that's what the NVIS calls it).

In real life, i have a black car. The blue pigment is so dark that is black, except in very specific, harsh lighting at certain angles. And then you can see it sparkles blue.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago

If only it had lights

(I know what community I’m in and that the original post is satire)

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

I mean, OP says it's satire but then says they're mocking the advice to wear hiviz. As if it isn't the law pretty much everywhere to have functioning lights on a vehicle.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Randelung@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Seeing as many people drive WITHOUT LIGHTS

[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 14 points 5 months ago

Arguably, if everything is high-viz, then cyclists may just blend in between the cars and be overlooked again. It does make sense that weaker participants in traffic are more visible, as long as everyone else is also visible.

[-] Spezi@feddit.org 13 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] DV8@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

It should be noted most models of cars have high-vis parts on them, usually on the rear, that work the same way.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

I never understood people buying black cars. Not just because of visibility, but they turn into f-ing ovens in the summer.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

We can't even make blacking out essential safety equipment like headlights and tail lights illegal, apparently a driver's personality and style should come before functional lights.

[-] DV8@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

What? Where is this? In Belgium you'd get pulled over for sure. Depending on if the car could get made road legal again it could get towed too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago

That bimmer looks sick

Not sure if the intended message is really coming through...

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
679 points (93.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

11427 readers
18 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS