4 ms·

Of course being more visible is going to be safer for you, but let's not let this put even more of the burden of safety on the bicyclist. If this catches on, r

by herbig 11y ago

Of course being more visible is going to be safer for you, but let's not let this put even more of the burden of safety on the bicyclist. If this catches on, riding at night without it will be considered as dumb as riding without a helmet, when really nothing is going to protect you from a two ton metal deathtrap coming at you at 20 mph or above. No criminality suspected.

Piskvorrr 11y ago
The only difference from the rest of reflective stuff (armbands, pedals, wheel wire wraps) is the ad-hoc nature of the stuff. Me, I'll stick to the traditional reflective strips (plus lights). The real issue is this: the protective elements are already widely available (to cyclists and pedestrians alike) and cheap - how is this more attractive to the current unlit and dark-clad "ninjas" than existing alternatives? In other words, the product might be useful to people who already do use other safety elements - how is this aimed at the ones who don't?
- herbig 11y ago
  Yeah, I agree. The only thing this has is being new and "cool." To me, it's just more inconvenient than wearing traditional stuff. Bright blinking lights are the best way to increase visibility, and many people (in NYC at least) don't even bother with those.
  - fennecfoxen 11y ago
    Naah. High-visibility fluorescent yellow cycling jackets or similar attire are better ways: your body is a large blob that is much easier to notice than a little blinking light, especially if you're going along areas where there are lots of other light sources competing for the driver's attention. But there's no reason you shouldn't go for both, of course.
mytochar 11y ago
My biggest trouble with cyclists at night, as a driver, has always been the ones that don't have any lights on their bike. Sometimes the reflectors don't even reflect very brightly (or aren't present). When a bike is all lit up, I have no trouble seeing and reacting appropriately to them. I'm probably not a typical driver, though.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  Do you mean to say that you are worse or better than typical drivers? If you can't see objects in the road, you should slow down.
  - ubercow13 11y ago
    Are you saying there should be no need for rear lights on cars?
    - thrownaway2424 11y ago
      No, but you can't expect everything in the road to be light-emitting. There could very easily be a car in the middle of the road with its lights disabled. There could be a person walking down the road without crazy nanopaint, because he was in a car and wasn't expecting to walk, but the car broke down. There could be a horse or cow in the road.
      - ubercow13 11y ago
        I still think this doesn't shift any blame away from cyclists who don't use lights. A bicycle is moving, unlike those examples, and you need to be aware of it even when it isn't in your way yet or in the beam of your headlights.
        fennecfoxen 11y ago
        Well, a driver needs to be careful, it's true. At the same time, it behooves a cyclist to take basic precautions to improve his own safety and to make things easier for drivers around him. I narrowly avoided an accident with a cyclist who was riding at night, without lights, without a helmet, with crappy reflectors, wearing dark clothing. The area wasn't particularly well-lit (obnoxious San Jose low-pressure-sodium orange-hue lighting). The cyclist was riding along a busy street but his bicycle was on the sidewalk, behind a row of parked cars, heading the opposite direction of traffic on that street... and he headed out into the intersection with a side-street at full cycling speed, not pedestrian speed. I really wouldn't have minded some extra help not-killing the guy, you know?
sambe 11y ago
Riding (cycling) without a helmet is considered dumb only in certain areas of the world. Last time I checked, some countries refused to make it compulsory because evidence was mixed (no references to hand, but the gist of it was that direct impact head damage at cycling speeds was less of a problem than whiplash/concussion, and the helmet only adds weight).
ohyes 11y ago
The helmet is for if you fall over and hit your head. You can die from a relatively minor blow to he head. It has nothing to do with being safe from cars. You could get hit by a car (more likely clipped and fall off) and bang your head, of course, but it isn't a car defense device. Not being hit by cars is the best defense against being hit by cars. It is genuinely stupid to not wear some sort of reflector or light when riding in the dark. A driver can't avoid what he can't see. Volvo doesn't seem to have a monopoly on shiny surfaces. I could see this being of more use if it were permanent. You could put it on your dedicated riding jacket and just always wear that jacket and no worry about the reflectors etc.
- herbig 11y ago
  Right. But non bicyclists don't know that. Which is why the media always reports on whether a cyclist killed by a car was wearing a helmet or not, when it doesn't matter. It's just victim blaming on the part of the media. Drivers don't suffer any consequences for killing people. Cyclists should do what they can to increase their likelihood of not dying, but drivers should be legally obligated (meaning jailtime) if they kill someone.
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    As a driver I will go to court if I hit you, but if you aren't wearing lights and I am turning right in a place with no street lights seeing you behind the car is physically impossible. Wear lights, please, I don't want to be responsible for any deaths.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
bmm6o 11y ago
> Of course being more visible is going to be safer for you, but let's not let this put even more of the burden of safety on the bicyclist So what's your proposal to make cyclists more visible that doesn't require any action on the cyclists' part? And is that realistically more or less likely to happen than this?
- herbig 11y ago
  I propose to make drivers more accountable for their actions. If they kill a cyclist, they suffer repercussions. Currently, in the US at least, they do not.
  - underwater 11y ago
    Do you have any data to suggest this would work? It sounds great in theory, the majority of people think that they're above average drivers. Everyone thinks "it won't happen to me" and continues driving dangerously. Drivers are already held accountable for speeding, drink driving, using the phone, etc. but they still do it.

by herbig 11y ago

Piskvorrr 11y ago

The only difference from the rest of reflective stuff (armbands, pedals, wheel wire wraps) is the ad-hoc nature of the stuff. Me, I'll stick to the traditional reflective strips (plus lights). The real issue is this: the protective elements are already widely available (to cyclists and pedestrians alike) and cheap - how is this more attractive to the current unlit and dark-clad "ninjas" than existing alternatives? In other words, the product might be useful to people who already do use other safety elements - how is this aimed at the ones who don't?

herbig 11y ago
Yeah, I agree. The only thing this has is being new and "cool." To me, it's just more inconvenient than wearing traditional stuff. Bright blinking lights are the best way to increase visibility, and many people (in NYC at least) don't even bother with those.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  Naah. High-visibility fluorescent yellow cycling jackets or similar attire are better ways: your body is a large blob that is much easier to notice than a little blinking light, especially if you're going along areas where there are lots of other light sources competing for the driver's attention. But there's no reason you shouldn't go for both, of course.

mytochar 11y ago

My biggest trouble with cyclists at night, as a driver, has always been the ones that don't have any lights on their bike. Sometimes the reflectors don't even reflect very brightly (or aren't present). When a bike is all lit up, I have no trouble seeing and reacting appropriately to them. I'm probably not a typical driver, though.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
Do you mean to say that you are worse or better than typical drivers? If you can't see objects in the road, you should slow down.
- ubercow13 11y ago
  Are you saying there should be no need for rear lights on cars?
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    No, but you can't expect everything in the road to be light-emitting. There could very easily be a car in the middle of the road with its lights disabled. There could be a person walking down the road without crazy nanopaint, because he was in a car and wasn't expecting to walk, but the car broke down. There could be a horse or cow in the road.
    - ubercow13 11y ago
      I still think this doesn't shift any blame away from cyclists who don't use lights. A bicycle is moving, unlike those examples, and you need to be aware of it even when it isn't in your way yet or in the beam of your headlights.
      - fennecfoxen 11y ago
        Well, a driver needs to be careful, it's true. At the same time, it behooves a cyclist to take basic precautions to improve his own safety and to make things easier for drivers around him. I narrowly avoided an accident with a cyclist who was riding at night, without lights, without a helmet, with crappy reflectors, wearing dark clothing. The area wasn't particularly well-lit (obnoxious San Jose low-pressure-sodium orange-hue lighting). The cyclist was riding along a busy street but his bicycle was on the sidewalk, behind a row of parked cars, heading the opposite direction of traffic on that street... and he headed out into the intersection with a side-street at full cycling speed, not pedestrian speed. I really wouldn't have minded some extra help not-killing the guy, you know?

sambe 11y ago

Riding (cycling) without a helmet is considered dumb only in certain areas of the world. Last time I checked, some countries refused to make it compulsory because evidence was mixed (no references to hand, but the gist of it was that direct impact head damage at cycling speeds was less of a problem than whiplash/concussion, and the helmet only adds weight).

ohyes 11y ago

The helmet is for if you fall over and hit your head. You can die from a relatively minor blow to he head. It has nothing to do with being safe from cars. You could get hit by a car (more likely clipped and fall off) and bang your head, of course, but it isn't a car defense device. Not being hit by cars is the best defense against being hit by cars. It is genuinely stupid to not wear some sort of reflector or light when riding in the dark. A driver can't avoid what he can't see. Volvo doesn't seem to have a monopoly on shiny surfaces. I could see this being of more use if it were permanent. You could put it on your dedicated riding jacket and just always wear that jacket and no worry about the reflectors etc.

herbig 11y ago
Right. But non bicyclists don't know that. Which is why the media always reports on whether a cyclist killed by a car was wearing a helmet or not, when it doesn't matter. It's just victim blaming on the part of the media. Drivers don't suffer any consequences for killing people. Cyclists should do what they can to increase their likelihood of not dying, but drivers should be legally obligated (meaning jailtime) if they kill someone.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  As a driver I will go to court if I hit you, but if you aren't wearing lights and I am turning right in a place with no street lights seeing you behind the car is physically impossible. Wear lights, please, I don't want to be responsible for any deaths.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

bmm6o 11y ago

> Of course being more visible is going to be safer for you, but let's not let this put even more of the burden of safety on the bicyclist So what's your proposal to make cyclists more visible that doesn't require any action on the cyclists' part? And is that realistically more or less likely to happen than this?

herbig 11y ago
I propose to make drivers more accountable for their actions. If they kill a cyclist, they suffer repercussions. Currently, in the US at least, they do not.
- underwater 11y ago
  Do you have any data to suggest this would work? It sounds great in theory, the majority of people think that they're above average drivers. Everyone thinks "it won't happen to me" and continues driving dangerously. Drivers are already held accountable for speeding, drink driving, using the phone, etc. but they still do it.