3 ms·

As a cyclist, I am more than happy to see tech that makes me more visible! Why are people up in arms!!? So stupid.

buro9 12y ago
Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what measure would be enough to allow the cyclist to ever prove that the driver must have seen the cyclist? Surely lights would be enough, but enough London cases about cycle deaths would appear to show this isn't enough... cyclists with lights are still killed.
- baddox 12y ago
  I don't get your argument. Just because the lack of X does not excuse behavior Y doesn't mean that the presence of X isn't advisable. For instance, if you collide your automobile into another automobile because you didn't have a rear view mirror, that obviously is not an excuse. And yet, it is still reasonable to advise (and indeed require) that automobiles have rear view mirrors.
  - buro9 12y ago
    A cyclist in London died. I can't recall the guys name but probably can find the information for you if you insist. He had a Flare rear light, reflective jacket, and even during the court case witnesses testified to the brightness of the light and it's effectiveness. The weather and conditions were good. The driver still used the SMIDSY defence, still walked free with little more than a fine. At what point do we stop and say that perhaps it isn't enough to be dressed as a clown and lit with everything possible... perhaps the responsibility to not hit a cyclist should be with the driver to drive with care and attention?
    - baddox 12y ago
      There's no contradiction here. I think that the case as you described it is ludicrous, and I still think it's prudent for cyclists to take measures to increase their visibility.
ygra 12y ago
He's not in arms against the tech, but rather against the laws that make them mandatory. Because it encourages motor vehicle drivers even more to not properly pay attention because they're not the ones at fault when hitting a cyclist.
- vishaldpatel 12y ago
  Helmet laws may be dumb, but visibility laws could actually make cycling much safer!
  - diyorgasms 12y ago
    Or, and here's a shocking concept, motorists could actually pay attention to their surroundings. Cyclists are not difficult to spot if you are paying proper attention while operating your vehicle.
    - vishaldpatel 12y ago
      Sure, that would be nice. But I'm gonna make damn sure that people see me. Being the smallest one on the road is bad enough, now you want me to trust that they'll all do the right thing all the time? In fact, I think cycling at night is safer because my flashing lights and reflectors are in their eye. During the day, I just blend into the background. This is also why I keep my car's lights on when driving in the day.
- baddox 12y ago
  No, he really does seem up in arms against the tech even when it has no relation to laws making the tech mandatory. He writes: > That’s just the beginning! Because now Volvo — those endearingly safety-minded Swedes — wants cyclists to take “safety” a step further and spray themselves with something called “Lifepaint” so they glow in the dark. > This is just another way for drivers to outsource any and all responsibility for what they do with their cars to other road users. The giveaway? Volvo’s promotional video is full of testimonials, including this one from a driver: ...

buro9 12y ago

Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what measure would be enough to allow the cyclist to ever prove that the driver must have seen the cyclist? Surely lights would be enough, but enough London cases about cycle deaths would appear to show this isn't enough... cyclists with lights are still killed.

baddox 12y ago
I don't get your argument. Just because the lack of X does not excuse behavior Y doesn't mean that the presence of X isn't advisable. For instance, if you collide your automobile into another automobile because you didn't have a rear view mirror, that obviously is not an excuse. And yet, it is still reasonable to advise (and indeed require) that automobiles have rear view mirrors.
- buro9 12y ago
  A cyclist in London died. I can't recall the guys name but probably can find the information for you if you insist. He had a Flare rear light, reflective jacket, and even during the court case witnesses testified to the brightness of the light and it's effectiveness. The weather and conditions were good. The driver still used the SMIDSY defence, still walked free with little more than a fine. At what point do we stop and say that perhaps it isn't enough to be dressed as a clown and lit with everything possible... perhaps the responsibility to not hit a cyclist should be with the driver to drive with care and attention?
  - baddox 12y ago
    There's no contradiction here. I think that the case as you described it is ludicrous, and I still think it's prudent for cyclists to take measures to increase their visibility.

ygra 12y ago

He's not in arms against the tech, but rather against the laws that make them mandatory. Because it encourages motor vehicle drivers even more to not properly pay attention because they're not the ones at fault when hitting a cyclist.

vishaldpatel 12y ago
Helmet laws may be dumb, but visibility laws could actually make cycling much safer!
- diyorgasms 12y ago
  Or, and here's a shocking concept, motorists could actually pay attention to their surroundings. Cyclists are not difficult to spot if you are paying proper attention while operating your vehicle.
  - vishaldpatel 12y ago
    Sure, that would be nice. But I'm gonna make damn sure that people see me. Being the smallest one on the road is bad enough, now you want me to trust that they'll all do the right thing all the time? In fact, I think cycling at night is safer because my flashing lights and reflectors are in their eye. During the day, I just blend into the background. This is also why I keep my car's lights on when driving in the day.
baddox 12y ago
No, he really does seem up in arms against the tech even when it has no relation to laws making the tech mandatory. He writes: > That’s just the beginning! Because now Volvo — those endearingly safety-minded Swedes — wants cyclists to take “safety” a step further and spray themselves with something called “Lifepaint” so they glow in the dark. > This is just another way for drivers to outsource any and all responsibility for what they do with their cars to other road users. The giveaway? Volvo’s promotional video is full of testimonials, including this one from a driver: ...