3 ms·
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 p
by 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 agoHelmet laws may be dumb, but visibility laws could actually make cycling much safer!
- diyorgasms 12y agoOr, 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 agoSure, 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 agoNo, 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: ...