21 ms·

Life paint

160 points by erbdex 11y ago

dchest 11y ago
Here it is without Volvo marketing http://www.albedo100.co.uk/ http://www.albedo100.co.uk/
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Spray your cat down so it doesn't get hit by cars! And your horse, so... Yeah, not sure why you'd want a glowing horse. Scare the neighbours? Nightmare?
  - zamalek 11y ago
    > Yeah, not sure why you'd want a glowing horse. Sometimes talking about your horse to by-standing victims isn't enough - in these cases, searing the image of the horse onto their retina is your only option.
  - unwind 11y ago
    For the very same reason of course? If you're on horseback near traffic, which isn't all that uncommon in rural parts, it'd be a good idea to make sure the horse is visible. There's a road sign for this too; https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Warning_sign#/media/File:Sweden_road_sign_A18.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Warning_sign#/media/File:Swe....
    - deckar01 11y ago
      Couldn't resist making a GIF of that horse glowing silver: http://gph.is/1GwKONv http://gph.is/1GwKONv
  - cafeoh 11y ago
    Most city owners don't let their cats outside, for the rest, spraying them into irradiated kitten is a sure way to kill their social lives and turn them into big fat depressed little lightballs.
  - drivingmenuts 11y ago
    > Yeah, not sure why you'd want a glowing horse Who the eff wouldn't want a glowing horse? Maybe if you were a horse burglar or something. But otherwise ... I'd be all about that.
  - claar 11y ago
    "Night-mare"
    - madaxe_again 11y ago
      And neigh-bours. I crammed two puns in there :)
nichodges 11y ago
Such a shame that a car company's response to the danger cars present to cyclists is to modify the cyclist. Victim blaming at its best.
- sneak 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
  - pja 11y ago
    I think it probably is in good faith, but it’s still pushing responsibility onto other road users for driver error: implicitly the logic runs something like “I didn’t see them, but they weren’t wearing reflective spray so it’s their fault I hit them.” It’s a pernicious line of thinking that if you’re a regular cyclist you realise is everywhere in the discussion of road safety issues. You see the same thing with helmets, which are designed to reduce (not eliminate) the impact of a cyclist falling from a standing (or riding) position to the ground, ie a 12mph impact, to the point where brain damage is less likely to occur. Thanks to the v² scaling of energy that has to be dissipated, even a 20mph impact exceeds the design limits of a cycle helmet to absorb impact energy by nearly a factor of 3 which means that helmets make little difference in direct collisions with vehicles travelling at normal traffic speeds. Yet I’ve seen cyclists called out for “not wearing a helmet” when they’ve been run over by a cement truck. Cyclists tend to be a tad hyper-sensitive to victim blaming as a result of this kind of thing!
- ars 11y ago
  That is such a stupid attitude. Sure, don't blame the victim. They'll be dead - but it's much more important that no one blame them! I assume you never lock your car or your house? Because if someone robbed you you are not at fault! Victim blaming!
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Pushing the responsibility from cyclists onto drivers is bad here because the responsibility not to maim and kill people with these one-ton death machines should mostly be the driver's. After the cyclist has taken appropriate measures (riding correctly; correct lights and reflectors) there's not much more they can do to protect themselves. If they're not riding correctly that's the problem you should be trying to fix - an idiot on a bike is still at great risk of death, even if they're ultra-reflective.
DanBC 11y ago
This looks like a great product. What's the research say? Cyclists need front and rear lights, and front and rear reflectors. On top of that the most useful reflectors a cyclist can have are on the pedals and on the wrists. These help when a cyclist is turning; and the pedal reflectors clearly show drivers that they're approaching a cyclist. More than that and you risk the "Christmas Tree Effect" - it's tempting to think that more is better, but you risk just confusing the driver who then doesn't take appropriate safety measures.
- ygra 11y ago
  You also need reflectors to the sides on the wheels. Reflectors on the pedals point forward and back and while they are required (at least in Germany) I found them to be mostly useless compared to other reflectors that point in that direction.
  - usrusr 11y ago
    Despite all their shortcomings, pedal reflectors are excellent communication: "this tiny taillight is not a car in the distance, it belongs to a bike and is much closer than a car at similar brightness would be" They are also very close to the ground (closer than any other reflector), which greatly increases their exposure to light from a properly adjusted headlight. When i ride in the darkness, pedal reflectors are often the only thing preventing a collision with one of those otherwise invisible "ride like a pedestrian" ninjas. That being said, pedal reflectors are only good for making recumbents more visible to helicopter crews with search lights. But i guess recumbents were not a topic when pedal reflectors became mandatory. Which reminds me, this whole discussion is in serious need of some Godwin's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Loibl_GmbH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Loibl_GmbH
- nmeofthestate 11y ago
  I don't know about the Christmas Tree Effect, but would recommend any cyclist to wear as much high-viz as they can get their hands on. It's more effective than bike lights IMO.
madaxe_again 11y ago
It's water soluble and lasts a week, from that page. Gimmick. Can't see anyone buying a can and spraying their bike every seven days.
- naz 11y ago
  Funny that the advert features London, where the continuous rain would wash away this paint in minutes.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Rather more that in London the problem isn't usually not being seen, it's that you're seen - as a target-cum-obstacle. Used to cycle to work along the Victoria embankment. Scary, scary experience, every time. If people aren't throwing shit at you through their windows or hitting you in the kidney with a wing mirror, it's because they're distracted by their phone.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Somebody riding to work everyday in the UK will only have rain on 12 of those days.
- 4ndr3vv 11y ago
  Seems like there are four product types and the one for metal & concrete is permanent [1]. looking at the availability on amazon [2], seems it was developed for using on horses, which makes it easier to understand the application method. I've had good success with reflective tape / stickers on my bikes. [1] http://albedo100.co.uk//product/light_metallic/lm_permanent_spray.html http://albedo100.co.uk//product/light_metallic/lm_permanent_... [2] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Albedo100-Reflective-Spray-Horse-Pets/dp/B00JM7PYHG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1399465350&sr=8-1&keywords=albedo100 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Albedo100-Reflective-Spray-Horse-Pet...
  - RobAley 11y ago
    The permanent one is grey in daylight, so not transparent like the temporary one.
deutronium 11y ago
I love the idea, can anyone explain how it 'glows'?
- pja 11y ago
  Given that it reflects light back in the same direction as it comes in, I’d guess it’s based on the same principle as the 3M retro-reflective material (Scotchlite). Presumably it’s a suspension of either spherical beads or tiny corner reflectors (quartz crystals?).
- unfamiliar 11y ago
  It's reflective.
dreen 11y ago
I stopped cycling in London because I value my life. The city is not built for the amount of cyclists who are already on the roads trying to swerve between the traffic. I have seen people slamming into buses way too many times. A can of fluorescent paint is not going to help much. Most of these accidents happen during the day anyway.
- ianpurton 11y ago
  Agreed. I found the marketing a bit patronising actually. In London the cycle lanes are painted onto the roads, you take your chances with the cars. The paint might help to be fair. But decent infrastructure would save more lives.
  - dreen 11y ago
    Just to add to this, there have been some ideas floating recently to move the cyclers below the streets [1] or above them [2], but while the former is unworkable, it's hard to say if anything comes out of the latter. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31298695 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31298695 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25549789 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25549789
- pkorzeniewski 11y ago
  I don't know how cyclists behave in London, but what they're doing on roads in my city is absolutely horrifying - not stoping on red lights, going full speed through crosswalks, not signaling turning, driving on road when there's a bike lane alongside and so on. They don't need to pass any driving license, so most cyclist don't even know the basic driving regulations and they've this attitude "I'm the most important user on road".
  - bpp198 11y ago
    What, all of them? You mean like all the motor users who break speed limits?
    - 11y ago
markvdb 11y ago
This would be great for painting bicycle lanes onto cars parked in the cycle lane!
- lucb1e 11y ago
  So you'd rather people leave the bike lane clear and park in the middle of the street? Parking next to the road is a normal thing and perfectly legal as long as there is no sign or some colored line (yellow in the Netherlands) to prohibit it. If there is a bike lane, bikers will have to drive around just like any other user of that road. Just to be sure we're talking about the same, I'm thinking of this situation: http://www.bikearlington.com/tasks/sites/bike/assets/Image/Bike_Lane.jpg http://www.bikearlington.com/tasks/sites/bike/assets/Image/B... With a car standing, say, here: http://snag.gy/XmuKH.jpg http://snag.gy/XmuKH.jpg
  - skosch 11y ago
    It is, in fact, illegal in most places—and yes, we're talking about the pictured situation exactly. Park somewhere else: on a side road, for example, or in a driveway.
  - markvdb 11y ago
    It's easy to answer the first half of your question. No, cars should not park in the cycle lane. It's impossible to answer your question about where to park given the limited context of the picture.
andreamazz 11y ago
This is clever. I can also see it being used by street artists.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Probably more use to street artists than cyclists.
yitchelle 11y ago
Although I love this idea and the execution by Albedo100, I can't help thinking some reflective tape would last longer, and more cost effective in the long term. Also comes in several colours as well. An example is http://www.amazon.de/Reflective-Stickers-Tapes-Motorcycle-Colors/dp/B00TCOVGIK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1435314538&sr=8-2&keywords=reflective+tape http://www.amazon.de/Reflective-Stickers-Tapes-Motorcycle-Co...
polskibus 11y ago
I wish they make a permanent variant in the future. Another question is how does rain affect the paint. In my cyclist opinion, would like to paint his bike with the permanent variant and perhaps his clothes with temporary one.
revelation 11y ago
A gun manufacturer handing out protective vests to school kids. Instead of this stunt, maybe they should focus on building cars and particularly trucks that are not unsafe by default. All this talk of blind angle obscures the basic fact that this is first and foremost an engineering problem, and most importantly, you can not turn the defects of your vehicle into the responsibility of other road users. If your vehicle isn't safe, it can not be driven. The solution is certainly not to tell everyone else to just watch out because you can't see shit left and right and man is this thing large and heavy.
- tormeh 11y ago
  I believe Volvo's are some of the nicest cars you can collide with as a pedestrian/cyclist. Yes, a car is an insane concept, but I'm not sure you're barking up the right tree here.
  - revelation 11y ago
    Oh really? http://www.euractiv.com/sections/transport/eu-truck-safety-and-efficiency-law-faces-delay-until-2019-310740 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/transport/eu-truck-safety-a... Volvo, for instance, began rolling out new designs in 2012, so it could be at a disadvantage if competitors introduce more up-to-date models in the near future. Wait guys, we just brought out these shitty unsafe trucks recently, we can't be making safe ones already! We'll take 10 years, thank you very much. Seriously, fuck them. They delay improved safety designs for trucks (with extremely mild changes, nonetheless) and then tell people to spray themselves with reflective plastic. In retrospect, the gun analogy was way too tame. Gun manufacturers don't want kids killed, but Volvo is pushing for more of them to be run over.
    - vomitcuddle 11y ago
      Volvo Car Corporation and Volvo Trucks are owned by different companies
      - revelation 11y ago
buro9 11y ago
> "Cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility" Woah there. Hold up right there. The safety of ALL road users is on the backs of ALL road users. It's not uncommon in London to see reporting of one of the one-a-month on average deaths of a cyclist to see such comments as "the cyclist was wearing a helmet". Yet the helmet didn't save the cyclist, because the cyclist was crushed by a fully loaded construction HGV tipper truck. This idea that cyclist safety is 100% their responsibility is part of the root cause of the problem. Cyclists are one of the most (if not the most) vulnerable demographics of road users there is, and it should be the responsibility of other road users to help protect them. Failing that, it should be the responsibility of those who provide roads to ensure that the infrastructure itself protects them (segregated cycleways). But creating an idea in which "Cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility" is plain disgusting when every damn month another cyclist is in a morgue, regardless of whether or not the cyclist wore high visibility clothing, had lights, wore a helmet, etc, etc. And there is my issue with Volvo's "Life paint"... it shifts the blame for the continued stream of fatalities onto the cyclist. Do you want to know where the real problem is? Try this, of the 8 fatalities on London roads this year, 7 were caused by HGV construction vehicles even though such vehicles take up less than 5% of all London vehicular traffic. Here's one from Monday... this week! http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-26-killed-in-bank-tipper-truck-crash-was-newly-married-oxford-graduate-10339057.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-26-killed-in-b... Being covered in reflective spray paint will do nothing against a system that pays HGV drivers by the job count and doesn't enforce the many existing rules about vehicle safety, driver training... and in the recent case where a driver was convicted, the company that hired him didn't even check that he had a valid licence. Perhaps if Volvo really wanted to make a big difference to the safety of cyclists, they'd get heavily behind the proposed designs for safer HGVs for cities: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-challenges-construction-industry-to-adopt-its-safer-urban-lorry-to-reduce-lorry-cyclist-deaths http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-challenges-construction-indus...
- Ntrails 11y ago
  Cyclists are one of the most (if not the most) vulnerable demographics of road users there is, and it should be the responsibility of other road users to help protect them. I fall squarely in the camp that says they are just not suitable vehicles to share the road with other occupants. Frankly they make motorbikes look safe. Of course no government is willing to give up the money or the space to dedicated infrastructure. So as you say, once a month or more a cyclist dies when a lorry turns left. I've watched a cyclist literally crawl from underneath a bus that knocked her off - and it's a contributory factor to my never cycling in London.
kraftman 11y ago
Cyclists in London are crazy: they swerve in and out of cars, onto the pavements and then back onto the roads. They cross using pedestrian crossings and they cycle through red lights like they don't apply to them. Being able to see them better is great but even if you know exactly where they are you still don't know what they're going to do because they don't follow the same rules of the road.
cafeoh 11y ago
Pschhhhhfrrrtshhhh WITNESS ME
mschuster91 11y ago
The problem is that this will only be used by those bikers who already care about their safety and behave according to traffic rules. The fucktards driving at night in full-black clothing, without lights and reflectors, music blasting in their ears and wearing no helmet on the road, instead of the bike lanes, will not take notice of the spray (or the fact that their behavior is endangering themselves). Now guess which group of bikers gets hit by cars more often? (Disclaimer: I had multiple last-second-saves with said fucktards while peacefully driving around)
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  In London some leaked TfL research suggested that women were killed far more than men because women obeyed the traffic laws more closely, and so found themselves crushed by left-turning trucks more often when they could have got out of that situation by breaking some rules.
  - fnbr 11y ago
    Can this be found online? I'd love to read that.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  I ride an almost entirely black bike with no reflectors and often no lights. Mostly because I don't use it at night unless I have no other choice. I'm interested by this paint for that exact reason. Your assumptions don't really hold up that well.
  - falcolas 11y ago
    As someone else who has also nearly hit one of these fucktards (on a two lane road with a 60mph speed limit), perhaps his assumptions are not wrong, but you are an outlier. Perhaps it's sharing too much, but the only thing that saved his life was a car half a mile in front of me making an emergency swerve that clued me in to something abnormal in that area - but I thought it was a deer and was about to resume normal vigilance by the time I caught up with the biker. An oncoming train was in just the wrong spot to let me see him by his reflectors.
jsingleton 11y ago
Looks like a neat idea and could help a bit but not as cool as http://revolights.com http://revolights.com which has to be my favourite bike visibility system. It's mounted on the wheels, persistence of vision based and knows when to illuminate the LEDs. However, non of these make cycling (especially in London) safe. I wouldn't cycle in London any more as it's just too dangerous, but I did for years. I always wore high vis and a helmet and obeyed the rules of the road and I still had far too many close calls and incidents with other vehicles. If you want to see how tragic just one of very regular London cyclist deaths is then this is on iPlayer for the next week: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05y18wv/an-hour-to-save-your-life-series-2-1-between-life-and-death http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05y18wv/an-hour-to-sav...
njharman 11y ago
Lasts only 1 week. Neat niche product. Also, wtf did they do to site to make text not selectable?
drfritznunkie 11y ago
Retro reflectives and their impact on accident rates is still pretty contentious within the bicycle community, and personally, I think it gives people a false and very dangerous sense of security and visibility. As a daily bicycle commuter and motorcyclist, the only rule I follow is that I am invisible when on two wheels. So I ride in a way that makes me safe, and that usually means doing things that most people would probably find dangerous. In over 15 years of daily commuting (yes, all through the winter, too) I've been hit a half dozen times. The majority of those accidents were intentionally caused by the car driver, only a couple were truly faultless. None of them were the result of the driver not seeing me, they were all the result of the driver behaving badly. A reflective jacket or spray isn't going to do ANYTHING if the driver decides that they own the lane and they're okay mowing you down to get it. That to me is the big flaw with any conspicuity safety measure, it relies on drivers actually being aware of the road around them and honoring your use of it. At least around here in DC, those two things are seldom present. Most riders are foolishly naive about their safety. Traffic laws aren't going to keep your head from bouncing off a hood, and a reflective vest isn't going to make the driver put down their cell phone and pay attention to the road.
- markbnj 11y ago
  As an experienced bike commuter, I wonder how you feel about an issue that bugs me. When I was young I was taught to ride against the flow of auto traffic so that I could see cars coming. When I taught my kids I told them the same thing, but that has been countered by every other authority they have come into contact with, all of which instruct them to follow the same rules as cars, including riding on the same side of the road. I do all my riding on a trail, but my personal feeling is that if I were riding on a road I would not ride with car traffic. However I know people who have been ticketed/warned about riding against. If you really follow a rule that you're invisible when riding, then it would be hard to justify riding with auto traffic, rather than against, wouldn't it?
  - rmxt 11y ago
    The rule of thumb that I've heard is to walk against traffic if there are no sidewalks or dedicated space, but always to ride your bicycle with traffic if there are no bike lanes. You might be practically invisible to motor vehicles, but as you've noticed, traffic regulations often consider bicycles the equivalent of cars for all intents and purposes. Until the tide changes for cyclists and dedicated infrastructure improves, I think people are stuck with the cards they've been dealt for traffic regulations.
SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
I occasionally cycle in London. There are two schools of thought to making cycling safer: 1) Make cyclists brighter and more armoured. 2) dedicated infrastructure. Option 2 is much more costly and harder politically, but is the only school of thought worth taking seriously. Look at places such as as Amsterdam and Copenhagen where cycling is common and safe (1). Do they rely on helmets and glowing things? No they don't. Lots of ordinary people cycle in regular clothes on dedicated separated cycle lanes. Yes, you'll be safer if you stand out by being brighter than everyone else. But new and interesting ways to ramp up the brightness wars are a frivolous distraction from what cyclists in London need. You should not need to "look like cross between Darth Vader and a Christmas Tree" (2) in order to ride a bike. At lot of the current infrastructure is terrible: Advanced stop line? You mean that white mark on the road with a minicab over it. Cycle "superhighway?" You mean that blue stripe underneath the buses and trucks. 1) http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cyc... 2) http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cycling-what-not-to-wear-1 http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cycling-what-not-to-wear-1
- baddox 11y ago
  Still, for people or organizations who have no measurable ability to affect infrastructure, but have the ability to make protective or high-visibility gear, doesn't it make sense to do so?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
    How well does that high-vis gear sell in Copenhagen? Even if it does make financial sense for these organizations to sell their glow-sticks in London, it doesn't mean that it is in the interests of the rest of us to agree with the idea that it's the answer? It isn't the answer.
    - baddox 11y ago
      > How well does that high-vis gear sell in Copenhagen? I don't know, but it's not relevant. > it doesn't mean that it is in the interests of the rest of us to agree with the idea that it's the answer. Of course not. Like any product, each of us can decide whether it is worth more to us than the money required to acquire it.
TootsMagoon 11y ago
This is going to be used for very creative, disruptive and disturbing vandalism. I guarantee it.
aubergene 11y ago
Side note, but this would be great for some creative graffiti uses
dgreensp 11y ago
"Putting something on that will make you scream out to drivers like me is a fantastic thing." If Volvo understood cyclists better, they'd choose a quote like, "I'm a driver and I hate life paint. Who do you think you are looking all flashy and important?" You gotta work with the tribal dynamics, not against them.
chris_wot 11y ago
You know, Volvo Cars and Albedo accept no liability or responsibility for any individual or individual's accident or injury by any road user or other object whilst wearing Lifepaint. Nor do they accept liability for any damage to property caused directly or indirectly by the paint and what's more, that it is transferable. Furthermore, Volvo say that cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility. There's more: Lifepaint is one of the many products that can aid visibility but cannot prevent accidents caused by the individual or other road users.
cmdrfred 11y ago
Accidents often aren't. When you see the guy weaving though traffic down the highway, changing lanes every few seconds and accelerating and breaking seemingly at random. He will tell you of all the 'accidents' he has had. He's lying. If it's preventable and you choose not to, it's intentional.
usrusr 11y ago
Any evaluation of retroreflective safety features should start with a short overview of what retroreflectivity cannot do: improve visibility, when the object is not within the light cone of the observer's headlights. With that in mind, those impressive side shots are becoming nothing more than show, because any bike sideways in the lights will either be long gone when the car reaches the point where the paths cross, or be already way too close to avoid an accident. And head/tail visibility must be provided by active light anyway, because visibility only inside that headlight beam is never enough. Once you have active light, any retroreflectors are merely adding minor (but important) attitude/dimension/range cues and improvements by "lifepaint" over conventional reflectors will be marginal at most.

Life paint

160 points by erbdex 11y ago

dchest 11y ago

Here it is without Volvo marketing http://www.albedo100.co.uk/ http://www.albedo100.co.uk/

madaxe_again 11y ago
Spray your cat down so it doesn't get hit by cars! And your horse, so... Yeah, not sure why you'd want a glowing horse. Scare the neighbours? Nightmare?
- zamalek 11y ago
  > Yeah, not sure why you'd want a glowing horse. Sometimes talking about your horse to by-standing victims isn't enough - in these cases, searing the image of the horse onto their retina is your only option.
- unwind 11y ago
  For the very same reason of course? If you're on horseback near traffic, which isn't all that uncommon in rural parts, it'd be a good idea to make sure the horse is visible. There's a road sign for this too; https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Warning_sign#/media/File:Sweden_road_sign_A18.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Warning_sign#/media/File:Swe....
  - deckar01 11y ago
    Couldn't resist making a GIF of that horse glowing silver: http://gph.is/1GwKONv http://gph.is/1GwKONv
- cafeoh 11y ago
  Most city owners don't let their cats outside, for the rest, spraying them into irradiated kitten is a sure way to kill their social lives and turn them into big fat depressed little lightballs.
- drivingmenuts 11y ago
  > Yeah, not sure why you'd want a glowing horse Who the eff wouldn't want a glowing horse? Maybe if you were a horse burglar or something. But otherwise ... I'd be all about that.
- claar 11y ago
  "Night-mare"
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    And neigh-bours. I crammed two puns in there :)

nichodges 11y ago

Such a shame that a car company's response to the danger cars present to cyclists is to modify the cyclist. Victim blaming at its best.

sneak 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
- pja 11y ago
  I think it probably is in good faith, but it’s still pushing responsibility onto other road users for driver error: implicitly the logic runs something like “I didn’t see them, but they weren’t wearing reflective spray so it’s their fault I hit them.” It’s a pernicious line of thinking that if you’re a regular cyclist you realise is everywhere in the discussion of road safety issues. You see the same thing with helmets, which are designed to reduce (not eliminate) the impact of a cyclist falling from a standing (or riding) position to the ground, ie a 12mph impact, to the point where brain damage is less likely to occur. Thanks to the v² scaling of energy that has to be dissipated, even a 20mph impact exceeds the design limits of a cycle helmet to absorb impact energy by nearly a factor of 3 which means that helmets make little difference in direct collisions with vehicles travelling at normal traffic speeds. Yet I’ve seen cyclists called out for “not wearing a helmet” when they’ve been run over by a cement truck. Cyclists tend to be a tad hyper-sensitive to victim blaming as a result of this kind of thing!
ars 11y ago
That is such a stupid attitude. Sure, don't blame the victim. They'll be dead - but it's much more important that no one blame them! I assume you never lock your car or your house? Because if someone robbed you you are not at fault! Victim blaming!
- DanBC 11y ago
  Pushing the responsibility from cyclists onto drivers is bad here because the responsibility not to maim and kill people with these one-ton death machines should mostly be the driver's. After the cyclist has taken appropriate measures (riding correctly; correct lights and reflectors) there's not much more they can do to protect themselves. If they're not riding correctly that's the problem you should be trying to fix - an idiot on a bike is still at great risk of death, even if they're ultra-reflective.

DanBC 11y ago

This looks like a great product. What's the research say? Cyclists need front and rear lights, and front and rear reflectors. On top of that the most useful reflectors a cyclist can have are on the pedals and on the wrists. These help when a cyclist is turning; and the pedal reflectors clearly show drivers that they're approaching a cyclist. More than that and you risk the "Christmas Tree Effect" - it's tempting to think that more is better, but you risk just confusing the driver who then doesn't take appropriate safety measures.

ygra 11y ago
You also need reflectors to the sides on the wheels. Reflectors on the pedals point forward and back and while they are required (at least in Germany) I found them to be mostly useless compared to other reflectors that point in that direction.
- usrusr 11y ago
  Despite all their shortcomings, pedal reflectors are excellent communication: "this tiny taillight is not a car in the distance, it belongs to a bike and is much closer than a car at similar brightness would be" They are also very close to the ground (closer than any other reflector), which greatly increases their exposure to light from a properly adjusted headlight. When i ride in the darkness, pedal reflectors are often the only thing preventing a collision with one of those otherwise invisible "ride like a pedestrian" ninjas. That being said, pedal reflectors are only good for making recumbents more visible to helicopter crews with search lights. But i guess recumbents were not a topic when pedal reflectors became mandatory. Which reminds me, this whole discussion is in serious need of some Godwin's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Loibl_GmbH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Loibl_GmbH
nmeofthestate 11y ago
I don't know about the Christmas Tree Effect, but would recommend any cyclist to wear as much high-viz as they can get their hands on. It's more effective than bike lights IMO.

madaxe_again 11y ago

It's water soluble and lasts a week, from that page. Gimmick. Can't see anyone buying a can and spraying their bike every seven days.

naz 11y ago
Funny that the advert features London, where the continuous rain would wash away this paint in minutes.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Rather more that in London the problem isn't usually not being seen, it's that you're seen - as a target-cum-obstacle. Used to cycle to work along the Victoria embankment. Scary, scary experience, every time. If people aren't throwing shit at you through their windows or hitting you in the kidney with a wing mirror, it's because they're distracted by their phone.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Somebody riding to work everyday in the UK will only have rain on 12 of those days.
4ndr3vv 11y ago
Seems like there are four product types and the one for metal & concrete is permanent [1]. looking at the availability on amazon [2], seems it was developed for using on horses, which makes it easier to understand the application method. I've had good success with reflective tape / stickers on my bikes. [1] http://albedo100.co.uk//product/light_metallic/lm_permanent_spray.html http://albedo100.co.uk//product/light_metallic/lm_permanent_... [2] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Albedo100-Reflective-Spray-Horse-Pets/dp/B00JM7PYHG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1399465350&sr=8-1&keywords=albedo100 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Albedo100-Reflective-Spray-Horse-Pet...
- RobAley 11y ago
  The permanent one is grey in daylight, so not transparent like the temporary one.

deutronium 11y ago

I love the idea, can anyone explain how it 'glows'?

pja 11y ago
Given that it reflects light back in the same direction as it comes in, I’d guess it’s based on the same principle as the 3M retro-reflective material (Scotchlite). Presumably it’s a suspension of either spherical beads or tiny corner reflectors (quartz crystals?).
unfamiliar 11y ago
It's reflective.

dreen 11y ago

I stopped cycling in London because I value my life. The city is not built for the amount of cyclists who are already on the roads trying to swerve between the traffic. I have seen people slamming into buses way too many times. A can of fluorescent paint is not going to help much. Most of these accidents happen during the day anyway.

ianpurton 11y ago
Agreed. I found the marketing a bit patronising actually. In London the cycle lanes are painted onto the roads, you take your chances with the cars. The paint might help to be fair. But decent infrastructure would save more lives.
- dreen 11y ago
  Just to add to this, there have been some ideas floating recently to move the cyclers below the streets [1] or above them [2], but while the former is unworkable, it's hard to say if anything comes out of the latter. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31298695 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31298695 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25549789 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25549789
pkorzeniewski 11y ago
I don't know how cyclists behave in London, but what they're doing on roads in my city is absolutely horrifying - not stoping on red lights, going full speed through crosswalks, not signaling turning, driving on road when there's a bike lane alongside and so on. They don't need to pass any driving license, so most cyclist don't even know the basic driving regulations and they've this attitude "I'm the most important user on road".
- bpp198 11y ago
  What, all of them? You mean like all the motor users who break speed limits?
  - 11y ago

markvdb 11y ago

This would be great for painting bicycle lanes onto cars parked in the cycle lane!

lucb1e 11y ago
So you'd rather people leave the bike lane clear and park in the middle of the street? Parking next to the road is a normal thing and perfectly legal as long as there is no sign or some colored line (yellow in the Netherlands) to prohibit it. If there is a bike lane, bikers will have to drive around just like any other user of that road. Just to be sure we're talking about the same, I'm thinking of this situation: http://www.bikearlington.com/tasks/sites/bike/assets/Image/Bike_Lane.jpg http://www.bikearlington.com/tasks/sites/bike/assets/Image/B... With a car standing, say, here: http://snag.gy/XmuKH.jpg http://snag.gy/XmuKH.jpg
- skosch 11y ago
  It is, in fact, illegal in most places—and yes, we're talking about the pictured situation exactly. Park somewhere else: on a side road, for example, or in a driveway.
- markvdb 11y ago
  It's easy to answer the first half of your question. No, cars should not park in the cycle lane. It's impossible to answer your question about where to park given the limited context of the picture.

andreamazz 11y ago

This is clever. I can also see it being used by street artists.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Probably more use to street artists than cyclists.

yitchelle 11y ago

Although I love this idea and the execution by Albedo100, I can't help thinking some reflective tape would last longer, and more cost effective in the long term. Also comes in several colours as well. An example is http://www.amazon.de/Reflective-Stickers-Tapes-Motorcycle-Colors/dp/B00TCOVGIK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1435314538&sr=8-2&keywords=reflective+tape http://www.amazon.de/Reflective-Stickers-Tapes-Motorcycle-Co...

polskibus 11y ago

I wish they make a permanent variant in the future. Another question is how does rain affect the paint. In my cyclist opinion, would like to paint his bike with the permanent variant and perhaps his clothes with temporary one.

revelation 11y ago

A gun manufacturer handing out protective vests to school kids. Instead of this stunt, maybe they should focus on building cars and particularly trucks that are not unsafe by default. All this talk of blind angle obscures the basic fact that this is first and foremost an engineering problem, and most importantly, you can not turn the defects of your vehicle into the responsibility of other road users. If your vehicle isn't safe, it can not be driven. The solution is certainly not to tell everyone else to just watch out because you can't see shit left and right and man is this thing large and heavy.

tormeh 11y ago
I believe Volvo's are some of the nicest cars you can collide with as a pedestrian/cyclist. Yes, a car is an insane concept, but I'm not sure you're barking up the right tree here.
- revelation 11y ago
  Oh really? http://www.euractiv.com/sections/transport/eu-truck-safety-and-efficiency-law-faces-delay-until-2019-310740 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/transport/eu-truck-safety-a... Volvo, for instance, began rolling out new designs in 2012, so it could be at a disadvantage if competitors introduce more up-to-date models in the near future. Wait guys, we just brought out these shitty unsafe trucks recently, we can't be making safe ones already! We'll take 10 years, thank you very much. Seriously, fuck them. They delay improved safety designs for trucks (with extremely mild changes, nonetheless) and then tell people to spray themselves with reflective plastic. In retrospect, the gun analogy was way too tame. Gun manufacturers don't want kids killed, but Volvo is pushing for more of them to be run over.
  - vomitcuddle 11y ago
    Volvo Car Corporation and Volvo Trucks are owned by different companies
    - revelation 11y ago

buro9 11y ago

> "Cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility" Woah there. Hold up right there. The safety of ALL road users is on the backs of ALL road users. It's not uncommon in London to see reporting of one of the one-a-month on average deaths of a cyclist to see such comments as "the cyclist was wearing a helmet". Yet the helmet didn't save the cyclist, because the cyclist was crushed by a fully loaded construction HGV tipper truck. This idea that cyclist safety is 100% their responsibility is part of the root cause of the problem. Cyclists are one of the most (if not the most) vulnerable demographics of road users there is, and it should be the responsibility of other road users to help protect them. Failing that, it should be the responsibility of those who provide roads to ensure that the infrastructure itself protects them (segregated cycleways). But creating an idea in which "Cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility" is plain disgusting when every damn month another cyclist is in a morgue, regardless of whether or not the cyclist wore high visibility clothing, had lights, wore a helmet, etc, etc. And there is my issue with Volvo's "Life paint"... it shifts the blame for the continued stream of fatalities onto the cyclist. Do you want to know where the real problem is? Try this, of the 8 fatalities on London roads this year, 7 were caused by HGV construction vehicles even though such vehicles take up less than 5% of all London vehicular traffic. Here's one from Monday... this week! http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-26-killed-in-bank-tipper-truck-crash-was-newly-married-oxford-graduate-10339057.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-26-killed-in-b... Being covered in reflective spray paint will do nothing against a system that pays HGV drivers by the job count and doesn't enforce the many existing rules about vehicle safety, driver training... and in the recent case where a driver was convicted, the company that hired him didn't even check that he had a valid licence. Perhaps if Volvo really wanted to make a big difference to the safety of cyclists, they'd get heavily behind the proposed designs for safer HGVs for cities: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-challenges-construction-industry-to-adopt-its-safer-urban-lorry-to-reduce-lorry-cyclist-deaths http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-challenges-construction-indus...

Ntrails 11y ago
Cyclists are one of the most (if not the most) vulnerable demographics of road users there is, and it should be the responsibility of other road users to help protect them. I fall squarely in the camp that says they are just not suitable vehicles to share the road with other occupants. Frankly they make motorbikes look safe. Of course no government is willing to give up the money or the space to dedicated infrastructure. So as you say, once a month or more a cyclist dies when a lorry turns left. I've watched a cyclist literally crawl from underneath a bus that knocked her off - and it's a contributory factor to my never cycling in London.

kraftman 11y ago

Cyclists in London are crazy: they swerve in and out of cars, onto the pavements and then back onto the roads. They cross using pedestrian crossings and they cycle through red lights like they don't apply to them. Being able to see them better is great but even if you know exactly where they are you still don't know what they're going to do because they don't follow the same rules of the road.

cafeoh 11y ago

Pschhhhhfrrrtshhhh WITNESS ME

mschuster91 11y ago

The problem is that this will only be used by those bikers who already care about their safety and behave according to traffic rules. The fucktards driving at night in full-black clothing, without lights and reflectors, music blasting in their ears and wearing no helmet on the road, instead of the bike lanes, will not take notice of the spray (or the fact that their behavior is endangering themselves). Now guess which group of bikers gets hit by cars more often? (Disclaimer: I had multiple last-second-saves with said fucktards while peacefully driving around)

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
In London some leaked TfL research suggested that women were killed far more than men because women obeyed the traffic laws more closely, and so found themselves crushed by left-turning trucks more often when they could have got out of that situation by breaking some rules.
- fnbr 11y ago
  Can this be found online? I'd love to read that.
hahainternet 11y ago
I ride an almost entirely black bike with no reflectors and often no lights. Mostly because I don't use it at night unless I have no other choice. I'm interested by this paint for that exact reason. Your assumptions don't really hold up that well.
- falcolas 11y ago
  As someone else who has also nearly hit one of these fucktards (on a two lane road with a 60mph speed limit), perhaps his assumptions are not wrong, but you are an outlier. Perhaps it's sharing too much, but the only thing that saved his life was a car half a mile in front of me making an emergency swerve that clued me in to something abnormal in that area - but I thought it was a deer and was about to resume normal vigilance by the time I caught up with the biker. An oncoming train was in just the wrong spot to let me see him by his reflectors.

jsingleton 11y ago

Looks like a neat idea and could help a bit but not as cool as http://revolights.com http://revolights.com which has to be my favourite bike visibility system. It's mounted on the wheels, persistence of vision based and knows when to illuminate the LEDs. However, non of these make cycling (especially in London) safe. I wouldn't cycle in London any more as it's just too dangerous, but I did for years. I always wore high vis and a helmet and obeyed the rules of the road and I still had far too many close calls and incidents with other vehicles. If you want to see how tragic just one of very regular London cyclist deaths is then this is on iPlayer for the next week: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05y18wv/an-hour-to-save-your-life-series-2-1-between-life-and-death http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05y18wv/an-hour-to-sav...

njharman 11y ago

Lasts only 1 week. Neat niche product. Also, wtf did they do to site to make text not selectable?

drfritznunkie 11y ago

Retro reflectives and their impact on accident rates is still pretty contentious within the bicycle community, and personally, I think it gives people a false and very dangerous sense of security and visibility. As a daily bicycle commuter and motorcyclist, the only rule I follow is that I am invisible when on two wheels. So I ride in a way that makes me safe, and that usually means doing things that most people would probably find dangerous. In over 15 years of daily commuting (yes, all through the winter, too) I've been hit a half dozen times. The majority of those accidents were intentionally caused by the car driver, only a couple were truly faultless. None of them were the result of the driver not seeing me, they were all the result of the driver behaving badly. A reflective jacket or spray isn't going to do ANYTHING if the driver decides that they own the lane and they're okay mowing you down to get it. That to me is the big flaw with any conspicuity safety measure, it relies on drivers actually being aware of the road around them and honoring your use of it. At least around here in DC, those two things are seldom present. Most riders are foolishly naive about their safety. Traffic laws aren't going to keep your head from bouncing off a hood, and a reflective vest isn't going to make the driver put down their cell phone and pay attention to the road.

markbnj 11y ago
As an experienced bike commuter, I wonder how you feel about an issue that bugs me. When I was young I was taught to ride against the flow of auto traffic so that I could see cars coming. When I taught my kids I told them the same thing, but that has been countered by every other authority they have come into contact with, all of which instruct them to follow the same rules as cars, including riding on the same side of the road. I do all my riding on a trail, but my personal feeling is that if I were riding on a road I would not ride with car traffic. However I know people who have been ticketed/warned about riding against. If you really follow a rule that you're invisible when riding, then it would be hard to justify riding with auto traffic, rather than against, wouldn't it?
- rmxt 11y ago
  The rule of thumb that I've heard is to walk against traffic if there are no sidewalks or dedicated space, but always to ride your bicycle with traffic if there are no bike lanes. You might be practically invisible to motor vehicles, but as you've noticed, traffic regulations often consider bicycles the equivalent of cars for all intents and purposes. Until the tide changes for cyclists and dedicated infrastructure improves, I think people are stuck with the cards they've been dealt for traffic regulations.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago

I occasionally cycle in London. There are two schools of thought to making cycling safer: 1) Make cyclists brighter and more armoured. 2) dedicated infrastructure. Option 2 is much more costly and harder politically, but is the only school of thought worth taking seriously. Look at places such as as Amsterdam and Copenhagen where cycling is common and safe (1). Do they rely on helmets and glowing things? No they don't. Lots of ordinary people cycle in regular clothes on dedicated separated cycle lanes. Yes, you'll be safer if you stand out by being brighter than everyone else. But new and interesting ways to ramp up the brightness wars are a frivolous distraction from what cyclists in London need. You should not need to "look like cross between Darth Vader and a Christmas Tree" (2) in order to ride a bike. At lot of the current infrastructure is terrible: Advanced stop line? You mean that white mark on the road with a minicab over it. Cycle "superhighway?" You mean that blue stripe underneath the buses and trucks. 1) http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cyc... 2) http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cycling-what-not-to-wear-1 http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cycling-what-not-to-wear-1

baddox 11y ago
Still, for people or organizations who have no measurable ability to affect infrastructure, but have the ability to make protective or high-visibility gear, doesn't it make sense to do so?
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  How well does that high-vis gear sell in Copenhagen? Even if it does make financial sense for these organizations to sell their glow-sticks in London, it doesn't mean that it is in the interests of the rest of us to agree with the idea that it's the answer? It isn't the answer.
  - baddox 11y ago
    > How well does that high-vis gear sell in Copenhagen? I don't know, but it's not relevant. > it doesn't mean that it is in the interests of the rest of us to agree with the idea that it's the answer. Of course not. Like any product, each of us can decide whether it is worth more to us than the money required to acquire it.

TootsMagoon 11y ago

This is going to be used for very creative, disruptive and disturbing vandalism. I guarantee it.

aubergene 11y ago

Side note, but this would be great for some creative graffiti uses

dgreensp 11y ago

"Putting something on that will make you scream out to drivers like me is a fantastic thing." If Volvo understood cyclists better, they'd choose a quote like, "I'm a driver and I hate life paint. Who do you think you are looking all flashy and important?" You gotta work with the tribal dynamics, not against them.

chris_wot 11y ago

You know, Volvo Cars and Albedo accept no liability or responsibility for any individual or individual's accident or injury by any road user or other object whilst wearing Lifepaint. Nor do they accept liability for any damage to property caused directly or indirectly by the paint and what's more, that it is transferable. Furthermore, Volvo say that cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility. There's more: Lifepaint is one of the many products that can aid visibility but cannot prevent accidents caused by the individual or other road users.

cmdrfred 11y ago

Accidents often aren't. When you see the guy weaving though traffic down the highway, changing lanes every few seconds and accelerating and breaking seemingly at random. He will tell you of all the 'accidents' he has had. He's lying. If it's preventable and you choose not to, it's intentional.

usrusr 11y ago

Any evaluation of retroreflective safety features should start with a short overview of what retroreflectivity cannot do: improve visibility, when the object is not within the light cone of the observer's headlights. With that in mind, those impressive side shots are becoming nothing more than show, because any bike sideways in the lights will either be long gone when the car reaches the point where the paths cross, or be already way too close to avoid an accident. And head/tail visibility must be provided by active light anyway, because visibility only inside that headlight beam is never enough. Once you have active light, any retroreflectors are merely adding minor (but important) attitude/dimension/range cues and improvements by "lifepaint" over conventional reflectors will be marginal at most.