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

  • FatCat@lemmy.worldEnglish
    792·
    2 days 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…

    • Tudsamfa@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      1 day 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.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      2 days 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.eeEnglish
        8·
        2 days 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.

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          23 hours ago

          If you need a rear light or not actually varies state to state. The reflectors are fed policy and that’s why all bikes sold in the US have them. The siren thing seems to be because kids were rigging sirens to their wheels attached to a chain and being a general nuisance at some point in the 50s. That said, that’s about all a car would hear that’s not electronic. That or an canned air horn.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PpQFt3biKMA

          A video of the wheel siren in action.