- cross-posted to:
- energia@feddit.it
- cross-posted to:
- energia@feddit.it
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
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…
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.
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 (?).