To be honest, I was more impressed with their mission statement of "By 2020, no person will be killed or seriously injured by a Volvo". What an incredible goal! I hope they can achieve it.
This is one of those things that can start in a small country that happened to have relatively rational politicians and at the time, two car manufacturers - Volvo and Saab. And they all managed to work together towards a common goal.
Saab Automobile is no more (sort of), but Volvo appears to be in a renaissance now that it's Chinese-owned (Geely) rather than American-owned (Ford). Ford sold Volvo to Geely in 2010, and since then Volvo has been working on their own platforms, first shipped in the new XC90. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Scalable_Product_Platfor...
"The result has been a sort of social contract between state and citizen: If residents follow the most basic traffic laws, engineers can design roads to guard against all fatalities."
"'Design around the human as we are,' said Claes Tingvall, the director of traffic safety at the Swedish Transport Administration and a godfather of the Vision Zero plan."
It goes back a long way too. The ubiquitous three-point seat belt was invented at Volvo. Rather than keep it for themselves as a competitive advantage, they opened the patent so everyone could benefit.
I think the soccer mom image comes from their lack of "sport" focused cars. I looked at their lineup and saw nothing that looked "aggressive" or "sporty". All of the cars looked pretty even keel middle of the road "nice".
There are a couple of sporty offerings [1] from their in-house tuning company, Polestar (like AMG for Mercedes, etc.). And the 240 Turbo is still a entry-level rally favorite in Scandinavia. You can easily get 300 bhp, 50/50 weight distribution, manual shift and rear-wheel drive in a '94 model for about $6000, then spend about $1500 prepping it for the entry level rally class. (There is an even cheaper rally class called "Folkrally", where there is a rule to keep the cost down that says at the end of the race, anyone can offer to buy your car for $1700, and you're not allowed to refuse or you lose your rally licence.)
It could be argued that not building cars that look "aggressive" is a reflection of their culture of safety.
In my view, driving on public roadways should be maximally safe (and thus deeply boring); if you want to treat driving as a sport, then head to a track. Disclaimer: I own a Volvo :)
I believe this was a change in the last maybe 10 years. Before the current line-up of S40's and S60's, their cars looked almost offensively boring (to me); and, with ugly faces. With the new S40's and S60's, I think they are downright pleasant to look at.
This may be my perception of that particular coming out of an old generation of looks, and catching up to the current one, though.
Please tell me you are joking or at the very least you are a paid spokesperson for Volvo. This is a goal that the hammer division of Stanley Tools will never be able to accomplish; and they make a product that does not contain any logic circuits, its just mass at the end of a stick.
ADDENDUM: Nuance Elimination
In addition to the problem of "user error" I do not think that Volvo is going to be the first company that creates a 100% error free product design, operates a production line that never suffers from quality control issues and masters supply chain management to such an extent they never utilize faulty/defective components from third parties. Finally there is also the "Eve and Mallory" problem. Do we really need to have a discussion on HN about the likelihood of unhackable firmware/software?
Never seriously injuring or killing requires absolute perfection in every aspect of design and implementation. In my opinion merely entertaining the possibility of that level of perfection requires a terrifying amount of hubris.
Are you saying that since a car is more complex than a hammer, and not even Stanley can control what the end user does with the hammer, therefore cars will always kill? Wouldn't the fact that Volvo's products actually have logic help them reach their goal vs. a hammer?
> "By 2020, no person will be killed or seriously injured by a NEW Volvo"
The way things have been going lately for Swedish car manufacturers it seems very likely they'll achieve that goal, by simply going out of business before 2020.
Volvo's new XC90 got stellar reviews, and is selling well. And apparently they are redesigning the whole product line using their new product platforms [0]. I don't think they are going away any time soon.
They said "by" not "in". Half jokingly, that means by 2020, nobody will be hit by a Volvo car, but the people inside might still suffer injuries if involved in an accident. That can mean the car AI might sacrifice the car passengers to save a pedestrian or cyclist.
I do cycle, and I do not see this as a bad thing, nor that it shifts the blame/burden/etc to me as a cyclist. I am hard to see at night with my tiny rear light and my reflective vest that barely moves and the thin reflective stripes on my pants. If I sprayed the legs of my pants with this, the large area of movement reflecting in headlights would sure as hell make me easier to see.
I imagine it sure would help collision avoidance systems, and I can't be the only one thinking that. If it's that reflective for visible light, it's just as reflective for IR and possibly microwaves, and would make the user stand out on computerized collision avoidance systems.
That was the first rule of the motorcycle training course: you're harder to see. Worse, I've had people seem to make eye-contact with me and pull out, and then saw the shock on their face when they actually noticed me; someone once described it as a bad check, where they're looking for cars, and since you're not a car the road's clear. (It's such a confusingly bad heuristic, too, since people seem to do that to trains and trucks as well.)
So to help things along, it's useful to be conspicuous. In overcast, low-contrast weather, I'd love for this stuff for my chaps when it's cold and drizzly.
EDIT: I wonder what the high viz stuff triggers in terms of object collision warnings in the head. Like, perhaps it seems like a sign, and that makes a person double check they're still on the road? I have that sort of knee-jerk check when someone with bright blue headlamps get behind me, since that color in a mirror used to invariably mean police.
Yup. "Nothing car-sized in my left mirror, turning...OH-SHIT-SINCE-WHEN-DO-I-HAVE-A-TRAM-WEDGED-IN-THE-CAR-DOOR?!?" is the most common collision scenario for light rail, just as "nothing car-sized in my mirror, let me open the door-OH-SHIT-THAT-BIKE-LANE-WASN'T-THERE-A-SECOND-AGO!!!" is for bikes.
Also, see that video I posted in response to GP - reflective stuff is at least an order of magnitude more visible at night than normal (even bright) clothing.
Except then we'd be teaching the avoidance systems "whatever doesn't stand out is unworthy of attention; if you're not completely covered in blinking/reflective gadgets, well that's your own damn fault."
You are underestimating the brightness of your (blinking) lights and the reflective items. See this for a visual comparison of "invisible/reflective/reflective+lights": https://youtu.be/oAFQ2pAnMFA?t=1m12s
Indeed it is in my own individual interest as a cyclist to be visible; it is absolutely not in my best interest to even suggest to car drivers that "if it doesn't have a HUGE REFLECTING SIGN, it doesn't exist and therefore you don't have to worry about it."
There's a lot at work in the optics of this stuff. When you say "whatever doesn't stand out is unworthy of attention", I think it's fairer to say "whatever doesn't stand out isn't seen", as in is below the threshold of detection. A crossing guard's blinking red light can be invisible in some times of day/year, and at night everything that isn't well lit is just some shade of shadow, which looks an awful lot like unoccupied air. For the avoidance systems, I think we're really going to net win on that, since they'll need to see things that aren't well illuminated, like fallen trees and ditches. (I really, really hope so at least.) Basically, the systems will have better eye sight than us.
In a lot of ways, I think this is a form of faking a HUD for people. We want humans to shine, like there's an OLED display overlay pointing at people or like a thermal imager behind walls. Reflective paint does that really well - at least it makes clothing-shaped blobs hovering in mid-air - but I think the intensity is merely that car lights are bright, so the retroreflection is far brighter than the little LED lights people tend to buy. You need something that a motor vehicle driver considers conspicuous, which is going to be something with the lumen output of a head light or brake light. In the video you linked, the bike's red tail light really isn't really bright enough, but the jacket absolutely is unmistakable. And blinking things really are great, since movement catches attention nicely (so long as bright-vs-dim has enough contrast). The bobbing retroreflecting foot pedals in the clip show they're an excellent tell-tale of a bike on the road.
Cool marketing, but not a novel idea. There a tons of similar products. I have been told that the paint only lasts 2-3 weeks WITHOUT washing the clothing. I am also hesitant to spray any nice fabric with it. Unless you are in a bind, just use a dedicated riding jacket with reflective fabric.
Just in case anyone is interested in getting some, Volvo LifePaint is believed to be a rebranding of an existing product: Albedo100 Invisible Bright. Should be easy enough to buy some.
Cool product. Sadly I don't think it would make a huge difference in London, as even the examples shown in their video suggest that the driver saw the cyclist but crossed their path anyway. I find London drivers (and pedestrians) see cyclists ok but are very poor at judging a cyclist's speed and stopping distance. Also a big part of getting around in London is about aggressively claiming space and navigating obstacles, drivers are far more concerned about collisions with other cars and large vehicles and are quite ok with pulling into the path of smaller vehicles and assuming they will stop.
I got hold of this stuff when it first came out last year, its fun.
Amazon does a whole range of similar products, including one that's safe to use on animal fur. I've often been tempted to spray the cat - keep him safer when out at night, and the idea of a shiny cat is pretty amusing.
The problem with both of these is that CAMERAS with FLASHES do an exceptionally good job of exaggerating the effect. So in the real world it will never be as bright.
I run a cycling forum in London and a Volvo dealer recently approached us to advertise this and offer it for free for some cyclists to try.
Whilst we don't do advertising at all, and whilst this isn't for me I thought the free offer may be something people wanted to take up so I asked.
The response was loud and clear: Cyclists see this as victim blaming. As a way to externalise responsibility away from the operator of a multi-tonne vehicle to the operator of a 10kg pedal bicycle.
Of those who replied, most were angry that things have already got to the point whereby even wearing high-vis, helmets and having very capable lights... one of the first lines in any newspaper report on a cyclist being involved in a road traffic incident remains "the cyclist was wearing a helmet and a high-vis jacket". No mention of whether the lights of a vehicle are in working order, or the driver was paying attention and looking for other road users.
In fact, the onus seems to be wholly on the cyclist to be a beacon.
If a cyclist is hit by a vehicle, then the cyclist is presumed to be at fault if an overwhelming amount of evidence cannot be immediately proffered showing how visible the cyclist was.
That was kind of the thing that made me not want to try it either, but others found the words a hell of a lot better than I and there was real anger there.
All that said, Volvo have taken the unique stance of saying that they as a company will take responsibility for incidents where the cause was one of their automatic driving systems. For that they deserve considerable praise, but for this paint... no.
as somebody who bike commutes a little over 2 hours every day, I really don't understand why anybody would be angry about this, I mean, I would be wearing a strobing whole body orange flashing laser vest if it was available and the batteries lasted long enough.
In the end bikes are a lot less visible than a car, especially at night, and even more so when it's raining, and despite this I still see several times a week cyclists dressed in black with no lights: of course if a car hits a cyclist the car is at fault, but if you think about it as a car driver you are rolling the dice at times at night because there is no way you can see somebody dressed like that until it's too late if they decide to ride in front of you.
I am not saying all car drivers are blameless, despite using TWO 1000+ lumens led lights (one on my handlebar, one on my helmet) I still often get cut off by cars turning in front of me, or despite having a 500+ lumens red rear light cars passing me and cutting me off by turning right in front of me, so as a cyclist one has to ride defensively at all times, but I really don't see why one would not immediately jump at something that makes them more visible (and that will make any "I didn't see him" defense by a car driver in an accident moot)
despite using TWO 1000+ lumens led lights (one on my handlebar, one on my helmet) I still often get cut off by cars turning in front of me
Wow, I'd be kind of curious where you live. Way back in the day when I got my first HID (which put out something like 600-ish lumens, IIRC), getting cut off and cars turning in front of me just stopped. I can think of one incident where a car wasn't yielding the right-of-way, and I'm convinced that guy was just being a dick. And even Mr. Dick stopped dead in his tracks when I whipped the helmet light around into his eyes. With the new 1000+ lumen LED lights (one of which I have), it hasn't been an issue for me at all.
But I live in the Seattle area, where one would like to think the drivers are a little more aware of cyclists (and there's more of them, which helps increase awareness). Your mileage will most likely vary.
Holy smokes, this epitomizes why I don't hang out with cyclists anymore: too much whining, about everything. No good deed goes unpunished in the eyes of the cycling community, including this one. A company comes out with an arguably good idea, and the response? "Victim blaming!" Yeesh, grow up already.
As a current life-long hardcore motorcycle rider, and former hardcore cyclist, let me clue the rest of you riders into a little fact: you/we are hard to see, and the faster you come to terms with that, the longer you'll live or remain uninjured. There is no injustice in a company presenting a product and saying, "try this, it will make you more visible."
Signed,
Former Cat 2 racer, 40 mile/day commuter, and USAC race official
But I drive too, I know as a cyclist I'm not visible by default. But 250 lumens of rear light, and 7,000 lumens of front light set that right simply enough.
I'll give you some help justifying it and fathoming it: 30,000 people are dying on roads in the US every year. Because of cars, not because of invisible cyclists. Most of which, there is already a law in place that would've prevented it, i.e. when a crash takes place there has typically already been a law broken.
30,000 people, that's TEN 9/11's every year. Enough to justify ten wars, some would say. So it's well more than enough to justify politely telling you to go fuck off with your glow-in-the-dark spraypaint. People in cars - YOU go paint yourself. YOU grow up. YOU take responsibility and be mature.
Some sort of symbolic protest against car drivers is not going to help your cause. Your target should be the designers of the road system. Until you fix that, this is a stop-gap.
Either way, in case you are more interested in surviving rather making a political point (the wrong audience), it makes no sense to reject something that can protect you.
Perhaps it's just a London bias. We're averaging a cyclist fatality every month with severe injuries every week and a significant number of minor injuries daily.
I personally think it's the infrastructure more than anything else, and the prevailing TfL policies promoting high flow of traffic over liveable and calm environments.
As an outsider who has has visited London a couple of times: yes, it is obviously an infrastructure thing. I wouldn't dream of cycling on the streets of London; I don't have a death wish.
(I'm in Sweden. Most of the time there's dedicated bike lanes/roads, but sometimes in the inner city parts we have to share the roads with cars.)
I still think your fellow cyclists are being silly/immature. You should lobby for more isolation of car/bike traffic. However... Rejecting this kind of safety spray out of political reasons would be like rejecting bike helmets out of political reasons. You're wearing it to protect yourself...
Of course being more visible is going to be safer for you, but let's not let this put even more of the burden of safety on the bicyclist.
If this catches on, riding at night without it will be considered as dumb as riding without a helmet, when really nothing is going to protect you from a two ton metal deathtrap coming at you at 20 mph or above.
The only difference from the rest of reflective stuff (armbands, pedals, wheel wire wraps) is the ad-hoc nature of the stuff. Me, I'll stick to the traditional reflective strips (plus lights).
The real issue is this: the protective elements are already widely available (to cyclists and pedestrians alike) and cheap - how is this more attractive to the current unlit and dark-clad "ninjas" than existing alternatives? In other words, the product might be useful to people who already do use other safety elements - how is this aimed at the ones who don't?
Naah. High-visibility fluorescent yellow cycling jackets or similar attire are better ways: your body is a large blob that is much easier to notice than a little blinking light, especially if you're going along areas where there are lots of other light sources competing for the driver's attention.
But there's no reason you shouldn't go for both, of course.
Riding (cycling) without a helmet is considered dumb only in certain areas of the world. Last time I checked, some countries refused to make it compulsory because evidence was mixed (no references to hand, but the gist of it was that direct impact head damage at cycling speeds was less of a problem than whiplash/concussion, and the helmet only adds weight).
The helmet is for if you fall over and hit your head. You can die from a relatively minor blow to he head. It has nothing to do with being safe from cars. You could get hit by a car (more likely clipped and fall off) and bang your head, of course, but it isn't a car defense device.
Not being hit by cars is the best defense against being hit by cars. It is genuinely stupid to not wear some sort of reflector or light when riding in the dark. A driver can't avoid what he can't see. Volvo doesn't seem to have a monopoly on shiny surfaces.
I could see this being of more use if it were permanent. You could put it on your dedicated riding jacket and just always wear that jacket and no worry about the reflectors etc.
Right. But non bicyclists don't know that. Which is why the media always reports on whether a cyclist killed by a car was wearing a helmet or not, when it doesn't matter. It's just victim blaming on the part of the media.
Drivers don't suffer any consequences for killing people.
Cyclists should do what they can to increase their likelihood of not dying, but drivers should be legally obligated (meaning jailtime) if they kill someone.
As a driver I will go to court if I hit you, but if you aren't wearing lights and I am turning right in a place with no street lights seeing you behind the car is physically impossible. Wear lights, please, I don't want to be responsible for any deaths.
> Of course being more visible is going to be safer for you, but let's not let this put even more of the burden of safety on the bicyclist
So what's your proposal to make cyclists more visible that doesn't require any action on the cyclists' part? And is that realistically more or less likely to happen than this?
Do you have any data to suggest this would work? It sounds great in theory, the majority of people think that they're above average drivers. Everyone thinks "it won't happen to me" and continues driving dangerously.
Drivers are already held accountable for speeding, drink driving, using the phone, etc. but they still do it.
My biggest trouble with cyclists at night, as a driver, has always been the ones that don't have any lights on their bike. Sometimes the reflectors don't even reflect very brightly (or aren't present).
When a bike is all lit up, I have no trouble seeing and reacting appropriately to them.
No, but you can't expect everything in the road to be light-emitting. There could very easily be a car in the middle of the road with its lights disabled. There could be a person walking down the road without crazy nanopaint, because he was in a car and wasn't expecting to walk, but the car broke down. There could be a horse or cow in the road.
I still think this doesn't shift any blame away from cyclists who don't use lights. A bicycle is moving, unlike those examples, and you need to be aware of it even when it isn't in your way yet or in the beam of your headlights.
Well, a driver needs to be careful, it's true. At the same time, it behooves a cyclist to take basic precautions to improve his own safety and to make things easier for drivers around him.
I narrowly avoided an accident with a cyclist who was riding at night, without lights, without a helmet, with crappy reflectors, wearing dark clothing. The area wasn't particularly well-lit (obnoxious San Jose low-pressure-sodium orange-hue lighting). The cyclist was riding along a busy street but his bicycle was on the sidewalk, behind a row of parked cars, heading the opposite direction of traffic on that street... and he headed out into the intersection with a side-street at full cycling speed, not pedestrian speed.
I really wouldn't have minded some extra help not-killing the guy, you know?
