I'm aware of the date, but nevertheless I find this pretty sickening:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/
And in the small print at the bottom:
Cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Volvo's sickening humour
(45 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Interesting they didn't feel the need to paint their motors or any other cars.
I wonder if their 2020 vision of causing no accidents becomes a shared delusion as it get closer to 2020...
Posted 9 years ago # -
This has been kicking about on the internet for at least 4 days so either Volvo don't know how April Fools work (in which case, I salute them on the day making unfunny stuff up has once again taken over the airwaves) or it ain't an April Fools gag.
Posted 9 years ago # -
http://www.albedo100.co.uk/
"© Albedo100 UK is a trading name of InformCare Limited - Reg No: 8370747 UK - Reg Office: Somers, Mounts Hill, Benenden, Kent, TN17 4ET"Posted 9 years ago # -
So they're actual products that volvo think would improve safety? Then why don't they coat their cars with them out the factory...
Posted 9 years ago # -
I suspect you're not actually allowed to coast a car in this. Maybe only emergency service use? Volvo has good daddy creation track record, though this has been rather poorly aimed - I actually think it's a rather nifty product...
EDIT autocorrect cracker there. Daddy instead of safety. I like to think of Volvo being responsible for moments of passion that lead to children...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Volvo has good safety creation track record
The same Volvo that campaigned against the early introduction of safer lorries?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Also the same Volvo that was the first to introduce:
Laminated glass
three point seat belts (the design patent it released to other manufacturers for nothing)
three point rear belts
child safety cushion in the centre arm rest
side impact protection
side airbags as standard
Breakable seat belt mounts
head level airbags
whiplash protection system
blind spot information system
and work on a collision warning and braking systemThat Volvo, yes.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Been around for a few days, so I don't think it's a April Fools.
But weather or not they achieve it the Volvo 2020 goal if it's actually taken seriously probably will lead to improvements.
I say that as someone who was knocked off my bike for the first time (on my way to school) by a Volvo over 20 years ago. The only injury, was knocking off a scab on my elbow from a much more serious self inflicted cycling injury caused by trying to take a corner too fast several weeks before. Result was a decent amount of blood for a small tumble.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@WC
Safer for whom?
Improving the crash-worthiness of a vehicle does not necessarily make it safer overall, especially to pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists & other less crash worthy vehicles.
Unfortunately "safety benefits" (seat belts, ABS, better tyres./brakes, etc.) are normally absorbed as "performance benefits" i.e allowing drivers to go faster, relax more, pay less attention, etc.
For example, mandatory front seat belt law did not significantly improve overall safety - instead drivers went faster & killed more vulnerable users & back seat passengers (children).
For more info see "Death on the Streets" by Robert Davis:
http://rdrf.org.uk/death-on-the-streets-cars-and-the-mythology-of-road-safety/If Volvo were really serious about safety, they would have implemented GPS controlled speed-limiters; driver mobile phone use prevention systems; and 'black box' recorders by now.
Posted 9 years ago # -
And:
If Volvo were really serious about safety they would investigate every single fatality, injury & near miss involving their cars, learn lessons and remove or engineer-out the danger.
Same as they do in the railway, airline and shipping industries.
Posted 9 years ago # -
In Volvo's defense, their 2020 vision is that no one will be killed or seriously injured in a Volvo car, neither should an unprotected road user be killed or seriously injured.
Unfortunately this vision doesn't seem to extend to their truck or bus divisions.
However I accept the risk transference argument, and it seems so (now) do Volvo, with increasing emphasis on protection of other road users - such as the design of XC90 not to plough over smaller cars, pedestrian "friendly" bonnets and frontal areas, automatic braking including for objects smaller than vehicles, etc.
But yes, when driving I'll keep the odds in my favour through personal protective equipment, such as a big Volvo, with lots of driver aids, as I need all the help I can get when controlling so much energy.
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
They were about the first to introduce forward monitoring systems which can help the driver stop in an emergency, or automatically apply the brakes.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Actually Volvo do have their own accident investigators, and don't just rely on their (extensive) test facilities.
<shrug>
Cars (within 60 mile radius of Gothenburg)
But then I've bought into (most of) their marketing...
This victim blaming, however, is just as bad as that of Proviz, whose jacket prevents drivers running red lights.
Frankly I look forward to devices that prevent drivers from driving without due care and attention, and ultimately to the device that prevents drivers from punishing cyclists for taking a primary position, or indeed any position.
My issue is primarily with drivers who know exactly where I am and wish to punish me for it...
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
Unfortunately this vision doesn't seem to extend to their truck or bus divisions.
Separate company. Volvo Cars split from the rest of Volvo some years ago; it was sold to Ford. Some years later Ford sold it on to Geely of China.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I have to admit, when I'm driving I do think, "It doesn't really matter if I crash, I've got an air bag and crumple zone"
I think drivers saving about unconcerned because they have safety things to keep 'them' safe and therefore not have to care about consequences is as much of a myth as people believing cyclists ride about without carrying about pedestrians because they won't get hurt (people do genuinely seem to believe a cyclist will always stay upright in a crash with a pedestrian). there will always, in any transport choice, be exceptions, but I'm pretty sure the majority of drivers (yes, the majority) don't actually want to have a crash or run someone over.
I may be wrong, but for every muppet who passes me on the road there were 40 drivers who were perfectly safe.
Actually, I've got a hire car just now for working up north. My normal car is a Mini, whereas this is a daft soft-roader (a free 'upgrade' on the small car I'd selected). It's newer, loaded with all the latest gadgets, and undoubtedly will see me better off than my own car if I crash. I can assure you, I'm driving even more carefully than I normally do at the moment simply because out feels like a lumbering beast.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Not really understanding the hate for this product. Volvo have apparently produced a spray that allows objects to be more visible when hit by car headlights. I'd have thought judging by the amount of posts on this forum over the years complaining about having to look like a Christmas tree and wear luminous colours that this product would have been perfect.
@edd1e_h the full quote from the disclaimer at the bottom of the webpage is
"Cycle safety is the cyclist's responsibility and Lifepaint is one of the many products that can aid visibility but cannot prevent accidents caused by the individual or other road users."
Anything can be truncated to further a point, in this case I believe Volvo are merely pointing out that just because you may be more visible you still have to watch out for bad driving and also cycle sensibly.Posted 9 years ago # -
@WC - it doesn't seem to be a conscious thought process, but has been observed in a lack of predicted decrease in injuries (e.g. children playing on "forgiving" surfaces v concrete) or in transference of injuries (pedestrian increase with occupant decrease when seat belts became compulsory).
Try cornering on skinny cross-ply tyres, then try the same thing on low profile radials. Then ask the question about whether some (all?) of that safety improvement is consumed in going faster round corners? I doubt that this would be a conscious decision to trade off safety versus performance, but that's what happens.
Or perhaps a more relevant example - how do you cycle with a near flat (rear) tyre? With the tail squirreling underneath you, and just a mile to go to home, I'm guessing you'll carry on, but take the corners gingerly and upright. Do you take those corners as slowly in the dry with fully inflated tyres? Or even in the wet?
Although perhaps these grip analogies are too obvious, compared to the unseen benefits of airbags, crumple zones and seat belts.
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
I think the hate is down to the "look out for your own safety", "don personal protective equipment" (i.e. buy our stuff).
In any other safety critical situation, telling folk to be careful, keep their wits about them and wear PPE, is about the last possible thing you should do.
The first few are to eliminate the risk, use something less dangerous, and put in engineering to prevent the risk being realised.
Only after we've removed the need to travel, reduced the volume of motorised traffic, separated the vulnerable user from the error prone, fallible driver, should we then consider policing (enforcement), training (behaviour) and last of all PPE.
For some reason, with road safety, it's OK to go straight to PPE and changing behaviours!
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
Cycle safety is (partly) cyclists' responsibility. This product is about improving driving safety. "Lifepaint is a unique reflective spray, invisible by day, it shines brightly in the glare of car headlights. The concept was developed by Grey London and is one of a series of projects to highlight the key product innovations of the all-new Volvo XC90." http://blog.th1ng.com/2015/03/clearas-collaborates-with-volvo-and.html
It might help reduce cyclist casualties who are injured at night-time (less than a quarter of the total), if the other vehicle's lights are working and are pointed in the right direction and the driver realises that there is something/someone there and takes avoiding action.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I need to stop posting on my phone, the autocorrect is ridiculous.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@slowcoach I think the point is that this is probably a bigger aid to urban cyclists who don't want to wear luminous clothing whilst heading out to meet friends at night.
Of course it won't help if a driver just hits you but then again there is nothing a cyclist can do to stop a driver just arbitrarily hitting usPosted 9 years ago # -
paul.mag "there is nothing a cyclist can do to stop a driver just arbitrarily hitting us" - was this Flair Loop not real then?
Posted 9 years ago # -
slowcoach hadn't seen that product before looks very cool! Sadly I'm not sure I can see it being introduced although it be fun to see every car slamming to a stop as I cycle down that middle of the road cycle lane on Morrison street
Posted 9 years ago # -
btw I am aware of course it is an april fools
Posted 9 years ago # -
I didn't say in my OP why I took such a dislike to this advert, so here goes:
- It portrays cycling as dangerous by quoting how many accidents cyclists are “involved in” (doesn’t say how many were caused by Volvo drivers) and showing video clips of near misses.
- It tries to shift the burden of responsibility away from the powerful & potentially dangerous (the Volvo driver) and on to the vulnerable (It’s your fault because you didn’t wear our paint / hiviz / a h****t, not the driver who doesn’t bother to look / take care / obey speed limits / highway code etc.)
- Advert is targeted at the UK (clips of London cyclists, London map) - you don't see German/Danish/Dutch cyclists & pedestrians feeling the need to spray themselves in "lifesaving" paint
- What would have happened if Volvo had suggested that all women should spray themselves in "rape-saver" odour to deter rapists?
- In Health & Safety hierarchy, PPE should be a last resort
Anyway, I suppose the hi-viz debate has been gone over a 1000 times on here before - perhaps that's why no one commented much about the above points...?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Okay I'll bite.
1. So they're saying cycling is dangerous, are we saying cycling is perfectly safe and there's no danger out there? The Rubbish Driving thread presumably portrays cycling as dangerous? Are YouTube videos by cyclists showing near misses contributing to the problem?
2. It does sort of, but we're in danger of looking at this in isolation and assuming they do and say nothing about driver safety anywhere. Just because it's not in this advert doesn't mean they don't, it just means it's not in this advert, and has been mentioned they have a 2020 vision for no fatalities - I can't imagine even Volvo believe this can be achieved solely by reflective paint for cyclists.
3. Well that's an assumption (indeed there is a growing move in Scandinavia by government agencies and the like to promote helmets and hi viz - which does seem weird, but it's worth googling a video where scandi riders were provided with free helmets and all filmed for a safety advert). We're not as isolated on this coming into our culture as we think.
4. I think I'm going to give a new moniker along the lines of Godwin's Law to the rape argument. They are entirely different things, it's a sort of "what next" reductio statement. Are adverts for lights, or calls for cyclists to use lights, victim blaming in the same way? If not I'd be intrigued to know why not...
5. I agree. Does that mean it should be no resort at all? Again in danger of looking in isolation, there's an ad about hi viz and therefore the creators never think ever of any other way and think hi viz is the be all and end all. That's a bit of a leap.
The advert is clunky, and yes, I don't particularly like it either, but there are a lot of assumptions that don't really add up. And I do actually still like the the product and would quite like to get some.
Posted 9 years ago # -
What sort of angle does this work at?
If the motor vehicle is behind you how much of the frame will be visible? You would have a red reflector, pedal reflectors and a tail light on the back already.
If the motor vehicle is at 90º then a lot of the frame will be visible but if they are far away you will have moved out of their path, if they are close then it's too late. I don't think wheel/tyre reflectors are any use either.
And, even as a Volvo driver for more than 30 years, it still looks like victim blaming.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The automotive development lifecycle is very long, around 10 years from design concept to showroom floor.
Yet, Volvo have only 5 years to achieve their "2020 vision" of "By 2020, no person will be killed or injured by a new Volvo". This means that, by now, Volvo must already have some pretty advanced prototypes of autonomous vehicles that are incapable of killing/injuring anyone.
They'll need a few years to get the prototype into production on one model line (presumably the top-end), then another few years to roll it out across all models and another few years to roll it out worldwide, including developing countries (thereby ensuring that no new Volvo can kill).
I doubt that Volvo have such a prototype ready to be productionised today. Therefore, as steveo rightly points out, their "2020 vision" is more likely to be their "2020 shared delusion"
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
