
Life paint - erbdex
http://www.volvolifepaint.com/
======
drfritznunkie
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
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?

~~~
mjmaher
It might seem counter-intuitive, but you are much safer riding with traffic
than against it. Drivers are conditioned to look in the direction of traffic
and they aren't going to expect someone coming the other way. This ends up
causing a lot of accidents at intersections and parking lot entrances.

In my area, [these
accidents]([http://bicyclesafe.com/#wrongway](http://bicyclesafe.com/#wrongway))
are way to common. I almost hit a biker like this the other day because they
were riding against traffic past my apartment entrance.

[Here is a stack exchange question with some more stats on the
topic]([http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/9033/why-is-
it-s...](http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/9033/why-is-it-safer-to-
bike-with-traffic-instead-of-facing-oncoming-cars))

~~~
bduerst
The way it was explained to me was that drivers have a harder time estimating
the speed of fast-moving objects that are differently sized than an
automobile, such as bicycles and trains.

Meanwhile, bicycles that go with traffic will (relatively) approach the driver
at a much slower speed, giving the driver more response time.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
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-
cyc...](http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-
innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges)

2) [http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cycling-what-not-to-
wear-1](http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cycling-what-not-to-wear-1)

~~~
twic
There is one other school of thought:

3) Stop motorists running people over

Strict liability and improvements to the construction of and training of
drivers for lorries are ideas that stem from this school.

For all other kinds of potentially lethal machines, the law and public opinion
are in consensus that it is the operator's responsibility not to kill people
with them. Motor vehicles somehow became an exception to that.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
#3 sounds good to me, but even better if it's in conjunction to #2, not
instead of it.

------
revelation
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.

~~~
dceddia
I'm continually dismayed by the lack of visibility in modern vehicles. It
seems like every new model year increases size and weight while decreasing
visibility. Take a look at cars from the 90s, and notice how much of their
upper body is __glass __versus pillars or whatever. I drove a 1995 VW Golf for
a number of years -- that thing was like driving around in a glass bubble
compared to cars made today.

Surely, safety concerns/regulations are partly to blame for bulkier pillars
and body parts, but I get the feeling that manufacturers just aren't investing
engineering dollars in better visibility.

~~~
userbinator
Aerodynamics (and thus fuel efficiency) could be another factor - even with
the Volvos, compare the boxier 240/740/850 vs the later, more rounded models;
the sloping curves are more aerodynamic but definitely make it harder to see
exactly where the edges of the car are and what's around it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2780-%2782_Volvo_240DL_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%2780-%2782_Volvo_240DL_Sedan.JPG)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Volvo_S60_--
_NHTSA_1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Volvo_S60_--_NHTSA_1.jpg)

~~~
dceddia
Fuel efficiency is another interesting stat that seems to not have improved
much since the mid 90s. Tighter emissions standards are probably the reason,
but it's funny to see new cars advertising "35mpg!" when 1995 VWs could pull
that off easily.

~~~
scrumper
I don't think you're right there at all. Taking your specific example, a '95
Golf got about 24mpg (combined cycle). Today, the 2 liter gasoline engine gets
~36 combined. That's despite the '95 golf having a curb weight of around
2,500lbs, and the 2015 being over 3,000lbs.

Don't forget that since the '90s, European and USA crash safety legislation
has caused very large increases in vehicle mass. Airbags, collapsing
structures, side impact beams, rollover protection all are required now.

And finally (though you didn't mention this), the crappy visibility of today's
cars is directly as a result of increases in crash safety standards: poor
visibility is a function of thick A, B, and C pillars; they are thicker today
because cars have to stand up to more.

Edit to add: This video shows a 50+ year old Chevy Bel Air in a head on,
offset collision with a modern Chevrolet grey box. No analysis, and I'm not
putting it here to add weight to any point, but it does show that we have made
some progress. [http://oppositelock.kinja.com/classic-car-vs-modern-car-
safe...](http://oppositelock.kinja.com/classic-car-vs-modern-car-
safety-1642008672)

------
buro9
> "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-b...](http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-26-killed-in-bank-
tipper-truck-crash-was-newly-married-oxford-graduate-10339057.html)

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-
indus...](http://lcc.org.uk/articles/lcc-challenges-construction-industry-to-
adopt-its-safer-urban-lorry-to-reduce-lorry-cyclist-deaths)

~~~
falcolas
My motorcycle instructors phrased it this way: You might be in the right, but
cars have the "right of weight."

Being right won't help you too much when you're dead.

Motorcycles face many of the same problems, but we tend to be a bit pragmatic
about it. The advice I got amounted to: ride like every cager out there is out
to _intentionally_ kill you, and you'll make it home at night.

~~~
Toenex
When I was a child my I was crossing a one way street with my father and
thinking I was smart I only looked one way. I was pleased when he noticed and
stopped me crossing. Thinking I had one up on the old man I announced I didn't
need to look right as it was a one way street. Dad looked straight at me and
said "You only need worry about what cars are doing, not what you think they
should be doing."

------
dreen
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.

~~~
pkorzeniewski
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".

~~~
NoGravitas
I'll address each of these as a bike commuter. The underlying things to
remember are that a) while cyclists are expected to obey the same traffic laws
as operators of other vehicles, sometimes there are safety reasons to violate
them, and b) the light weight and low speed of bicycles means that while
cyclists are vulnerable to harm from motorists, motorists are not vulnerable
to harm from cyclists.

Red lights: cyclists should stop for all red lights, but should not
necessarily be expected to wait for the light to turn green before
proceeding[0]. This is partly because of sensor-activated lights that may
never register the presence of a bicycle, and partly because it can be safer
by separating the cyclist from traffic waiting at the red. You should also pay
attention to how many motorists run red lights (usually for 1-2 seconds after
they turn) and stop signs.

Crosswalks: cyclists should slow down for crosswalks. Remember, though, that
"full speed" on a bicycle is nothing like full speed in a car. You should pay
attention to how many motorists also speed through crosswalks.

Not signalling turning: cyclists should signal all turns _unless_ they are in
a situation where they need both hands on the handlebars. As a motorist, you
may not be in a position to judge when that is.

Not using bike lane: in most jurisdictions, cyclists are encouraged but not
required to use the bike lane. There are good reasons in some cases for not
using the bike lane. A bike lane that is next to on-street parking may place
cyclists in the door zone[1], making it more dangerous than taking the lane.
Bike lanes may also accumulate road debris and be unsafe to ride in.

Hope this helps explain some of why cyclists ride the way they do.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop)
[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_zone)

~~~
toxik
The last point, I think, is the most important -- pedestrians in bicycle lanes
are to bicyclists what bicyclists on roads are to motorists. In fact I think a
lot of the time, even worse. Old ladies are sometimes not even aware they're
in the middle of a bike lane.

~~~
lorenzhs
I've lost count of the number of times I've had to slam on the brakes because
a pedestrian walked right into the bike lane without looking. But my closest
encounter so far has been with a (particularly stupid) cat, which I missed by
mere centimetres.

------
dchest
Here it is without Volvo marketing
[http://www.albedo100.co.uk/](http://www.albedo100.co.uk/)

~~~
madaxe_again
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?

~~~
unwind
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:Swe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Warning_sign#/media/File:Sweden_road_sign_A18.svg).

~~~
deckar01
Couldn't resist making a GIF of that horse glowing silver:

[http://gph.is/1GwKONv](http://gph.is/1GwKONv)

------
usrusr
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.

------
mschuster91
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)

~~~
hahainternet
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.

~~~
Margh
FWIW The Hurt Report[1] didn't find any link between motorcycle colours and
crash numbers. I'd say that doubly applies to bicycles when you consider that
even a small motorbike still has a fairly significant showing of coloured
fairings. Reflective jackets on the other hand...

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT_CAUSE_FACTORS_AND_IDENTIFICATION_OF_COUNTERMEASURES_VOLUME_I-
_TECHNICAL_REPORT.pdf)

~~~
mschuster91
A motorbike is mandated to have lights and cops enforce this, in contrast to
bikes where most cops tend to let Darwinian evolution happen.

------
madaxe_again
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
Funny that the advert features London, where the continuous rain would wash
away this paint in minutes.

~~~
madaxe_again
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.

------
yitchelle
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-
Co...](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)

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

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

~~~
lucb1e
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/B...](http://www.bikearlington.com/tasks/sites/bike/assets/Image/Bike_Lane.jpg)

With a car standing, say, here:
[http://snag.gy/XmuKH.jpg](http://snag.gy/XmuKH.jpg)

~~~
skosch
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.

------
nichodges
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.

~~~
wmblaettler
This is only one of many things that Volvo does to improve the safety of
passengers and those outside of their vehicles. I have a 2010 Volvo that has a
feature called City Safety [1], an automatic braking system that prevents low
speed collisions in city environments, and BLIS which indicates the presence
of a person or vehicle in your blind spot. They also have a new cyclist
detection system that engages the brakes [3]. I think if drivers can be more
aware of others, pedestrians and cyclists, in combination with smarter
vehicles that assist drivers in accident avoidance, it's a win-win.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_safety)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_monitor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_monitor)

[3] [http://www.techradar.com/us/news/car-tech/volvo-debuts-
world...](http://www.techradar.com/us/news/car-tech/volvo-debuts-world-s-
first-cyclist-detection-system-with-full-auto-brake-1141471)

~~~
squiggy22
Second this. A Volvo engineer invented the modern 3-point seat belt, then made
the new seat belt design patent open in the interest of safety. as well as
countless other innovations

[http://www.volvogroup.com/group/global/en-
gb/researchandtech...](http://www.volvogroup.com/group/global/en-
gb/researchandtechnology/milestones/Pages/milestones.aspx)

------
polskibus
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.

------
DanBC
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
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
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)

------
kraftman
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.

------
jsingleton
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-
sav...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05y18wv/an-hour-to-save-your-
life-series-2-1-between-life-and-death)

------
dgreensp
_" 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.

------
cmdrfred
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.

------
chris_wot
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.

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

~~~
pja
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?).

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

------
njharman
Lasts __only __1 week. Neat niche product.

Also, wtf did they do to site to make text not selectable?

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

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Probably more use to street artists than cyclists.

------
cafeoh
_Pschhhhhfrrrtshhhh_ WITNESS ME

