On 09/04/15 01:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore off. But
I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side views of
bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not aware of any data
indicating those views matter much. Head on should matter primarily to
wrong-way riders, and side view only if the cyclist is standing in front
of a car; otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually matters, and ISTM
that's adequately dealt with by a proper taillight plus a few reflective
bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something bicyclists are
supposed to use to protect themselves against cars and their drivers.
How about educating motorists about their responsibility, and enforcing
the same? Already, Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain conditions.
One California legislator is calling not only for all-ages mandatory
helmets, but also for high-vis clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing day-glow
clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective paint, and he was not
using a high-powered daytime strobe light"?


A better idea (not solution) if people wanted to be more conspicuous, is
to not rely on incident light from the car headlights to reflect back to
the drivers eyes, but to generate light from moving parts of the bike
and rider.

Apply some of this to your shoes, maybe as large dots on your rims,
perhaps the cranks even. If you wear a helmet, it might void the
compliance, so best not apply it there.

https://www.glonation.com/glow-in-th...low-paint.html

--
JS