Volvo relaunches its glow-in-the-dark Life Paint in the UK

Mungecrundle wrote:

It's almost as though no-one at Volvo read the RoadCC forums after the last time they tried this.

What made you think they would?

Permanent invisible retroreflective spray paint to apply to bike parts, I might consider, but this is just a victim-blaming tax on cyclists.

Huw Watkins wrote:

Why all the hate?  It may or may not work very well but would we be so bothered if it came from someone like 3M or Oxford Products?

If you follow this argument to its end point, we'll all be ditching reflective clothing and lights becuase they're a 'victim blaming tax on cyclists.'

Waits patiently for data that supports Huw Watkins' hypothesis.

WillRod wrote:

Perhaps Volvo should improve their cars first.

Oooh! oooh!  sir!  I know!  

Get the fucking things off the road.

Ush wrote:

WillRod wrote:

Perhaps Volvo should improve their cars first.

 

Oooh! oooh!  sir!  I know!  

Get the fucking things off the road.

Well, yeah, that would work too...

WillRod wrote:

Perhaps Volvo should improve their cars first. Rear visibility from the V40 that I test-drove was terrible, perhaps they should start with drivers visibility, and then work on the pillock behind the wheel.

Good point. Volvo may have safe cars from a driver perspective but unsafe for other road users due to poor visiblity.

Of the rear visibility of a S60 (photo) an owner writes "Rear visibility is very restricted in places. Almost no view between those headrests through the large rear view mirror."

Here is the V40's rear visibility photo. " Further, rear visibility is limited due to the small rear window and the massive c-pillars. Some might find it insufficient for driving, most will find it insufficient for parking"

And as I mentioned at the time of the last thread, one can get similar paint cheaper from China especiall if you don't mind mixing it yourself: fluorescent paint and luminous paint (no affiliation).

timtak wrote:

Good point. Volvo may have safe cars from a driver perspective but unsafe for other road users due to poor visiblity.

But the other road users aren't their customers, so they can go whistle. Doesn't bode well for the safety of self driving cars, does it?

downfader wrote:

Just to point out that Life Paint is not endorsed by environmental groups for good reason. It contains plastic micro beads. These are a known threat to water ways, marine life, soil health and ultimately us.

These beads will not biodegrade. They will not bread down from water affected erosion. They are not secured in place when sprayed but will wash/blow off in the standard UK weather we're all used to.

If Volvo really wants to engage with safety in the UK it needs to push the Government to spend some damn money on safer cycle routes protected from traffic and parking. They need to fix the design of their vans and lorries to enlarge the windscreens and side windows. They need to fix speed limiters in ALL of their vehicles so that they do not break the speed limits. They need to remove in-car email and twitter access. They need to remove all  distractions from inside their vehicles. They need to install systems that stop the car/van/lorry from moving when the windows are misted or frozen.

 

Volvo is not helping safety. They are mearly selling a product at a premium. A product that works appallingly compared to even a £land reflective bracelet

But I thought that the uk government had just banned microbeads (in body scrub toothpaste etc)?  So how come life paint is going to be allowed?

brooksby wrote:

downfader wrote:

Just to point out that Life Paint is not endorsed by environmental groups for good reason. It contains plastic micro beads. These are a known threat to water ways, marine life, soil health and ultimately us.

These beads will not biodegrade. They will not bread down from water affected erosion. They are not secured in place when sprayed but will wash/blow off in the standard UK weather we're all used to.

If Volvo really wants to engage with safety in the UK it needs to push the Government to spend some damn money on safer cycle routes protected from traffic and parking. They need to fix the design of their vans and lorries to enlarge the windscreens and side windows. They need to fix speed limiters in ALL of their vehicles so that they do not break the speed limits. They need to remove in-car email and twitter access. They need to remove all  distractions from inside their vehicles. They need to install systems that stop the car/van/lorry from moving when the windows are misted or frozen.

 

Volvo is not helping safety. They are mearly selling a product at a premium. A product that works appallingly compared to even a £land reflective bracelet

But I thought that the uk government had just banned microbeads (in body scrub toothpaste etc)?  So how come life paint is going to be allowed?

Not true, their website says glass microbeads are used. The recent ban relates only to use of plastic microbeads in toothpaste and cosmetics. It is very common to use glass microbeads in reflective paints (eg on traffic signs, road markings, factory safety warnings etc) due to their total internal reflection properties (ie you shine a light on them, they shine it right back at you).   

Also with regard to environmental group endorsement, contrary to what downfader said, at the time of its launch, not only did treehugger.com endorse the product, but they launched a campaign to get Volvo to paint their cars with it to stop blame deflection.

Having said all of that, like others, I won't be paying £13 per can to spray this crap on my matt black bike or my matt black cycling kit!

WillRod wrote:

Perhaps Volvo should improve their cars first.

Rear visibility from the V40 that I test-drove was terrible, perhaps they should start with drivers visibility, and then work on the pillock behind the wheel.

I would agree with that my wife got one as a temporary car until her company sorted her out with a permanent one. It was one of the most horrible cars I have ever sat in, the all round visibility was dire.

timtak wrote:

WillRod wrote:

Perhaps Volvo should improve their cars first. Rear visibility from the V40 that I test-drove was terrible, perhaps they should start with drivers visibility, and then work on the pillock behind the wheel.

Good point. Volvo may have safe cars from a driver perspective but unsafe for other road users due to poor visiblity.

Of the rear visibility of a S60 (photo) an owner writes "Rear visibility is very restricted in places. Almost no view between those headrests through the large rear view mirror."

Here is the V40's rear visibility photo. " Further, rear visibility is limited due to the small rear window and the massive c-pillars. Some might find it insufficient for driving, most will find it insufficient for parking"

And as I mentioned at the time of the last thread, one can get similar paint cheaper from China especiall if you don't mind mixing it yourself: fluorescent paint and luminous paint (no affiliation).

Looking at the outside of both cars you can see why rear visibility is completely arse. They share the modern trend for big wheels, high beltline and low roof.
( See http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewdepaula/2011/04/27/design-disasters-3... )
Don't get me started on blacked out rear windows and SUVs!

So Volvo like all manufacturers is bowing to demand. If we didn't want bigger wheels we'd have bigger rear windows and better visibility.

I'll take a rear view picture from my 1993 13" wheeled car later. The difference is like night and day!

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Dear Volvo,

Here are a few ways of improving safety of all.

Remove seat belts, remove safety cages and crumple zones. Remove all airbags and windows. Remove ABS and traction control.

Do fit eight inch steel spikes in the front driver and passengers.

Once people stop feeling safe and protected they will drive carefully and cautiously.

Thank you.

Because that was ever so effective when the cars had none of those safety features and the number of deaths(1966 - 1969) was 600% of what it is now, the death rate per mile travelled was 3500% of what it is now, and the death rate per head of population was 520% of what it is now. (wikipedia, RAC, Stats uk). Cyclist deaths in the UK have remained static in terms of miles ridden since that time (which means it has dropped considerably in terms of per head of population). (road accident stats, house of commons library)

"In Great Britain, since the early 1990s, the number and severity of reported accidents has reduced. Compared with 1990, in 2012: there were one-third the number of people killed in road accidents (-66%); there were fewer people seriously injured (-62%)" House of Commons Library reported MVA 2012

Return to those dark ages? No Thank you

madcarew wrote:

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Dear Volvo,

Here are a few ways of improving safety of all.

Remove seat belts, remove safety cages and crumple zones. Remove all airbags and windows. Remove ABS and traction control.

Do fit eight inch steel spikes in the front driver and passengers.

Once people stop feeling safe and protected they will drive carefully and cautiously.

Thank you.

Because that was ever so effective when the cars had none of those safety features and the number of deaths(1966 - 1969) was 600% of what it is now, the death rate per mile travelled was 3500% of what it is now, and the death rate per head of population was 520% of what it is now. (wikipedia, RAC, Stats uk). Cyclist deaths in the UK have remained static in terms of miles ridden since that time (which means it has dropped considerably in terms of per head of population). (road accident stats, house of commons library)

"In Great Britain, since the early 1990s, the number and severity of reported accidents has reduced. Compared with 1990, in 2012: there were one-third the number of people killed in road accidents (-66%); there were fewer people seriously injured (-62%)" House of Commons Library reported MVA 2012

Return to those dark ages? No Thank you

 

That is faulty reasoning. Even in the context of arguing about an obviously tongue-in-cheek idea.

For starters - you need to distinguish between casualties inside vehicles and those outside them.

Note the OP suggestion was only about the safety features for the former. The few that help those outside rather than protect drivers from their own carelessness should obviously stay. Your first error is you haven't differentiated the effects of each.

(I don't, personally, care so much about the safety of drivers, its their own choice to drive safely or not, not my problem - though ideally I'd retain measures to protect under-age passengers who don't have a choice in the matter)

Secondly, for more accurate stats, you need to allow for the massive improvements in A&E care over that time period, which are probably responsible for part of the decrease in deaths.

Thirdly you need to allow for measures like cracking down on drink-driving, which are a different category of thing entirely and have also come in over the same time-period.

And finally this:

madcarew wrote:

Cyclist deaths in the UK have remained static in terms of miles ridden since that time (which means it has dropped considerably in terms of per head of population)."

Is highly questionable given you haven't allowed for the number of cyclist or miles travelled - there was a lot more cycling in the 60s.
(To be clear, my point is that you can't compare what was then a mass means of transport with what is now a small self-self-selected group).