Edit: to clarify: the message in the ad is actually ironic/satirical, mocking the advice for cyclists to wear high-viz at night.

It uses the same logic but inverts the parts and responsabilities, by suggesting to motorists (not cyclists) to apply bright paint on their cars.

So this ad is not pro or against high-viz, it’s against victim blaming

Cross-posted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113544508246569296

  • rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    not have headlights turned on

    Running lights, not headlights. Different things both practically and legally.

    Yesterday I was paying attention specifically to the front lights of cars. Almost all cars that had license plates registered in the last ten years also had independent running lights. Mostly in the form of a white LED strip around or under the headlight cover, an element built into the headlight (e.g. a ring around the main lens in BMWs), or annoyingly, a separate amber-colored light that I often mistake for a turning signal.

    Legally, running lights might not even exist at all where I live. Traffic laws (and common sense) require proper headlights to be used in any kind of reduced visibility condition.