[sustran] Re: 'Get Visible' video - response to Todd

Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory edelman at greenidea.eu
Tue Nov 25 02:25:09 JST 2008


  Amy Walker/Momentum Magazine wrote:
> Todd,
>
> The premise of the video is "if you want to be seen while riding at 
> night, get some lights/reflectors on."
>
> There is absolutely no implied message of "you get what you deserve if 
> you get hit" Ever. Period.
>
> Thanks for your interest – and happy riding!
>
> Amy 
Hi Amy,

It is clear to me that any message of that sort was not intentional, but 
what the video showed was a level of illumination (technology) beyond 
what is required, and so I would not be surprised if some people 
interpreted it - even subconsciously - as a recommendation to take that 
degree of action in regards to their own safety whilst cycling. Would it 
be possible to see if this is really the case?

If the video was about a government health authority recommending 
drinking a certain amount of water everyday, it could show people having 
water fights, going swimming, and so on. Fun imagery perhaps, and 
appropriate to convey the importance of water. But not precise enough 
for an actual regulation.

Imagine the equivalent of "get some lights/reflectors on" directed 
towards motorists in regards to the lighting or other critical safety 
equipment in their vehicles. A message like that would not be taken 
seriously. In addition, there may in fact be requirements for the 
maximum illumination possible for motorised road vehicles.

I am sure you understand how important imagery and text are in 
delivering messages, especially those which can relate specifically to a 
road traffic regulation. So it seems like it would have been helpful to 
at the very least make those regulations clear - and the importance of 
following them - in a video like this, which I am also sure you could 
have done in a very fun and non-preachy manner.

Thanks for your hard work,
T



Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think I was clear - and sorry if I was not - that I think cyclists 
>> should absolutely use the legal minimum. I was not recommending 
>> invisibility. Wearing black is great if your bike is lit up according 
>> to law. The issue about DRLs (daytime running lights) is like 
>> everything beyond requirements proposed in the video (except the 
>> shorts) a distraction figuratively and literally-speaking. Also, cars 
>> are big, go fast, cant manouver or stop so quick... DRLs are a bad 
>> analogy. On a dull, rainy winter afternoon cars need to slow down - a 
>> lot! - and not have DRLs which make their drivers think they can go 
>> as fast as before.
>>
>> Sure, obviously in carfree cities bikes may only need front and rear 
>> lights to be seen by pedestrians and none of the rest, so accepting 
>> the additional reflectors etc. is already a concession to a failed 
>> surface transport system. You did not respond to my thoughts about 
>> something recommended - or what drivers like - becoming something 
>> mandatory. Even without the unfortunate Darwin comment - the mostly 
>> selfless act of choosing to ride a bike outweighs any 
>> irresponsibility of not being lit up - I find it troubling that you 
>> seem to think that others who are not lit beyond what is required and 
>> are hit, etc. get what they deserve. In a much more gentle way that 
>> is of course the main premise of the video.
>>
>> - T
>>
>> Ron Richings wrote:
>>> Hi Todd
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not one of the makers of the video, but I do have a couple of 
>>> seconds
>>> of face time in it.
>>>
>>> I don't think that the message is confused at all. Visible is safer 
>>> than
>>> invisible, and there are many ways to make yourself seen.
>>>
>>> As a cyclist and driver, every time that I see (barely and usually 
>>> at the
>>> last minute) a person riding a bike at night with no light nor 
>>> reflective
>>> material, and often wearing dark clothes, I get cranky and wonder -- 
>>> WHY ??
>>>
>>> Aside from its Darwinian value in 'thinning the herd' of cyclists 
>>> too dumb
>>> to survive, there is little to recommend invisibility at night.
>>>
>>> If the video gets even a few of those cyclists to change their ways, 
>>> it will
>>> have done a useful job.
>>>
>>> Too much visibility? A bit hard to imagine in reality. Of course 
>>> parts of
>>> the video are 'over the top'. We don't really expect people to wear
>>> brightly reflective shorts. And most wouldn't look nearly as good in 
>>> them
>>> as the B:C:Clettes do.
>>>
>>> Beyond what you describe as the legal minimum, when I ride at night you
>>> would see:
>>>
>>> A bright yellow jacket with retro-reflective strips on the front,
>>> back, and arms.
>>>
>>> A silver helmet with retro-reflective strips visible from all
>>> angles.
>>>
>>> On my recumbent bike, several retro-reflective strips on the frame,
>>> fenders, mirror backs, rear bag, and in some circumstances reflective
>>> material on the pole and body of a rear flag arrangement that rises to
>>> three feet above my head. I may also put a couple of small blinkies at
>>> the top of the pole.
>>>
>>> Too much? Am I endangering other cyclists ? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> There was a similar line of peculiar argument used to justify the odd
>>> approach that British cycling groups took in opposing daytime 
>>> running lights
>>> for cars. Since the cars would be more visible, then cyclists and 
>>> others
>>> will be comparatively less visible, so running lights should not be 
>>> used.
>>>
>>> As someone who lives in a country where such running lights have been
>>> standard for over 20 years, their contribution to safety vastly 
>>> exceeds any
>>> drawbacks that they may have. Being able to see a car approaching on a
>>> rainy, dull, winter afternoon makes me safer. And of course those 
>>> running
>>> lights very effectively 'light up' the retro-reflective strips that 
>>> many
>>> cyclists have on their bikes and clothing.
>>>
>>> Many car drivers are notably inattentive, particular at night. If 
>>> they are
>>> to have any chance of avoiding you, they first have to see you. And of
>>> course if I am to avoid other cyclists, I too have to see them.
>>>
>>> And if a cyclist feels that is not enough, then a couple of 
>>> inexpensive LED
>>> blinkies will make them considerably more visible.
>>>
>>> Does this endanger cyclists who have no lights and minimal 
>>> reflectors while
>>> riding a dark bicycle and wearing dark clothes? I don't think so - that
>>> really rests with them.
>>>
>>> Certainly none of this changes the motorist's legal obligation to pay
>>> attention. But as a practical matter I would rather be bright and alive
>>> than minimally legal and dead.
>>>
>>> So I would encourage everyone to watch the video and "Get Visible".
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Richings
>>> Vancouver, BC
>>> Canada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory [mailto:edelman at greenidea.eu]
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> First of all I sincerely admire all the work that went into making this
>>> video. It was cheesy on purpose, but that did not distract from the 
>>> serious
>>> message. It only emphasized it.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the message is totally confused. One of the worst 
>>> things that
>>> any cycling advocate or activist can do is support more illumination 
>>> then
>>> what is required by law in most places (front white headlight and 
>>> reflector,
>>> rear red taillight and reflector, reflectors on the pedals, and 
>>> reflectors
>>> on the spokes or reflectorised sidewalls on the tyres -- practically an
>>> international standard if we just work at it a little harder). All 
>>> of these
>>> extra decorations are lovely - though perhaps some of it is not 
>>> particularly
>>> eco-friendly to manufacture - but by conflating what is generally 
>>> required
>>> with all the other stuff the video proposes an unreasonable amount of
>>> responsibility for the cyclist for his or her own safety.
>>>
>>> Moreover, if one cyclist is "lit up like a Christmas tree" and another
>>> cyclist nearby is not, the latter becomes relatively invisible! This 
>>> also
>>> applies in general, over time, i.e. if a driver gets used to cyclists
>>> glowing like a discotheque then they will not see the others. Next 
>>> thing that will happen is that wearing something like a reflective vest
>>> becomes required. It is similar to what happens with helmets, and 
>>> some of us
>>> know too well how this can throw a spanner in the works of a 
>>> proposed public
>>> bike programme (e.g. in Vancouver.).
>>>
>>> Also, reflectors are not designed to help pedestrians see cyclists.
>>>
>>> Everyone wants to protect themselves and their loved ones - I think 
>>> that
>>> mandatory vests and helmets for children is worth considering - but 
>>> this
>>> hyperillumination is selfish and just hurts the others who are not 
>>> so lit
>>> up. Banning private cars in cities is the only sustainable solution, 
>>> but the
>>> real issues of any car reformation programme include speed, the 
>>> weight of
>>> cars, the hardness of bonnets and windscreens, and all the things a 
>>> driver
>>> can legally do in their car while moving, to name just a few.
>>>
>>> So I propose that the fine folks in BC take their video off the web 
>>> before
>>> the lessons it tries to teach kill or injure someone, and either do one
>>> featuring only what is required by law, or on the other side of the 
>>> coin:
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJenAE4e6EE> or
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPzbc1uUcXA> and then we would need 
>>> not to
>>> change the lyrics too much.
>>>
>>> - T
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
--------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
Green Idea Factory

Urbanstr. 45
D-10967 Berlin
Germany

Skype: toddedelman
Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001

edelman at greenidea.eu
www.greenidea.eu
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman

Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net

CAR is over. If you want it.

"Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!" 
- B. Brecht (with slight modification)

-- 
--------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
Green Idea Factory

Urbanstr. 45
D-10967 Berlin
Germany

Skype: toddedelman
Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001

edelman at greenidea.eu
www.greenidea.eu
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman

Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net

CAR is over. If you want it.

"Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!" 
- B. Brecht (with slight modification)



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list