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

madcarew wrote:

Fluffy Kitten.... Yeah, Nah.

The 'tongue in cheek' (not the first time it's appeared on these pages) observation was "Here are a few ways of improving safety of all." so there is no need to separate those inside from outside the vehicle (which I did anyway as far as possible, trawling through the tables mentioned). The deaths were for car inhabitants, not pedestrians, not truck drivers etc, and compared with cyclist deaths as available.

"To allow for the massive improvement in A&E care".... this is borne out in the serious injury tables, which show similar, but not the same reductions in injuries to all users... there's only so much analysis you're going to fit on a forum reply. 

Your comments regarding drink driving etc are fair, however, there is large bodies of research , not only from the car manufacturers, NCAP, government bodies, academics, which show beyond doubt that air bags, crumple zones, seat belts, and the largest single safety improvement: the collapsible steering column have made the insides and outsides of cars safer for occupants and pedestrians and have dramaticaly contributed to reduction in injury and death rates. Some things are so self evident that they really don't need reams of statistical inquiry to establish that the correlation is indeed due to causative factors mentioned.

Lastly.... you made an assumption that I hadn't allowed for the lower miles cycled (I had) vs the increased population. Both those figures are available on the tables mentioned. To be clear, it is perfectly possible to compare the relative risk of riding a bicycle in 1969 to the relative risk of riding a bicycle in 2016. It won't of course tell the whole story. 

Very simply, the added safety provided by features in cars mentioned by the OP have far out-paced the added risk due to the drivers increased sense of safety in making the motorvehicle "safer for all"

 

Do tell how collapsible steering columns, airbags and so on make cars safer for those hit by them.

You also ignore the increases in morbidity consequent upon the shift from active travel to car travel, driven at least in part by perceived danger.

madcarew wrote:

Fluffy Kitten.... Yeah, Nah.

The 'tongue in cheek' (not the first time it's appeared on these pages) observation was "Here are a few ways of improving safety of all." so there is no need to separate those inside from outside the vehicle (which I did anyway as far as possible, trawling through the tables mentioned). The deaths were for car inhabitants, not pedestrians, not truck drivers etc, and compared with cyclist deaths as available.

"To allow for the massive improvement in A&E care".... this is borne out in the serious injury tables, which show similar, but not the same reductions in injuries to all users... there's only so much analysis you're going to fit on a forum reply. 

Your comments regarding drink driving etc are fair, however, there is large bodies of research , not only from the car manufacturers, NCAP, government bodies, academics, which show beyond doubt that air bags, crumple zones, seat belts, and the largest single safety improvement: the collapsible steering column have made the insides and outsides of cars safer for occupants and pedestrians and have dramaticaly contributed to reduction in injury and death rates. Some things are so self evident that they really don't need reams of statistical inquiry to establish that the correlation is indeed due to causative factors mentioned.

Lastly.... you made an assumption that I hadn't allowed for the lower miles cycled (I had) vs the increased population. Both those figures are available on the tables mentioned. To be clear, it is perfectly possible to compare the relative risk of riding a bicycle in 1969 to the relative risk of riding a bicycle in 2016. It won't of course tell the whole story. 

Very simply, the added safety provided by features in cars mentioned by the OP have far out-paced the added risk due to the drivers increased sense of safety in making the motorvehicle "safer for all"

 

I do grant you the point about the "all" in the original post. But personally I don't care about keeping drivers safe from themselves.

Besides, the best way to achieve that would be to stop encouraging them to drive so much. Which may also help keep them safe from the more significant injuries caused by physical inactivity.

And you miss my point about the lower miles cycled. Its not enough to just show it as a ratio - you have to account for the changing demographic that goes with that decline in numbers. A mass activity engaged in by normal people as a matter of course is not the same as a self-selected minority choosing to take up a skill-demanding hobby.

And clearly a lot of other factors have changed since then, not just 'air bags' etc.

And someone's already pointed out the sillyness of claiming collapsible steering columns, airbags, and the like protect those outside the car. Even though I don't think the 'spike in the centre of the steering wheel' stuff is meant as a serious suggestion by anyone, that part of your reply just suggests you aren't thinking about what you are typing.

The insistence that something is 'self evident' rings the same alarm bells for me as a reference to 'common sense', in that it suggests someone lacks a good argument to present.

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!

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).

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?

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!

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"

It's a growing trend. More dangerous are the high beltline and massive A-pillars which restrict visibility when turning. Ironically both of these things (along with domed bonnets) are designed to improve pedestrian survivability in the event of a collision. Driving position has moved back relative to the A-pillar and the dash meaning on right hand turns (for RHD cars) you actually need to move your head to see around the A-pillar. There was a pedestrian fatality in Guildford recently where the driver claimed "SMIDSY, because A-pillar" (and was acquitted)

From the manufacturer's perspective poor visibility becomes a tool to sell auto-park and pedestrian safety systems, which add to vehicle complexity and ultimately stoke the profits of their spares and workshop businesses.

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.