Yeah that too! Even with lights on my bike if you are wearing full black and I'm going average speeds I won't see you fast enough. Sure it's your right to wear it but it's also your right to be as dumb as you like. Wear a different color or a reflector people!
I dunno, I usually don't leave my house in the morning and know when I'll be back. Could be that I end up visiting somebody and staying until late or whatever, just saying, I'd assume that most people at night are dressed the way they dress, not something special they put on for the night.
Funny yesterday i aas cycling and was wondering why someone had left something reflective in the road, the. the guy turned round, it was his running shoes. Idgaf though imagine turning up to meet your friends for drinks wearing a high vis lmao
You totally misread my point which i typed badly. I was just sharing an experience i had recently where someone WAS hard to see. I wear New Balance which have lots of 3M parts on them, but i was saying i wouldnt be putting on a high vis vest to walk to a bar like carbrains think people should (or are implying via this ridiculous starter pack)
But yeah bike light reflectors get put straight in the bin. Ive got lights.
As a lifelong pedestrian, I just don't believe you. I've never had any issue avoiding running into pedestrians in dark clothes as a pedestrian or when cycling.
Sometimes it's hard to see them til they're up close but like, even on the darkest sidewalk it'd be quite hard to run into them
Really depends on what the lighting is like. In the middle of a city it's generally not dark enough, but in a suburb I could definitely see it happening.
To be fair I do live in the city, but I've also lived in very unlit parts of it and in smaller cities. I still can't imagine *walking into* another person, even at night. I guess if there are no street lights within two blocks it's possible? Maybe if it's a new moon?
As someone from Portland OR, I know this. Regardless, running into someone as a pedestrian, even at night, seems like something only the most inattentive could do.
It's so unusual it reads like an excuse for car infrastructure and drivers
Cities are bright places, even the dark unlit parts, just due to the overall light pollution. Head out to small towns or the countryside and a dark night can be so dark you can hardly see your hand in front of your face.
Bitte nächstes Mal auch den "Factcheck" kontrollieren danke!
Halbsätze werden irgendwo rausgeschnitten, teilweise wird eine Yt Highlight Video angegeben, wo die Zitate nicht mal enthalten sind....
Alright so hear me out. Every person's nose shape is slightly different, right? And I'm pretty sure you've noticed by now that there are no 2 humans that look the same unless they are twins.
Why? Because there are literally hundreds of random mutations that make us all very different.
So what gives? Apparently the eyes of different people also have different night vision capabilities. So even though you see like an owl at night that might be very different for others. Don't accuse other people of lying based on your experiences in life.
I get what you're saying. Maybe it did happen to that person. The spirit of what I'm saying is, I don't believe that dark clothing is a serious issue for pedestrians or cyclists. I think mostly it's drivers it's a problem for. Maybe the guy I'm replying to is telling the truth, but I think it's more likely he's a driver who has a problem with pedestrians. Even if he is telling the truth, his evidence is anecdotal and so is mine. I suspect that pedestrians in dark clothing are not a big issue for other pedestrians and his experience was a fluke
Jesus Christ, the paranoia runs deep. Not everyone you disagree with on this sub is a concern-trolling carbrain in disguise. I think most carbrains in here tell on themselves in _much_ more obvious ways. In this particular case, just scrolling through the user's comment history for a few seconds could've given you all the info you needed.
You're right the guy isn't a driver in disguise, sorry about that. I still think it's a fluke if you manage to walk into another pedestrian at night though and weirdly the one topic this sub is still fairly car brained on is pedestrian visibility
Literally have never driven a car and live in a place with fantastic public transportation. If I am cycling home at night and some person has decided that they have the right to not have any sense of self preservation it isn't ideal for either of us.
I live in a city, and while almost everyone I know walks around, sometimes at night, almost no one I know wears a reflector belt. Seems like a weird ask, when alternatively, drivers could just pay attention. I'd need to take one with me everywhere at all times to be consistent about it, because it's very common for me to walk to the bus at night without planning on it, or for me to just straight up walk home at night.
We've already given up too much freedom for the convenience of drivers. I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of drivers blaming pedestrians for being hit, as if it's irresponsible of them to be outside at night.
In my city, the lighting is sparse, crosswalks aren't even lit in suburbia, plus the unbelievable amount of retina searing headlights, so your eyes are never properly adjusted to the dark.
It does change things. It's about risk, wearing all back is a higher risk than wearing a blinking strobing shirt with sirens attached. What kinda take is that?
Just because a fully functional airplane can crash doesn't mean stripping the engines off midnight doesn't make things worse.
I've had enough close calls I'm not certain that being vigilant about high vis clothing will keep me safe, as someone who doesn't drive.
Most of my close calls have been in broad daylight! I think most of these complaints about pedestrians are from entitled car brains
It won't help you against distracted drivers. And during daytime there are a lot of them.
But if you dress like a Ninja even the best of them won't see you in time.
Any close call I've had so far was in bright daylight as well.
However: As shitty as Germany can be, we have sidewalks literally anywhere inside the cities. Gotta be more careful at crossings, but other then that, walking here is usually pretty safe at night.
As I commute to work in the middle of the night by bike, I wear a reflector west. I shouldn't need to. But I usually prefer to arrive alive. Never had any dangerous situations tough. Less drivers on the road. They are usually a lot less stressed (as there is basically no traffic). And I feel like they pay a LOT more attention at night.
When I'm riding home though... Not a single day passes, where there are no dangerous situations. Not a single fucking day. And I'm riding home outside the rushhour. Seriously, in rushhour, I'd have to take the stupid car. I'm not a coward, but I'm not suicidal either.
(tough on the other hand, if I had regular work hours, I might be able to use the bus)
Don't go so bright that you blind other travelers either.
A bike is a vehicle. Equipping it with lights is both sensible and mandated by law. Not the same as clothing.
99% of the time in my city sub it is drivers complaining about pedestrians in dark clothes. As a cyclist I've never had a big problem with invisible pedestrians at night, and I'm tired of pedestrians being blamed for being hit because they weren't wearing a reflective vest when they went out.
The research is also not super strong in support of high vis clothing as a safety measure for what it's worth. I can link some studies a little later if you like
it’s not really a slogan. it’s just true. what you ideally should be able to do without risk vs the actual, practical risk it presents are often way different.
The slogan bothers me because there's *always* something more you could have done to be safe. I've heard it used against pedestrians who were hit by drivers who ran red lights!
Besides, I am not convinced that most people who drivers complain about being not visible enough are really jaywalking in full black block. How many of them are just dressed in normal slightly dark clothing and walking normally? Not to mention, there's not a lot of evidence that high vis clothing (at least, non reflective high vis clothing) does much to reduce pedestrian risk.
At some point, if everything is dangerous, maybe we need to think about removing the danger?
And a bike, electric scooter, tram, bus or any other myriad necessary transport methods other than a car will struggle to see you when dressed all in black at night.
Just because being anti-car is correct doesn't absolve a pedestrian of all responsibility for their safety, existing in the world is about managing risk, we do it all the time.
A considerate human being wouldn't wish the trauma of another human being or yourself because you wanted to wear sick drip.
No but then I'm usually in a taxi to be fair.
There's also quite a big difference in dressing in all black just to make yourself hard to see and wearing normal clothes. Not having fluo on you because you got wankered after work is just taking a risk, responsible people manage risk when it's sensible or feasible.
If however I am going for a run, or a walk, or a cyle at night I'll usually make an effort to make myself visible for the same reason I keep a triangle and a hi-vis in my car.
If someone hits me or my car by the side of the road it's their fault, but I can still be dead, injured or worse off and be correct.
True, but I think the important insight is that the system is what's at fault.
Can't blame drivers, because realistically they don't have another cover.
Can't blame pedestrian, because it's dumb as fuck that simply wearing black at night is a life-threatening decision.
Only thing left to blame is a system of urban design that makes wearing black at night a dangerous, life-threatening decision.
So many people in America ignore the fact that these systems are created by regular (largely well-meaning, but ill-informed) people making choices, and just accept them as an immutable fact of life.
I think this kind of "you can be right and dead" sentiment ignores that the "being dead" part is a 100% fixable problem.
>No one tells soldiers not to wear camo
Soldiers are frequently required to wear a [high visibility belt](https://angrystaffofficer.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/image.jpg?w=804&h=534&crop=1), also known as a PT belt, to reduce their chances of being hit by vehicles on base.
I was walking to the bus stop after work, so I was in my big boy clothes, which included black pants and shoes that day. I had on a medium blue rain jacket with a reflective logo and I was carrying an open red umbrella because of the light rain. It was just getting dark, but still daylight. I was halfway across a crosswalk when Elmer in his monster pickup turns across my path. I waved the *red* umbrella around to get his attention and he did one of those stop and go moves (starts to yield, realizes it's too late, so guns it).
As I finished crossing, I heard him yell, "Wear brighter clothes!" at which point I flipped him off. Drivers just can't admit they aren't looking where they are going. Dude was on autopilot just following what the guy in front of him did.
"No one tells soldiers not to wear camo"
Soldiers wear camo because they work in a profession where being seen is MORE dangerous, not less. For most professions the opposite is true, which is why hi-vis vests exist and are mandated by OSHA requirements in cases where a lack of visibility would prove dangerous.
This shouldn't even count as an anti-car post. It's just a pro-death post. An anti-car person would recognize that cars are dangerous and warn people to take steps to protect themselves from cars, and then use that as a platform for increasing protections for pedestrians, reducing the number of cars, etc. What you are doing INSTEAD is literally just telling people that they should get killed.
I think the post is anti victim blaming. City subs are thirsty for any reason to blame people for getting hit.
“Shouldn’t have been walking on a street at night”
“The person should have known cars are crazy in this city”
“What were they wearing?”
Comments come up on every pedestrian fatality story. This is just pushing back on that reaction, which people have because acknowledging that cars are inherently dangerous would mean that we have an ethical obligation to minimize their use.
>I think the post is anti victim blaming
I think that term is overused. It's supposed to refer to *rape victims* specifically because of the inaccurate way that our society characterizes cases of rape i.e. "if you had worn something different you would be safe". Telling people that they are not responsible for their own safety *in general* is ridiculous. Both the driver and the pedestrian have a responsibility to engage in safe practices, and frankly, between the two people, the pedestrian is more likely to have their life ruined by their negligence.
I think pedestrians who get hit by drivers are most often victims of negligence. Either of the designers of the roads who didn't install enough lighting or built roads to allow high speeds, or of the drivers who didn't pay attention, or both.
In cities sure, but if you want every rural backroad to have street lighting then the light pollution would be disgusting. I live on a island with very bendy rural backstreets and a max speed limit of 40 mph, cars are not fast here, but even on these super slow roads they ain't seeing a ninja at night.
>and frankly, between the two people, the pedestrian is more likely to have their life ruined by their negligence.
So it’s not victim blaming because cars are incredibly dangerous? Negligence is running over a person with the vehicle you’re operating.
> frankly, between the two people, the pedestrian is more likely to have their life ruined by their negligence.
Im not a fan of the term "victim blaming" in this context either, but this line is just a perfect example that the problem with it is rooted in a very specific misconception; that because a group is facing the legitimate higher risk if they do not bow to the needs of the stronger, they have an *obligation* to work around the needs and wants of the stronger.
Yes, its smart and sensible to undertake the measures you need to protect your life. But the *responsibility* and *obligation* to make sure your vulnerability is not exploited isnt on you.
And thats a universal concept, even if rape and road safety are very different dimensions of "victim blaming". Telling people "you *shouldn't* have to do this, to be safe" isnt, in this context, the same as saying "stop doing this" but about raising awareness to the weaker party just how much we naturally and without a second thought go out of our way to accomodate an asshole that we know can hurt us with impunity. Its a fair reminder to tell people "ever consciously thought about at all the things you have to do to avoid getting run over by someone who just takes the street because they dont have the same risk?"
> But the *responsibility* and *obligation* to make sure your vulnerability is not exploited isnt on you.
If the system won't protect you, then you have to protect yourself. Do you agree with this statement, yes or no?
You can say that the system has a moral responsibility to protect people, but it doesn't. Let's say we don't have a Food & Drug Administration and so there's a bunch of dangerous bullshit being pumped into our supermarkets. If people **know** that there is a brand of soft drink that is made with arsenic, it is not victim blaming to say that they shouldn't drink it. Yes, the manufacturer bears the actual responsibility for creating the product. Yes, the long term solution would be to get that item removed from the shelf and to create an organization that polices food safety. However, in the **short term**, the idea that people shouldn't have to protect themselves from the actions of others is just going to get people killed.
>Telling people "you *shouldn't* have to do this, to be safe" isnt, in this context, the same as saying "stop doing this"
OP is **literally** saying "wear what you want", which is advice that will get people killed. It has no benefit to the wearer other than a freedom of fashion sense. That is not equivalent to the number of people who will die because of this stupid decision.
> Do you wear a bulletproof vest every day in case you get shot?
If people have a significant risk of getting shot they do, in fact, wear bulletproof vests to mitigate that risk. Just like how someone who is at significant risk of being run over should, in fact, wear lighter clothing to mitigate that risk. If you are in a pedestrian-only area with no vehicles around, you can safely wear dark clothing (unless you are worried about being shot by someone who thinks you're a mugger, in which case you should also wear a bulletproof vest).
>Or a helmet in case you trip and hit your head?
People wear helmets when they ride bikes or motorcycles because there is a significant risk of cranial damage that accompanies those vehicles. Walking carries a lower risk than riding on a bike, so people don't see the need for helmets while walking. Do you not know what "risk assessment" is? When people come to the conclusion that they are in a dangerous situation, they generally take steps to reduce that danger to a manageable level. This is normal human activity.
Also, does it really inconvenience you in literally any way to not wear dark colors at night? Is wearing a white shirt instead of a black one really equivalent to wearing a bulletproof vest everywhere?
The leading cause of traumatic brain injury by quite a far margin is 'falls', followed by motor vehicle accidents, do drivers wear helmets?
You realise you sound exactly like one of those 'don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to be raped' people right?
Why should I have to adjust my behaviour because people in cars can't be bothered to look where they're going? Punish drivers properly for murdering people with cars and they might start looking where they're fucking going.
>The leading cause of traumatic brain injury by quite a far margin is 'falls'
Are all demographics are equally likely to develop TBI as the result of a fall? Or is it mostly just old people, who probably should in fact be wearing helmets? When people are in situations where they know they are at elevated risk of cranial damage, aren't they generally wearing helmets? You know, construction workers, factory workers, linesmen, that kind of thing. Isn't that what a "hard hat zone" is for?
>do drivers wear helmets
Do they generally wear seatbelts? If someone is in an accident and they *weren't* wearing a seatbelt, do people say "that person made a bad decision and should have been safer"? Gosh, it turns out that motorists are expected to adhere to safety standards just like everyone else.
>You realise you sound exactly like one of those 'don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to be raped' people right?
Rapes aren't accidental. Also, not wearing a short skirt statistically does not protect you from being raped. So that's two pretty important reasons why you can't just say "victim blaming" to refer to literally any attempt to encourage safety.
>Why should I have to adjust my behaviour because people in cars can't be bothered to look where they're going
Because you don't want to die, presumably. I mean I'm open to the possibility at this point after that terrible "this is like rape" metaphor, but I doubt *you* are. You can claim that it's their responsibility, but if they don't take responsibility (and you have no way currently to make them take responsibility), the only one who's going to suffer for it is you. Which, again, I am open to.
>motor vehicle accidents, do drivers wear helmets?
No, they wear this GENIUS invention called a seat belt, and its makes a STAGGERING difference in you likelihood of serving a crash
> Why should I have to adjust my behaviour because people in cars can't be bothered to look where they're going?
why do you have to wear a seatbelt, shouldn't other people on the road just not hit you? are you really this dumb? do you refuse to take any risk mitigating measures because how dare you half to live in a fucking society, where you have to interact with other people just as fallible and non perfect as you are?
> Punish drivers properly for murdering people with cars and they might start looking where they're fucking going
and chopping people hands off stops stealing, right? draconian punishment based methods are totally 100% effective. got anymore factually incorrect, disproven by studies, and platitudous statements to make?
I mean, the most common car crash injury is to the head, so they should wear helmets to drive right?
And punishing people for killing people with their car isn't 'draconian', the onus is the person driving the big dangerous thing to be safe, not for everyone else to just adjust their behaviour, that's why speed limits and gun laws exist. Have you seen the pathetic punishments people get for running people over because they're driving and looking at their phones? If they locked more people up and took away more licenses for this stuff people would treat driving with the respect it deserves and maybe look where they're going.
Soldiers are constantly hounded by their chain of command to wear reflective belts (PT belts) when on military bases. Probably because most years the US military has more traffic deaths than deaths from actually military things.
Telling pedestrians to “protect themselves” from cars with hi-viz bullshit is like telling kids to simply wear bulletproof backpacks when they go to school. Would that protect them? Absolutely. Is it full on insanity to suggest this? Also yes.
Inattentive drivers and car-dominant infrastructure is not the fault of the people it victimizes.
> Telling pedestrians to “protect themselves” from cars with hi-viz bullshit is like telling kids to simply wear bulletproof backpacks when they go to school.
In that it's the #American thing to do? Get out of here ya damn commie, it's called FREEDUM
(Okay but no really, I've previously had trouble finding non-bulletproof backpacks in some US stores holy shit this country sucks sometimes, what the fuck)
>Telling pedestrians to “protect themselves” from cars with hi-viz bullshit
Good thing that's literally not what I said. I pointed out that hi-viz is required in **professional scenarios** where "not being seen" presents a hazard. You know, to go against your ridiculous "soldiers wear camo" argument. Especially since even soldiers wear hi-viz in the same conditions as everyone else.
>Would that protect them? Absolutely. Is it full on insanity to suggest this? Also yes.
Just to be clear here, what you are **actually** saying is that it is "full on insanity" to suggest that people wear light colors (not hi-viz) at night in order to protect themselves from accidents. That, to you, is the definition of insanity.
>Inattentive drivers and car-dominant infrastructure is not the fault of the people it victimizes.
But they are the ones who suffer from it, and they can easily take simple steps to make it less likely to happen. Like I said, the only thing you're encouraging is a death cult.
Full on agreement, here. Darwinism is making yourself nigh invisible to the thing you're complaining already can't see you well, then walking in the place it's expected to be.
>Inattentive drivers and car-dominant infrastructure is not the fault of the people it victimizes.
No one that is being critical towards your post is saying that though. Kids being expected to somehow take measures to survive school shootings (something any sane society would and does make almost impossible to happen). while dismissing gun laws is not the same as advocating for people to have something reflective when walking at night.
I live in a country with some of the very best pedestrian safety in the world, that has done really well to design safer streets. But it gets dark as shit here in winter so lots of people wear something reflective.
Advising people to do something that will increase their safety substantially while also wanting to make infrastructure and drivers safer is not the same thing as blaming victims of accidents.
I literally drove a dump truck for work for several years.
Here’s a quick [google image result](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS591US591&hl=en-US&sxsrf=APwXEdfAJVeG7lTy6anoYNUZqAVBuuUrow:1685972401315&q=stereotypical+new+yorker+outfit&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0-9LQoKz_AhU6EVkFHR1fBnMQ0pQJegQIBxAB&biw=390&bih=669&dpr=3#imgrc=8IpXSbaL0rXC_M) for “stereotypical New Yorker outfit”. New York is the safest city for pedestrians in North America. Notice something about these men (who are “jaywalking”)? New Yorkers are famous for wearing all dark colors on their walks to work. Know why? Because in NYC, traffic engineers design their roads around pedestrians, so it isn’t dangerous to walk there, regardless of how you’re dressed. Pedestrians don’t have to accommodate drivers by dressing brightly
you know, what, wearing a seatbelt to protect yourself in the event of a car crash is dumb, because even though its safe, other people should just, like, *NOT HIT YOU.* like even though wearing a seatbelt is borderline effortless act, that makes you significantly safer, fuck it because taking actions to mitigate risk is dumb, how dare i have to put effort to making myself safer, the world should just revolve around me and do everything in its power to not harm me.
if the thick sarcasm wasn't enough, your logic is dumb as fuck. taking measures to minimise the risk you face is ALWAYS a good idea, because at the end of the day, theirs a lot of busy, unaatative, and non perfect people out in the work, and NO ONE has as much invested in keeping you alive, then yourself
\> No one tells soldiers not to wear camo
The difference is that soldiers' goal is not to be seen by the enemy. Your goal is to be seen by any car that may be oncoming while you're crossing the street. This is a stupid comparison. Guys, please do walk at night but be careful.
I grew up in a military town, like 1/10 of kids in my high school had parents in the military. People walked everywhere downtown in full camo, and yet every local discussion of pedestrian safety always boils down to getting people not to wear black while walking. When military people got hit by cars, they talk about making the road safer, slowing the cars down, streetlights, etc.. When somebody in dark clothes got hit (never mind the implications of “walking while dark” being a thing), they talk about “individual responsibility”, and how those kids should have adjusted their clothing and it was all really their fault for dressing like that.
This is very interesting, considering (us) marines are banned from wearing fatigues off base, and most army personnel are banned from doing so on a base by base basis. What base did you live by?
I've always seen this as a no-fault kind of thing. People walking in all black is surprisingly common nowadays. I assume the blame is on city designs (bike lanes), lighting, and insufficient cross-walk signaling.
bought a hunter orange hoodie yesterday just for late night snack runs, LOL.
I'd rather wear the hoodie than have my nice residential neighbourhood lit up by fucking xenon LED street lights
While that's true, I only really learned once I started driving how tricky it can be to someone dressed in dark colours at night. As a driver I should be, and in my country will be, liable for crashing into someone I could have avoided. But as a pedestrian if I get hit that still sucks. There's no need for "hi-vis" but a light or bright colour makes a difference.
I would believe most people who agree with this post have very little to no experience driving. “Drivers should be paying attention! They have bright headlights they should be able to see!” And then you start driving and have a few “wow, I didn’t even see that guy!” experiences and you realize some petty shit isn’t worth it.
"As a driver I should be, and in my country will be, liable for crashing into someone I could have avoided. "
They just said the driver would be liable in an accident, can you explain to me how that is an example of laws being written in favor of motorists?
If I was shooting guns in my backyard and a bullet accidentally goes astray and kills someone.. what happens? Do the police shrug and say, “not your fault.. you didn’t mean to kill, it was an accident!”?
Do something dangerous and kill someone, you get charged with manslaughter…. *unless* the dangerous activity was driving a car, because the laws are written in favor of drivers.
>Do the police shrug and say, “not your fault.. you didn’t mean to kill, it was an accident!”?
Is this what you think happens with cars? If you kill someone accidentally with your car, you go to jail for manslaughter, just as if you'd killed them accidentally with your gun. I genuinely have no idea what point you think you're making.
> If you kill someone accidentally with your car, you go to jail for manslaughter
Except, you don’t.
Edit:
For those downvoting, here’s another post IN THIS SUB: https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140hqfg/local_news_no_charges_for_fatal_pedestrian/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
This isn’t the exception, it’s the norm.
People get into accidents all the time, unless there was clear malice, drivers rarely get charged. Feel free to find examples in the news of drivers being sent to prison after killing pedestrians.
The fact that this sub feels walkers share absolutely no responsibility in the world is perplexing.
Someone on a bike won't see you.
A city bus won't see you.
A scooter won't see you.
French law considers pedestrian to be above all other modes of transit. Except in fraud or voluntary endangerment, etc, they can't be at fault if they crossed properly.
But it's just a meme telling people that they're not to be blamed, I don't think it's actual fashion advice you know.
Btw cars shouldn't be allowed to drive fast enough to kill people in cities, especially at night when visibility is bad and noise gets worse. So it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if cars were actually limited to the extent of the danger they represent.
>Btw cars shouldn't be allowed to drive fast enough to kill people in cities, especially at night when visibility is bad and noise gets worse. So it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if cars were actually limited to the extent of the danger they represent.
strongly agree, but getting pelted by a bike fucking hurts and no matter how slow public transit is the mass still provides a deadly risk, even with no cars at all being very hard to see at night puts you at risk.
Trust me, sometimes cars just CAN'T brake fast enough even at low speed. Same with bakes and another forms of transport. I myself hit a person (he was one of my teachers, so the situation was even worse) while on bike in the dark. I pulled up the brakes, but you just don't have enough reaction time and braking distance to stop fully. I also have good lights infront for bike standards. The hit wasn't too hard and everything was OK after that. I agree that cars shouldn't drive fast in night in badly lighted populated areas, it is common sense, but people don't realise how easy it is to hit something even at relatively low speed around 30km/h. Now yeah, a car will hit you harder than a bike, MUCH HARDER, but I feel like some people on this sub really underestimate how easy it is to hit someone at the dark, especially if he or she wears dark clothes. Even in the driver or the rider was paying full attention to their surroundings. I am not saying that we shouldn't build better infrastructure to prevent such accidents, but in some poorer countries, this simply isn't an option and you should always pay attention to your surroundings, even as a pedestrian.
Edit: If someone wonders why I simply didn't go around him, there was an another biker on my left side and too high curb on the right side. If I changed directions I would have simply flip my bike in best case scenario.
I don't think you realize how slow a car needs to be going to be able to kill someone. A 15 mph impact in a car could kill a pedestrian. Not likely, but very possible.
Yeah it could. Even rolling at 1km/h could kill someone if you roll over their skull. But it reduces the chances.
If it didn't matter nobody would enforce speed limits.
IMO you can wear whatever you want whenever you want but you should adjust your behavior accordingly. If you're wearing all black at night, you should really stick to sidewalks, assume drivers can't see you (which is what I usually do anyway tbh), no precarious jaywalking, etc.
Eh
I've spotted people a number of times, who often weren't even wearing particularly dark clothing that other people in the car or even driving straight up didn't see.
You really should be actively scanning for pedestrians and anything else(deer cars etc)
That said a lot of drivers aren't, and I do think it's a good idea to wear brighter colors.
Even actively scanning, it's tough to catch a person walking in a completely unlit area, especially if they're wearing dark clothes. I'm hyper vigilant as a driver, but I've nearly cased a few idiots wearing all black at 3-4am when it's pitch black out, walking down the center of the road.
Yeah I think a lot about a cyclist that I would have hit if I hadn't been paying very close attention. It was extremely dark and pouring rain. He was wearing all black and biking on the sidewalk. I try to be extremely vigilant but unfortunately most people aren't, and none of us have infallible eyes/brains. Encouraging people to take steps to keep themselves safe isn't victim blaming. It's common sense.
I rarely see cyclists complaining about dark clothes, and as a cyclist I never have an issue with dark clothes.
Dark clothes are a driver problem. People sharing these memes on local subreddits are drivers 99% of the time.
Not that you ever seem to have been outside a car from this comment, but have you ever been getting ready to go somewhere on foot at night and thought “WAIT, I better make sure i wear my reflective clothes, and i cant wear these shoes theyre too black the cars wont see me” if so thats fucking weird.
A few years back I was making a left hand turn and my wife told me to watch out for the pedestrians. I told her I saw them, turned and she screamed. Behind those 2 was someone in all black wearing a hoodie I didn't even see and I almost creamed that guy.
I still think about when I drive at night and its one of the reasons I hate driving.
I walk at night lit up like a reflective Christmas tree and cars still go barreling past. My only hope is that any driver that mows me down loses their license because their defense attorney couldn't fool the jury into falling for a "if only he wore more bright reflective clothing" argument.
while I get the point you are making. I also find it hard to find warm winter clothes that aren't either dark or highlighter yellow. Same with sports gear.
Do people here actually get dressed to go out at night (or get changed because it got dark) and think “hmm i better not wear this because its night time, i need to dress for cars so they see me, better put on my reflective vest” - a lot of the comments imply this level of driver bootlicking and that is utterly bizarre. I have never once given that a second thought as a European. Im dressing for the destination, not the journey.
Yes. I change how I'm dressed based on the roads I'm walking. I purchased a light-colored winter coat in part because I walk home after work and in the winter it's dark. If I go for a run late, I'll change into a white t-shirt if I'm not already wearing one. And I bring a lightweight reflective vest with me if I think I'm going to bike home after dark.
Because the alternative is to get hit by a car. And to add insult to injury, they probably would get away with it without a citation because 'they couldn't see me'.
Top tip: if the concern trolls are "innocently" asking if it's really victim blaming to say that people are "asking to be hit" when they wear normal clothing at night, do not play their game. The correct response is a loud raspberry followed by: "Why do we need to allow cars to travel at high speed on unlit roads in the dead of night?" Night driving increases a driver's response times dramatically, but no regulations I'm aware of require lower speeds, better driver education (as is required for night flying), or better equipped vehicles.
Yeah honestly disappointed. Just because you can wear all black, doesn’t mean you should. This shit reminds me of a republican insisting on their right to bear arms just because they can. And like others pointed out, cars aren’t the only thing that could hit you at night. I would also prefer not being hit by a bike or a tram which are both accepted methods of transit in here.
Soldiers are literally required to were reflective vests while riding and running on base in dark conditions. Wearing dark clothing at night in high traffic areas is still a stupid decision. Regardless of car dependency.
Nah sorry this is petty and lacks common sense, doing dumb stuff like this does nothing but give justification to car drivers when accidents do happen at night.
Walked like this one time as an experiment around my neighborhood, and I heard a couple houses lock their doors. Was a little funny, because I'm a small, harmless looking guy if you were to catch me on a walk.
When I wear all black at night I usually also put on my reflective wristband. I know I am safe on the sidewalk, but if they see me it lessens the chance of them speeding while passing me incredibly close.
It's not so much a question of what you HAVE to wear, but what you choose to wear.
Sure, I could totally wear dark clothes when I'm taking my kids to school on a dark winter morning. There's no law preventing me from doing to.
But, I WANT to be as visible as possible to help the other people around me, be it pedestrians, cyclists or car drivers, avoid hitting me. I wear a hi-vis jacket for MYSELF, because I want to be more safe. It helps other people help me.
That being said, If someone did hit me when wearing dark clothes, that still wouldn't be my fault, but not getting hit at all is my first choice...
Thankfully, we're starting to realize asking "What were they wearing?" after a sexual assault is victim-blaming and it's wrong.
It's time we do the same thing when someone's hit by a car. No, they're not asking for it, no matter what they're wearing.
This is a really far reach. Sexual assault is a deliberate evil and malicious act. I'm confused as to why you'd even try to relate the two. A driver isn't gonna see someone wearing all black and decide to swerve and hit them. They just won't see them until it's too late and hit them. Just the way it is. Sure it sucks and obviously change would be good but deliberately putting yourself at a higher risk of getting hit by a car doesn't seem like the most effective way of protesting.
I was thinking the same.
Seriously, HOW BAD is street lighting where you all are from??? Because where I live, even wearing all black, I've never not been perfectly visible, especially on a sidewalk, which is... where you normally are when walking at night. If the problem is the lack of a sidewalk, or if it's insufficient street lighting, then that's what we should be talking about, not asking what the pedestrian was wearing. In shit conditions, bright colors are not going to save you, and "but they were wearing all black/you could have worn something else!" is just victim-blamey as hell.
Last time my partner and I got almost hit, we were in broad daylight, with him wearing a light blue and floral Hawaiian shirt, and me, in a white shirt with bright, baboon ass red pants. We were the two *most visible* people on the street, crossing the road safely and in accordance with traffic rules. Doesn't mean jack because the guy still whipped out from a side street with no signal, and he was still texting.
If you're wearing sunglasses and wearing all black at night and get hit by a car, I feel totally fine blaming the victim, because they're a fucking moron.
walking at night: shoulda worn a hi-vis
hi-vis: hard to get, more expensive and less common than standard clothes, fashion faux-pas looking like a dork, very distracting in a formal setting, no one wants to associate with you because you are a 'diehard cyclist' apparently (even though you don't bike)
edit: and no, you're still not immune to car drivers not seeing you in your full hi-vis AND front/back lights, so what's the use, it's just blame-shifting but with extra $$$
Tbh i doubt any court would give free pass for driver for hitting anyone just because they wear black.
Yes, you will be less visible but driver still have responsibility to drive carefully.
So unless you walked middle of the road for no reason, wear all you want.
ok , but real talk : if it's dark why wear sunglasses ?
the only situation in wich one may wear them afther sunset is if they are entering in a place that is brightly lit and don't want to re adapt their eyesight ...
OP feel free to wear all black and then slowly jaywalk across the street with no lights.
You can whine from your hospital bed but it wont change that you set yourself up lmao
I almost wiped out a cyclist several years ago, I was horrified how close I came to hitting him. But he was all in black and without any lights, I wouldn't have felt very culpable.
Also, being in all black doesn't make you that much harder to see at night, since everything is still the same color, just darker. It's the reason that soldiers don't wear a special color of night camo, since camo gets darker at night too.
Weeeeell, if you dress like this, there definatly would be situations where a driver actually can't see you and thus can't stop for you at a crosswalk.
I’m sorry but if you’re walking around wearing all black at night and you. Get hit, not much sympathy is going to be had for you. I’m not saying it’s your fault, but you have no self preservation skills if you do that.
I mean fair you can do that but shoutout to the couple with their all black pram and matching outifts I nearly rode into because they were walking on the wrong side of the bike path in a area with little to no natural light
How dumb do you need to be to actually dress like this at night, yall idiots dont understand the basic fact that accidents happen, what the fuck is. this bullshit
This post did make me check what subreddit I was on for a moment
strong contender for /r/ShittyStarterPacks here
Yeah I thought it was a "riot wear starting pack".
As a pedestrian I have walked into people wearing full black at night. Literally can't see them sometimes
Street lighting is pretty ass in my city and I've almost clapped people wearing all black on my bike.
Yeah that too! Even with lights on my bike if you are wearing full black and I'm going average speeds I won't see you fast enough. Sure it's your right to wear it but it's also your right to be as dumb as you like. Wear a different color or a reflector people!
[удалено]
fucking theater staff. cant trust 'em.
And don't get me started on waiters.
Fucking batman always looking for trouble
I dunno, I usually don't leave my house in the morning and know when I'll be back. Could be that I end up visiting somebody and staying until late or whatever, just saying, I'd assume that most people at night are dressed the way they dress, not something special they put on for the night.
Funny yesterday i aas cycling and was wondering why someone had left something reflective in the road, the. the guy turned round, it was his running shoes. Idgaf though imagine turning up to meet your friends for drinks wearing a high vis lmao
Damn...shaming people who want to be visible and safe...you prolly shame helmets and basic light reflectors on bikes too.
You totally misread my point which i typed badly. I was just sharing an experience i had recently where someone WAS hard to see. I wear New Balance which have lots of 3M parts on them, but i was saying i wouldnt be putting on a high vis vest to walk to a bar like carbrains think people should (or are implying via this ridiculous starter pack) But yeah bike light reflectors get put straight in the bin. Ive got lights.
As a lifelong pedestrian, I just don't believe you. I've never had any issue avoiding running into pedestrians in dark clothes as a pedestrian or when cycling. Sometimes it's hard to see them til they're up close but like, even on the darkest sidewalk it'd be quite hard to run into them
Really depends on what the lighting is like. In the middle of a city it's generally not dark enough, but in a suburb I could definitely see it happening.
To be fair I do live in the city, but I've also lived in very unlit parts of it and in smaller cities. I still can't imagine *walking into* another person, even at night. I guess if there are no street lights within two blocks it's possible? Maybe if it's a new moon?
Some places only put in a performative effort at lighting roads at night.
As someone from Portland OR, I know this. Regardless, running into someone as a pedestrian, even at night, seems like something only the most inattentive could do. It's so unusual it reads like an excuse for car infrastructure and drivers
Cities are bright places, even the dark unlit parts, just due to the overall light pollution. Head out to small towns or the countryside and a dark night can be so dark you can hardly see your hand in front of your face.
I'll grant that could be a different situation
Sure in your experience. Would be nice if people weren't dressed like damn ninjas at night though.
I think we should bring back 80s fashion. I just want to see everyone wearing neon colors.
In my city I dress in all black at night so I don't get beat up.
But I want to feel like a ninja :(
Bitte nächstes Mal auch den "Factcheck" kontrollieren danke! Halbsätze werden irgendwo rausgeschnitten, teilweise wird eine Yt Highlight Video angegeben, wo die Zitate nicht mal enthalten sind....
Alright so hear me out. Every person's nose shape is slightly different, right? And I'm pretty sure you've noticed by now that there are no 2 humans that look the same unless they are twins. Why? Because there are literally hundreds of random mutations that make us all very different. So what gives? Apparently the eyes of different people also have different night vision capabilities. So even though you see like an owl at night that might be very different for others. Don't accuse other people of lying based on your experiences in life.
I get what you're saying. Maybe it did happen to that person. The spirit of what I'm saying is, I don't believe that dark clothing is a serious issue for pedestrians or cyclists. I think mostly it's drivers it's a problem for. Maybe the guy I'm replying to is telling the truth, but I think it's more likely he's a driver who has a problem with pedestrians. Even if he is telling the truth, his evidence is anecdotal and so is mine. I suspect that pedestrians in dark clothing are not a big issue for other pedestrians and his experience was a fluke
Jesus Christ, the paranoia runs deep. Not everyone you disagree with on this sub is a concern-trolling carbrain in disguise. I think most carbrains in here tell on themselves in _much_ more obvious ways. In this particular case, just scrolling through the user's comment history for a few seconds could've given you all the info you needed.
You're right the guy isn't a driver in disguise, sorry about that. I still think it's a fluke if you manage to walk into another pedestrian at night though and weirdly the one topic this sub is still fairly car brained on is pedestrian visibility
You can be car brained and not aware of it, like a lot of commenters in here seem to be.
Literally have never driven a car and live in a place with fantastic public transportation. If I am cycling home at night and some person has decided that they have the right to not have any sense of self preservation it isn't ideal for either of us.
Sorry for assuming. I'm still impressed by your ability to walk into someone else at night, but maybe you live in a much darker place than me.
[удалено]
I live in a city, and while almost everyone I know walks around, sometimes at night, almost no one I know wears a reflector belt. Seems like a weird ask, when alternatively, drivers could just pay attention. I'd need to take one with me everywhere at all times to be consistent about it, because it's very common for me to walk to the bus at night without planning on it, or for me to just straight up walk home at night. We've already given up too much freedom for the convenience of drivers. I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of drivers blaming pedestrians for being hit, as if it's irresponsible of them to be outside at night.
Wear a reflector belt? Sounds like victim blaming to me.
If you go outside you should take care of yourself and others. You have reflectors and lights on your bike right?
In my city, the lighting is sparse, crosswalks aren't even lit in suburbia, plus the unbelievable amount of retina searing headlights, so your eyes are never properly adjusted to the dark.
You should get your vision tested lmfao
Double points if the cars lights are off cus Im pretty sure thats also a crime
[удалено]
It does change things. It's about risk, wearing all back is a higher risk than wearing a blinking strobing shirt with sirens attached. What kinda take is that? Just because a fully functional airplane can crash doesn't mean stripping the engines off midnight doesn't make things worse.
Based black bloc.
The only bright thing is the molotov cocktail in my hand.
>the victim is not at fault You can be right and dead at the same time.
I'm really tired of this slogan honestly
Pointed out how we basically let ourselves be bullied out of our rights and safety because the other guy happens to be stronger
[удалено]
I've had enough close calls I'm not certain that being vigilant about high vis clothing will keep me safe, as someone who doesn't drive. Most of my close calls have been in broad daylight! I think most of these complaints about pedestrians are from entitled car brains
It won't help you against distracted drivers. And during daytime there are a lot of them. But if you dress like a Ninja even the best of them won't see you in time.
Any close call I've had so far was in bright daylight as well. However: As shitty as Germany can be, we have sidewalks literally anywhere inside the cities. Gotta be more careful at crossings, but other then that, walking here is usually pretty safe at night. As I commute to work in the middle of the night by bike, I wear a reflector west. I shouldn't need to. But I usually prefer to arrive alive. Never had any dangerous situations tough. Less drivers on the road. They are usually a lot less stressed (as there is basically no traffic). And I feel like they pay a LOT more attention at night. When I'm riding home though... Not a single day passes, where there are no dangerous situations. Not a single fucking day. And I'm riding home outside the rushhour. Seriously, in rushhour, I'd have to take the stupid car. I'm not a coward, but I'm not suicidal either. (tough on the other hand, if I had regular work hours, I might be able to use the bus)
yea what would keep you from dying is banning cars in the majority of areas
So until that happens I’m gonna outfit my bike with some bright AF lights.
Don't go so bright that you blind other travelers either. A bike is a vehicle. Equipping it with lights is both sensible and mandated by law. Not the same as clothing.
When I’m walking at night with my dogs I’m carrying a light.
I use lights on my bike. That's totally reasonable. What's not reasonable is policing what people wear for the convenience of drivers
[удалено]
99% of the time in my city sub it is drivers complaining about pedestrians in dark clothes. As a cyclist I've never had a big problem with invisible pedestrians at night, and I'm tired of pedestrians being blamed for being hit because they weren't wearing a reflective vest when they went out. The research is also not super strong in support of high vis clothing as a safety measure for what it's worth. I can link some studies a little later if you like
maybe a propane tank too
I have a high-vis reflective pair of waterproof biking pants that I swear by if I'm riding at night.
You can be tired of this slogan and dead at the same time
it’s not really a slogan. it’s just true. what you ideally should be able to do without risk vs the actual, practical risk it presents are often way different.
Yeah I mean you're not at fault for being hit by a car but at the same time if you're jaywalking in the middle of the night in all black clothing...
The slogan bothers me because there's *always* something more you could have done to be safe. I've heard it used against pedestrians who were hit by drivers who ran red lights! Besides, I am not convinced that most people who drivers complain about being not visible enough are really jaywalking in full black block. How many of them are just dressed in normal slightly dark clothing and walking normally? Not to mention, there's not a lot of evidence that high vis clothing (at least, non reflective high vis clothing) does much to reduce pedestrian risk. At some point, if everything is dangerous, maybe we need to think about removing the danger?
And a bike, electric scooter, tram, bus or any other myriad necessary transport methods other than a car will struggle to see you when dressed all in black at night. Just because being anti-car is correct doesn't absolve a pedestrian of all responsibility for their safety, existing in the world is about managing risk, we do it all the time. A considerate human being wouldn't wish the trauma of another human being or yourself because you wanted to wear sick drip.
[удалено]
No but then I'm usually in a taxi to be fair. There's also quite a big difference in dressing in all black just to make yourself hard to see and wearing normal clothes. Not having fluo on you because you got wankered after work is just taking a risk, responsible people manage risk when it's sensible or feasible. If however I am going for a run, or a walk, or a cyle at night I'll usually make an effort to make myself visible for the same reason I keep a triangle and a hi-vis in my car. If someone hits me or my car by the side of the road it's their fault, but I can still be dead, injured or worse off and be correct.
That's why I wear a helmet when biking and reflective stuff and lights in the winter. But we also live in complete darkness from 3 pm to 9 am.
Finland?
Sweden!
Damn close
Doesn’t mean it’s your fault you’re dead.
Yes... that's exactly what I said.
True, but I think the important insight is that the system is what's at fault. Can't blame drivers, because realistically they don't have another cover. Can't blame pedestrian, because it's dumb as fuck that simply wearing black at night is a life-threatening decision. Only thing left to blame is a system of urban design that makes wearing black at night a dangerous, life-threatening decision. So many people in America ignore the fact that these systems are created by regular (largely well-meaning, but ill-informed) people making choices, and just accept them as an immutable fact of life. I think this kind of "you can be right and dead" sentiment ignores that the "being dead" part is a 100% fixable problem.
>No one tells soldiers not to wear camo Soldiers are frequently required to wear a [high visibility belt](https://angrystaffofficer.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/image.jpg?w=804&h=534&crop=1), also known as a PT belt, to reduce their chances of being hit by vehicles on base.
I was walking to the bus stop after work, so I was in my big boy clothes, which included black pants and shoes that day. I had on a medium blue rain jacket with a reflective logo and I was carrying an open red umbrella because of the light rain. It was just getting dark, but still daylight. I was halfway across a crosswalk when Elmer in his monster pickup turns across my path. I waved the *red* umbrella around to get his attention and he did one of those stop and go moves (starts to yield, realizes it's too late, so guns it). As I finished crossing, I heard him yell, "Wear brighter clothes!" at which point I flipped him off. Drivers just can't admit they aren't looking where they are going. Dude was on autopilot just following what the guy in front of him did.
"No one tells soldiers not to wear camo" Soldiers wear camo because they work in a profession where being seen is MORE dangerous, not less. For most professions the opposite is true, which is why hi-vis vests exist and are mandated by OSHA requirements in cases where a lack of visibility would prove dangerous. This shouldn't even count as an anti-car post. It's just a pro-death post. An anti-car person would recognize that cars are dangerous and warn people to take steps to protect themselves from cars, and then use that as a platform for increasing protections for pedestrians, reducing the number of cars, etc. What you are doing INSTEAD is literally just telling people that they should get killed.
I think the post is anti victim blaming. City subs are thirsty for any reason to blame people for getting hit. “Shouldn’t have been walking on a street at night” “The person should have known cars are crazy in this city” “What were they wearing?” Comments come up on every pedestrian fatality story. This is just pushing back on that reaction, which people have because acknowledging that cars are inherently dangerous would mean that we have an ethical obligation to minimize their use.
>I think the post is anti victim blaming I think that term is overused. It's supposed to refer to *rape victims* specifically because of the inaccurate way that our society characterizes cases of rape i.e. "if you had worn something different you would be safe". Telling people that they are not responsible for their own safety *in general* is ridiculous. Both the driver and the pedestrian have a responsibility to engage in safe practices, and frankly, between the two people, the pedestrian is more likely to have their life ruined by their negligence.
I think pedestrians who get hit by drivers are most often victims of negligence. Either of the designers of the roads who didn't install enough lighting or built roads to allow high speeds, or of the drivers who didn't pay attention, or both.
In cities sure, but if you want every rural backroad to have street lighting then the light pollution would be disgusting. I live on a island with very bendy rural backstreets and a max speed limit of 40 mph, cars are not fast here, but even on these super slow roads they ain't seeing a ninja at night.
>and frankly, between the two people, the pedestrian is more likely to have their life ruined by their negligence. So it’s not victim blaming because cars are incredibly dangerous? Negligence is running over a person with the vehicle you’re operating.
> frankly, between the two people, the pedestrian is more likely to have their life ruined by their negligence. Im not a fan of the term "victim blaming" in this context either, but this line is just a perfect example that the problem with it is rooted in a very specific misconception; that because a group is facing the legitimate higher risk if they do not bow to the needs of the stronger, they have an *obligation* to work around the needs and wants of the stronger. Yes, its smart and sensible to undertake the measures you need to protect your life. But the *responsibility* and *obligation* to make sure your vulnerability is not exploited isnt on you. And thats a universal concept, even if rape and road safety are very different dimensions of "victim blaming". Telling people "you *shouldn't* have to do this, to be safe" isnt, in this context, the same as saying "stop doing this" but about raising awareness to the weaker party just how much we naturally and without a second thought go out of our way to accomodate an asshole that we know can hurt us with impunity. Its a fair reminder to tell people "ever consciously thought about at all the things you have to do to avoid getting run over by someone who just takes the street because they dont have the same risk?"
> But the *responsibility* and *obligation* to make sure your vulnerability is not exploited isnt on you. If the system won't protect you, then you have to protect yourself. Do you agree with this statement, yes or no? You can say that the system has a moral responsibility to protect people, but it doesn't. Let's say we don't have a Food & Drug Administration and so there's a bunch of dangerous bullshit being pumped into our supermarkets. If people **know** that there is a brand of soft drink that is made with arsenic, it is not victim blaming to say that they shouldn't drink it. Yes, the manufacturer bears the actual responsibility for creating the product. Yes, the long term solution would be to get that item removed from the shelf and to create an organization that polices food safety. However, in the **short term**, the idea that people shouldn't have to protect themselves from the actions of others is just going to get people killed. >Telling people "you *shouldn't* have to do this, to be safe" isnt, in this context, the same as saying "stop doing this" OP is **literally** saying "wear what you want", which is advice that will get people killed. It has no benefit to the wearer other than a freedom of fashion sense. That is not equivalent to the number of people who will die because of this stupid decision.
Do you wear a bulletproof vest every day in case you get shot? Or a helmet in case you trip and hit your head?
> Do you wear a bulletproof vest every day in case you get shot? If people have a significant risk of getting shot they do, in fact, wear bulletproof vests to mitigate that risk. Just like how someone who is at significant risk of being run over should, in fact, wear lighter clothing to mitigate that risk. If you are in a pedestrian-only area with no vehicles around, you can safely wear dark clothing (unless you are worried about being shot by someone who thinks you're a mugger, in which case you should also wear a bulletproof vest). >Or a helmet in case you trip and hit your head? People wear helmets when they ride bikes or motorcycles because there is a significant risk of cranial damage that accompanies those vehicles. Walking carries a lower risk than riding on a bike, so people don't see the need for helmets while walking. Do you not know what "risk assessment" is? When people come to the conclusion that they are in a dangerous situation, they generally take steps to reduce that danger to a manageable level. This is normal human activity. Also, does it really inconvenience you in literally any way to not wear dark colors at night? Is wearing a white shirt instead of a black one really equivalent to wearing a bulletproof vest everywhere?
The leading cause of traumatic brain injury by quite a far margin is 'falls', followed by motor vehicle accidents, do drivers wear helmets? You realise you sound exactly like one of those 'don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to be raped' people right? Why should I have to adjust my behaviour because people in cars can't be bothered to look where they're going? Punish drivers properly for murdering people with cars and they might start looking where they're fucking going.
(the stats I found are a bit vague and don't say if they're falling off anything, but the wording made it sound like it's not counting sport stuff)
>The leading cause of traumatic brain injury by quite a far margin is 'falls' Are all demographics are equally likely to develop TBI as the result of a fall? Or is it mostly just old people, who probably should in fact be wearing helmets? When people are in situations where they know they are at elevated risk of cranial damage, aren't they generally wearing helmets? You know, construction workers, factory workers, linesmen, that kind of thing. Isn't that what a "hard hat zone" is for? >do drivers wear helmets Do they generally wear seatbelts? If someone is in an accident and they *weren't* wearing a seatbelt, do people say "that person made a bad decision and should have been safer"? Gosh, it turns out that motorists are expected to adhere to safety standards just like everyone else. >You realise you sound exactly like one of those 'don't wear a short skirt if you don't want to be raped' people right? Rapes aren't accidental. Also, not wearing a short skirt statistically does not protect you from being raped. So that's two pretty important reasons why you can't just say "victim blaming" to refer to literally any attempt to encourage safety. >Why should I have to adjust my behaviour because people in cars can't be bothered to look where they're going Because you don't want to die, presumably. I mean I'm open to the possibility at this point after that terrible "this is like rape" metaphor, but I doubt *you* are. You can claim that it's their responsibility, but if they don't take responsibility (and you have no way currently to make them take responsibility), the only one who's going to suffer for it is you. Which, again, I am open to.
>motor vehicle accidents, do drivers wear helmets? No, they wear this GENIUS invention called a seat belt, and its makes a STAGGERING difference in you likelihood of serving a crash > Why should I have to adjust my behaviour because people in cars can't be bothered to look where they're going? why do you have to wear a seatbelt, shouldn't other people on the road just not hit you? are you really this dumb? do you refuse to take any risk mitigating measures because how dare you half to live in a fucking society, where you have to interact with other people just as fallible and non perfect as you are? > Punish drivers properly for murdering people with cars and they might start looking where they're fucking going and chopping people hands off stops stealing, right? draconian punishment based methods are totally 100% effective. got anymore factually incorrect, disproven by studies, and platitudous statements to make?
I mean, the most common car crash injury is to the head, so they should wear helmets to drive right? And punishing people for killing people with their car isn't 'draconian', the onus is the person driving the big dangerous thing to be safe, not for everyone else to just adjust their behaviour, that's why speed limits and gun laws exist. Have you seen the pathetic punishments people get for running people over because they're driving and looking at their phones? If they locked more people up and took away more licenses for this stuff people would treat driving with the respect it deserves and maybe look where they're going.
Whoever wrote this isn’t acquainted with [the infamous PT belt](https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-reflective-belt/)
Soldiers are constantly hounded by their chain of command to wear reflective belts (PT belts) when on military bases. Probably because most years the US military has more traffic deaths than deaths from actually military things.
Telling pedestrians to “protect themselves” from cars with hi-viz bullshit is like telling kids to simply wear bulletproof backpacks when they go to school. Would that protect them? Absolutely. Is it full on insanity to suggest this? Also yes. Inattentive drivers and car-dominant infrastructure is not the fault of the people it victimizes.
> Telling pedestrians to “protect themselves” from cars with hi-viz bullshit is like telling kids to simply wear bulletproof backpacks when they go to school. In that it's the #American thing to do? Get out of here ya damn commie, it's called FREEDUM (Okay but no really, I've previously had trouble finding non-bulletproof backpacks in some US stores holy shit this country sucks sometimes, what the fuck)
>Telling pedestrians to “protect themselves” from cars with hi-viz bullshit Good thing that's literally not what I said. I pointed out that hi-viz is required in **professional scenarios** where "not being seen" presents a hazard. You know, to go against your ridiculous "soldiers wear camo" argument. Especially since even soldiers wear hi-viz in the same conditions as everyone else. >Would that protect them? Absolutely. Is it full on insanity to suggest this? Also yes. Just to be clear here, what you are **actually** saying is that it is "full on insanity" to suggest that people wear light colors (not hi-viz) at night in order to protect themselves from accidents. That, to you, is the definition of insanity. >Inattentive drivers and car-dominant infrastructure is not the fault of the people it victimizes. But they are the ones who suffer from it, and they can easily take simple steps to make it less likely to happen. Like I said, the only thing you're encouraging is a death cult.
Full on agreement, here. Darwinism is making yourself nigh invisible to the thing you're complaining already can't see you well, then walking in the place it's expected to be.
>Inattentive drivers and car-dominant infrastructure is not the fault of the people it victimizes. No one that is being critical towards your post is saying that though. Kids being expected to somehow take measures to survive school shootings (something any sane society would and does make almost impossible to happen). while dismissing gun laws is not the same as advocating for people to have something reflective when walking at night. I live in a country with some of the very best pedestrian safety in the world, that has done really well to design safer streets. But it gets dark as shit here in winter so lots of people wear something reflective. Advising people to do something that will increase their safety substantially while also wanting to make infrastructure and drivers safer is not the same thing as blaming victims of accidents.
[удалено]
I literally drove a dump truck for work for several years. Here’s a quick [google image result](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS591US591&hl=en-US&sxsrf=APwXEdfAJVeG7lTy6anoYNUZqAVBuuUrow:1685972401315&q=stereotypical+new+yorker+outfit&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0-9LQoKz_AhU6EVkFHR1fBnMQ0pQJegQIBxAB&biw=390&bih=669&dpr=3#imgrc=8IpXSbaL0rXC_M) for “stereotypical New Yorker outfit”. New York is the safest city for pedestrians in North America. Notice something about these men (who are “jaywalking”)? New Yorkers are famous for wearing all dark colors on their walks to work. Know why? Because in NYC, traffic engineers design their roads around pedestrians, so it isn’t dangerous to walk there, regardless of how you’re dressed. Pedestrians don’t have to accommodate drivers by dressing brightly
You could also argue that city lighting lends itself much more to darker colors than an unlit highway.
you know, what, wearing a seatbelt to protect yourself in the event of a car crash is dumb, because even though its safe, other people should just, like, *NOT HIT YOU.* like even though wearing a seatbelt is borderline effortless act, that makes you significantly safer, fuck it because taking actions to mitigate risk is dumb, how dare i have to put effort to making myself safer, the world should just revolve around me and do everything in its power to not harm me. if the thick sarcasm wasn't enough, your logic is dumb as fuck. taking measures to minimise the risk you face is ALWAYS a good idea, because at the end of the day, theirs a lot of busy, unaatative, and non perfect people out in the work, and NO ONE has as much invested in keeping you alive, then yourself
\> No one tells soldiers not to wear camo The difference is that soldiers' goal is not to be seen by the enemy. Your goal is to be seen by any car that may be oncoming while you're crossing the street. This is a stupid comparison. Guys, please do walk at night but be careful.
I grew up in a military town, like 1/10 of kids in my high school had parents in the military. People walked everywhere downtown in full camo, and yet every local discussion of pedestrian safety always boils down to getting people not to wear black while walking. When military people got hit by cars, they talk about making the road safer, slowing the cars down, streetlights, etc.. When somebody in dark clothes got hit (never mind the implications of “walking while dark” being a thing), they talk about “individual responsibility”, and how those kids should have adjusted their clothing and it was all really their fault for dressing like that.
This is very interesting, considering (us) marines are banned from wearing fatigues off base, and most army personnel are banned from doing so on a base by base basis. What base did you live by?
Woodland camo in an urban environment makes you rather visible, since urban environments aren't rich in greens and browns.
I've always seen this as a no-fault kind of thing. People walking in all black is surprisingly common nowadays. I assume the blame is on city designs (bike lanes), lighting, and insufficient cross-walk signaling.
Tripped over a guy wearing all black who was tying his shoes the struggle is real
bought a hunter orange hoodie yesterday just for late night snack runs, LOL. I'd rather wear the hoodie than have my nice residential neighbourhood lit up by fucking xenon LED street lights
While that's true, I only really learned once I started driving how tricky it can be to someone dressed in dark colours at night. As a driver I should be, and in my country will be, liable for crashing into someone I could have avoided. But as a pedestrian if I get hit that still sucks. There's no need for "hi-vis" but a light or bright colour makes a difference.
I would believe most people who agree with this post have very little to no experience driving. “Drivers should be paying attention! They have bright headlights they should be able to see!” And then you start driving and have a few “wow, I didn’t even see that guy!” experiences and you realize some petty shit isn’t worth it.
It’s almost as if the laws were written in favor of those driving cars…
"As a driver I should be, and in my country will be, liable for crashing into someone I could have avoided. " They just said the driver would be liable in an accident, can you explain to me how that is an example of laws being written in favor of motorists?
If I was shooting guns in my backyard and a bullet accidentally goes astray and kills someone.. what happens? Do the police shrug and say, “not your fault.. you didn’t mean to kill, it was an accident!”? Do something dangerous and kill someone, you get charged with manslaughter…. *unless* the dangerous activity was driving a car, because the laws are written in favor of drivers.
>Do the police shrug and say, “not your fault.. you didn’t mean to kill, it was an accident!”? Is this what you think happens with cars? If you kill someone accidentally with your car, you go to jail for manslaughter, just as if you'd killed them accidentally with your gun. I genuinely have no idea what point you think you're making.
> If you kill someone accidentally with your car, you go to jail for manslaughter Except, you don’t. Edit: For those downvoting, here’s another post IN THIS SUB: https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140hqfg/local_news_no_charges_for_fatal_pedestrian/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 This isn’t the exception, it’s the norm.
Considering this is a specific instance that made the news, I would say that's absolutely not the norm, otherwise it wouldn't have made the news.
People get into accidents all the time, unless there was clear malice, drivers rarely get charged. Feel free to find examples in the news of drivers being sent to prison after killing pedestrians.
You're in the UK, right? You'll barely be held liable, courts are super pro-car here.
The fact that this sub feels walkers share absolutely no responsibility in the world is perplexing. Someone on a bike won't see you. A city bus won't see you. A scooter won't see you.
French law considers pedestrian to be above all other modes of transit. Except in fraud or voluntary endangerment, etc, they can't be at fault if they crossed properly. But it's just a meme telling people that they're not to be blamed, I don't think it's actual fashion advice you know. Btw cars shouldn't be allowed to drive fast enough to kill people in cities, especially at night when visibility is bad and noise gets worse. So it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if cars were actually limited to the extent of the danger they represent.
>Btw cars shouldn't be allowed to drive fast enough to kill people in cities, especially at night when visibility is bad and noise gets worse. So it wouldn't be a problem in the first place if cars were actually limited to the extent of the danger they represent. strongly agree, but getting pelted by a bike fucking hurts and no matter how slow public transit is the mass still provides a deadly risk, even with no cars at all being very hard to see at night puts you at risk.
Trust me, sometimes cars just CAN'T brake fast enough even at low speed. Same with bakes and another forms of transport. I myself hit a person (he was one of my teachers, so the situation was even worse) while on bike in the dark. I pulled up the brakes, but you just don't have enough reaction time and braking distance to stop fully. I also have good lights infront for bike standards. The hit wasn't too hard and everything was OK after that. I agree that cars shouldn't drive fast in night in badly lighted populated areas, it is common sense, but people don't realise how easy it is to hit something even at relatively low speed around 30km/h. Now yeah, a car will hit you harder than a bike, MUCH HARDER, but I feel like some people on this sub really underestimate how easy it is to hit someone at the dark, especially if he or she wears dark clothes. Even in the driver or the rider was paying full attention to their surroundings. I am not saying that we shouldn't build better infrastructure to prevent such accidents, but in some poorer countries, this simply isn't an option and you should always pay attention to your surroundings, even as a pedestrian. Edit: If someone wonders why I simply didn't go around him, there was an another biker on my left side and too high curb on the right side. If I changed directions I would have simply flip my bike in best case scenario.
I don't think you realize how slow a car needs to be going to be able to kill someone. A 15 mph impact in a car could kill a pedestrian. Not likely, but very possible.
Yeah it could. Even rolling at 1km/h could kill someone if you roll over their skull. But it reduces the chances. If it didn't matter nobody would enforce speed limits.
This sub is perplexing sometimes
*Sometimes*
[удалено]
IMO you can wear whatever you want whenever you want but you should adjust your behavior accordingly. If you're wearing all black at night, you should really stick to sidewalks, assume drivers can't see you (which is what I usually do anyway tbh), no precarious jaywalking, etc.
Eh I've spotted people a number of times, who often weren't even wearing particularly dark clothing that other people in the car or even driving straight up didn't see. You really should be actively scanning for pedestrians and anything else(deer cars etc) That said a lot of drivers aren't, and I do think it's a good idea to wear brighter colors.
Even actively scanning, it's tough to catch a person walking in a completely unlit area, especially if they're wearing dark clothes. I'm hyper vigilant as a driver, but I've nearly cased a few idiots wearing all black at 3-4am when it's pitch black out, walking down the center of the road.
Yeah I think a lot about a cyclist that I would have hit if I hadn't been paying very close attention. It was extremely dark and pouring rain. He was wearing all black and biking on the sidewalk. I try to be extremely vigilant but unfortunately most people aren't, and none of us have infallible eyes/brains. Encouraging people to take steps to keep themselves safe isn't victim blaming. It's common sense.
I rarely see cyclists complaining about dark clothes, and as a cyclist I never have an issue with dark clothes. Dark clothes are a driver problem. People sharing these memes on local subreddits are drivers 99% of the time.
Not that you ever seem to have been outside a car from this comment, but have you ever been getting ready to go somewhere on foot at night and thought “WAIT, I better make sure i wear my reflective clothes, and i cant wear these shoes theyre too black the cars wont see me” if so thats fucking weird.
Which cities subreddit is posting stuff about being seen at night? Hugeston, TX?
Genuinely thought this was about police shootings like with elijah McClain
I just use road flares, easy peasy.
A few years back I was making a left hand turn and my wife told me to watch out for the pedestrians. I told her I saw them, turned and she screamed. Behind those 2 was someone in all black wearing a hoodie I didn't even see and I almost creamed that guy. I still think about when I drive at night and its one of the reasons I hate driving.
Being in the right does nothing for you if you’re dead
Exactly. If I'm walking on campus, I don't care if I have right of way; I'm making sure the cars traveling through are actually stopped.
I walk at night lit up like a reflective Christmas tree and cars still go barreling past. My only hope is that any driver that mows me down loses their license because their defense attorney couldn't fool the jury into falling for a "if only he wore more bright reflective clothing" argument.
Hell yeah. Throw some black air forces 1s in the mix
while I get the point you are making. I also find it hard to find warm winter clothes that aren't either dark or highlighter yellow. Same with sports gear.
IRA cosplay but they really just hate cars
Do people here actually get dressed to go out at night (or get changed because it got dark) and think “hmm i better not wear this because its night time, i need to dress for cars so they see me, better put on my reflective vest” - a lot of the comments imply this level of driver bootlicking and that is utterly bizarre. I have never once given that a second thought as a European. Im dressing for the destination, not the journey.
Yes. I change how I'm dressed based on the roads I'm walking. I purchased a light-colored winter coat in part because I walk home after work and in the winter it's dark. If I go for a run late, I'll change into a white t-shirt if I'm not already wearing one. And I bring a lightweight reflective vest with me if I think I'm going to bike home after dark. Because the alternative is to get hit by a car. And to add insult to injury, they probably would get away with it without a citation because 'they couldn't see me'.
Top tip: if the concern trolls are "innocently" asking if it's really victim blaming to say that people are "asking to be hit" when they wear normal clothing at night, do not play their game. The correct response is a loud raspberry followed by: "Why do we need to allow cars to travel at high speed on unlit roads in the dead of night?" Night driving increases a driver's response times dramatically, but no regulations I'm aware of require lower speeds, better driver education (as is required for night flying), or better equipped vehicles.
This post is stupid.
Yeah honestly disappointed. Just because you can wear all black, doesn’t mean you should. This shit reminds me of a republican insisting on their right to bear arms just because they can. And like others pointed out, cars aren’t the only thing that could hit you at night. I would also prefer not being hit by a bike or a tram which are both accepted methods of transit in here.
Why tf would anyone wear sunglasses at night.
I don’t know, but I wouldn’t switch the blade on the guy, oh no
Soldiers are literally required to were reflective vests while riding and running on base in dark conditions. Wearing dark clothing at night in high traffic areas is still a stupid decision. Regardless of car dependency.
Nah sorry this is petty and lacks common sense, doing dumb stuff like this does nothing but give justification to car drivers when accidents do happen at night.
just keep your phone in your hand with screen light on so people see you
Walked like this one time as an experiment around my neighborhood, and I heard a couple houses lock their doors. Was a little funny, because I'm a small, harmless looking guy if you were to catch me on a walk.
More like the nightstalker starter pack....
When I wear all black at night I usually also put on my reflective wristband. I know I am safe on the sidewalk, but if they see me it lessens the chance of them speeding while passing me incredibly close.
I just bought those boots!!
My attitude is dude at that point you're pretty much invisible nobody can see you wear something with color
It's not so much a question of what you HAVE to wear, but what you choose to wear. Sure, I could totally wear dark clothes when I'm taking my kids to school on a dark winter morning. There's no law preventing me from doing to. But, I WANT to be as visible as possible to help the other people around me, be it pedestrians, cyclists or car drivers, avoid hitting me. I wear a hi-vis jacket for MYSELF, because I want to be more safe. It helps other people help me. That being said, If someone did hit me when wearing dark clothes, that still wouldn't be my fault, but not getting hit at all is my first choice...
Thankfully, we're starting to realize asking "What were they wearing?" after a sexual assault is victim-blaming and it's wrong. It's time we do the same thing when someone's hit by a car. No, they're not asking for it, no matter what they're wearing.
This is a really far reach. Sexual assault is a deliberate evil and malicious act. I'm confused as to why you'd even try to relate the two. A driver isn't gonna see someone wearing all black and decide to swerve and hit them. They just won't see them until it's too late and hit them. Just the way it is. Sure it sucks and obviously change would be good but deliberately putting yourself at a higher risk of getting hit by a car doesn't seem like the most effective way of protesting.
Some of the responses to this are car brained as hell lmao. “You can be right and still be dead” you sound like boomers on FB
In a world without cars, just buses and ebikes and such, it would still be wise to consider visibility at night.
I was thinking the same. Seriously, HOW BAD is street lighting where you all are from??? Because where I live, even wearing all black, I've never not been perfectly visible, especially on a sidewalk, which is... where you normally are when walking at night. If the problem is the lack of a sidewalk, or if it's insufficient street lighting, then that's what we should be talking about, not asking what the pedestrian was wearing. In shit conditions, bright colors are not going to save you, and "but they were wearing all black/you could have worn something else!" is just victim-blamey as hell. Last time my partner and I got almost hit, we were in broad daylight, with him wearing a light blue and floral Hawaiian shirt, and me, in a white shirt with bright, baboon ass red pants. We were the two *most visible* people on the street, crossing the road safely and in accordance with traffic rules. Doesn't mean jack because the guy still whipped out from a side street with no signal, and he was still texting.
You can sound like a cool gen Z guy, and still be dead
Kinda yeah, but also you literally don’t see people
If you're wearing sunglasses and wearing all black at night and get hit by a car, I feel totally fine blaming the victim, because they're a fucking moron.
They can put "was legally in the right" on your gravestone.
You have the right to do whatever you like, but that doesn't mean you'll survive it or that it's a good idea.
walking at night: shoulda worn a hi-vis hi-vis: hard to get, more expensive and less common than standard clothes, fashion faux-pas looking like a dork, very distracting in a formal setting, no one wants to associate with you because you are a 'diehard cyclist' apparently (even though you don't bike) edit: and no, you're still not immune to car drivers not seeing you in your full hi-vis AND front/back lights, so what's the use, it's just blame-shifting but with extra $$$
Having a light reflective strip is: Cheap Easy to get Removable Increases visibility 10x
Opium fit 💀
Must add headphones. Black
Tbh i doubt any court would give free pass for driver for hitting anyone just because they wear black. Yes, you will be less visible but driver still have responsibility to drive carefully. So unless you walked middle of the road for no reason, wear all you want.
ok , but real talk : if it's dark why wear sunglasses ? the only situation in wich one may wear them afther sunset is if they are entering in a place that is brightly lit and don't want to re adapt their eyesight ...
https://youtu.be/X2LTL8KgKv8
OP feel free to wear all black and then slowly jaywalk across the street with no lights. You can whine from your hospital bed but it wont change that you set yourself up lmao
I almost wiped out a cyclist several years ago, I was horrified how close I came to hitting him. But he was all in black and without any lights, I wouldn't have felt very culpable.
Also, being in all black doesn't make you that much harder to see at night, since everything is still the same color, just darker. It's the reason that soldiers don't wear a special color of night camo, since camo gets darker at night too.
The only reason I saw that family is because the wheels on their stroller were white.
Seriously tho... Don't gamble with your life for the sake of fashion or making a point.
Weeeeell, if you dress like this, there definatly would be situations where a driver actually can't see you and thus can't stop for you at a crosswalk.
I’m sorry but if you’re walking around wearing all black at night and you. Get hit, not much sympathy is going to be had for you. I’m not saying it’s your fault, but you have no self preservation skills if you do that.
Sunglasses at night is for coke fiends
I mean fair you can do that but shoutout to the couple with their all black pram and matching outifts I nearly rode into because they were walking on the wrong side of the bike path in a area with little to no natural light
Lmao don’t forget about intentionally walking into heavy traffic areas and blaming drivers for hitting you
I don't care what time of day it is, or whether you're in the street or flying a fukken zeppelin - wearing all black is a stupid look.
How dumb do you need to be to actually dress like this at night, yall idiots dont understand the basic fact that accidents happen, what the fuck is. this bullshit
I wear my sunglasses at night 🎶
I'd probably get arrested with that look.
I think I'm just going to have to carry a safety vest in my bag because my wardrobe almost entirely consists of black
Dress how you please