Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Volvo Trucks launches 'See And Be Seen' road safety campaign aimed at cyclists

Presentation aimed at children perhaps ambiguously lists ‘reflexes’ as one of the countermeasures in the cyclist’s armoury

Volvo Trucks has launched a new traffic safety campaign entitled ‘See and Be Seen’. The firm says the initiative is intended to improve safety awareness among cyclists and other vulnerable road-users.

HGVUK.com reports that the firm already runs a traffic-safety training programme for young children, called Stop Look Wave. See and Be Seen is said to be an extension of this.

Carl Johan Almqvist, Traffic and Product Safety Director at Volvo Trucks, commented:

“Just like with ‘Stop Look Wave’, the ‘See and Be Seen’ programme aims to improve understanding of how unprotected road-users and trucks can interact in the traffic environment. However, this time we are focusing specifically on cyclists, teenagers and adults alike. With the fast pace of today’s traffic, it is vital that as many people as possible are aware of the risks in order to avoid incidents.”

Perhaps aware that such a campaign might lead people to accuse the firm of victim-blaming, Almqvist was keen to draw attention to Volvo’s other efforts. “In order to reduce the risk of traffic accidents, we equip our trucks with increasingly intelligent safety systems and train truck drivers in the art of safe driving. However, since the human factor is of crucial significance in most traffic accidents, it is vital to increase safety awareness among all road-users.”

The central pillar of the initiative is a presentation aimed at schoolchildren from 12 years upwards. It aims to create awareness off the restricted view from inside a cab and then makes recommendations for cyclists.

We were slightly taken aback by the recommendation that a cyclist should use ‘reflexes’ to protect themselves - but judging by the context, Volvo appear to be using the word in the sense of something with a reflective quality.

“First of all, it’s a good idea to use reflexes, strong colours and clothes with high contrast. Naturally, you should always use a helmet – if the helmet has a bright colour, it increases your visibility, but most of all it’s about protecting you, should an accident occur.

“Always use bicycle lights, both front and rear, after dark or when visibility is poor. Avoid riding up the inside of large vehicles, like trucks or buses, where you might not be seen.

“Signal to show other road users what you are about to do. It’s important to be clear and determined about your intentions – if you hesitate or send out mixed signals, other road users may get confused, which can lead to potentially dangerous situations. And finally, make eye contact with drivers so you know they have seen you. Don’t forget to take advantage of the truck’s mirrors.” 

Last year, Volvo drew criticism from some cycle campaigners for offering cyclists Life Paint, a transparent paint which illuminates the wearer by reflecting light back to its source.

Many felt the company was attempting to shift the onus for preventing collisions onto cyclists and accused it of victim blaming.

In 2014, Volvo played a part in delaying a European Union law which will allow safer trucks. They and France’s Renault said the introduction of new cab sizes should be delayed to allow more time to develop new vehicles and the legislation will now not come into effect until 2019.

More recently, the firm has unveiled its new pedestrian and cyclist detection system for buses, part of its promise to introduce death-proof cars and vehicles by the year 2020.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

40 comments

Avatar
ClubSmed | 7 years ago
2 likes

I have to agree with 700c
I'm taking the glass half full position that it is good that Volvo is taking the time and spending the money to try and help make people safer.
Looking at it the other way is a bit like asking why we are wasting money on the police force when we should just spend the money removing the causes of crime. It's not a perfect world so it's not going to happen.
I won't stop aiming for perfection but that doesn't mean that I am going to shout down anything that isn't perfect so long as it isn't moving us backwards.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 7 years ago
0 likes

I actually cycle at a speed where I can see enough of what is on the path in front of me and react accordingly if they are stationary or going at a normal walking speed. The issue is with joggers and dogs off the lead, especially when they are running onto the path from the side rather than along the path. The only way I could go slow enough to see them is if I dismounted and pushed my bike the whole way, and I am not sure that I should have to do this on a national cycle route.

I suppose technically the dogs should be on a lead as it is a "path shared with cyclists" (as per the Highway Code rule 56). They are not however, and I'm not sure I agree that they should be, but they should at least have an LED or reflective collar so they are easier to spot and negotiate.

I also have issues with cyclists who go through the park after sunset without lights or reflective materials on just as much as the cyclists who go through with lights with the power of a dwarf star that blind me. It seems it is a fine balance

Avatar
Darkhairedlord | 7 years ago
4 likes

Dear cycling scum, 

We have designed our trucks with poor visibility from the cab. We could design safe trucks but it's not our cutomers getting killed. We could recommend a return of the Drivers Mate but again, we don't want this to impact our customers costs. 
So, in the meantime put a hat on and use our reflective paint.

Avatar
700c | 7 years ago
2 likes

Nobody sticking up for this campaign in these comments is denying that manufacturers (and, most importantly, drivers), have a responsibility for safety. Especially around vulnerable road users.

Cyclists and pedestrians, as road users, have a responsibility for their own safety too.

These two things are not mutually exclusive; they can both be true. I don't know why so many people believe they are; when they dismiss things as 'victim blaming' when they are not . It polarizes debate rather than furthering it.. but then I've been on here for many years and plus ca change, so not sure why I bother really.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to 700c | 7 years ago
1 like
700c wrote:

Nobody sticking up for this campaign in these comments is denying that manufacturers (and, most importantly, drivers), have a responsibility for safety. Especially around vulnerable road users.

Cyclists and pedestrians, as road users, have a responsibility for their own safety too.

These two things are not mutually exclusive; they can both be true. I don't know why so many people believe they are; when they dismiss things as 'victim blaming' when they are not . It polarizes debate rather than furthering it.. but then I've been on here for many years and plus ca change, so not sure why I bother really.

But do you honestly not see the problem with such a campaign coming from the very company that blocked attempts to address the problem at the end that it needs to be addressed?

And I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

We just fundamentally disagree, I guess. Irritating that it seems impossible to find common ground.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote=700c wrote:

 I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

I cycle through an unlit park on my commute and due to the current sunset time it can be very hard to see. A major problem that I have is that pedestrians (mainly dog walkers and joggers) go through this park and it is very hard to see them until I am practically on top of them. It would be so much easier to see them if they wore some hi-vis reflective material and vastly reduce the chances of me running into them. By your assertion however, it is down to me to get more powerful lights to see far and wide enough in front, but this would render others temporarily blind and cause further issues. So because of my experience in this element I am not sure that I agree with your "the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem" stance.

Avatar
davel replied to ClubSmed | 7 years ago
1 like

ClubSmed]</p>

<p>[quote=FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

700c wrote:

 I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

I cycle through an unlit park on my commute and due to the current sunset time it can be very hard to see. A major problem that I have is that pedestrians (mainly dog walkers and joggers) go through this park and it is very hard to see them until I am practically on top of them. It would be so much easier to see them if they wore some hi-vis reflective material and vastly reduce the chances of me running into them. By your assertion however, it is down to me to get more powerful lights to see far and wide enough in front, but this would render others temporarily blind and cause further issues. So because of my experience in this element I am not sure that I agree with your "the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem" stance.

This sounds like you're almost running into people (and other things) because you're going too fast for the conditions. Not rocket (or even reflectives) science, is it?

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to ClubSmed | 7 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed]<p>[quote=FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
700c wrote:

 I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

I cycle through an unlit park on my commute and due to the current sunset time it can be very hard to see. A major problem that I have is that pedestrians (mainly dog walkers and joggers) go through this park and it is very hard to see them until I am practically on top of them. It would be so much easier to see them if they wore some hi-vis reflective material and vastly reduce the chances of me running into them. By your assertion however, it is down to me to get more powerful lights to see far and wide enough in front, but this would render others temporarily blind and cause further issues. So because of my experience in this element I am not sure that I agree with your "the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem" stance.

As is the mantra of many contributors on this discussion forum when it comes to hi viz, reflectives and lights. It is the responsibility of the vehicle operator to drive within the limits of vision and to moderate speed accordingly.

Yes it really would be sensible for Mr Dog Walker to put a flashing LED on the vicious little brute keep it under control on a short lead and wear something hi viz / reflective themselves. Runners likewise (especially the short lead). But if you cannot see an unlit dog then you also cannot see an unlit muntjack or a branch fallen on the path or the broken glass the oiks left behind etc.

Seems really unfair that on the road we are expected to make ourselves more conspicuous and in the park we are expected to do the slowing down and accomodating other park users and their individual ninja foolishness. However the reality is that Mutley has a rather good chance of taking you out if you hit him whereas Mr Volvo Truck Driver is barely likely to register the wheels going over a cyclist.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to ClubSmed | 7 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed]<p>[quote=FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
700c wrote:

 I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

I cycle through an unlit park on my commute and due to the current sunset time it can be very hard to see. A major problem that I have is that pedestrians (mainly dog walkers and joggers) go through this park and it is very hard to see them until I am practically on top of them. It would be so much easier to see them if they wore some hi-vis reflective material and vastly reduce the chances of me running into them. By your assertion however, it is down to me to get more powerful lights to see far and wide enough in front, but this would render others temporarily blind and cause further issues. So because of my experience in this element I am not sure that I agree with your "the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem" stance.

Again I disagree. I sometimes cycle and sometimes walk through a particular park. Often after dark. When cycling I entirely accept its my responsibility to avoid peds, so I go slowly and have lights. Granted, I do get irked at the dog walkers who can't control their dogs, and in the dog case I find it helpful that many now have little LEDs on their collars. But humans are a lot easier to see than dogs (especially the rodent-sized ones).

Whan walking I have on occasion gotten into rows with idiot fast cyclists who don't seem to realise that its _their_ job to look where they are going and to go slowly, rather than it being my job to jump out of their way, still less to wear high-viz (as a pedestrian in a park? You can't be serious?).

If you want to go fast on the bike, get off the shared path and use the road.

Edit - and in the case of the shared path, ultimately the responsibility is down to the authorities who expect cyclists and pedestrians to share the same space.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Whan walking I have on occasion gotten into rows with idiot fast cyclists who don't seem to realise that its _their_ job to look where they are going and to go slowly, rather than it being my job to jump out of their way, still less to wear high-viz (as a pedestrian in a park? You can't be serious?). If you want to go fast on the bike, get off the shared path and use the road.

Sorry for the confusion here, I was refering to joggers (who are pedestrians). I do go slow enough to spot walkers as it is my responsability to do so, I cannot go slow enough to spot ninja joggers and dogs not on leads though unless they are making an effort to be visible with reflective materials or LEDs

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to ClubSmed | 7 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Whan walking I have on occasion gotten into rows with idiot fast cyclists who don't seem to realise that its _their_ job to look where they are going and to go slowly, rather than it being my job to jump out of their way, still less to wear high-viz (as a pedestrian in a park? You can't be serious?). If you want to go fast on the bike, get off the shared path and use the road.

Sorry for the confusion here, I was refering to joggers (who are pedestrians). I do go slow enough to spot walkers as it is my responsability to do so, I cannot go slow enough to spot ninja joggers and dogs not on leads though unless they are making an effort to be visible with reflective materials or LEDs

In fairness, joggers seem rare round here. Blood-thirsty hell-hounds, however...
(though their huge sharp teeth are quite reflective).

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Whan walking I have on occasion gotten into rows with idiot fast cyclists who don't seem to realise that its _their_ job to look where they are going and to go slowly, rather than it being my job to jump out of their way, still less to wear high-viz (as a pedestrian in a park? You can't be serious?). If you want to go fast on the bike, get off the shared path and use the road.

Sorry for the confusion here, I was refering to joggers (who are pedestrians). I do go slow enough to spot walkers as it is my responsability to do so, I cannot go slow enough to spot ninja joggers and dogs not on leads though unless they are making an effort to be visible with reflective materials or LEDs

In fairness, joggers seem rare round here. Blood-thirsty hell-hounds, however... (though their huge sharp teeth are quite reflective).

that's Tindalos for you!

Avatar
davel replied to 700c | 7 years ago
1 like
700c wrote:

Nobody sticking up for this campaign in these comments is denying that manufacturers (and, most importantly, drivers), have a responsibility for safety. Especially around vulnerable road users.

Cyclists and pedestrians, as road users, have a responsibility for their own safety too.

I agree that it isn't binary.

I think the frustration is with the *perception* of disparity - at least mine is. I'm not sure whether a metastudy exists that takes a proper 'responsibility' overview, but having a general awareness of RoSPA and government stats, and doing a rough metacalc... I'm going to have a punt at drivers being to 'blame' for 70-80% of cyclist and ped KSIs.

So I'd expect roughly 2-4 times the effort put into initiatives like this to target drivers... IF my 'stats' are accurate and IF the initiatives actually want to stop peds and cyclists getting squashed and not just get some free PR or something equally cynical.

When it feels like it's the reverse, I'm proportionately pissed off, and my target is the inaccurate aim of these initiatives, not my 'stats', because of course I trust them...ish.

Avatar
700c replied to davel | 7 years ago
2 likes

davel wrote:
700c wrote:

Nobody sticking up for this campaign in these comments is denying that manufacturers (and, most importantly, drivers), have a responsibility for safety. Especially around vulnerable road users.

Cyclists and pedestrians, as road users, have a responsibility for their own safety too.

I agree that it isn't binary. I think the frustration is with the *perception* of disparity - at least mine is. I'm not sure whether a metastudy exists that takes a proper 'responsibility' overview, but having a general awareness of RoSPA and government stats, and doing a rough metacalc... I'm going to have a punt at drivers being to 'blame' for 70-80% of cyclist and ped KSIs. So I'd expect roughly 2-4 times the effort put into initiatives like this to target drivers... IF my 'stats' are accurate and IF the initiatives actually want to stop peds and cyclists getting squashed and not just get some free PR or something equally cynical. When it feels like it's the reverse, I'm proportionately pissed off, and my target is the inaccurate aim of these initiatives, not my 'stats', because of course I trust them...ish.

 

I think you're right - users of the deadly machinery bear far more responsibility for safety than the pedestrian or cyclist. Not to mention the government too with regards to infrastructure. Those who want an actual example of 'victim blaming' however, should refer to the story on here where the coroner speculates that lack of helmet and use of headphones contributed to a cyclists' death on a roundabout - when the facts were far from clear. 

I agree car manufacturers bear responsibility too. I'm not quite sure of the background of volvo opposing reforms to cabs  - but let's face it, UK government/ the EU / all European vehicle manufacturers, as big business, collude over all reforms that cost money e.g. issues like emissions and vehicle safety - motor industry lobbying power is too great.

Volvo are one of the better manufacturers with regards to advancing safety through technology - doing this but at the same time opposing reforms to cabs in 2014 and since, but they still are a corporation chasing profits. Does that mean anything they do with regards to safety (e.g. pedestrian/ cyclist detection systems,  blind spot warning systems, pedestrian airbags, auto braking, driver training, community education etc) is 'victim blaming'? er... no! Simply criticising any initiative for safety because the world is not perfect is hardly going to help. 

I get the hypocrisy here - I pointed it out, but it could apply to any manufaturer or government trying to improve safety whilst people are still dying on the road. The logical extension to the arguments that some are making on here is 'why bother trying to improve safety at all as you are a hypocritical corporation'.

To those I would suggest you are not being pragmatic or living in the real world.

 

Avatar
congokid | 7 years ago
1 like

And in another 'Be safe, be seen' campaign, Specsavers in Redditch has issued local kids coming in for eye-tests with free hi-vis vests to help reduce the 'shocking' numbers of road casualties that happen at this time of the year. 'Poor driver vision leads to 55 casualties per week costing £33 million', the store manager said. So the solution is to make kids who might need glasses wear stuff that drivers can't see.

Apparently this counts as 'road safety education'.

Avatar
FatBoyW | 7 years ago
1 like

The point does seem to be investment, pending millions on making cars and trucks that drive themselves why not spend a few quid on making them so they detect when say you are going to left hook an obstacle and stop the vehicle doing it?

automatic speed limit detection and use in cruise, loads of emergency brake assist to stop you hitting another big bit of metal, nothing to stop you hitting vulnerable road users or street furniture on the side, surely a simple parking sensor arrangement on the side of trucks would do it?

why delay the safer trucks? Because they can't see the investment generating more sales or increased value maybe?  of all the points in the article this last one makes Volvo abhorrent and detestable in my eyes especially when they have used safety as a marketing tag so much over the years.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
5 likes

I'm not against advice on suitable cycle clothing and cycle lighting regulations per se, but I can get it from a number of authoritative sources including the Highway Code. I'm not against the advice on recognising the extreme danger of finding yourself on the inside of a truck at a junction or the need to signal clearly and making eye contact with drivers. I think it is an excellent idea to educate, especially younger cyclists, about the specific hazards that large vehicles represent and their inherent design flaws that create blind spots from the driver seat. I'd be more than happy for Volvo Trucks to sponsor independent cycle training and safety initiatives.

What I would appreciate even more is the safety representative of a major truck producer focusing specifically on what they are doing to make their vehicles safer and more suitable for use in mixed traffic environments and how they are supporting or even lobbying for improved safety standards despite objections from their own customers in the road haulage industry.

Avatar
deborah | 7 years ago
1 like

Excellent campaign.  I wear a reflective vest, yellow helmet, bright jacket, lights front and back and on my helmet. If I want to arrive alive, I have to take precautions.  Stop complaining about victim blaming and take responsibility for your own safety.  I'm shocked with what I see cyclists do- coming up beside cars, trucks and buses, riding the wrong way down a one way street, weaving in and out of cars.  You want respect on the road, you have to earn it.

Avatar
davel replied to deborah | 7 years ago
10 likes
deborah wrote:

Excellent campaign.  I wear a reflective vest, yellow helmet, bright jacket, lights front and back and on my helmet. If I want to arrive alive, I have to take precautions.  Stop complaining about victim blaming and take responsibility for your own safety.

Yeah. Except a simple Google will tell you that driver/cyclist collisions that are caused by one/both parties not looking properly are more likely to be the fault of the driver. If you were looking properly you'd have seen those figures on this very thread.

You can light yourself up like Blackpool and dress in bubble wrap. Not much use if drivers just aren't looking - which means this whole argument is of much lower importance than making drivers hit cyclists less.

And that's the 'victim blaming' point. Nobody making it is advocating passing up responsibility for your actions. The point is that taking responsibility and riding sensibly is less of a factor in cyclist KSIs than matters completely out of cyclists' control - ie. the behaviour of drivers.

So there's good reason to be skeptical when a truck company, previously involved in stalling moves to make trucks safer for more vulnerable road users, puts the onus on those vulnerable users to 'be safe'.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to deborah | 7 years ago
4 likes

deborah wrote:

Excellent campaign.  I wear a reflective vest, yellow helmet, bright jacket, lights front and back and on my helmet. If I want to arrive alive, I have to take precautions.  Stop complaining about victim blaming and take responsibility for your own safety.

All dandy and wonderful, but it's not as if the rest of us mooch about unlit in the blackest clothing we can find. I'm perfectly happy to take precautions, but I can also understand that one moment of aggression, inattention or utter stupidity by the motorist can render all that pointless, and so I'd prefer to see the onus placed where it properly belongs.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to deborah | 7 years ago
4 likes
deborah wrote:

Excellent campaign.  I wear a reflective vest, yellow helmet, bright jacket, lights front and back and on my helmet. If I want to arrive alive, I have to take precautions.  Stop complaining about victim blaming and take responsibility for your own safety.  I'm shocked with what I see cyclists do- coming up beside cars, trucks and buses, riding the wrong way down a one way street, weaving in and out of cars.  You want respect on the road, you have to earn it.

Asking people to 'take responsibility' for something that isn't under their control _is_ victim blaming.
And bog off with your collective group-responsibility bollocks. I keep trying to be polite but really, you are talking offensive rubbish. Learn to use logic and reason.

Avatar
Roberts Clubman | 7 years ago
4 likes

The "See" bit is Ok. I'd use the word "Look!" The problem is the "be seen" bit. London Transport ran a "be safe, be seen" campaign last year. You can't "be seen"-You don't have it within your control. You can only be visible. Only the viewer can do the seeing. And it's more than an arcane point. ROSPA stats show that nearly 3/4 of collisions involving cyclists and vehicles are due to  not looking - 57% drivers fault and 43% cyclists fault. So, VOLVO and others responsible for road safety should adopt a "Look out there's a cyclist/driver about" campaign a bit like the motorbike posters if they want to address the facts ( yes I know, facts are soooo last year) . In any event, 80% of collisions involving cyclists happen in broad daylight (ROSPA again). Cyclists wearing dark clothing is a factor in only 6% of accidents. So, VOLVO, play the percentages and don't fixate on the wrong issues.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Roberts Clubman | 7 years ago
0 likes
Roberts Clubman wrote:

The "See" bit is Ok. I'd use the word "Look!" The problem is the "be seen" bit. London Transport ran a "be safe, be seen" campaign last year. You can't "be seen"-You don't have it within your control. You can only be visible. Only the viewer can do the seeing. And it's more than an arcane point. ROSPA stats show that nearly 3/4 of collisions involving cyclists and vehicles are due to  not looking - 57% drivers fault and 43% cyclists fault. So, VOLVO and others responsible for road safety should adopt a "Look out there's a cyclist/driver about" campaign a bit like the motorbike posters if they want to address the facts ( yes I know, facts are soooo last year) . In any event, 80% of collisions involving cyclists happen in broad daylight (ROSPA again). Cyclists wearing dark clothing is a factor in only 6% of accidents. So, VOLVO, play the percentages and don't fixate on the wrong issues.

I did think of getting some stickers and covering up the 'be..' and the '...n' bit on those posters. 'be safe...see' would be a more defensible slogan. Though ideally it should be aimed at _all_ road users (though, hmmm, maybe unfair on sight-impaired pedestrians)

Avatar
congokid | 7 years ago
6 likes

Just like Northumberland Borough Council recently did with its 'Be safe, be seen' reflective stickers (sponsored by a funeral company, no less. How appropriate), Volvo is again firmly placing the onus for their safety on the potential victims of road danger, this time it's kids on bikes who are expected to mitigate the danger posed by others.

Northumberland council can't be bothered to make its roads safe and remove road danger for the most vulnerable of road users. Neither is Volvo bothered to make its vehicles safer to protect vulnerable road users.

Driver experience and comfort is everything, everyone else wear a useless bit of reflective hi-vis.

Avatar
Beecho replied to congokid | 7 years ago
2 likes

congokid wrote:

Northumberland council can't be bothered to make its roads safe and remove road danger for the most vulnerable of road users. Neither is Volvo bothered to make its vehicles safer to protect vulnerable road users.

I thought every crash involving a Volvo resulted in an explosion of daisies and rainbows.

Avatar
700c | 7 years ago
1 like

I agree with what they're trying to do here and with what they're saying. (Well, perhaps perhaps the helmet bit is controversial). Their USP is safety so perhaps it is hypocritical, given efforts a few years back to apparently delay the introduction of safer cabs; that decision sounds like the $ taking precedence over safety to me. Nevertheless they have usually led on innovations in safety technology.

As for the 'victim blaming', no I don't think this is - it's a bit of a stretch to justify it by linking it back to a policy or action from several years ago. And the internet lynch mob on Frank H in these comments - well that's depressingly predictable. To some I would say, if you're that intolerant of other people's views, perhaps an internet forum isn't the best place for you?

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to 700c | 7 years ago
6 likes
700c wrote:

And the internet lynch mob on Frank H in these comments - well that's depressingly predictable. To some I would say, if you're that intolerant of other people's views, perhaps an internet forum isn't the best place for you?

Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense as a criticism, because you could have said exactly the same thing about Frank H's attempt at a snarky go at Gus T's comment in the first place!

Why is he allowed to express disagreement (in a snarky, and in my opinion, slightly point-missing) way, but then nobody else is allowed to disagree with him in turn?

Heck, I could say the same about your comment - why are you being intolerant of the views of those of us you accuse of being intolerant about Frank H's views, eh?

But feel free to suggest I'm being intolerant of your being intolerant of others being intolerant of his being intolerant of Gus T being intolerant of Volvo being annoying.

Avatar
FrankH replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 7 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense as a criticism, because you could have said exactly the same thing about Frank H's attempt at a snarky go at Gus T's comment in the first place! Why is he allowed to express disagreement (in a snarky, and in my opinion, slightly point-missing) way, but then nobody else is allowed to disagree with him in turn?

Maybe you could explain why you think Gus T's snarky, missing the point comment about Volvo should get a free pass and my snarky comment in reply shouldn't.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to FrankH | 7 years ago
3 likes
FrankH wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense as a criticism, because you could have said exactly the same thing about Frank H's attempt at a snarky go at Gus T's comment in the first place! Why is he allowed to express disagreement (in a snarky, and in my opinion, slightly point-missing) way, but then nobody else is allowed to disagree with him in turn?

Maybe you could explain why you think Gus T's snarky, missing the point comment about Volvo should get a free pass and my snarky comment in reply shouldn't.

Ah, but I didn't say it did, did I? I didn't say you couldn't disagree with him, or that it was unacceptable intolerance for you to do so, I merely disagreed with your argument for disagreeing with him.

Plus I explained why your comment missed the point, you don't seem to have done the same in relation to the OP, you've just asserted it without an argument.

I admit 'what a w4nk3r' wouldn't have been my choice of words for criticising Volvo's campaign. I concede that much.

Avatar
ConcordeCX | 7 years ago
9 likes

"With the fast pace of today’s traffic, it is vital that as many people as possible are aware of the risks in order to avoid incidents.”

perhaps they could slow down a bit

Pages

Latest Comments