Transport for London (TfL) has paused its highly criticised See your Side advertising campaign following a backlash which saw it accused of “victim-blaming” and promoting a “false equivalence” among road users.
> Transport for London slammed for “victim-blaming” road safety ad (+ video)
Confirmation that the campaign, devised by agency VCCP London and launched during last month’s Road Safety Week, has been put on hold to enable reaction to it to be considered was made this morning by Will Norman, London’s Cycling and Walking Commissioner, in a post on Twitter.
He wrote: “I know there has been a lot of concern raised about the ‘see their side’ advert. The campaign has been paused to consider the feedback that has been received. City Hall and TfL remain committed to improving the road culture in London and reducing road danger.”
I know there has been a lot of concern raised about the ‘see their side’ advert. The campaign has been paused to consider the feedback that has been received. City Hall and TfL remain committed to improving the road culture in London and reducing road danger.
— Will Norman (@willnorman) December 1, 2021
According to agency VCCP London, the integrated campaign, including the advert which has now been removed from YouTube, “directly tackles the tribal culture which currently dominates London’s roads.”
However, it was widely condemned on social media for promoting the idea that all road users have equal responsibility for each other’s safety. It was launched at a time when forthcoming changes to the Highway Code will see a hierarchy of road users in the UK; this means that drivers of larger vehicles will be deemed to have greater responsibility for the safety of those who are more vulnerable than them.
Among those who had asked for TfL to withdraw the campaign were Talia Hussain and Jo Rigby. In a video posted to Twitter yesterday, both outlined why they believed that far from making London’s roads safer for cyclists, the ad would instead make them more dangerous.
As a long-standing campaigner for safe and inclusive cycling, I’m asking @TfL again – on behalf of women who cycle and those who are too scared to cycle – *see our side* and take down your ad https://t.co/e00iKBvqVy
— Talia Hussain (@Talia_inReality) November 30, 2021
Responding to Norman’s tweet this morning, Rigby – a Labour councillor in Conservative-controlled Wandsworth, and her party’s active travel and transport speaker for the borough, said: “Thank you for listening Will. We want this campaign to work and we are here to input ways to adapt it so it is not wasted content.”
Thank you for listening Will. We want this campaign to work and we are here to input ways to adapt it so it is not wasted content.
— Jo Rigby (@Jo_Earlsfield) December 1, 2021
Transport journalist and author Carlton Reid also welcomed TfL’s decision, although he said that the campaign should be scrapped altogether.
This is good, Will. Binned would be the more appropriate action, though, and I’m sure that will be the eventual conclusion. Also needs to be a transparent debrief to see how such awful messaging was allowed in first place.
— Carlton Reid (@carltonreid) December 1, 2021
Like Reid, former Haringey councillor Clive Carter said that lessons needed to be learned from the debacle.
? WILL, I’m glad to hear that and trust that “paused” soon becomes pulled. Perversely, such a car-centric viewpoint may have had an opposite effect intended. @tfl needs to learn lessons from this mistaken PR campaign, such as checking by persons competent in the area discussed.
— Clive Carter (@Clive_Carter) December 1, 2021
A detailed critique of the campaign was also provided on Twitter at the weekend in a lengthy thread, but one well worth reading, by Mark Hodson.
A roads policing officer and driver behaviour specialist, Hodson helped pioneer West Midlands Police’s award-winning Operation Close Pass targeting motorists who overtake cyclists while giving them insufficient space, with the initiative since adopted by police forces across the UK.
Right then, I’ve held off commenting on this to give myself a decent amount of time to think about what I would have spent the budget on instead of this ?, & why if @TfL want more harmony on their roads they need to come away from asking drivers to “think” and be afraid instead https://t.co/hGIF925h5s
— Mark Hodson (@markandcharlie) November 28, 2021
67 thoughts on “Reaction as Transport for London pauses See their Side ad campaign following backlash”
Har-har!
Har-har!
Sadiq Khan will be personally
Sadiq Khan will be personally reviewing the footage shortly, just waiting for him to be chaffeur driven in an entourage of 3 cars back from his dog walk.
Meanwhile, in other news, Sadiq Khan warns the Bakerloo line might have to close because TFL have spent all their money on “See their Side” adverts.
Oh do fuck off, Boo.
Oh do fuck off, Boo.
That is all.
Don’t respond to it. Any
Don’t respond to it. Any response is secondary gain.
I do wonder how much veto
I do wonder how much veto Will Norman had over this campaign? Anyone know the working arrangement between the Mayors team and TFL.
Will should have at least known better.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
They just needed to walk outside and ask a few passing cyclists for their opinions.
I clicked on the link in Mark
I clicked on the link in Mark Hodson’s tweet and nothing happened. It seems he has taken it down? When I try to read the replies I see Mark has several posts explaining his stance. Wonder if his bosses asked him to delete it?
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
It’s been deleted, but I can still see it here
No it was VCCP who are the
No it was VCCP who are the agency behind the video who deleted their tweet promoting the video, which is what Mark was quoting and linked his replies off, they are still all there just dont have the original linkage, but either follow the link Hawkinspeter gave,or go to the retweet on neighbourhood watch in Marks timeline and it links back to the original thread.
The again Road.cc could have just screen copied them all for us…
Awavey wrote:
Especially if twitter is still considering your appeal from 11 months ago. I’m thinking of having a birthday party for it; you’re all invited. Masks mandatory, helmets not.
eburtthebike wrote:
There’s a woman in my village who is very anti mask wearing (and very publicly so). I saw her the other day carrying a cycle helmet. I was tempted to call a sheep and tell her not just to believe what the government and the BBC say but to do her own research.
Steve K wrote:
Especially if twitter is still considering your appeal from 11 months ago. I’m thinking of having a birthday party for it; you’re all invited. Masks mandatory, helmets not.
— eburtthebike There’s a woman in my village who is very anti mask wearing (and very publicly so). I saw her the other day carrying a cycle helmet. I was tempted to call a sheep and tell her not just to believe what the government and the BBC say but to do her own research.— Awavey
Can’t abide these faceless, anonymous conspiricist theorists, taking risks with their health…
Talking of which, did
Talking of which, did cyclistformerlyknownas finally go too far with his covidiocy?
ktache wrote:
I’ve lost track. There have been a parade of leftfield thinkers on here, sometimes disappearing suddenly and possibly returning under new cover. It’s like the drummers in Spinal Tap.
I was only thinking about
I was only thinking about that this morning.
I speculated he will come back as
antivaxxerswererightallalong.
Or did the mods finally work out he was cibm and btbs?
Haven’t seen that Dave Dave since he accused me and Steve k of being like antivaxxers simply for suggesting there is an argument that speed limits don’t apply to cyclists in Richmond park.
Funnily enough, within the week, the met conceded this.
Never did get a link from them to the 305mm diameter portable angle grinder using their magical search provider.
Talking of which, did
Talking of which, did cyclistformerlyknownas finally go too far with his covidiocy?
The management deleted him after I wrote that allowing such an obvious nutter to remain on the site ought to be an embarrassment.
Has his account been deleted?
Has his account been deleted? Initially they just removed his “Convid” posts again and he was still posting on other topics.
Has his account been deleted?
Has his account been deleted?
Don’t know- I don’t seem to have seen him since, but I just ignore the usual nutters
Must have been. He would have
Must have been. He would have been all over this topic.
Shame that he seemed so stuck
Shame that he seemed so stuck on the COVID thing, his cycling knowledge was top notch and he was fun in the regular helmet arguement.
And Nige, no matter how hard you try, you will never manage to hold a light to the Willo.
Always a problem when you
Always a problem when you regard the small group shouting the loudest as feedback.
I saw nothing wrong with the video but because I’m not a shouty axe to grind campaigner I forgot to give “seems ok” to me feedback.
All comments are feedback.
All comments are feedback. Your comment above is feedback.
It’s not a referendum by social media though.
The ad upset a lot of people and many have spelled out in detail why they feel this way. Just because a group is shouting about something doesn’t mean they have an axe to grind as you assume. Have you considered they might have a genuine and valid issue with this campaign?
You don’t see their side?
nicmason wrote:
To sum up what was wrong with the video in nice simple terms… It deals with the aftermath of an incident but does nothing to address the cause of the incident.
To give you an analogy, the advert is the equivalent of the Christmas Drink Driving safety campaign telling people what to do if they come accross an accident caused by a drink driver, but not coming in with the “Don’t Drink and Drive” part of the message.
TriTaxMan wrote:
More like “Drink drive accidents are really bad! People might get hurt! Sometimes people who weren’t even drinking. That’s stressful whether you’ve been run over or you’re a drunk driver. We need to think about each other! Enjoy your beer, drive safe.”
So you think Mark Hodson has
So you think Mark Hodson has an axe to grind? As a Police Officer of 20 odd years he seems to think this does nothing for the safety and asking nicely not to kill someone will not accomplish anything.
Yes and he’s welcome to his
Yes and he’s welcome to his opinion as am I
So in your opinion, what is
So in your opinion, what is his axe that he has needed grinding? Bearing in mind he didn’t knee jerk a reaction as soon as he saw it but decided to reflect a few days later.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
nicmason’s opinion on the TfL video is irrelevant (and may not even have one), he/she is just trolling.
Like old Nigel, I can only guess that they must have a really empty lives. I almost feel sorry for the poor feckers if they have nothing else to do but come here and post bollocks sole intention of annoying a few cyclists.
“nicmason’s opinion on the
“nicmason’s opinion on the TfL video is irrelevant” very open minded of you.
Sorry you old duffers lie to sip your pints round a table of old mates who agree with every word each of you say.
nicmason wrote:
You demonstrated my point – you are merely trolling. You have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.
Instead of acting like a turd that won’t flush, why not try constructing a sentence (or a few) that communicates something vaguely useful and relevant to the topic?
I think I’ve made my point
I think I’ve made my point quite clearly.
The video is an attempt to humanise both sides . See each other as people not as just groups of motorists or cyclists.
I see the point about who is the victim etc but that doesnt IMO devalue the video.
nicmason wrote:
People understand you’re not here for pats on the back but from previous posts I think they genuinely disagree with your point. As do I.
The value of the video:
Say you’re right. Suppose – despite lots of people who cycle and some who don’t saying this is pish – suppose that today everyone suddenly “gets it”. The video achieved its purpose. What actually changes?
he’s quite welcome to have
he’s quite welcome to have his opinion. the axe being ground here by other is the all motorists bad all cyclists good
nicmason wrote:
I think the video is dangerous rubbish. I cycle and I drive. So how does that work?
Just a false premise from the
Just a false premise from the resident contrarian.
thats fine. You’re welcome to
thats fine. You’re welcome to you opinon. others have other opinions.
nicmason wrote:
Nic, you do seem to have an axe to grind.
Nobody’s making that point, as is bleeding obvious cos most cyclists, and the posters here are no exception, are also motorists.
Frankly, against the backdrop of the best part of 2000 deaths a year and 25k serious injuries, the insistence on #notalldrivers seems at best a distraction.
If you ever do a driver
If you ever do a driver awareness course (I have) one of the areas they cover is reacting to other drivers as people rather than hostile objects . this video is attempting to cover the same ground.
nicmason wrote:
That’s all good – and needed. Stop drivers getting angry at each other, realise there’s a person in the box. Sensible. What’s that got to do with cyclists and pedestrians though? This video seems to think that’s related somehow – but lots of people can’t see it.
nicmason wrote:
Doesn’t really address my post I’m afraid.
Yoru accusation;
is just a strawman. Nobody here is actually saying this.
Ultimately those operating heavy machinery in a negligent or incompetent manner need to understand that they are risking maiming and killing people, whilst, intentionally or not, actually intimidating and bullying members of teh general public.
This makes no reference to those driving responsibly – empathy abound there, merry chats, cheerful waves at traffic lights etc etc.
Trying to get the victim of negligence to find empathy with their assailant, especially in the heat of the moment is ludicrous.
And what does it solve? Cross words (to me at least) is nowhere near as pressing an issue as blood on the road. And guess what, that blood will mostly be that of cyclists and pedestrians, spilled invariably by negligent motorists.
The issue IS motorists (of which I am one), especially negligent ones(which I try my utmost not to be). That is why the conversation MUST be about changing driver behaviour, and not about saying “it’s alright, no harm done (this time at least, apart from the fact I can’t walk/ride in a straight line cos of the fear and adrenaline that has flooded my blood stream), just carry on as before”
Trying the “why can’t we just….get along” line is bollocks, when the true issue isn’t actually about getting a bit shouty, it’s a public and social health issue surrounding the completely avoidable deaths of 5-600 pedestrians and cyclists every year, and the maiming of 1000s of others, due to nothing more than incompetence and negligence.
No not all drivers cause road deaths. But 99.9% of road deaths are caused by drivers
Dont you think the video by
Dont you think the video by showing drivers the cyclist is a human helps. Yes its both ways but that doesnt negate the fact its a helpful message for drivers
nicmason wrote:
I think you’re grasping at straws there as surely any video of a cyclist shows them as a human?
It would have been far better if they’d shown a driver/cyclist collision and then switched to a montage of hospitals, physiotherapy and drastically changed lifestyle. Maybe have a few shots of family members selling sports equipment that the victim is no longer capable of using in order to install a wheelchair ramp.
Thats not really a”we are all
Thats not really a”we are all the same” message is it.
nicmason wrote:
Well no, but that’s the main complaint aimed at the video is that in terms of road safety we are not all the same. It’s not so much that the message is flat out wrong, but the video portrays the after-math of a close-pass and doesn’t address the causes which is surely a failing in terms of road safety. I’d like to see the numbers compared for incidents caused by angry cyclists (e.g. Dawkins’ Tesla) vs incidents caused by drivers close-passing or left-hooking as I suspect that TfL are addressing a much smaller issue and ignoring the elephant on the road.
nicmason wrote:
It seems that you are still trying to ignore the axe you are grinding.
By the by, in the absence of a coordinated road safety program that actually deals with the causes of road conflict, violence, injury and death, I think this video is a distraction.
nicmason wrote:
I agree – these drivers could do with more situational awareness. When driving most people are looking out for other cars and not pedestrians and cyclists – because they’re encountered less often and aren’t a threat. How about:
“When you are driving a car look out for people on bikes and pedestrians who are also using the road. They’re just trying to complete their journeys – same as you. Even though you don’t see them as often as other cars they are perfectly entitled to be there – so watch out! If you hit them you can easily injure or kill them. What if they were a member of your family? Oh, and people on bikes can move a lot faster than people on foot – sometimes faster than your car.”
What’s that? Something about aggression? OK:
“We’re all human. Being stuck somewhere on your journey sucks. But for us all the most important thing is getting to our destination safely. So if you’re stuck behind other people in cars, have to slow down for a maintenance vehicle, a horse rider, someone on a bike or are waiting for children to cross the road – relax. Getting angry won’t get you there faster. But it might mean that someone doesn’t get there at all.”
What you said, Captain.
What you said, Captain.
Surprise surprise. Nic, who
Surprise surprise. Nic, who nearly always blames cyclists for bad driver performance had to do an Driver Awareness Course, but still drives the wrong way around mini roundabouts. So the driver awareness course really really helped…..
To be fair one could have
To be fair one could have followed the other !
Oddly it didnt touch
Oddly it didnt touch roundabouts .
nicmason wrote:
Where has this been quoted? The false equivalence argument that most have followed does not say that, but focuses on cause and outcomes. You’re letting you own prejudices slip.
rct wrote:
He does this whenever someone shines a torch on one the elephants in his room – that as a group drivers are the predominant cause of road violence. The other elephant that’s taking up space is that not all police are competent, hard-working or fit for role.
Out comes the whataboutery, the #notalldrivers, #somecyclistsareaskingforit #youhatepolice blah blah. When challenged he then switches to other points without answering
In fairness I don’t think he’s a troll, and certainly has none of the odiousnes or obnoxiousness of certain individuals, but he really can’t accept that robust criticism of those in a privileged position (drivers or police, say) can possibly be justified
So avoiding the question then
So avoiding the question then. No surprise there.
I do see they side I also see
I do see their side I also see them as not representing the majority.
nicmason wrote:
OK then Mr Mason, let’s see your evidence proving that. We’re all waiting.
Survey after survey shows that the population at large is in favour of better cycling and walking infrastructure, but listen to the loudest on social media and one would think that’s not the case.
The same applies here. Case in point, I haven’t spoken about this on social media yet. How many more out there are like me? The majority of cyclists might agree with these campaigners, or they may not. We don’t have hard evidence for that either way though, so would you kindly quit it with the conjecture please?
The video makes the point
The video makes the point that instant aggression is not a way to solve problems . I know myself that when ive ended up yelling at motorists its rely ended well.
its interesting how irritating people find it that I dont toe the cycle party line. I gues thats what social media has made this country . A lot of bunker mentality shouting where the first point of call is to be deeply offended and end up abusive.
“We’re all waiting”. Who is “we” you’re a bunch of individuals
Aggression – I agree that the
Aggression – I agree that the “you’ve annoyed me so now we’ve got to have it out” rarely works well for anybody. At least – not unless you’re a lot better armed than your opponent. Which is sort of the point here isn’t it?
See these aggressive cyclists? Why do you never see them all over the bumper of cars, ringing their bells, before speeding past only to swing in right in front of the car and drop the anchors. Or trying to edge them off the road? Why don’t we hear about drivers ridden down by people on bikes or crushed by pedestrians?
Could it be that the aggression is actually really only a problem when it’s in charge of a heavy speedy metal box?
Lots of “cyclists” also drive. I’d bet some of them are arseholes. It’s not because people suddenly become better people when they’re on bikes, is it?
nicmason wrote:
I just think the video is an attempt to solve what’s really the symptom of a problem. The problem is there are too many cars. The road system is poorly designed for the safety – let alone convenience – of people not in cars. The driving is often done without sufficient care and attention because driving is a habitual activity. Bad or illegal driving usually comes with no penalty. This leads to lots of close calls and some crashes. If a car hits a pedestrian or cyclist it’s not the driver that suffers. On average not even legally.
The video won’t sort any of that.
The aggression in the video is after the fact. So effectively it’s just saying “don’t swear when you stub your toe”. Pretty pointless and it will make no difference to safety.
Like I said it’s not a
Like I said it’s not a referendum.
nicmason wrote:
Indeed – we see this with LTNs, cabbies, the road haulage lobby…
People campaigning for safer roads / active travel can shout too of course – but they don’t tend to get the publicity for some reason. So their shouts don’t carry very far. They do appear – but often in the background, when the issue is that some people are shouting about losing a parking space, or that they’re being persecuted because they may be fined for breaking the law.
Problem here was that people who clearly had the majority viewpoint / position (driving / drivers) decided there was some issue with a minority (cyclists) and that minority clearly weren’t happy (because getting killed and injured). But they tried to sort it by appealing to everyone to just get along. They should have asked some people from the minority (cyclists) if their story in the advert represented things as cyclists see them. They clearly didn’t bother. Then saying “See! We covered both sides!” is not only wrong but unlikely to please the minority.
Well the majority would normally be … er… shouty drivers? There are lots of drivers so only a fraction of them need to shout to outweight shouty cyclists or pedestrians? Or do you mean the majority are people not shouting at all? But then – do they agree, disagree, don’t care, are they totally oblivious to all this?
Keep fighting the good fight
Keep fighting the good fight nic – the silent majority are behind you.
If only you were ‘silent’
If only you were ‘silent’ Nigel.
Is that a majority like your pal Trump got?
Garage at Large wrote:
It would be absolutely super if the alleged silent majority could be silent – as a supposed representative of them, could you do that? It would be very much appreciated.
What still needs to be
What still needs to be addressed is how this pointless video came to be funded / approved.
Given TFL’s tight finances, it’s not unreasonable to assume Will Norman would have had time to review it / approval rights.
If Will did approve it then it tells us a lot about his judgement and understanding of the problems vulnerable road users encounter thousands of times a day across London.
And if Will did not approve it, why not and why doesn’t the commissioning and approval process involve his role?
Answers on a postcard please Will !
open_roads wrote:
Will Norman? When you wanted Chris Boardman, had to settle for Andrew Gilligan but somehow took your eye off the ball. His first public meeting was not auspicious…
I think the video does
I think the video does achieve what it was probably set out to do – to humanise both a driver and a cyclist.
The issue I have is that it’s seems to ignore the reality that cyclists/pedestrians get killed, quite a lot, by other humans driving 1 or 2 ton steel weapons. The controversy as I see it, is that it’s terribly insensitive to everyone ‘apart from’ the woman in the car, who’s ‘tribe’ is not killed by cyclists whilst travelling around London.
Asinine bickering about side
Asinine bickering about side-roads or close passes misses the point completely.
The whole concept of the campaign fundamentally failed to grasp the context of the relationship between cars and other road users in terms of outcomes and potential for harm. ‘Seeing their side’ is an irrelevancy in regard to the extremes of difference in outcomes between bikes and cars during collisions.
The cyclist could have lurched from a side lane having failed to see the car (as many cars do). The only appropriate message would still be ‘Please give cyclists leeway. If you hit them they might die but you won’t get a scratch’.