- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
DfT Think poster - Hang Back.jpgDfT rejects Cycling UK call to withdraw 'Hang Back' video
The Department for Transport (DfT) has said it has “no plans to withdraw” its controversial ‘Hang Back’ cycle safety video which was widely criticised by cycling campaigners when it was launched last week, despite a call from Cycling UK to withdraw it.
The charity, which has accused the DfT of “victim blaming” through the film, last week wrote to transport minister Andrew Jones to call for it to be pulled and to urge the department to work alongside cycling campaigners on safety messages, but its appeal has been rebuffed.
It said that DfT officials this week told it: “The level of criticism is unfortunate, however we have no plans to withdraw the video.”
The film seeks to warn cyclists about the danger posed by a lorry turning left – although the footage appears to show the vehicle’s driver overtaking the rider shortly before a junction, giving him no choice but to be caught on the inside of the vehicle.
The segment with the lorry is preceded by a montage showing a piano being dropped as well as slapstick scenes from films and cartoons, which led British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman of accusing the DfT of trying to make “entertainment out of death.”
> Boardman: DfT Hang Back video makes "entertainment out of death"
Cycling UK, which says that the “real problem” lies in dangerous lorries that have blind spots, is now urging cyclists to contact the minister and DfT to continue to press for the video to be axed.
The organisation’s senior road safety and legal campaigns manager, Duncan Dollimore, said: “Cycling UK is urging Andrew Jones and the team behind their dreadful ‘Hang Back’ initiative to Think! again, and to stop blaming the victims of these tragic collisions where cyclists have been killed by lorries.
“Think! does not tell people to avoid the roads because of the danger drunk drivers pose to others, so why is it now trivialising the victims of lorry collisions when we know lorries are a problem and have massive blind spots?
“National government’s regressive attitude is in stark contrast to the capital, which last Friday announced how it will address the disproportionate problem of lorry related cycle deaths.”
Making reference to plans unveiled in the capital to remove dangerous HGVs from the city’s streets, he added: “London Mayor Sadiq Khan isn’t blaming the victim, but driving unsafe lorries off his roads and promoting safer design.
> London mayor Sadiq Khan plans to ban unsafe lorries from capital's roads
“Hopefully government will learn from London and follow suit.
“I’d urge everyone who is equally disgusted by this Think! campaign to write to the Minister asking him to withdraw this campaign, which they can do via the Cycling UK website.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 3 hours 44 min ago
it feels a conveniant donkey to put the tail on imo, and Im not saying some members didnt quit BC because of the Shell thing, but Im not entirely...
- espressodan 4 hours 20 min ago
I'm never convinced how helmets with built in cameras and lights can be acceptable safe. Sounds like a good way to get a camera embedded in your...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 28 min ago
Did I mention that it costs £580?
- chrisonabike 4 hours 28 min ago
Yeah - and one of the passengers had the gall to say that the *driver* had taken a wrong turn!...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 45 min ago
Don't worry! They've got plenty of others they can use!...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 1 min ago
Well what is that way? Are you suggesting that every bend on every descent can be barriered over a 180km mountain stage?
- slappop 9 hours 14 min ago
Hopefully it'll still be allowed for recreational use.
- Bungle_52 10 hours 6 min ago
Well Gloucestershire are getting better. I'm being told whether or not action is to be taken, but not what action, within a few days of each report...
- Surreyrider 12 hours 35 min ago
Churnalism nowadays - mostly clickbait stuff and regurgitation in the local rags/comics and beyond.
- DogOfOB 12 hours 47 min ago
I'm glad the barrier wasn't damaged. Whew, close one there! \s
Add new comment
61 comments
ASA didn't work. They won't look at it.
Dear Mr XXXXXXXX
Your Complaint: Department for Transport (Think!)
Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority, with your complaint about a recent Think! Ad that you saw on the Think! Road Safety Twitter Page, regarding an ad featuring a lorry and a cyclist. I understand why you would want to tell us about this ad, but we’re unable to pursue your complaint in this instance, because the material you’ve identified does not fall within the remit of the CAP Code that we enforce.
To provide some background, I should first explain that when the ASA took on the responsibility for regulating online content, it was decided that marketing communications for causes and ideas (e.g. marketing content for campaigning groups) would only fall within our remit if they appeared in paid-for spaces, or if they contained direct solicitations for donations or purchases. Since then, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP, the body responsible for writing the Code that the ASA enforces) has brought our regulation of all marketing communications for causes and ideas in other media in line with this position. This means that we will only assess marketing communications for causes and ideas that appear in paid-for or donated spaces, and we won’t consider complaints about other communications (e.g. emails, leaflets, mailings, SMS text messages and the like) unless there’s an explicit solicitation for donations as part of the marketer’s own fund-raising activities. You can find out more about this position here.
In this case, because the material that you objected to did not contain a direct solicitation for donations and was on the advertisers own space, I’m afraid we’re not able to take further action under our Code. However, if you would still like to pursue your complaint about this material, you may wish to contact the advertiser directly here - https://forms.dft.gov.uk/contact-dft-and-agencies/ .
I appreciate that this is not the response you might have liked, but I hope I’ve explained our position clearly and provided you with some useful information. Thank you, nonetheless, for taking the trouble to contact us. You can find out more information about the ASA and the work we do by visiting our website, www.asa.org.uk.
Kind regards
pp Laura Sparks
Complaints Executive
Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222
www.asa.org.uk
Can we not see and accept irony/sarcasm without needing the horrible emoticon.
I did have to reread the "great personal jeapordy to themselves" but then I hopefully read the rest in the spirit in which it was written.
Let's try and keep some balance here. I'd just like to say a big thank-you to those careful drivers who have given me lots of room when overtaking at great personal jeapordy to themselves and others. Chapeau to the driver who overtook me yesterday on a blind corner and only just missed the HGV coming to meet him - I'm still not sure how he made it in time.
Chapeau also to the driver today who left it too late to complete his overtaking manouevre before a mini-roundabout and took the roundabout and ensuing traffic island on the wrong side of the road nearly taking out the foolish pedestrian who had only looked right before crossing. Fortunately in this case I was able to catch up at the usual queue just down the road and thank the driver personally.
These commendable drivers respect cyclists - I'm sure they must watch DfT videos all the time.
For the sake of balance I'd like to thank every pedestrian I walked past earlier that didn't punch me in the face.
When you make comments like yours, you know something is tragically wrong culturally. You sound like you've been abused ritually, and are now pleased when you aren't abused.
I wonder how long it will take for you to delete this once you;ve re-read what he put
Woosh!
I did only read the first line, give me a break
Full-on evangelist bot mode at the moment!
Response from ASA this morning:
"Thank you for submitting your complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
We aim to respond in more detail within ten working days. We are, however, currently experiencing large volumes of complaints, so it might take a little longer, so please bear with us."
Well done everyone and keep them coming.
Why is Willo's name appearing in the quotes? Did someone do that deliberately?
Fuck off (again), Willo.
Yesterday I held back for an HGV at one set of lights only for the HGV to block the ASL at the next set. No matter, I put myself in a visible position and self-righteously let the fecker know what I thought of him.
However, I fundamentally support the view that being in the right is not the best way to survive out there. How then do we educate fellow cyclists in defensive techniques without endorsing shit drivers, or are we prepared to carry on getting crushed (despite wearing hi viz, helmets and ringing our bells) whilst the drivers are educated?
Fact is, roads were never designed to accommodate cars and bikes and it's insane to think it will ever be safe. In an ideal world they would never share the road.
In reality however, we have to make the best of it by educating both drivers and cyclists how to not endanger or otherwise irritate each other. Promoting the notion that drivers are unequivocally dangerous/cunts and that the authorities/police are useless/smug/cunts/don't give a shit like the tiny handful of regular commenters on here is not helping anyone and is woefully fucking disrespectful to people who are genuinely trying to help you, and will scrape your ass off the road and inform your loved ones of your demise.
I'm a cyclist, and I see cyclists riding dangerously all the time. Two-abreast, a metre out from the verge, powering through junctions and lights, undertaking and then bitching when they get knocked off or have a close pass. It's insanity. You will never win against a vehicle so wind your neck in stay out of the way as much as possible. If it's that dangerous that you can't help whingeing and shaking your fist every day, "don't cycle" would be my advice. You can probably find ways to stay fit or travel that are much less stressful for you and everybody else.
Personally, I love cycling and I give people the benefit of the doubt. I also assume that drivers haven't seen me and can't assess my speed. Seems to work for me as I've made it to middle age despite cycling pretty much every day for 30 years. Good luck.
What is woefully disrespectful is the I'm more important than you attitude of most motorists.
As a
cycling forum trollcyclist, you should know that it is recommended and entirely legal to ride two abreast, as far away from the gutter as they like.Undertakingusing a filter lane to an advanced stop box is an example of how woefully inadequate the infrastructure is, perhaps giving filtering cyclists confidence of going up the inside of traffic.It is insanity. You think that you are going to convince 95% of the posters on this site they are wrong. You will never win against us, so wind your neck in and piss off to the daily mail, where I'm sure your contributions will be better received.
Surely DFT can wake up and release a campaign targetting drivers who text/use social media etc whilst behind a wheel. This causes far more injury and death to all roads & footpaths. Yet we see nothing, its a growing issue and to date all we have is an increase in the fine given out, not that they are being prosecuted because the police don't have the resource or support to catch and prosecute....getting away with murder.
Lorry/bus design is the real issue. Get those changes in that mandate additional safety and visual aids.....its a joke.
But they do have the time to send a PCSO out to "enforce" a purely advisory cyclists dismount sign. Now his powers are very low, but send him out with a camera and he can gather evidence. I'm guessing that PCSOs can act as professional witnesses in court, much as full police can, not that it need ever come to that, FPN and points in the post?
Well it sure does appear that the DfT does not read or in fact follow the rules of the Highway Code. What plonkers they are, are they not ! !
Applecart, if drivers really didn't want to kill anyone, and I mean REALLY, there would be no drink driving, no mobile/smart phone use and no speeding. All of these things are dangerous for those doing it, for which I cannot find myself caring too much about, but much more importantly dangerous for everybody going about their business around them. Oh yes, and all against the law.
Only a psychopath goes out in the morning looking for someone to kill, sure. But many drivers - and I'd include myself in this when I was younger - drive with an assumption that the road is completely empty, junctions are clear, they have the right of way, etc. People don't make a connection between that approach and the likelihood that they might inadvertently kill someone.
I think the issue here is atrributing intent. Nobody wakes up and thinks "today I'm going to drive recklessly and kill someone". I totally agree that drivers need educating about blindspots and how to share the road with cyclists. Equally, cyclists need educating about how to not get squashed. Ultimately though, it's a one-way battle. If you have the choice a cyclist to reduce risk by hanging back, you had better bloody well use it if you want to live, as there is only one loser. That's my point.
Complaint sent to ASA.
I was trying to argue this point a few days back on here. . If you want to stay alive ALWAYS presume that:
1. drivers haven't seen you
2. if a driver has seen you, they will under-estimate your speed
This means: hang back and don't put yourself between a vehicle and a junction if at all possible. Hang back, like the ad says.
If you bear these two points in mind you will have a lot less to get angry about as a cyclist, and live significantly longer and/or with much fewer disability adjusted years. And I just can't get my head around all these comments that "drivers don't give a sh*t" etc. For Christ's sake, they don't want to kill you! What sort of bizarre world do you live in?!
Bluebug, Bikebot, The point is, if you rely on the highway code or your right of way to protect you from a lorry then you are going to come off pretty badly.
This is a lesson that people need to learn. You are vulnerable on a bike and should be aware of potential dangers. Lorries are killing lots of cyclists, if you are aware of the dangers then this is a way of protecting yourself before other measures come in to help.
Thank God there's another sensible person on here!
Knowing the highway code, and having a camera on their helmet is not going to make them more visible to drivers. I do agree that drivers should be made aware, of course. I do also think it's basic common sense to hang back at junctions as the chances are they haven't seen you, and if you take that risk there is only one loser in that situation - you. RIP
its a public information film on the same level as tell women "CAREFUL men might rape you, beware"
To be fair if they were also a cyclist they would be asking for it wearing tight lycra and all that. Hows a red blooded lorry driver meant to resist when hes popped out of his cab to check who he has just left hooked! And they wouldnt have paid any road tax......
I tell my girlfriend not to walk home alone at night, just as I tell cyclists to stay out of the way of cars and lorries, you fucking moron.
I think that you may be missing the point. I don't know if you're missing it on purpose.
Everyone agrees that HGVs are dangerous. And that if you come up behind one is signalling left or approaching a left junction then it might be safer to freewheel a moment to see what they're doing rather than blithely continuing up their inside.
However, the DafT film doesn't show that. It shows a lorry overtaking a cyclist then almost immediately turning left across them. Classic left hook. One of the most common ways in which HGV drivers kill cyclists.
And *that* is the complaint: that the supposed cycle safety film appears to legitimise a dangerous and illegal manoeuvre, presenting it in such a way as to say that the result was the fault of the cyclist.
Anecdote:
Last night I saw a cyclist riding on the road on the Centre in Bristol. It's a hellish gyratory type system. A bus overtook him as they approached a bend. Quite a tight bend, and the bus therefore moved much closer to the kerb. The cyclist was forced up against the kerb, managed to stop themselves falling over, but stopped until the bus passed.
Now please tell me: according to the DfT film, and your own comments, that was the cyclist's fault for 'not hanging back'. Really? So not the bus driver's fault for not hanging back until he could safely overtake, then??
I couldn't have put it better myself, "thank goodness there's another sensible person on here"!
Applecart, the DfT film shows EXACTLY HOW TO OVERTAKE A BIKE BADLY. That's why most of us are up in arms about the film, the cyclist in that example has not done anything wrong. If they want to make a film about cyclists undertaking lorries, (and have hilarious pianos falling out of the sky etc for more than three quarters of it) that would be a different issue.
I agree with you. The point is however, that in that situation as a cyclist you should hang back if you do not want to be killed. They could perhaps make it clearer, so I'm with you on that.
However this does not detract from the central message that you should always, as a cyclist, presume you haven't been seen and that drivers cannot estimate your speed accurately, tending to under-estimate.
This under-estimation of speed is what leads to drivers turning left, as they do not realise just how fast you come up on the inside. I think perhaps a better explanation of this is needed. Both cyclists and drivers need to be aware of this, and particularly lorries.
Satisfied now?
Erm - so you're saying that every time I get overtaken I should slow down, freewheel or hit the brakes, just in case I haven't been seen and the overtaking vehicle decides to ignore a handful of Highways Code rules and pulls in or turns, squashing me?
Wow, that's going to make my journeys a bit longer...
Pages