- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
SwearToChange reflective jacket (via Auto Trader website).PNGAuto Trader's #SwearToChange road safety campaign offers free reflective gear to cyclists - and sparks a social media backlash
Auto Trader the used car magazine and website is asking road users to #SwearToChange in a new campaign aimed at boosting safety and courtesy on UK roads, but the campaign’s initial offer of limited edition reflective gear to cyclists, joggers and dog-walkers has provoked a backlash from some cyclists on social media who ask what incentive there is for motorists to #SwearToChange?
Auto Trader has highlighted issues related to the safety of cyclists both on their website and on social media, such as this tweet earlier this month about the need to give cyclists adequate room when overtaking and the Dutch Reach technique, aimed at preventing instances of ‘dooring’.
Did you know you could now face a £100 fine for passing too close to a cyclist? It’s to increase safety for all on our roads. Why not try the ‘Dutch Reach’ next time you open your door? Let’s hope more of us will #SwearToChange and make the roads safer. https://t.co/vylS8yHScB pic.twitter.com/uZ5Pzk1vq9
— AutoTrader.co.uk (@AutoTrader_UK) January 11, 2019
A blog post last month entitled How To Be A Better Driver And Cyclist, meanwhile, contains plenty of sound advice for motorists about how to share the road safely with people on bikes, although there are a couple of notes that might jar with some – recommending cyclists wear hi-vis to make themselves be seen, and encouraging slower-moving road users (including drivers) to pull over and let faster-moving vehicles past.
Outlining the #SwearToChange campaign on its website, Auto Trader says:
Our roads can bring out the worst in us. It’s all too easy to forget that whether we’re cycling, walking or in a car we all have a right to use the road.
So what if instead of swearing at each other in road rage we swear to change it?
To drive change and help us look out for each other we’re giving away limited-edition reflective clothes and accessories. They’re lit up by headlights, making the cycle home, the late-night jog and the early-morning dog walk safer.
And helping everyone on the road stand out is just the start. Will you join us on this journey and help make our roads a place everyone can use? Will you #SwearToChange?
Inviting visitors to suggest “one thing you could change to make our roads better for everyone,” the campaign is accompanied by a competition to win reflective jackets, dog leads and backpack covers.
The initiative is being promoted on outdoor media, as shown in the photo in this tweet, taken on Gray’s Inn Road in London by Adam Tranter – a PR professional with his own successful business, and therefore highly experienced in what does and doesn’t work in terms of corporate communications.
So @AutoTrader_UK are giving out free reflective clothing to "cyclists and commuters", adding "together we can make our roads safer for everyone". I can think of loads more ways to keep cyclists and commuters (pedestrians?) safe but they probably wouldn't help used car sales. pic.twitter.com/kxUHpP9GCH
— Adam Tranter (@adamtranter) January 23, 2019
In the replies to his tweet, the campaign is attracting a backlash from a number of cyclists, as have other initiatives in the past such as the AA handing out free cycle helmets and hi-visibility vests several years ago.
The problem with such campaigns is that, however well-meant, they tend to reinforce the perception that the safety of people riding bikes and other vulnerable road users is their own responsibility are thereby seen as absolving motorists of responsibility.
We’re sure that’s not Auto Trader’s intention, and while we had been unable to contact their press office by telephone prior to publication of this article, we will be contacting them to find out how they plan to involve motorists in the campaign. We’ll let you know their response once we have it.
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
- john_smith 2 hours 38 min ago
Straight into the sun is perhaps an exaggeration, but at that time it would be about ESE, and there are bits of the road which head roughly SSE, so...
- john_smith 2 hours 47 min ago
7 October was just a bit of harmless fun until the "msm" ramped it up.
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 47 min ago
It's not censored if you just pirate it
- stonojnr 3 hours 52 min ago
an example of Kesgraves "best cycling infrastructure in the country" https://maps.app.goo.gl/GsCMbzDUTPdq59qS9
- ktache 3 hours 55 min ago
They are not going full gas at every point. They would destroy themselves. And tactics, they save themselves for when effort is really needed....
- wookey 4 hours 24 sec ago
It turns out that that is national police policy. We found out from this process that there is national 'secured by design' policy which causes...
- mtbtomo 4 hours 39 min ago
Been available for quite a while, full GRX mechanical 12 speed. Probably around the same time as 105 mechanical 12 speed if I were to guess.
- TheBillder 4 hours 45 min ago
Less harmful citrus degreaser is easy to find at £8 or less for 5 litres. Works ok for me, even diluted up to 4:1. Both paraffin and white spirit...
- Veganpotter 4 hours 51 min ago
Nope, it's to keep your straps down and quieter. Plus most sunglasses are polycarbonate and aren't going to shatter like glass anyway
- Steve K 5 hours 22 min ago
And, more seriously, where's the coverage of the closure of the cycle lane which forces you to cycle on the Totton bypass.
Add new comment
32 comments
I cycle everyday to work, and on most weekends for fun. I have done so for more than 30 years, in London and other less busy towns. I reckon to have prevented about 100 tons of CO2 from being expelled by not using the car. I am a "cyclist". Bad drivers who risk my life either through ignorance or Clarkson fuelled deliberation annoy the f*ck out of me. Thanks to Cree my illumination over the years has gone from barely visible to having the ability to light up the dark side of the moon...yet still I am close passed by utter fu*kwits on most days. A piece of reflective tape is not going to fix that. Proper penalties and respect from traffic police when reporting such incidents will. I do encounter many poorly illuminated people on bikes, but these are mostly kids who think lights and helmets are uncool (yes I know a helmet has no chance against a vehicle, but it will protect you against falling off and keep you warm in winter). Others are adults on shite maintained bikes because they only use it for emergencies (e.g. back from pub or car in workshop). The free reflective things will help these idiots.
Sorry - phone flipped out - so you got my two penneth 3 times!
C'mon - their heart is in the right place. Don't see anything wrong with the campaign.
On my commute home down unlit country lanes in Norfolk - I'm lit up like a Christmas tree! I could choose to cycle in black clothing with only the bare minimum lights and then bemoan the nutter drivers for not seeing me...as I lie in a ditch. Rather not take any risks myself.
And I bet you that the feckers will still close pass you no matter how reflective and well lit you make yourself.
I would be happier if motoring magazines wrote articles on advising their readership on their responsibilities as licensed road users towards those more vulnerable. Maybe even offer courses to their readership as well. As my dad said to me once I received my license- now was the time to learn how to drive.
C'mon - their heart is in the right place. Don't see anything wrong with the campaign.
On my commute home down unlit country lanes in Norfolk - I'm lit up like a Christmas tree! I could choose to cycle in black clothing with only the bare minimum lights and then bemoan the nutter drivers for not seeing me...as I lie in a ditch. Rather not take any risks myself.
Just as a matter of interest, which car, for use on public roads, can do 250mph? Formula One cars top out at around 200mph!
As well as Auto Trader stopping selling grey, black and white cars, they should also sell no cars that can exceed the speed limit!
I often wonder what is the point of selling a car that can do 250 mph, when it wouldn't be legal to do that anywhere in the world...
Track days?
On that last point, there's a few countries in the world where that would be legal - a chunk of the autobahn network is still without an upper limit.
Relying on travelling at a speed in which you can come to an emergency stop seems like a very thin margin of safety. When I am being a driver, I really do want to see other road users and especially cyclists a good way off so I can plan ahead in plenty of time.
Reflectives and lights are not so much self defence as common courtesy to other road users.
I'm a bit cynical about this too, but I've just registered an interest in a free reflective jacket. Because free innit.
The only reason to wear high viz and reflectives is really to prevent lawyers from using their absence as a way to get the motorist off the hook.
If drivers were paying proper attention, they would see what was in front of them wouldn't they?
Once your in hospital/dead, this arguement is kind of pointless because whatever those laywers argue, you are still in hospital/dead.
Perhaps you should accept that there are careless idiots out there and try to reduce the chances of being hit by one by wearing reasonably reflective kit and having decent lights.
Another reason we need the review of road law promised in 2014. It should not be a defence to say that the victim didn't take enough care, wasn't wearing hi-viz, helmet etc. Drivers are the sole cause of the problems, and should not be allowed to pass the blame onto their victims.
Yep, you don’t hear of motorists being criticised for driving a vehicle that could have been better than the legal requirements...
- if you had been driving the latest Mercedes with it’s adaptive LED headlight system then the cyclist would have been clearly visible...
- it is the courts opinion that the collision could have been avoided if you had been driving a vehicle fitted with a collision avoidance system...
Etc...
"And helping everyone on the road stand out is just the start" would like to know the master plan....suggesting that pedestrians and cyclist wear high viz is simply ignoring the issue which is that many drivers ignore the safety of other road users, either through ignorance or lazy habits ....if you turn into a drivethru, petrol station or your driveway withput looking for pedestrians or cyclists you won't see them - irrespective of what they choose (or are forced) to wear. If you drive close to the vehicle in front and can't see much past it you won't see a cyclist in the lane ahead, if you are texting, changing a playlist or entering an address in a satnav you won't see the cyclist or jogger etc
While I understand the backlash here, there is definately a problem with some cyclists (or maybe 'people that happen to be on bikes') doing a good job of being invisible at night.
While the marketing campaigns etc could be seen as shifting blame, intentially or otherwise, particularly if being run by bodies/companies associated with motoring, it is important that people take at least some responsability for their own safety.
For example, when crossing a road, you take some responsability by looking both ways first and making a judgement as to when to cross. You don't simple step out without looking and assume everyone will stop to let you cross without being run over.
So why not take a little bit of responsability when cycling at night by ensuring you have decent lights and some sensibly sized and positioned reflective bits on your clothing.
Oh, and this isn't just an issue of cyclists being seen. I nearly rode straight into a couple of pedestrians on an unlit shared use path the other day as they had no reflective strips anywhere - they were completely invisible until I was within 10 metres or so, depite my high output Hope light.
I kind of agree, but to play devil's advocate, isn't there a good case for only cycling/driving at a speed so that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear? That would mean that when you sudenly saw the peds, you could hit the brakes and not hit them. There's a lot of victim blaming by motorists who go too fast for the conditions and then think that the problem is the pedestrians/cyclists who aren't "visible enough".
Absolutely, but while there are (plenty) of people out there driving at what they think is a sensible speed, but which isn't, I'm going to ensure that I'm doing a sensible amount to be visible to those idiots well before they are close enough to be a danger to me.
So you saw them when you were ten metres away, but still nearly rode straight into them? How fast were you riding (on a shared-use path, at night)?
20km/h would be very reasonable speed to assume on a bicycle.
But that would give you less than 2 seconds to react and come to a complete standstill to avoid a collision at 10 metres.
Not quite. You'd have about 2 seconds if you continued travelling at 20kmh, but as soon as you start reducing speed, you have more time. It's probably easier to work with distances than times for this kind of analysis.
I found this site that allows you to work out stopping distances for bikes: https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html
According to that, 20kmh (which is 12.43 mph) would give you a stopping distance of just under 3m on wet concrete, so even with a 1 second thinking time (you'd cover around 5m) you could still avoid an incident.
I managed to stop in time just fine thanks.
I was riding at a speed that I thought was sensible, and this sort of backs up my point.
Yes, arguably I was riding too fast, and if I had hit the pedestrian it would at least in part, possibly entirely my fault fault).
By the same token, if I was riding along a street with poor lights, as was hit by a car, it could be argued that it was the cars fault, but I'd still be injured.
Therefore on road I take an element of responsibility to ensure that I am suitably, and those pedestrians, for their own safety, might be sensible to ensure that they are visible.
There are always idiots out there (in the example I gave, I may have been one of the idiots), so to reduce you chance of ending up in hospital/dead, shouldn't you take sensible measures?
Hmm, four words....'the Charlie Alliston case'...
Otherwise agree with the rest.
I had a similar experience a few years back, riding at night on a local road, which had street lamps for part of it but not others, and pavement on one side only. I had a good front light, and was taking care, but nearly collided with two runners, running on the left, so not able to see oncoming traffic, wearing black, nothing reflective, on the side with no pavement, just after I went from the lit to the unlit section of road. I only saw them because they had a dog with white patches. I shouted in surprise, and managed to get around them, but I'm not sure how.
We need to get these stupid, dangerous, law breaking, arrogant pedestrians off the road, they just get in the way of legitimate road users. And various other arguments culled from the vast opus of anti-cycling rhetoric.
My "stay awesome" car sticker arrived in the post yesterday. Despite not being a fan of the word awesome, I think that is a far better message.
I look forwards to Auto Trader banning any listings for black, grey or dark blue cars
Maybe we have it all wrong - maybe what Auto Trader is actually doing, is encouraging motorists to swear...
(letting off steam 
)
This is just such a prevalent attitude; "we know what makes cycling safe, and we're going to make cyclists do it." When they don't really know at all, and can't be bothered to ask cyclists. They probably asked their local road safety officer, in my experience somebody with very little experience or knowledge but very firm opinions.
Kudos to them for starting off well by telling motorists to take more care and highlighting what they can do to make cycling safer by reducing the risk from cars, but they really should have talked to CUK or somebody.
Pages