Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Transport for London slammed for “victim-blaming” road safety ad (+ video)

Spot which suggests drivers and cyclists share equal responsibility described as “crass, old fashioned ‘false equivalence’ nonsense.”

Transport for London (TfL) has been slammed on social media for an advert launched during Road Safety Week earlier this month, with Twitter users accusing it of “victim blaming” and promoting “false equivalence” by suggesting that all road users share the same responsibility for ensuring the safety of others.

The integrated campaign, entitled ‘See their Side’ and which will run “for a number of years,” aims to change the culture of road users and contribute towards Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s Vision Zero goal of having zero deaths and serious injuries on the capital’s roads by 2041.

It includes the above 60-second film that is currently airing on TV and which, according to the agency VCCP London, which drew up the campaign, “directly tackles the tribal culture which currently dominates London’s roads.”

The agency’s creative director, Simon Learman, says that the ad, directed by Simon Ratigan, “targets all London road users, and appeals to the audience’s emotions with the presentation of a very real, albeit disturbing interaction between a car driver and cyclist who narrowly escape a collision.

“The initial fury is drowned out by inner monologues, until the anger subsides, they both realise how their behaviour has affected the other’s, and they express genuine concern for one another. The film draws to an emotional conclusion with both road users who are visibly shaken up asking whether each other is ok.”

Among those criticising the ad on Twitter were a number of prominent active travel and road safety campaigners, including Dr Robert Davis, chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum.

He wrote: “I really didn't like the ‘See their side. See safer roads’ advert just shown on ITV. Made by @TfL (+ @transportgovuk 's @THINKgovuk  ) it’s the perfect slogan for the false equivalence of old style ‘road safety’. 

“It won't reduce danger on the roads. It has no robust evidence base for doing so.

“‘Their side’ may be responsible for endangering others, or it might be  relatively far less of a physical threat to others (and also more at risk from road danger).

“If we don't base our approach on understanding that difference, we're nowhere,” he added.

The “difference” that Dr Davis highlights is one now being acknowledged within government, with forthcoming changes to the Highway Code set to outline a hierarchy of road users aimed at protecting the most vulnerable.

The Ranty Highywayman, a traffic engineer by profession, described the spot as “crass, old fashioned ‘false equivalence’ nonsense.”

When the campaign launched last week, Miranda Leedham, head of customer marketing & behaviour change at TfL said:  “At TfL we want to make London safer for all.

“We’re incredibly passionate about this objective and ‘See their side’ is a film we wanted our audience to resonate with. 

“The end product is a film which pulls at the heart strings and really encourages all road users to wake up and think about the potential of their actions.

“We’re fully behind helping The Mayor achieve his Vision Zero ambition to eradicate deaths and serious injuries from our roads and make London a safer place to live,” she added.

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.

Add new comment

169 comments

Avatar
Awavey | 2 years ago
5 likes

a quote from the creative director of the firm behind the ad "We set out to create a film that directly tackles the tribal culture which currently dominates London’s roads. " (hat tip CyclingUk for the link https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/tfl-urges-drivers-cyclists-see-si...)

so its nothing to do with road safety

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Awavey | 2 years ago
5 likes

Choice quotes from the person reporting what he saw which we must take as a neutral.

"Developed by VCCP and directed by HLA's Simon Ratigan, the spot follows a car driver and a bike rider as they travel in parallel along the same road. Narrowly avoiding a collision, they both come skidding to a halt and begin yelling at each other through the window of the car."

So even someone who hasn't worked on it believes that they are travelling along the same road. So close pass, left hook?

"Both of them are internally reeling from the near-crash. They think about how close they came to potentially hurting each other and the fear the other must have felt."

The bolded bit did make me laugh actually. 
 

Avatar
Awavey replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
1 like

it was the "The end product is a film which pulls at the heart-strings" that made me chuckle, seriously how far removed from reality do you have to be to think that ad remotely pulls at anyones heart strings as an emotional vibe, it certainly didnt pull mine anyway, it just made me annoyed.

Avatar
quiff | 2 years ago
3 likes

Cycling UK's response: https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/road-safety-messaging-misses-target

EDIT: I messed up the link, so that missed its target too.

Avatar
open_roads | 2 years ago
2 likes

Everyone should bear in mind that while TfL are no doubt wasting £00,000s on completely pointless adverts like this they are simultaneously threatening to shut down a whole tube line to save money.

With £4b of bailouts in the last year TfL has become a very bad joke for tax payers - and it's clear that Sadiq Khan has zero ability to hold it to account.

Avatar
GMBasix replied to open_roads | 2 years ago
3 likes
open_roads wrote:

Everyone should bear in mind that while TfL are no doubt wasting £00,000s on completely pointless adverts like this they are simultaneously threatening to shut down a whole tube line to save money.

With £4b of bailouts in the last year TfL has become a very bad joke for tax payers - and it's clear that Sadiq Khan has zero ability to hold it to account.

This advert is shit. Let's just be clear on that. TfL should hang its head in shame and then ask a passerby to kick it up the backside with a steel toe-capped boot.

But let's not equate the costs of Crossrail with the costs of a video campaign. The two are on different scales, and from different budgets - just like a lot of public spending, it is futile to suggest that if we cut out a load of 'x', we could fund some more of 'y' for 5 minutes. 

The marketing must happen because, if it's done right, messages can change attitudes, can save lives.

It's just that this particular campaign won't do that. Because it's shit. And the TfL team was off ill the day the ad company storyboarded it to them.

Avatar
anke replied to open_roads | 2 years ago
0 likes
open_roads wrote:

Everyone should bear in mind that while TfL are no doubt wasting £00,000s on completely pointless adverts like this they are simultaneously threatening to shut down a whole tube line to save money.

With £4b of bailouts in the last year TfL has become a very bad joke for tax payers - and it's clear that Sadiq Khan has zero ability to hold it to account.

So, your point is that YOU PERSONALLY consider this advert to be pointless, and that YOU PERSONALLY have NOT DOUBT that it's a waste. -- I'm sure not everyone will share this opinion.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to anke | 2 years ago
6 likes
anke wrote:
open_roads wrote:

Everyone should bear in mind that while TfL are no doubt wasting £00,000s on completely pointless adverts like this they are simultaneously threatening to shut down a whole tube line to save money.

With £4b of bailouts in the last year TfL has become a very bad joke for tax payers - and it's clear that Sadiq Khan has zero ability to hold it to account.

So, your point is that YOU PERSONALLY consider this advert to be pointless, and that YOU PERSONALLY have NOT DOUBT that it's a waste. -- I'm sure not everyone will share this opinion.

Well it is a forum, we're all here just making mostly personal points. open_roads isn't just saying "yeah" or "you're an idiot". You yourself had a personal point to make about what you considered. You provided a bit more around this that open_roads but still an "I feel that ...".

A couple of people agreed with you, more or less. I personally disagree with your point or rather where you feel the correct emphasis is / what the issue is. For my own reasons, set out at windy length. I would point you towards Dr Robert Davis of the RDF and the Ranty Highwayman (both mentioned in the article) as not "just people on a forum" who also think this advert idea is missing the point. But it sounds like this is something you have an emotional link to and so I would empathise - if someone poked something I had really strong feelings about I'd find it hard to see their points as rational never mind consider them seriously.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 2 years ago
3 likes

Miranda Leedham, head of customer marketing & behaviour change at TfL said:  “At TfL we want to make London safer for all".

 

Firstly, bullshit job title of the year!

 

Secondly, I can see how this advert will help. How many people have been killed on London's roads by the shouting of a cyclist?

 

Avatar
Owd Big 'Ead | 2 years ago
6 likes

So TfL want zero deaths on the Capitals roads by 2041?

How about making tipper drivers undertake some real training about how their shitty driving seems to kill far more cyclists than any othe category of motorised traffic.

Far better than this steaming, pile of shite, that does far more to keep people in their little metal boxes, so continung the cylists vs others interactions.

Clueless, but that's nothing new.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Owd Big 'Ead | 2 years ago
0 likes
Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

So TfL want zero deaths on the Capitals roads by 2041?

How about making tipper drivers undertake some real training about how their shitty driving seems to kill far more cyclists than any othe category of motorised traffic.

Far better than this steaming, pile of shite, that does far more to keep people in their little metal boxes, so continung the cylists vs others interactions.

Clueless, but that's nothing new.

I think they should give themselves a chance. They should have gone for "zero deaths on London's roads by 2141!" Given what they're throwing at the problem postponing the solution until after all the proposers are dead seems less cynical.

I hope this is just an overdose of cynicism by me - they could certainly improve here and I'm sure that there are some well motivated people involved in this. Don't think they can do it without banning cyclists and pedestrians OR without a fundamental change in TfL's philosophy.

I just really hope anyone genuinely working for this end doesn't get burned out by needing to make the same announcement again in 20 years' time.

Avatar
lonpfrb replied to Owd Big 'Ead | 2 years ago
0 likes
Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

How about making tipper drivers undertake some real training about how their shitty driving seems to kill far more cyclists than any othe category of motorised traffic.

I remember work on the South Bank near a major construction site when the Southwark Council decided that no HGV of any type could await unloading in the local (non residential) side streets.

So instead of planning their journeys with some allowance for delays, they were forced to be on site +- 5 min. to meet the no loitering rule.

What the council hadn't understood is that such a stressful journey leads to mistakes and reduced safety for all road users. A ready-mix concrete tipper has the clock on as soon as they are loaded.

Safety has many aspects, some outside our control. Not having the full set of mirrors on construction vehicles being another

TfL needs to look long and hard at all aspects to deliver the Zero Vision...

Avatar
joe9090 | 2 years ago
11 likes

This advert in a nutshell:

"Hey shouty cyclists, stop shouting at us drivers, don't you see we are sorry we did'nt see you? There was sun and shit and I was trying to drink my costa while quickly checking Whatsapp! Have a heart you bastards!"

Avatar
anke replied to joe9090 | 2 years ago
1 like

Yep. It's always the blooming motorist. Can't be any other way. No need to talk about it. No need to think about the other side. Ever. <irony off>

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to anke | 2 years ago
6 likes
anke wrote:

Yep. It's always the blooming motorist. Can't be any other way. No need to talk about it. No need to think about the other side. Ever. <irony off>

You are missing the whole point that most people here are trying to make.

It is better to prevent the altercations in the first instance as opposed to dealing with the consequences.  This TFL piece looks solely at the aftermath and attempts to address that while ignoring the issue of the cause.

Imagine a road safety campaign at an accident blackspot which only tells people what to do if they come across an accident.  Is that helpful in any way in preventing the accident?  No it's not.  And in my opinion that is what this advert does.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to TriTaxMan | 2 years ago
8 likes

Yes instead of a campaign comparing standing in front of the yellow line while the trains roars past with a close pass to discourage such events.

the campaign is "be nice to each other, even when someone has put your life in danger"

"be nice" typically the response of people when called out on unreasonable behaviour.

Avatar
Spokesperson replied to TriTaxMan | 2 years ago
2 likes

Not accidents, incidents or collisions. An accident is a toddler tripping over on the grass.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to anke | 2 years ago
4 likes
anke wrote:

Yep. It's always the blooming motorist. Can't be any other way. No need to talk about it. No need to think about the other side. Ever. <irony off>

Which other side?

Today I'm walking. Tomorrow I might drive in the morning, cycle a couple of places (journeys (tm) with a purpose!) in the afternoon. Maybe take a bus into town and and taxi back. Which side am I?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
5 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:
anke wrote:

Yep. It's always the blooming motorist. Can't be any other way. No need to talk about it. No need to think about the other side. Ever. <irony off>

Which other side?

Today I'm walking. Tomorrow I might drive in the morning, cycle a couple of places (journeys (tm) with a purpose!) in the afternoon. Maybe take a bus into town and and taxi back. Which side am I?

Obviously the squirrels'

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to anke | 2 years ago
4 likes
anke wrote:

Yep. It's always the blooming motorist. Can't be any other way. No need to talk about it. No need to think about the other side. Ever. <irony off>

On balance of probabilities, this actually does get borne out. It's the basis of presumed liability, which is employed very successfully in most other European countries.

It is also employed in this country in certain circumstances such as rear-end shunts.

In general (to a very high percentage) vehicle collisions are caused by incompetence or negligence by drivers. That's not to say that all drivers are guilty - there are plenty who don't get themselves into these scrapes.

But it is equally incorrect to make out that it's 50:50, or accidents "just happen", or worrying about your paintwork is in any way equivalent to being scared for your very life

And that is the problem with this vid - it seems to make out all of the above, and give the message "why can't we all just ....get along."

Guess what, I'm absolutely fine and dandy when people aren't trying to kill me.

And guess what else. In 30y of driving (some of which for a living in London) I've never had cause to act aggressively to, or be scared of, anyone on a bike.

Avatar
Bishop0151 replied to anke | 2 years ago
6 likes

No, it's not always the motorist. But since you bring it up, it is the motorist the vast majority of the time.

Things like this, that imply that there is some sort of equivalent risk and responsibility between all road users, need to be challenged. They indirectly feed into the issue we currently have, where some car drivers behave in a dangerous or irresponsible way. Then justify it by pointing out some cyclist once held them up, or jumped a red light. As if there's some sort of equivalence there! Whataboutism is too commonly used as a distraction/defence for poor and dangerous driving.

In this scenario the risk was entrley born by the cyclist, who had every right to be where they were, doing what they were doing. The responsibility was entirely the drivers. Who may have responded out of fright as well, but given their responsibility, responded appallingly.

If the point was to convey that different road users, who have very asymmetrical levels of risk and responsibility, should  treat each other with courtesy? They failed.

 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Bishop0151 | 2 years ago
3 likes

Agreed - at least in this little echo chamber the sound level shows that mostly this didn't achieve whatever they thought it would. Dunno if we're the audience though. Actually I dunno if there's an audience this could reach which would lead to less road nastiness, death and injury.

Anyway excellent graphic - do you have the link? I found a similar one at the RDFR with much discussion.

Avatar
Bishop0151 replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
2 likes

Generally the Twitterverse wasn't to chuffed. Even drivers who'd had cycling experience, but didn't think of themselves as cyclist, seemed to think it was a bit naff.

The infographic is new, it's the product of a new EU report on traffic stats.

https://transport.ec.europa.eu/news/road-safety-european-commission-rewa...

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Bishop0151 | 2 years ago
0 likes
Bishop0151 wrote:

The infographic is new, it's the product of a new EU report on traffic stats.

Thanks!

Avatar
Simon E replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
1 like
chrisonatrike wrote:

at least in this little echo chamber the sound level shows that mostly this didn't achieve whatever they thought it would.

I know the term 'echo chamber' is often used in a mildly derogatory way but many of us who post on road.cc are also drivers.

We've seen these useless 'share the road' campaigns before; they don't address the issues but reinforce the idea that there is a 'them and us' divide, which is unhelpful.

The same is being said all over social media and in CUK's lengthy response:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/road-safety-messaging-misses-target

(quiff posted it further up but the link isn't working correctly)

 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Simon E | 2 years ago
0 likes

We're all individuals!

(I'm agreeing but although there is indeed diversity here the mere fact that we're on a road bike internet forum means that we're minority opinion holders).

Avatar
nicmason | 2 years ago
1 like

I can't see a problem with this video. Its making the point that motorists and cyclists are both people . Its not a them and us its just us.

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to nicmason | 2 years ago
7 likes

You're not an actual person though are you?

Avatar
nicmason replied to alansmurphy | 2 years ago
0 likes

Odd comment. You disagree . Fine. Why not just say that.

Avatar
MattieKempy | 2 years ago
6 likes

Hmmm. A bit of both. Shouting at a driver who has just nearly killed you is an entirely understandable reaction, but I've had the most profitable conversations with almost-killers when I've been calm, polite and dispassionate. So I see both sides of the coin.

EIther way, the video serves to highlight that TfL at least tacitly recognise that drivers endanger cyclists.

Pages

Latest Comments