[Tom_77]

Saw this advert on TV last night. All part of a campaign about driving less by swapping to a bike for short trips.

So far so good, but this is all brought to you by Esso. So I’m struggling to understand why a company is encouraging people to use less of its product. It would be like a Greggs ad encouraging you to go easy on the pies.

Topic

[chrisonabike]

David9694 wrote:

This has been going on for some time – look up Playing in the Road (1947) on YouTube – brought to you by the Petroleum Films Bureau.

The PR was in overdrive long before that (sorry, repeated use of this link but it’s a goodie).

[neilmck]

Typical of the oil company
Typical of the oil company including the surprise drenching shower on a short trip to make sure drivers keeping using their cars.

[Oldfatgit]

So … Watched the advert,

So … Watched the advert, and couldn’t help wonder where all the *other* cars were.

Completely empty streets, and no close passes, aggressive drivers, cars parking in cycle lanes … It was all a bit *surreal*.

Painting a picture of a potential Eutopia is one thing, but this is totally beyond belief … Or maybe that’s what they want …

“Keep using our products or its the bicycle for you ..”

[peted76]

hawkinspeter wrote:

The oil companies are trying to fool people into thinking that they’re not our enemies despite their decades of sabotaging environmental science and debate.

At some point we’re going to have to choose between our survivial and the oil companies’ survival and they’re desperately trying to push that point into the future. It’s the kicking the can down the road method of not actually addressing the issues.

Yes, all of this, 100%.

…Lovely advert though to be fair.

[quiff]

Thanks. Having watched that,

Thanks. Having watched that, I’m more surprised the horses weren’t spooked by the buzzing drone cameras. 

[chrisonabike]

I doubt they’d be so happy

I doubt they’d be so happy with some of the Edinburgh laid-back crew…

[Cycle Happy]

From the link to the campaign
From the link to the campaign is this:
“Helmet
A helmet is essential protection”

Personally, I choose to wear a helmet. For me it’s because after any fall from a bike, car collision induced (that I know the helmet is not designed for) or not, I’m going to hit the ground (which the helmet is designed for).

It’s choice though and stating it is essential seems wrong, legally and morally.

[Rendel Harris]

There’s a “making of” video

There’s a “making of” video online; while I’m sure they used plenty of camera trickery there are also a number of shots with the horses and cyclist riding along together, the horses running between tapes which were presumably Photoshopped (or whatever the video equivalent is) out later.

[brooksby]

I had just assumed that they

I had just assumed that they weren’t running with the cyclist – that they were CG or that it had all been put together post-production

[David9694]

This has been going on for

This has been going on for some time – look up Playing in the Road (1947) on YouTube – brought to you by the Petroleum Films Bureau.

TL:DW – roads are for cars – exclusively 

[Rendel Harris]

ktache wrote:

Talking of adverts, and I know it’s no longer on, but how did they manage to find so many horses that weren’t shit scared of bicycles to run with the cyclist in the Lloyds Bank advert?

Friesans, famously unflappable. Used (amongst other breeds) by the Household Cavalry, I’ve often ridden quite close to them on the Mall or on South Carriage Drive in Hyde Park (when waved through by the commanding officer or accompanying police riders, never without permission) and never seen them spook once.

[ktache]

Talking of adverts, and I

Talking of adverts, and I know it’s no longer on, but how did they manage to find so many horses that weren’t shit scared of bicycles to run with the cyclist in the Lloyds Bank advert?

[chrisonabike]

hawkinspeter wrote:

… If it’s essential to keep the pumps going for a while longer, then that should be under the control of elected representatives that have humanity’s future as a priority rather than under the control of greedy little businessmen that only care about the profits this quarter.

Decoupling issue?

Human lifeforms have repeatedly found ways to go beyond (e.g. Malthusian) feedback limits.  We are currently in another growth phase having found new ways to exploit more resources faster (and produce more humans and sustain them for longer).

The Long Now folks may in some ways be a symptom / part of the problem (“let’s think our way out / possibly solve it with better tech”).  However they do a good job of presenting the issue of decoupling of timescales (see “mission”).  That is with our current powers the length of time we need to look ahead* is inconveniently long and doesn’t couple well to human feedback cycles.  Human lives are not that long (although we do much better than we’ve been naturally optimised for – another issue!).  And certainly – most companies / political systems etc. operate on a much shorter timescale so worrying about longer ones is difficult.

We’ve also shortened “news cycles” and coupled “tech” more closely to the speed of “fashion”.

Same goes for how effects by individual humans are now much more than a local issue.  That’s not just because of things like “flying”, “mass transport” and “internet” but also just cumulative numbers.  Lots of people burning more stuff for more energy than our fewer ancestors used – albeit doing so much more efficiently?  Now we have a problem.

* That is – if we wish to “manage” our future.  Or even feel this isn’t a fool’s errand as “there’s no-one in control”.

[hawkinspeter]

The_Tory wrote:

Close the oil companies down now, and you’ll be back living in a tent and with no resources or much else for that matter. In other words, both will perish. 

So, don’t close down the oil companies and soon enough there won’t be sufficient usable land to be able live in a tent and certainly no consistent way of growing food crops without guarded greenhouses. Not that a tent without air conditioning will be able to support human life in about a third of the world. Obviously we need to put our possessions at a much higher priority than people’s lives around the world.

If it’s essential to keep the pumps going for a while longer, then that should be under the control of elected representatives that have humanity’s future as a priority rather than under the control of greedy little businessmen that only care about the profits this quarter.

[Left_is_for_Losers]

hawkinspeter wrote:

The oil companies are trying to fool people into thinking that they’re not our enemies despite their decades of sabotaging environmental science and debate.

At some point we’re going to have to choose between our survivial and the oil companies’ survival and they’re desperately trying to push that point into the future. It’s the kicking the can down the road method of not actually addressing the issues.

Close the oil companies down now, and you’ll be back living in a tent and with no resources or much else for that matter. In other words, both will perish. 

[Author]

Replies