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.
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.
2— CHAIRRDRF (@CHAIRRDRF) November 24, 2021
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.”
Says it all in their own words – one (the driver) has a little fright, the other (cyclist) is nearly killed – how is this equivalent?
— Herbie Green (@HerbieGreen) November 25, 2021
I saw it and it’s the same as that Breathe advert last time which told us all to take a step back after we’d just nearly been killed by a texting driver.
— Elisabeth ? Anderson (@velobetty) November 25, 2021
The character portrayals are particularly contrived. Did they make the grittier, alternative version where a woman on a bike, riding up a painted murder strip, is crushed by a left hook on a roundabout, and the tipper truck driver asks her if she’s ok as they zip up the body bag?
— Family ByCycle (@FamilyByCycle) November 25, 2021
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.
173 thoughts on “Transport for London slammed for “victim-blaming” road safety ad (+ video)”
I thought it was a decent
I thought it was a decent advert which exemplifies the tribalism present on London’s roads. I don’t see the “equivalence” criticism at all, the female driver clearly states “I could have killed him”, articulating the danger of the situation.
Obviously in real life the London cyclist would have opened with a stream of gendered obscenities, but I appreciate the advert needs to be sanitised for the audience.
“Articulating the danger of
“Articulating the danger of the situation” that was entirely created by her poor driving. A danger which risked his life vs damage to her property. That’s the equivalence argument.
Anyway, I shall now return to ignoring you and apologies to everyone else for feeding the troll.
Eh? If you actually watched
Eh? If you actually watched the video, and listened to what was said, you’d have noticed that the cyclist pulled out of a sideroad straight into the car’s path. The driver saved his life by performing an emergency stop.
You’ve just imagined a scenario that never took place.
Edit: 1000 posts!
The video quite deliberately
The video quite deliberately cuts so you can’t see who is actually at fault.
The false equivalence is in fact nicely demonstrated by the driver thinking “I could have killed you” vs the cyclist’s “it must have really frightened you.” Death vs a fright is not equivalent.
Again, sorry for feeding the troll but he’s WRONG 😛
There We Are Then.
There We Are Then.
Garage at Large wrote:
and yet the end up side by side.
The cyclist states “use your mirrors” which would bear no relvance to him having pulled out in front.
I see they did their best to
I see they did their best to not blame either the cyclist of the driver for the initial coming together, and then totally left it as the drivers fault by showing them both stopped with cyclist in the gutter and driver inches away. I wonder who is to blame?
Still it does show a cyclist whose life is threatened and then accused as the one being in the wrong by irate driver so is definitely real life at least. And nice of TFL to then state forget about it to the cyclist. Don’t bother reporting it and the roads will then be nicer.
The video does not show who
The video does not show who created the danger – it’s never shown if the cyclist or the motorist were at fault. Automatically assuming that it must be the motorists fault though, is probably exactly what the video is about: don’t assume it’s always the others (motorist / cyclist) fault, don’t be biased, don’t be tribal – try to see things from the other perspective too.
Yep, you won’t like me for writing this. But if I just agreed that the motorist is a “stupid, dangerous, selfish and ignorant ****”, it wouldn’t be of use for any cyclist, it wouldn’t help to avoid accidents, it wouldn’t help to reconsider one’s own actions and it wouldn’t help anyone to survive longer. (And yes, you might even reject this as victim blaiming, if you’re such inclined – but this can be done to any helpful advice…)
“The video does not show who
“The video does not show who created the danger – it’s never shown if the cyclist or the motorist were at fault. Automatically assuming that it must be the motorists”
The motorists drives a 1.5t vehicle at something like 20-30mph. OF COURSE she creates the danger here. That is what this whole discussion is ABOUT.
marmotte27 wrote:
So if one is lying down on a train track, it’s invariably the 500t train at 70mph that’s responsible for the danger and death?
anke wrote:
Personally I’d be blaming the bloke in the top hat and tails who is twiddling his long moustache… 😉
anke wrote:
The train is certainly the dangerous agent and causes the death. This is why trains are kept separate from pedestrians as they cannot safely interact due to their long stopping distances and lack of steering. If someone lies down on a train track, then they are trespassing and clearly responsible for the incident.
With people trespassing on rail tracks, I’d consider empathy to be far more useful as the train driver will be traumatised by having their train kill someone, so the person lying on the tracks should really consider a different method of taking their life (and ideally decide against such a course of action).
Trains aren’t really a good analogy for road collisions due to the fundamental differences.
You like having the last word
You like having the last word. Go ahead, grab it – I’ll leave it at that.
anke wrote:
Huh?
I put across my opinion quite clearly and you kept disagreeing (which is fine) – it’s nothing about having the last word, but pointing out flaws with your subsequent comments about the TFL video.
Ultimately, I think TFL has been pressured into making a road safety film and they’ve decided to do the most ineffective campaign they can think of which is probably because they did not ask cyclists about dangers on the road.
Garage at Large wrote:
Hello all.
Been busy doing the day job of late. Have I missed anyth…….Oh FFS
Honestly Nige, you just can’t help it can you? Make a half decent / legitimate point, then unzip and p!ss all over the place with a typically on brand generalised insult in an attempt to illicit (one assumes) an emotional response.
What happened in your life that drives the need for this sort of confrontation? I’m sure we can help if you need to talk. Do you need a nice cup of tea?
Are you OK Nige? Have you
.
Come on, give him some peace.
Come on, give him some peace. It’s not about the language, after all.
It’s completely
It’s completely unrepresentative of the typical dangerous encounter between drivers and cyclists. I’ve driven for 15 years and I’ve literally never encountered a cyclist doing anything like that.
Yet pretty much every time I go out on my bike, I get close passes and aggressive, intimidating behaviour from a minority of drivers.
THAT is the problem that needs to be confronted and addressed
I was going to post that we
I was going to post that we now all know where our Nige works…
Obviously deliberate, but did
Obviously deliberate, but did anyone else find it weirdly frustrating that it’s unclear what sort of incident is supposed to have occurred? I’m getting mixed left hook / t-bone messages.
quiff wrote:
The motorist clearly states “What were you thinking? You can’t just pull out, I can’t see you in my mirrors.” The cyclist replies “Can’t you just see me? Cycling?”
The cyclist has pulled out of the side road onto the main road without looking.
Garage at Large wrote:
Oh this is pisspoor quality trolling, even for you. Come on Nige, at least put some effort into it, this sort of thing just makes it too obvious what silly little games you’re playing. Must try harder.
There We Are Then.
There We Are Then.
try looking at 6s before the
try looking at 6s before the near miss, both have the same brick building with high narrow windows behind them. The cyclist has not pulled out of a side road. That’s just nonsense.
Meanwhile the driver looks like she’s driving in a bit of a trance with little attention to anything not directly in front of her.
I think you’re right. As seen
I think you’re right. As seen in the comments here, people will view it through their own prejudiced lens and decide for themselves who “caused” the confrontation. I don’t think this helps in any way.
I equally do not believe that cyclists remaining calm and trying to explain to a driver that his overtake was dangerous works, I’ve tried it. My andrenalin is pumping and I stay calm and the driver goes off on one because by suggesting he needs to take more care I appear to have questioned his manhood.
Yes it is laughable when the cyclist says “I’ve scared her”. Firstly they’ve chosen the genders to suit this rhetoric. Secondly, as others have said, it’s false equivalence.
They have done their best to
They have done their best to try to remove “blame” including the cyclist stating “use your mirrors” and the driver stating “you can’t just pull out”. However it didn’t help that they show the road situation with the cyclist in the gutter pretty much and the car less then a foot away. So yes, attempted left hook on those finishing places.
Still I’m sure there are some trolls who will watch it and definitely blame the person who would be dead, and not the person who would have been driving and killed him. I’m sure they will go as far as contributing the cyclists speech to the driver in an attempt to blame the cyclist more.
Well, being a bit traumatised
Well, being a bit traumatised is exactly the same as being dead, isn’t it…?
Well, it did scare the life
Well, it did scare the life out of her.
(No subject)
I’m reminded of the drink
I’m reminded of the drink drive ads where they show accidents and the australian anti smoking ads where they showed a dead smokers lung.
Drivers need to be shocked into changing until they realise they are driving potential murder weapons – this see both sides nonsense belongs in the bin.
It needs to be as unacceptable to endanger a pedestrian or cyclist as it now is to drink & drive.
IIRC there was a time when we
There was a time when we had adverts showing cars hitting children who had walked out from between cars or behind ice cream vans.
Shame we don’t seem to have this approach anymore.
Found the speed one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDpOAXfangI
What about Clunk Click….
What about Clunk Click….
https://youtu.be/OhYwEh0IMCg
even that was quite tame
even that was quite tame compared to the public information films from the 70s, traumatised a whole generation with those, so heres the Young Ones spoof instead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiVuHEv2VZ4
Although that was early 80’s
Although that was early 80’s and drivers still drive on the pavement to a scaringly regular degree. Maybe we need a Young Ones refresher.
Anyway, the ones I remember at the time was flying kites near power cables, playing on the train track, and one I heard of and saw later which was several kids playing around a farm and dying in varied ways, inclusing one falling into a slurry pit. I think that one was saved for non urban based ITV channels.
Oh and the spirit of death hanging around ponds and quarry lakes.
Advertising: needs frequency,
Advertising: needs frequency, ubiquity and duration. Occasional campaigns likely don’t make much difference. Same with ones that aren’t “everywhere”.
In addition – thinking of the drink drive campaigns – there needs to be feedback e.g. some chance if you drive dangerously you’ll face consequences. I think in those cases it was helped by big campaigns of testing around festive times and also an increase in standard breath and blood testing. Given that driving is so common and it would be most effective to provide motorists feedback on the “near hits” (AKA near miss) as well as actual blood on the pavement incidents this is not a small task. Worthwhile I grant!
My main takeaway from the
My main takeaway from the whole thing is that rubber ducks are dangerous.
1500 to 2300 kg 50-60 kph
1500 to 2300 kg 50-60 kph nice protective cage
100kg 20-40 kph plastic hat
I can see the equivalance in terms of potential damage caused and inflicted.
Typical liberal leftie crap
Typical liberal leftie crap written by a team of “do-gooders”. In my experience after a driver comes close to knocking you out they are either:
a) Genuinely sorry for their mistake and checking your okay.
b) Total twats (as per the driver in the advert) blaming you for everything under the sun and only concerned about their property.
They do not shout as swear at you while all the time wondering if you’re okay.
As I said, typical liberal leftie crap. Must have been written by the Guardian.
fizrar6 wrote:
??? I would love to know how you’ve reached that conclusion
I don’t really get the
I don’t really get the relation of this with road safety. The message seems to be about how to react after a close-call but has no message about avoiding that close-call or even how it came about. I’m all for a bit of empathy on the roads, but the bigger problem is all the RTCs and lives lost.
hawkinspeter wrote:
That’s because you haven’t read my last 1,000 posts.
Attitudes matter in relation to RTCs and directly affect KSIs.
Every time a driver makes a dangerous pass on a cyclist, it makes other cyclists (as a population) more hostile. Every time a cyclist rides through a red light, on the pavement, or shouts abuse at a pedestrian, driver, or fellow cyclist, it makes other road users (as a population) more hostile.
The two things feed on each other, and in aggregate make the roads less safe and RTCs more likely to occur. Even TFL and its head Sadiq Khan appear to have somehow stumbled upon that fact– it’s time you did too.
The message is clear: no matter who you are on the road, be polite and courteous to other people.
Garage at Large wrote:
I don’t really get the relation of this with road safety. The message seems to be about how to react after a close-call but has no message about avoiding that close-call or even how it came about. I’m all for a bit of empathy on the roads, but the bigger problem is all the RTCs and lives lost.
— Garage at Large That’s because you haven’t read my last 1,000 posts. Attitudes matter in relation to RTCs and directly affect KSIs. Every time a driver makes a dangerous pass on a cyclist, it makes other cyclists (as a population) more hostile. Every time a cyclist rides through a red light, on the pavement, or shouts abuse at a pedestrian, driver, or fellow cyclist, it makes other road users (as a population) more hostile. The two things feed on each other, and in aggregate make the roads less safe and RTCs more likely to occur. Even TFL and its head Sadiq Khan appear to have somehow stumbled upon that fact– it’s time you did too. The message is clear: no matter who you are on the road, be polite and courteous to other people.— hawkinspeter
ah, they are not bad drivers, putting us at risk due to lack of attention,/poor judgement.
They are actually taking out their anger on third parties, because a perceieved slight from someone else
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47117177
If this really is the case, then these drivers need taking off the roads permanantly, because no amount of training will adress thier issues transfering their anger on other people.
On Wednesday I had to shout
On Wednesday I had to shout very,very loud at a black cab driver who was about to nip into my (unprotected) cycle lane and crush me and my bike. Yes, without warning, before anyone says I should have noticed, taken preventative action, etc. I had no time to work out if they would consider this an affront to their dignity or rude.
Most black cab drivers are great, polite and responsible drivers but I didn’t want to risk finding out if this was one of the impolite ones so I didn’t stop to check on their feelings. I was just relieved that yet again I was able to dodge a driver’s poor choice, stop him/her and avoid another trip to the hospital.
Garage at Large wrote:
That’s because you haven’t read my last 1,000 posts. Attitudes matter in relation to RTCs and directly affect KSIs. Every time a driver makes a dangerous pass on a cyclist, it makes other cyclists (as a population) more hostile. Every time a cyclist rides through a red light, on the pavement, or shouts abuse at a pedestrian, driver, or fellow cyclist, it makes other road users (as a population) more hostile. The two things feed on each other…[/quote]
And yet motorists do not become more hostile to their fellow motorists when they witness their peers jump lights, block yellow boxes, tailgate, cut up, inconsiderately park and many other offences. All they do is vent for 20/30 seconds then carry on as normal and bear no further malice or paint every other motorist with the same brush. Yet when one cyclist commits an offence then every other cyclist is guilty by association and merits abuse and intimidation on the road.
Apparently, if you had read
Apparently, if you had read the cyclist baiting, fat shaming, violence promoting 1002 posts by previously banned poster Boo, you would have understood. Fat cyclists on bikes, especially ebikes, or maybe TT bikes, who are riding with more then one other can be close passed, knocked flying by a car going the wrong way around the roundabout, or have things thrown at them by farmers, because cycling mikey showed an ex boxer using his mobile phone when driving which the Police and Courts found him guilty of. Also, apparently if the driver is the one who stops, gets out and screams and shouts very loudly into the cyclists face who is acting all calm, then that is fine for the driver as he is only being calm and courteous. Unless it is against a woman cyclist in Surrey in which case that is not allowed and all of those Police are Donut eating wasters on Twitter fault or something.
Oh and Rendel tweeted something 2 years ago. I think that covers it HP. Now do you understand.
edit: forgot that the rotund Orange residing in Maralago is the bestest fittest person in the world ever who supports everyone and would stop climate change in an instant because he said he is the bestest. Pretty sure that was several of his 1002 posts.
Second Edit: I wonder what all the buildings in the Forum thread said to the drivers of the vehicles to cause that level of escalating violence.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
They didn’t need to say anything – they just looked at ’em funny.
Ummm, thanks?
Ummm, thanks?
There’s a good reason why I don’t read his divisive nonsense.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think it also perpetuates the myth of the ‘accident’ like most incidents on our roads are just things that happen and are unavoidable.
…empathy on the roads,
…empathy on the roads, applied before a dangerous situation happens, can help to foresee this dangerous situation and to avoid the “accident”.
…empathy on the roads can also help to avoid the “road-rage” (no matter if on a bike or in a car) and make things more friendly, considerate and eventually safer.
anke wrote:
Better observation and paying attention to what is around you would be better than empathy and would also help avoid collisions and subsequent road rage. Out of all the things that TFL could be doing, I think promoting empathy is way down the list of practical measures. If they’d already covered topics such as left-hooks and poor overtakes, then they’d be more justified in promoting empathy.
hawkinspeter]
Better observation and paying attention must come first, but empathy helps to make good decisions based on what one has observed.
The left-hooks and poor overtakes you mention would certainly be avoided by empathic motorist.
anke]
Ah I found that cartoon – I’ve just updated it for this forum:
You know, you don’t have to
You know, you don’t have to choose between these items.
anke wrote:
Left – within my direct control.
Right – not within my direct (immediate) control. But massively (statistically) more effective than things on the left. And benefits more people.
Making the things on the right happen takes time, patience, building understanding with others, lobbying etc. etc.
But if the majority of people think that the things on the left are more / just as important as the things on the right nothing changes. Cyclists / pedestrians go on getting injured / killed. The same tiny numbers cycle.
Yeah – not sure debating with you on a forum full of cyclists makes any difference now you come to it. But it’s probably on the same scale of effectiveness as helmets and high vis.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Well, I never ride without!
You never ride.
You never ride.
Around 200km a week, mainly
Around 200km a week, mainly commuting, all year round. And you?
anke wrote:
All good and I do hi viz and lights, helmets occasionally but not so much. (Nor do I wear them walking for the percentage gains there). Happy to improve my “roadcraft”. Happy that cycling is a very safe relatively speaking. Happy that drivers are just other humans. Certain that my “attitude” is irrelevant except as an excuse used by someone after they’ve beeped at me / close passed / hit me. I don’t go around “looking for trouble” other than “being there” (I’ve actually a rather Garragian courtesy and politeness style). Also certain that neither the bright retroreflective qualities of police cars, bollards, bridges etc. nor their attitudes stop them being hit at a reasonable rate. If they were all camouflaged yes, they would be hit more – but they’re pretty visible and it’s not uncommon that they still get mangled.
Point: “bad people” gonna be bad, normal people will be careless. Occasional motivational campaigns don’t to much to change either. The only attitude changes making much difference would be:
The attitude of the victims (who you’ve agreed aren’t in the cars) – if they were much more scared, they’d stay off the roads and that would improve the accident stats. This is true for most people actually – that’s part of the reason (“subjective safety”) for low cycling rates.
The attitude of the people inflicting the injury (in cars). I think in many cases problems are due to driver carelessness / inattention and those are hard to eliminate in humans so just like the case of the bollards I don’t think this has much long term effect.
There are some rare cases where there is an argument followed by motor violence. You appear to be focussing somewhat on those. I’d agree that changing the attitude of callous or violent individuals is hard. So this makes it rather seem like you’re saying we should concentrate our campaigns on the victims in those cases. Is that what you mean?
pic1
pic1
pic2
pic2
pic3
pic3
Looking at the pics she is on
Looking at the pics she is on a main road, he is on a side road, then they meet on the main road.
Yet he looks to his right as though she is pulling out of a side road into his right side.
Then the dialogue and the finishing positions side by side with him by a kerb make no sense compared with the previous clips.
So the point of the video is don’t scare young women by being a cyclist?
hirsute wrote:
6s two consecutive frames from the front, one of the driver, one of the cyclist, same buildings behind.
That would suggest an
That would suggest an attempted left hook in which case why say to the driver about using mirrors ?
The advert attempts to tackle
The advert attempts to tackle the “tribalism” but has just poured petrol on the flames instead. It appears the main achievement of the stupid advert is to create argument over who is to blame for the near collision! The cyclist or the driver?
Please let me know when TfL and their advertising agency return to Earth?
Ethel Aardvark wrote:
Despite clearly trying to avoid that by concocting “a generic incident” that makes no sense!
Exactly! Perhaps if they
Exactly! Perhaps if they produced a series of adverts with real world examples, they might be more educational and thought provoking.
Instead, if you are already anti-motorist, then you believe the driver was to blame, and vice versa.
1) This video is excellent.
1) This video is excellent. Insisting on one’s “right”, expecting perfect behaviour of others and not accomodating for their (potential mistakes), not seeing things from another person’s perspective and just blaiming THE OTHERS are perfect ways for causing/suffering ugly accidents. Which is when the assymmetry will hit hard (dead cyclist vs. traumatised driver).
2) Being upset by this video and strongly feeling that it’s one-sided (either pro motorist or pro cyclist – the former being likely on this site) may be a sure sign that it’s worth thinking about one’s own perspective – which might have become distorted or biased. After all, the message is just along the lines of “be respectful, be considerate, be save”.
Yes, I know that some readers will hate me for writing this. In which case I’d recommend to think about point 2) above again… (And, if citing me – please cite the entire post, not just a single sentence taken out of context.)
anke wrote:
But your post is separating people into ‘drivers’ and ‘cyclists’. I – like most people who ride a bike – am both. Therefore I watch it with both perspectives. And I’m annoyed by it.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
PS – it’s not that I think
PS – it’s not that I think the video is “one sided” but rather than it fails to recognise that the relationship on the road – in terms of risk/harms – is not an even one between drivers and cyclists.
But she says: “I could have
But she says: “I could have killed YOU” — perfectly recognising that uneven relationship!
Would you feel the same way
Would you feel the same way if it was a video with a pedestrian and a cyclist ?
nicmason wrote:
Yes it would be equally absurd, cyclists shouldn’t ride in a way which endangers pedestrians, there is no equivalence
nicmason wrote:
I’d like to see them put out a pedestrian/driver version of this.
Have a pedestrian crossing a road (possibly on a zebra) and a driver comes along, sees them late and performs an emergency stop, coming just short of the ped. Then follow the same kind of script.
I think it would be laughable, with the ped coming to the realisation that the driver was almost put in the position of killing them.
As a pedestrian who cycles
As a pedestrian who cycles and a cyclist who is a pedestrian i’d say Ive come nearer being injured while walking by bikes and scooters than by cars.
nicmason wrote:
It’s difficult to compare near-misses as they’re not recorded, but the following stats make the case that you’re more likely to be injured by a motor vehicle although the figures are not adjusted for relative numbers:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/numberofaccidentstoukpedestriansonpavementsandfootways
In which case I would suggest
In which case I would suggest you are in a very small minority. I certainly have felt threatened by cars and other vehicles many,many times as a pedestrian and probably only once or twice in my life by a cyclist.
TfL already did something
TfL already did something similar in their “Share the Road” film in 2014, and showed the young black schoolgirl throwing her chips at the driver. I think she was the only actor who actually did any physical retaliation in that film. Thus reinforcing the stereotype of angry black people. Nasty.
anke wrote:
You’re welcome.
…this is actually quite
…this is actually quite funny.
Yeah I thought it was pretty
Yeah I thought it was pretty good, as was your second point.
The video is not excellent as
The video is not excellent as no one knows what the hell happened. The whole thing is based on a false premise anyhow as outlined by others previously.
Taking away the concept of being ‘respectful’ requires knowledge of what happened. For all we know, she was pratting about on an infotainment system and looked up and said ‘oh shit’. No amount of respect is going to assist with that problem.
anke wrote:
Thinking about your own perspective. Well indeed. But have you?
“Expecting perfect behaviour of others and not accomodating for their (potential mistakes), not seeing things from another person’s perspective and just blaiming THE OTHERS are perfect ways for causing/suffering ugly accidents.”
Indeed – but is that from a cyclist perspective or a driver’s perspective? What about if we sometimes do one and sometimes the other? Whose mistakes are causing accidents? Who are the people suffering in those accidents?
Many people here use several modes (well – most probably walk, cycle, drive …). Wider experience doesn’t necessarily make you wise but it does indeed give you more perspective than just driving (mostly) and walking.
When we’re in the majority we tend to expect “the other” to do the accommodating and see it from our perspective. Our “inconvenience” and “hurt feelings” are a big deal. It doesn’t seem natural if the minority seem not to be “paying their fair share” or getting any benefits.
When we’re in the minority and experiencing threat or injury we tend to be annoyed when people patronise us or are “expecting perfect behaviour” by us and demanding that we “accomodate for their (potential mistakes)” and appear incapable of “seeing things from another person’s perspective.”
chrisonatrike wrote:
This is fine but is on the premise of all transport types having an equal impact, when in real life motorised transport stands out for it’s potential to kill against other modes of transport. The standard we expect as a society is that those that choose to operate a mode of transport that can kill recognise the responsibility to concentrate and look out for others of a greater vulnerability. Your point also seems to disregard the fact that any regular cyclist will factor in potential risks I.e. pinch points/side roads/etc., for their own safety. The imbalance of perception comes as a result of over 80% of cyclists that also drive, whereas 80% of motorists most certainly don’t cycle (without knowing the exact % I’d be surprised if it was more than 30%). If 80% of motorists did cycle, that alone would reduce deaths/ksi’s considerably because of the understanding and perception gained from experience.
[ Whoosh? ] I think we’re
[ Whoosh? ] I think we’re making the same point no? I was just trying – mistakenly clearly – to reflect anke’s thoughts on attitudes and viewpoints back. It looked to me that anke was forming a loop in which cyclists getting triggered by whatever this video itself demonstrated a lack of “consideration of the motorist’s perspective” and was approaching the point where this became the reason that cyclists they had problems in the first place. Aka the full Garage.
Otherwise I’d have just written: “share the road just like we motorists are prepared to with you slow cyclists even though we have to do a test and have licences numberplates and insurance and we pay for it and it’s not designed for you anyway and you’re hard to see and you’re not even waiting in the traffic jam like we have to and you’ve got a really entitled attitude too wait you haven’t even got airbags are you trying to get killed? BLOODY CYCLISTS”.
I think over a generation it might have some impact, yes. But I just keep thinking about all the bollards, bridges, houses, other cars etc. that motorists run into every day to their own detriment. I suspect that humans will remain humans and not become saints or super-motivated experts. So I suspect that it won’t have as much impact as limiting or removing interaction between motorists and non-motorists as much as possible would. (And controlling it with engineering to reduce danger where they do interact).
Fair point. I guess the
Fair point. I guess the protagonists know how easy it is to trigger cyclists with any point to do with safety. I like any other regular cyclist can associate with the feeling of a near death experience as a result of another road user’s inattentiveness. So apologies for not recognising your intentions.
I am completely clear in my belief that changing driving culture is not a quick fix and any improvements are dependent on the right strategy and implementation of various tools to achieve positive change. Right now nowhere near enough is being done to reduce ksi’s/road based fatalities.
In terms of cycling infrastructure and separating motorists and non motorists, the ultimate problem with that solution is “available space” which is in short supply and high demand in the U.K. I also have a serious lack of faith towards those responsible for the infrastructure, especially on the abundance of failures they’ve created, particularly with bike lanes. They’ve indirectly added to the incidents of abuse suffered by cyclists as a result.
sensei wrote:
All of the above. Most everything in life is finite except irritation and comments on forums. It’s a question of priority. It’s not necessarily zero sum but yes – you choose (government chooses) how space is allocated and you choose what you build. Or subsidise, or permit. The last 100 years or so the UK chose motor vehicles, at an increasing rate. Most countries did. We chose cut-price, lower priority for everything not cars.
If you want a vision of the difference then Dutch are fairly unique in that starting about 50 years back they stopped prioritising cars quite so heavily and put some money into quality of life / other transport choices. (They still love their cars though!) Plenty of videos on how that looks / statistics on numbers cycling. It’s striking. More recently other places – cities mostly – have started in that direction (Copenhagen / Malmö / Berne Seville / Paris …). They show that “bolting on” changes – if done thoroughly – does make some difference. That’s probably the path we’ll have to take – if we even can. We seem really locked into the use of motor vehicles.
quote chrisonatrike:
quote chrisonatrike:
“Indeed – but is that from a cyclist perspective or a driver’s perspective?” – Both.
“What about if we sometimes do one and sometimes the other?” – Most of us do.
“Whose mistakes are causing accidents?” – Mistakes of motorists like mistakes of cyclists.
“Who are the people suffering in those accidents?” – Cyclists physically, motorists “only” mentally.
“The integrated campaign,
“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.”
No.
“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.”
No.
“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.”
Bolox.
“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.”
More bolox.
“We’re incredibly passionate about this objective and ‘See their side’ is a film we wanted our audience to resonate with.”
No.
“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.”
No.
“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.”
Well you sure ain’t gonna do it with that crap.
Where did they get the guidance for this campaign from? The Ladybird book of road safety? Utter crap, that like the previous campaigns from DfT which terrified cyclists off the road, will succeed only in making cycling appear more dangerous than it is, and will therefore discourage it. I wonder if TfL can get their money back from VCCP London?
Or maybe I’ve misunderstood, and the whole thing is about getting more protected cycle lanes?
In their next advert they
In their next advert they will reverse the roles of the protagonists. The older man in his car shouting at a lone, vulnerable female cyclist and suggest that she should ‘see his side’. Oh wait a minute….
Try to SEE THEIR SIDE…
…why not try to “see their side”…?
Perhaps you could explain
Perhaps you could explain exactly what happened in the video so that ‘seeing their side’ is meaningful.
Did the cyclist just swerve to turn right without looking in the way of The Crash Detectives series 3 episode 4?
Aside from your stance sets out to preclude it actually being 100% someone’s fault in the way that a few lorry drivers have driven into the back of stationery traffic due to phone use.
The film doesn’t explain
The film doesn’t explain whose fault it was – presumably just one of those situations where small mistakes on both sides pile up to a major big cock-up.
But it actually doesn’t matter who’s fault it was. The message is about staying calm, respectful, empathetic and thinking about how others might experience a given situation from their perspective – helping to resolve this situation, to avoid tribalism, and to stop people from getting more aggressive towards each other every day.
Trying to find out who’s mistake the – hypothetical – situation was actually misses the very point of this video…
I agree that this video
I agree that this video deliberately obfuscates the incident itself to focus on how the protagonists deal with the aftermath. That’s all well and good, but in order to have a meaningful impact on road safety, we can’t just be nicer to each other after near misses, we need to “see their side” in order to avoid incidents arising in the first place. E.g. by thinking “if I was that cyclist, how much space would I want to be given”. However, there is still the false equivalence point, and this looks uncomfortably out of step with the upcoming Highway Code changes to introduce a Hierarchy of Responsibility.
quiff wrote:
This is precisely the point and the reason why the advert will be hopelessly ineffective in improving road safety.
““The end product is a film
““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.”
Telling a vulnerable user to be empathetic to the driver of a 1.5T vehicle who is more interested in their phone or infotainment system or arguing with their passenger is not going to make the roads safer or make the driver think of the potential of their actions.
hirsute wrote:
…implying that all motorists were just interested in their phones or infotainment won’t help to make cyclists and motorists get along any better, safer or more effectively. Yes, there are annoying and ignorant motorists and annoying and ignorant cyclists – but let’s not be either of them.
But most cyclists (unless for training/leisure) and motorists want to end their journey quickly and safely – and some empathy helps. Even if it’s the cyclist who shows the empathy – for example by indicating to a motorist that it’s save to overtake (or that it’s not save to overtake, which still acknowledges that the cars presence has been noted), or by not filtering to the very front at a red traffic light, or by keeping away from cars that have to leave a parking lot with poor visibility, or by slowing down a little for a moment to let others enter a road, …
But how did I come to think that this level of empathy might be useful for some cyclists? Because I’m always impressed by the level of aggression and “road rage” demonstrated by some posters in this forum! It’s almost like some people were riding souped up Audi-roadbikes, BMW-mountainbikes, or white-van-ebikes – just seeing their own needs and focusing on getting things their way…
anke wrote:
Not all drivers, just the ones who hit, or nearly hit cyclists. The ones paying proper attention and driving with consideration don’t get into these near misses. They are aware of their syurroundings and realise that cyclists do not add time to their journey, even if they hold them up for a few seconds on thsi stretch of road.
I’m not implying anything. I
I’m not implying anything. I’m pointing out what happens on the roads, not that all drivers do this.
Annoying and ignorant motorists injury and sometimes kill vulnerable users, so why should anyone show empathy over that ?
Instructing a driver not to over take isn’t showing empathy and I’m wondering if you really understand what empathy is.
Roadcraft and hazard awareness don’t require empathy and they are not going to make poor drivers improve.
Low tolerance for poor driving, increased driving bans, changes to the hierarchy of responsibility, better infrastructure will improve safety. Oh and police forces taking proper action instead of nfa or a letter.
The nearest to empathy is getting drivers to understand that the cyclist ahead is someone’s daughter, son, wife, mother ,grandfather.
Training would get drivers to understand that waiting 10 seconds to overtake is going to make zero difference to the length of their journey.
That mgif is pointless when there is a queue ahead and trying this followed by sudden braking is not only uneconomic but also dangerous.
quote hirsute:
quote hirsute:
“Annoying and ignorant motorists injury and sometimes kill vulnerable users, so why should anyone show empathy over that ?” – Because they don’t just choose to do evil, but find themselves in a situation where they end up doing a stupid, dangerous thing. Understanding how they think and feel (not approving of it!) is empathy and can help to stay save.
“Instructing a driver not to over take isn’t showing empathy and I’m wondering if you really understand what empathy is.” – It does show empathy: You know and acknowledge that the driver would like to pass and is waiting for a good moment. But the driver isn’t really sure when – and would probably appreciate advice from a person ahead, who can see further down the road or around the corner. Becoming that person helps the driver and establishes a personal link – making the driver more concerned for your safety. (In my experience, doing this, followed by waving the driver by once the road is clear, leads to many thankful responses.)
“Roadcraft and hazard awareness don’t require empathy and they are not going to make poor drivers improve.” – They make drivers consider your safety and think about what you might perceive as dangerous or uncomfortable.
You know, a little bit of empathy, applied before an incident happens, is not so bad…
“Roadcraft and hazard
“”Roadcraft and hazard awareness don’t require empathy and they are not going to make poor drivers improve.”
They make drivers consider your safety and think about what you might perceive as dangerous or uncomfortable.”
No, my roadcraft and hazard perception have zero effect on drivers’ empathy.
Trying to find mitigation for poor driving is not the answer. Drivers either need to realise that they have to improve or that they are not currently up to driving and should use other transportation for their trip.
Right, there was I typo. It
Right, there was I typo. It meant to read:
“”Roadcraft and hazard awareness don’t require empathy and they are not going to make poor drivers improve.”
IT (EMPATHY) makeS drivers consider your safety and think about what you might perceive as dangerous or uncomfortable.”
anke wrote:
Empathy – the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
Many cyclists are motorists. Sharing. Most motorists are not cyclists. No empathy.
tl/dr: None of this really matters – empathy or the lack of it isn’t the main thing killing / injuring cyclists. Or pedestrians (we’re all pedestrians…) It’s not the main worry keeping people off bikes or children from playing in the streets. Lots of fallible humans operating motor vehicles in spaces not prioritised for the safety and convenience of anyone not in a car – I think that could have something to do with it. So even if this rather odd advert “raises awareness” amongst motorists (cyclists have plenty awareness of motorists) I don’t think it’ll change the casualty stats.
If they kept running them to the extent of the drink / drive campaigns AND enforced dangerous driving behaviour to a much greater extent, then maybe after a generation or two… but people still won’t be happily mixing with cars on their bikes.
Will bollards and bridges empathising with motorists stop the motorists hitting them? Should we send their designers on awareness-raising courses? But those designers are likely drivers of motor vehicles themselves…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Sharing the feeling is not required for empathy. Being a cyclist oneself is neither required.
But it seems you don’t want to understand what the film is about and would rather be right than learning from it. Do so at your own peril in traffic.
“”Instructing a driver not to
“”Instructing a driver not to over take isn’t showing empathy and I’m wondering if you really understand what empathy is.” – It does show empathy: You know and acknowledge that the driver would like to pass and is waiting for a good moment. But the driver isn’t really sure when – and would probably appreciate advice from a person ahead, who can see further down the road or around the corner. Becoming that person helps the driver and establishes a personal link – making the driver more concerned for your safety. (In my experience, doing this, followed by waving the driver by once the road is clear, leads to many thankful responses.) “
If the situation has got to the point where I have to instruct a driver not to try and get to the pinch point first or overtake on a blind bend or where the road is narrowing and there is oncoming traffic then the driver is incompetent.
There is no empathy involved by either party. If the driver was actually good at driving, they wouldn’t be in the position they are.
If you think the driver will somehow interpret this as a kind lesson then that is just wishful thinking by you.
I think you might be part of
I think you might be part of the intended audience of this video 😉
How did you work that out? I
How did you work that out? I have good roadcraft and very good hazard perception.
I don’t need to know why a driver failed to give way, I only have to deal with the fact that they did. I have no interest in wondering if they had a row, had to clear up after the dog, were fixated on the radio. I just have to deal with their actions not some cloud of emotions they are going thorugh.
But hey, if you think you can project empathy by telling someone not to overtake where they are so stupid to realise it is not safe to, then knock yourself out.
hirsute wrote:
…said the man in the white van / souped up BMW / black Audi… 😉
I’ll file that in the same
I’ll file that in the same category as
“You like having the last word. Go ahead, grab it – I’ll leave it at that.”
So.
So.
Nearly killing someone = Giving someone a nasty fright.
FMJ. Haven’t seen anything so gratuitously offensive since Peter Jackson’s early films. And at least they were funny.
Would you care elaborating
Would you care elaborating what you find offensive about this film? (Bear in mind that it’s the motorist who acknowledges that she almost killed the cyclist!)
Yes the sad irony with this
Yes the sad irony with this ad is that it infers an equal footing of distress when really only 1 of the actors is in charge of a potential killing machine. This perspective from TFL shows a depressing lack of understanding towards the cyclist nearly being killed and therefore what many cyclists will feel cycling through London every day.
SHE said “I almost killed YOU
SHE said “I almost killed YOU”. Where’s the lack of understanding?
anke wrote:
Do you really need me to explain why the feeling of fright and remorse are not comparable to the feeling of a near death encounter?
OK. How would you improve the
OK. How would you improve the film then, making the asymmetric (car vs bike, death vs remorse) more symmetric, fair, appropriate or fit for its purpose?
anke wrote:
Well the first issue is that whilst the advert has a nice sentiment to it, it does nothing to address the real problem, the fact that motorised vehicles account for over 99% of road based deaths. By it’s failure to acknowledge reality it almost encourages anti-cycling rhetoric by incorrectly seeing it as a 50/50. So simply put, for the reasons mentioned, this advert will have no positive effect on road safety and perversely may make it slightly worse.
If you want me to provide a scenario which will address the problem, do it in a necessary hard hitting, brutal way which accurately reflects reality and with the ability to educate to improve road safety I would do the following:
1. It would be focused on motorists
2. It would clearly identify the road based death/ksi statistics
3. It would re-iterate the responsibilities of motorists and the tragedy that can follow even a moment’s lapse of concentration
4. It would provide a series of clips that could lead towards a serious injury/fatality of a vulnerable road user I.e. A careless left hook into a turning across a cycle lane, a close pass at speed, an overtake on a blind bend on a rural road, need I go on…
…and finally, 5. It would highlight the pain, suffering and life sentence those loved ones have to endure as a result of losing their son/brother/dad/etc.
Hard hitting, reflective of reality and addressing the undeniable cause of the vast majority of road based deaths.
Call it a complete overhaul or at the very least, going back to the drawing board. All dependent of course on the marketing team having the correct perception of reality!
So you would replace the
So you would replace the message of “being mutually polite, respectful and empathic” to one that blames the motorists only? Would this be more effective!?
In simple terms yes. The
In simple terms yes. The intention of the advert is to improve road safety. But as has already been explained to you. Empathy and compassion after the incident is ineffective when compared to improving awareness and attentiveness before an incident occurs.
Like I said, the sentiment of the advert is nice but wholly misdirected to what the advert is trying to achieve – making the roads safer.
sensei wrote:
Obviously, they need to be applied before!
anke wrote:
Which is another failing of the video – it only shows being empathic afterwards which is all well and good, but kinda useless for improving road safety.
anke wrote:
I reckon the most effective message would be to target motorists to pay attention to specific driving mistakes that can cause collisions. There’s more motorists and they’re more likely to be at fault in collisions as well as they’re wielding the more dangerous vehicle. Targetting cyclists with safety messages is going to have a miniscule effect and is quite likely to have unintended consequences with motorists then feeling that they have more rights on the road than a cyclist not wearing hi-viz or a helmet (or emoji waistcoat).
anke wrote:
— ankeIn the vast majority of collisions between cyclists and drivers, the driver is held to be at fault by the police. If you’re going to solve a problem, you tackle the biggest cause first, not the smallest.
Right. So only address one
Right. So only address one cause, work hard on it to solve it (even if you can’t), and totally ignore all others. Great. Based on this type of logics, you could even claim that the actual cause for these hurt (and dead) cyclists is “cycling on roads”, so that cycling on roads should be banned… Really?
anke wrote:
These are life skills. Unfortunately when we look across society there is increasing abuse in schools, against emergency and care workers, against restaurant and shop staff. They appear to be simple (soft) skills but even at 58 years old I consider myself to be a work in progress and have to practice these skills.
I’m happy if the government want to remind people to be more tolerant and see other peoples point of view through an advertising campaign if they believe it will make some some difference.
However, it is not appropriate in a Road Safety campaign. Most casualties killed or maimed by dangerous or even careless driving will not have the luxury of being able to stop and see the other point of view.
I very much agree with your
I very much agree with your statements. But seeing the other point of view is what’s needed for becoming “better humans”, better drivers and better riders. And it helps in foreseeing looming danger / identifying dangerous situations.
anke wrote:
I think you’re already conflating the soft skills being advocated in the advert and the potential to improve the practical skills of riding a bike or driving a car safely, which as others have pointed out would help road safety far more and is a completely missed opportunity.
No, they are 2 separate
No, they are 2 separate things as described by IanMK.
Well it would be very hard to
Well it would be very hard to do an advert showing the thousands and thousands of casualties created by cyclists each year because… there are hardly any. Maybe one a year? You will know about the high-profile cases by name, because the media make a huge song and dance about them, whereas the five daily killer drivers are barely mentioned.
Spokesperson wrote:
One of my faves – just one year (scroll down a bit for his animated version – really illustrates the point).
anke wrote:
Why is she angry and screaming at someone as a result of what SHE did. How is that a rational or reasonable response?
Many years ago I almost took someone out on a roundabout – entirely my fault.
My response was to pull over, see if they were okay,….. and take a bollocking – cos I facking deserved it.
Sometimes anger is utterly justified. And sometimes it isn’t.
Captain Badger wrote:
Why is she angry and screaming at someone as a result of what SHE did. How is that a rational or reasonable response?
— Captain Badger
But that’s the point: there is no evidence of who’s mistake it was – but in a dangerous, slightly confusing incident, our first inclination is often to blame the other side.
anke wrote:
The driver stated “I almost killed you”. So not so confused from her perspective
So again, how is shouting and screaming at someone you acknowledge you almost killed a rational reasonable response?
Unless I was doing it wrong in the incident I described above…..
I think we are supposed to
I think we are supposed to consider that she may have had a bad day or bad news and so she is reacting to that.
The concept that is she should forgo driving as she cannot concentrate properly in order to use a 1.5T vehicle on the roads is one that cannot be contemplated.
Captain Badger wrote:
People can say this even if they’re not guilty. And if she said “you almost killed yourself”, there would be an outrage about “misunderstanding the real danger”, “not acknowledging the asymmetry of risk”, or of “victim blaming”…
But if you are upset by this advert, you might be part of the intended audience…?!
anke wrote:
Damn facking right.
So it seems as if this film has failed to do anything but foment division……
Captain Badger wrote:
Division or discussion? I also do not think that this forum, with perhaps 10 opinionated contributors (like myself), is representative of the real audience that TfL had in mind…
anke wrote:
this attitude lines up with that of the makers of the film, that cyclists and drivers are two different groups and need to understand each other. But the fact is the vast majority of cyclists are already drivers so well understand the other side of the equation. Cyclist when they drive do not have these sort of incidents, because they drive carefully around vulnerable road users.
Meanwhile most drivers have never cycled on the roads and have no understanding what it’s like to be close passed by a car or left hooked.
I largely agree – even though
I largely agree – even though a good proportion of Londoners don’t have a driving license (which isn’t of much use there, anyway).
But will it hurt that the film reminds us of the other side? And that the (few) more ignorant riders and (many) ignorant drivers are taught about the other side?
And finally: I’m fairly sure that “grumpy” (dangerous, “anti-cyclist”) drivers will be more open for a message (apparently) aimed at both sides than “just another pro-cyclist” message that’s obviously just aimed at them and their “god given right to the road”.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I agree wycombewheeler. As both a cyclist and a driver you tend to have a far better grasp of the dangers you pose to a cyclist in your car as opposed to non-cyclists.
As a result we tend to be more patient waiting for a safe moment to pass etc. Whereas non cyclists don’t. When I have been in the car following a cyclist waiting to pass I’ve had drivers attempt to overtake me and the cyclist into the face of oncoming traffic, I’ve had cars sit right on my bumper blaring their horns/flashing lights because I wasn’t overtaking the cyclist into the face of oncoming traffic.
Yes the advert has some merit in dealing with the aftermath of an accident but does nothing to address the root cause.
To look at it from another perspective, the TFL advert is akin to the old “Chip Pan Fire” adverts telling you how to put out a chip pan fire with a damp teatowel…. but completely ignoring the advice of “Never leave a chip pan unattended/don’t try to cook chips when you are drunk”
This is a more typical
This is a more typical encounter in London https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFEJstPBwvw
I THINK we’ve seen this
I THINK we’ve seen this before…
Critique here from 2016: https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/news/think-campaign-releases-new-film-to-deluge-of-critical-feedback/
And for what you all wrote last time:
https://road.cc/content/news/205892-fury-over-government-cycling-hgv-warning-video
I think TfL get their point
I think TfL get their point across quite well – don’t shout at each other. Don’t escalate an incident – no one wins.
Hmmm. A bit of both. Shouting
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.
I can’t see a problem with
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.
You’re not an actual person
You’re not an actual person though are you?
Odd comment. You disagree .
Odd comment. You disagree . Fine. Why not just say that.
This advert in a nutshell:
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!”
Yep. It’s always the blooming
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>
anke wrote:
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.
Yes instead of a campaign
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.
Not accidents, incidents or
Not accidents, incidents or collisions. An accident is a toddler tripping over on the grass.
anke wrote:
Which other side?
Today I’m walking. Tomorrow I might drive in the morning, cycle a couple of places (journeys ™ with a purpose!) in the afternoon. Maybe take a bus into town and and taxi back. Which side am I?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Obviously the squirrels’
No, it’s not always the
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.
Agreed – at least in this
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.
Generally the Twitterverse
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-rewards-effective-initiatives-and-publishes-2020-figures-road-2021-11-18_en
Bishop0151 wrote:
Thanks!
chrisonatrike wrote:
— chrisonatrikeI 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)
We’re all individuals!
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).
anke wrote:
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.
So TfL want zero deaths on
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.
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
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.
Owd Big 'Ead wrote:
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…
Miranda Leedham, head of
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?
Everyone should bear in mind
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.
open_roads wrote:
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.
anke wrote:
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.
open_roads wrote:
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.
a quote from the creative
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-side-road-safety-week-campaign/1733469)
so its nothing to do with road safety
Choice quotes from the person
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.
it was the “The end product
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.
Cycling UK’s response: http:/
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.