Volvo Trucks launches 'See And Be Seen' road safety campaign aimed at cyclists

700c wrote:

Nobody sticking up for this campaign in these comments is denying that manufacturers (and, most importantly, drivers), have a responsibility for safety. Especially around vulnerable road users.

Cyclists and pedestrians, as road users, have a responsibility for their own safety too.

These two things are not mutually exclusive; they can both be true. I don't know why so many people believe they are; when they dismiss things as 'victim blaming' when they are not . It polarizes debate rather than furthering it.. but then I've been on here for many years and plus ca change, so not sure why I bother really.

But do you honestly not see the problem with such a campaign coming from the very company that blocked attempts to address the problem at the end that it needs to be addressed?

And I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

We just fundamentally disagree, I guess. Irritating that it seems impossible to find common ground.

FluffyKittenofTindalos][quote=700c wrote:

 I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

I cycle through an unlit park on my commute and due to the current sunset time it can be very hard to see. A major problem that I have is that pedestrians (mainly dog walkers and joggers) go through this park and it is very hard to see them until I am practically on top of them. It would be so much easier to see them if they wore some hi-vis reflective material and vastly reduce the chances of me running into them. By your assertion however, it is down to me to get more powerful lights to see far and wide enough in front, but this would render others temporarily blind and cause further issues. So because of my experience in this element I am not sure that I agree with your "the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem" stance.

ClubSmed]</p>

<p>[quote=FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

700c wrote:

 I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

I cycle through an unlit park on my commute and due to the current sunset time it can be very hard to see. A major problem that I have is that pedestrians (mainly dog walkers and joggers) go through this park and it is very hard to see them until I am practically on top of them. It would be so much easier to see them if they wore some hi-vis reflective material and vastly reduce the chances of me running into them. By your assertion however, it is down to me to get more powerful lights to see far and wide enough in front, but this would render others temporarily blind and cause further issues. So because of my experience in this element I am not sure that I agree with your "the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem" stance.

This sounds like you're almost running into people (and other things) because you're going too fast for the conditions. Not rocket (or even reflectives) science, is it?

ClubSmed]<p>[quote=FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

700c wrote:

 I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

I cycle through an unlit park on my commute and due to the current sunset time it can be very hard to see. A major problem that I have is that pedestrians (mainly dog walkers and joggers) go through this park and it is very hard to see them until I am practically on top of them. It would be so much easier to see them if they wore some hi-vis reflective material and vastly reduce the chances of me running into them. By your assertion however, it is down to me to get more powerful lights to see far and wide enough in front, but this would render others temporarily blind and cause further issues. So because of my experience in this element I am not sure that I agree with your "the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem" stance.

As is the mantra of many contributors on this discussion forum when it comes to hi viz, reflectives and lights. It is the responsibility of the vehicle operator to drive within the limits of vision and to moderate speed accordingly.

Yes it really would be sensible for Mr Dog Walker to put a flashing LED on the vicious little brute keep it under control on a short lead and wear something hi viz / reflective themselves. Runners likewise (especially the short lead). But if you cannot see an unlit dog then you also cannot see an unlit muntjack or a branch fallen on the path or the broken glass the oiks left behind etc.

Seems really unfair that on the road we are expected to make ourselves more conspicuous and in the park we are expected to do the slowing down and accomodating other park users and their individual ninja foolishness. However the reality is that Mutley has a rather good chance of taking you out if you hit him whereas Mr Volvo Truck Driver is barely likely to register the wheels going over a cyclist.

ClubSmed]<p>[quote=FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

700c wrote:

 I disagree with your 'responsibility for their own safety' line. It's patronising - especially as a pedestrian. We already take such responsibility as we can manage or have any control over (e.g. when crossing the road as a ped, even on a zebra crossing, I'm well aware I have to scurry as fast as possible because drivers won't stop even if they are supposed to), but the reality is that the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem, and being lectured by those very people (who themselves refuse to take any responsibility at all) is infuriating.

I cycle through an unlit park on my commute and due to the current sunset time it can be very hard to see. A major problem that I have is that pedestrians (mainly dog walkers and joggers) go through this park and it is very hard to see them until I am practically on top of them. It would be so much easier to see them if they wore some hi-vis reflective material and vastly reduce the chances of me running into them. By your assertion however, it is down to me to get more powerful lights to see far and wide enough in front, but this would render others temporarily blind and cause further issues. So because of my experience in this element I am not sure that I agree with your "the majority of the 'responsibility' falls on those who create the problem" stance.

Again I disagree. I sometimes cycle and sometimes walk through a particular park. Often after dark. When cycling I entirely accept its my responsibility to avoid peds, so I go slowly and have lights. Granted, I do get irked at the dog walkers who can't control their dogs, and in the dog case I find it helpful that many now have little LEDs on their collars. But humans are a lot easier to see than dogs (especially the rodent-sized ones).

Whan walking I have on occasion gotten into rows with idiot fast cyclists who don't seem to realise that its _their_ job to look where they are going and to go slowly, rather than it being my job to jump out of their way, still less to wear high-viz (as a pedestrian in a park? You can't be serious?).

If you want to go fast on the bike, get off the shared path and use the road.

Edit - and in the case of the shared path, ultimately the responsibility is down to the authorities who expect cyclists and pedestrians to share the same space.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Whan walking I have on occasion gotten into rows with idiot fast cyclists who don't seem to realise that its _their_ job to look where they are going and to go slowly, rather than it being my job to jump out of their way, still less to wear high-viz (as a pedestrian in a park? You can't be serious?). If you want to go fast on the bike, get off the shared path and use the road.

Sorry for the confusion here, I was refering to joggers (who are pedestrians). I do go slow enough to spot walkers as it is my responsability to do so, I cannot go slow enough to spot ninja joggers and dogs not on leads though unless they are making an effort to be visible with reflective materials or LEDs

ClubSmed wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Whan walking I have on occasion gotten into rows with idiot fast cyclists who don't seem to realise that its _their_ job to look where they are going and to go slowly, rather than it being my job to jump out of their way, still less to wear high-viz (as a pedestrian in a park? You can't be serious?). If you want to go fast on the bike, get off the shared path and use the road.

Sorry for the confusion here, I was refering to joggers (who are pedestrians). I do go slow enough to spot walkers as it is my responsability to do so, I cannot go slow enough to spot ninja joggers and dogs not on leads though unless they are making an effort to be visible with reflective materials or LEDs

In fairness, joggers seem rare round here. Blood-thirsty hell-hounds, however...
(though their huge sharp teeth are quite reflective).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Whan walking I have on occasion gotten into rows with idiot fast cyclists who don't seem to realise that its _their_ job to look where they are going and to go slowly, rather than it being my job to jump out of their way, still less to wear high-viz (as a pedestrian in a park? You can't be serious?). If you want to go fast on the bike, get off the shared path and use the road.

Sorry for the confusion here, I was refering to joggers (who are pedestrians). I do go slow enough to spot walkers as it is my responsability to do so, I cannot go slow enough to spot ninja joggers and dogs not on leads though unless they are making an effort to be visible with reflective materials or LEDs

In fairness, joggers seem rare round here. Blood-thirsty hell-hounds, however... (though their huge sharp teeth are quite reflective).

that's Tindalos for you!

700c wrote:

Nobody sticking up for this campaign in these comments is denying that manufacturers (and, most importantly, drivers), have a responsibility for safety. Especially around vulnerable road users.

Cyclists and pedestrians, as road users, have a responsibility for their own safety too.

I agree that it isn't binary.

I think the frustration is with the *perception* of disparity - at least mine is. I'm not sure whether a metastudy exists that takes a proper 'responsibility' overview, but having a general awareness of RoSPA and government stats, and doing a rough metacalc... I'm going to have a punt at drivers being to 'blame' for 70-80% of cyclist and ped KSIs.

So I'd expect roughly 2-4 times the effort put into initiatives like this to target drivers... IF my 'stats' are accurate and IF the initiatives actually want to stop peds and cyclists getting squashed and not just get some free PR or something equally cynical.

When it feels like it's the reverse, I'm proportionately pissed off, and my target is the inaccurate aim of these initiatives, not my 'stats', because of course I trust them...ish.

davel wrote:

700c wrote:

Nobody sticking up for this campaign in these comments is denying that manufacturers (and, most importantly, drivers), have a responsibility for safety. Especially around vulnerable road users.

Cyclists and pedestrians, as road users, have a responsibility for their own safety too.

I agree that it isn't binary. I think the frustration is with the *perception* of disparity - at least mine is. I'm not sure whether a metastudy exists that takes a proper 'responsibility' overview, but having a general awareness of RoSPA and government stats, and doing a rough metacalc... I'm going to have a punt at drivers being to 'blame' for 70-80% of cyclist and ped KSIs. So I'd expect roughly 2-4 times the effort put into initiatives like this to target drivers... IF my 'stats' are accurate and IF the initiatives actually want to stop peds and cyclists getting squashed and not just get some free PR or something equally cynical. When it feels like it's the reverse, I'm proportionately pissed off, and my target is the inaccurate aim of these initiatives, not my 'stats', because of course I trust them...ish.

I think you're right - users of the deadly machinery bear far more responsibility for safety than the pedestrian or cyclist. Not to mention the government too with regards to infrastructure. Those who want an actual example of 'victim blaming' however, should refer to the story on here where the coroner speculates that lack of helmet and use of headphones contributed to a cyclists' death on a roundabout - when the facts were far from clear. 

I agree car manufacturers bear responsibility too. I'm not quite sure of the background of volvo opposing reforms to cabs  - but let's face it, UK government/ the EU / all European vehicle manufacturers, as big business, collude over all reforms that cost money e.g. issues like emissions and vehicle safety - motor industry lobbying power is too great.

Volvo are one of the better manufacturers with regards to advancing safety through technology - doing this but at the same time opposing reforms to cabs in 2014 and since, but they still are a corporation chasing profits. Does that mean anything they do with regards to safety (e.g. pedestrian/ cyclist detection systems,  blind spot warning systems, pedestrian airbags, auto braking, driver training, community education etc) is 'victim blaming'? er... no! Simply criticising any initiative for safety because the world is not perfect is hardly going to help. 

I get the hypocrisy here - I pointed it out, but it could apply to any manufaturer or government trying to improve safety whilst people are still dying on the road. The logical extension to the arguments that some are making on here is 'why bother trying to improve safety at all as you are a hypocritical corporation'.

To those I would suggest you are not being pragmatic or living in the real world.

deborah wrote:

Excellent campaign.  I wear a reflective vest, yellow helmet, bright jacket, lights front and back and on my helmet. If I want to arrive alive, I have to take precautions.  Stop complaining about victim blaming and take responsibility for your own safety.

Yeah. Except a simple Google will tell you that driver/cyclist collisions that are caused by one/both parties not looking properly are more likely to be the fault of the driver. If you were looking properly you'd have seen those figures on this very thread.

You can light yourself up like Blackpool and dress in bubble wrap. Not much use if drivers just aren't looking - which means this whole argument is of much lower importance than making drivers hit cyclists less.

And that's the 'victim blaming' point. Nobody making it is advocating passing up responsibility for your actions. The point is that taking responsibility and riding sensibly is less of a factor in cyclist KSIs than matters completely out of cyclists' control - ie. the behaviour of drivers.

So there's good reason to be skeptical when a truck company, previously involved in stalling moves to make trucks safer for more vulnerable road users, puts the onus on those vulnerable users to 'be safe'.

deborah wrote:

Excellent campaign.  I wear a reflective vest, yellow helmet, bright jacket, lights front and back and on my helmet. If I want to arrive alive, I have to take precautions.  Stop complaining about victim blaming and take responsibility for your own safety.

All dandy and wonderful, but it's not as if the rest of us mooch about unlit in the blackest clothing we can find. I'm perfectly happy to take precautions, but I can also understand that one moment of aggression, inattention or utter stupidity by the motorist can render all that pointless, and so I'd prefer to see the onus placed where it properly belongs.

deborah wrote:

Excellent campaign.  I wear a reflective vest, yellow helmet, bright jacket, lights front and back and on my helmet. If I want to arrive alive, I have to take precautions.  Stop complaining about victim blaming and take responsibility for your own safety.  I'm shocked with what I see cyclists do- coming up beside cars, trucks and buses, riding the wrong way down a one way street, weaving in and out of cars.  You want respect on the road, you have to earn it.

Asking people to 'take responsibility' for something that isn't under their control _is_ victim blaming.
And bog off with your collective group-responsibility bollocks. I keep trying to be polite but really, you are talking offensive rubbish. Learn to use logic and reason.

Roberts Clubman wrote:

The "See" bit is Ok. I'd use the word "Look!" The problem is the "be seen" bit. London Transport ran a "be safe, be seen" campaign last year. You can't "be seen"-You don't have it within your control. You can only be visible. Only the viewer can do the seeing. And it's more than an arcane point. ROSPA stats show that nearly 3/4 of collisions involving cyclists and vehicles are due to  not looking - 57% drivers fault and 43% cyclists fault. So, VOLVO and others responsible for road safety should adopt a "Look out there's a cyclist/driver about" campaign a bit like the motorbike posters if they want to address the facts ( yes I know, facts are soooo last year) . In any event, 80% of collisions involving cyclists happen in broad daylight (ROSPA again). Cyclists wearing dark clothing is a factor in only 6% of accidents. So, VOLVO, play the percentages and don't fixate on the wrong issues.

I did think of getting some stickers and covering up the 'be..' and the '...n' bit on those posters. 'be safe...see' would be a more defensible slogan. Though ideally it should be aimed at _all_ road users (though, hmmm, maybe unfair on sight-impaired pedestrians)

congokid wrote:

Northumberland council can't be bothered to make its roads safe and remove road danger for the most vulnerable of road users. Neither is Volvo bothered to make its vehicles safer to protect vulnerable road users.

I thought every crash involving a Volvo resulted in an explosion of daisies and rainbows.

700c wrote:

And the internet lynch mob on Frank H in these comments - well that's depressingly predictable. To some I would say, if you're that intolerant of other people's views, perhaps an internet forum isn't the best place for you?

Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense as a criticism, because you could have said exactly the same thing about Frank H's attempt at a snarky go at Gus T's comment in the first place!

Why is he allowed to express disagreement (in a snarky, and in my opinion, slightly point-missing) way, but then nobody else is allowed to disagree with him in turn?

Heck, I could say the same about your comment - why are you being intolerant of the views of those of us you accuse of being intolerant about Frank H's views, eh?

But feel free to suggest I'm being intolerant of your being intolerant of others being intolerant of his being intolerant of Gus T being intolerant of Volvo being annoying.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense as a criticism, because you could have said exactly the same thing about Frank H's attempt at a snarky go at Gus T's comment in the first place! Why is he allowed to express disagreement (in a snarky, and in my opinion, slightly point-missing) way, but then nobody else is allowed to disagree with him in turn?

Maybe you could explain why you think Gus T's snarky, missing the point comment about Volvo should get a free pass and my snarky comment in reply shouldn't.

FrankH wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense as a criticism, because you could have said exactly the same thing about Frank H's attempt at a snarky go at Gus T's comment in the first place! Why is he allowed to express disagreement (in a snarky, and in my opinion, slightly point-missing) way, but then nobody else is allowed to disagree with him in turn?

Maybe you could explain why you think Gus T's snarky, missing the point comment about Volvo should get a free pass and my snarky comment in reply shouldn't.

Ah, but I didn't say it did, did I? I didn't say you couldn't disagree with him, or that it was unacceptable intolerance for you to do so, I merely disagreed with your argument for disagreeing with him.

Plus I explained why your comment missed the point, you don't seem to have done the same in relation to the OP, you've just asserted it without an argument.

I admit 'what a w4nk3r' wouldn't have been my choice of words for criticising Volvo's campaign. I concede that much.