Be Bright, Be Seen video game controversy - the minister responds

Back to road safety campaigns, this is one of the most effective I've seen. It's a compilation of what looks appears to be actual video with fictional footage but it makes one think [warning: graphic content]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC2SBX2nnUw

Cyclists need to be aware of this:
http://croydoncyclist.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/hi-viz-the-new-helmet-deb...

And the shocking research it's based upon (please read the whole article it's at the end of the PDF):
Cyclist visibility at night: Perceptions of visibility do not necessarily match reality
by JM Wood*, RA Tyrrell**, R Marszalek*, P Lacherez*, T Carberry*, BS Chu*, and MJ King***
Australia Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 21(3). pp. 56‐60.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38338/1/c38338.pdf

DaveP, did we say that it's the only thing 'they' are doing? The minister points out in his response that the DfT produce a whole range of materials etc etc. Think we just said that with this particular game 'they' had produced something rather dumb.

I'm not going to get too worked up about it though because if my three kids are anything to go by it is unlikely to be seen by many children either way- none of them, have ever heard of or seen any road safety games or video put out by the DfT they got all their road safety training on the job as it were, walking to school every day. None of them, or any of their friends wear any high viz gear to do so.

I feel that in many ways that this game will not serve to encourage youngsters to wear HiViz gear on the streets in the dark! As with any video game those playing it will only try and gain a high score/stars!! They will not necessarily start to wear the 'required' clothing as it has no street cred.

There is no proof to the best of my knowledge that the wearing of HiViz/reflective gear does not reduce accidents and the only reason that less children are being injured is due to the fact that they are being transported by their parents in cars.

As cyclists we are very much aware of our vunerability and that of others due to our not being surrounded by several tons of steel and we make the necessary risk assesment and take action ie: lights, clothing etc. I have no issue with the wearing of visible clothing, I do though, have great problems that prospective drivers are not taught road awarenesss in regards to vunerable road users. Does anyone out there seriously believe that a motorist is going to google 'road safety'??? Sadly the motorist is convinced that their ABS, traction control etc., is going to stop them hitting a vunerable road user. How many of us have seen and experienced this late braking at junctions forcing us into the path of another vehicle?

The DfT would be better in looking at ways in which to change the behaviour of the motorist and make our roads much safer!

Oh yes, does anyone out there know if our Northern European neighbours encourage the same wearing of HiViz clothing as actively as the DfT??

This is not the first time these people at directgov have been playing silly games. Does anyone else remember knockin noggins, which advocated violence against cyclist who do not wear helmets?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-06-04a.103.6&s=talesofthero...
The DFT removed that one after complaints from MPs, the CTC, and the NSPCC.

Nope I'm not missing the point, I'm just not taking the view of one poorly thought out item and vilifying it as the only thing 'they' are doing in child road-safety...

You want 'them' to teach kids to cross the road, to teach kids to "look both ways" and find a "safe place"?? Don't the other games on the site do that?

As a test of your assertions, I'll ask my 9yo to play ALL the games on the site. I'll then - without prompting her - ask for her opinion. Unfortunately Meg already has her own Hi-Viz vest, so her thoughts on that game may be a little skewed.

Heh! But your missing the point again DaveP - not saying it's going to scar anyone, I am saying that it is pushing the message that the only things that belong on the roads are cars.

I know it would be boring for the creatives employed by the DfT but why not simply show kids how to cross the road.

"Rivers of Steel.... It'll run you down!"
Good title, Frogger was its name when I was younger. Don't think it mentally scared me any more than Space Invaders or Centipede.

Ah that's not quite my point, I'm not saying anything about mindless drivers because there aren't any drivers in this game - just cars. That's my point you could just as well call the road in the game 'The River of Steel… And hey kid you've got to cross it! You could trying using the Green X Code… Duh! This is a river of steel we're talking about, it'll run you down anyway.'

We should be teaching kids how to cross the roads properly and that if they stop, look, look again, and only cross when they think it is safe to do so that they should expect to get to the other side in one piece, and we should be ramming home to everyone else their responsibility to look out for kids crossing the roads.

That's a good video, but it's also an old video - why aren't the DfT putting their energies into making similar films these days?

Is anyone suggesting all car drivers be be put up against a wall and stoned? I don't think so… it would present something of a problem come for the cycling revolution though because as a group cyclists own more cars than the national average.

I'm with shay cycles on this one, it's up to the road user, to take responsibility and look out for other road users and drive or ride with the care necessary for the conditions - it shouldn't be up to vulnerable road users to make up for the defective driving of motorists - they should bloody well look where they are going.

Oh, and typing road safety in to Youtube does bring up a lot of vids. Old vids, mostly about wearing your seatbelt and drink driving, apart from one seat belt ad they don't look to have had that many views - lmore people would seem to be interested in our Shimano Di2 video. Anyway, Youtube is a pretty cheap and ineffective way of reaching the target audience of motorists that these sorts of message need to reach that would take spending some serious money on tv and newspaper ads.

Likewise that video game isn't a good start at educating our kids it's just lazy propaganda selling the message that roads belong to motorists and no-one else.
The last government liked to trumpet the fact that they had cut the numbers of children killed on Britain's roads by more than 50 per cent, but as the National Audit Office pointed out the main reason for this was because fewer and fewer children felt safe enough to use the roads, except as the passenger in a car, due to the relentlessly car-centric focus of transport policy. The government had met its target by scaring them all away. Seems like the new lot will be carrying on that policy.

don_don says;

"No-one is arguing that hi-viz is a bad thing, just the way it has been presented here."

Maybe they weren't but I am - at least to say that it should never be necessary.

Yes a pretty unusual stance but I am fed up of the number of times people just don't look properly. If there is something (or somebody) on the road the road user (of any kind) is responsible for seeing it - regardless of visibility, light, fog etc. If the road user can't see then they shouldn't proceed, and when they do proceed their speed should be dependent on how well and far they can see.

If I can't see a black cow, brown labrador or unlit skip and I hit it then it is my fault. Same applies if I hit a cyclist, pedestrian or anything else - lit or not, hi-viz or not.

Somehow we need to remind road users of the need to look properly and drive in accordance with what they can or can't see.

DaveP wrote:

It's just ADVERTISING!!

can't agree, davep. it's the thin end of the wedge, that ends up with the drivers of black sports cars pursuing contributory negligence claims against children who they deem 'not bright enough'. mr colostomy is right, the government needs to tackle the cause of the issues.

DaveP, I think you have missed the point. The 'game', if you can call it that, appears simply to reinforce the car-centric view that the roads are for cars, and if you get in their way then the consequences are yours alone.

This seems to be a particularly insidious way of selling road-safety to children, who are unlikely to be able to recognise the subtle (if unintended) 'anti-pedestrian' message.

No-one is arguing that hi-viz is a bad thing, just the way it has been presented here. It wouldn't be so bad if the message was balanced by a similar campaign aimed at car drivers, but where can one find anything like that in the media??

It's just ADVERTISING!! Do you really believe that wearing Lynx turns you into a babe magnet, or that it just stops you smelling like a midden? Things taken to extremes are memorable.

As a driver/cyclist/horse rider/pedestrian/dog walker I do try to be as safe as I can but there's no guaranteeing what the idiots out there will do. As a driver I've been hit by bikes, as a cyclist I've been hit by cars, as a horse rider I've nearly been hit by both. So far ( touch wood ) as a pedestrian I'm doing ok..

There will alway be idiots out there going too fast, drunk, drugged, asleep, over confident or just not looking. Both Children and idiots need educating about taking responsibility for their actions, and how to mitigate the actions of others. If that takes shock tactics, so be it.

At least you got a reply!

What about the imagery within the campaign - it's horrendous that they want to put those pictures in kids minds. As 'Games' go, this one should at least come with a PG sticker.

Indeed mr_colostomy. I can imagine it now
'Oh Dear! Didn't scream loudly enough as you were attacked from behind and dragged into the bushes? You probably shouldn't have been wearing a miniskirt anyway.'

As for the game; it makes me feel sick. It's an extention of the motor vehicle based view the majority of government and the law has about our roads. Take the talk of cyclists having to shoulder responsibility for harm if they are hit by a car while not wearing a helmet. It's bow-locks. Road users, both powered and unpowered, need to be made responsible for their own actions. Too many drivers have no idea what their obligations are on the road. Too many cyclists know their obligations but choose to ignore them. And everyone needs reminding that the rules in the Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

Personally I am looking forward to the government using the same approach to dealing with other crimes. I can imagine the "Don't get raped" campaign going down well.

davep: the point here is not whether wearing visible clothing at night is a good idea or not: it is. the point is that when a car hits a child obeying the green cross code, the responsibility for the accident lies with the driver, and the game is attempting to shift the blame to the child. that's not acceptable.

If you run the 'game' Dave you will get to point when no matter how careful you are and no matter how much Hi-Viz you wear you will get run down by a speeding motorist, which defeats the object of the 'game' in the first place.

The implication is therefore that cars have absolute right of way and only pedestrians and cyclists have to obey the Highway Code.

Speeding in built up areas is illegal. The wearing of Hi-Viz clothing is a recommendation not a legal requirement and based on this 'game' there is no incentive for walking or riding round like a christmas tree if it is going to have no effect.

This one will run and run and run and run and run and run....

I see nothing negative about this. What's wrong with pointing out that wearing hi-viz might save your skin? I wish some cyclist would take heed - I wish some would even use lights!

Taking things to the extreme appears to be the only way to get things to stick in peoples minds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-mdoambAQQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOEHMWCg-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIA1HUkN4Z4

You've mentioned the old Tuffty and Green X code man campaigns but what about the old one about carrying/wearing something light coloured as the nights draw in? This is nothing new.

Take a chill-pill and accept that road safety campaigns need to target information at ALL road users not just your perceived 'bad-guys'..