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

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 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.

open_roads wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

open_roads wrote:

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

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

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

anke wrote:

open_roads wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

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

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

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

Clueless, but that's nothing new.

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

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

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

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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 collisions. An accident is a toddler tripping over on the grass.

anke wrote:

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

Which other side?

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

chrisonatrike wrote:

anke wrote:

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

Which other side?

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

Obviously the squirrels'

anke wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bishop0151 wrote:

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

Thanks!

chrisonatrike wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

You're not an actual person though are you?

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