- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Transport for London slammed for “victim-blaming” road safety ad (+ video)
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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Laz 1 hour 15 sec ago
hopefully, that will be the last time we see that van in drivable condition
- Nick T 2 hours 16 min ago
Come again chief? The Tarmac in size 56 has a 73.5 degree HTA, the Addict in the same size comes in at 73.4 degrees. In terms of bike fit that's...
- TheBillder 3 hours 58 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 4 hours 14 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 4 hours 17 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 4 hours 21 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 4 hours 31 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 5 hours 36 sec ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
- S.E. 6 hours 35 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
Add new comment
169 comments
This is a more typical encounter in London https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFEJstPBwvw
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 what you find offensive about this film? (Bear in mind that it's the motorist who acknowledges that she almost killed the cyclist!)
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.)
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.
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 killed YOU" -- perfectly recognising that uneven relationship!
Would you feel the same way if it was a video with a pedestrian and a cyclist ?
Yes it would be equally absurd, cyclists shouldn't ride in a way which endangers pedestrians, there is no equivalence
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 and a cyclist who is a pedestrian i'd say Ive come nearer being injured while walking by bikes and scooters than by cars.
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 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 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.
You're welcome.
...this is actually quite funny.
Yeah I thought it was pretty good, as was your second point.
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.
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."
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 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 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.
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:
"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 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😟
Despite clearly trying to avoid that by concocting "a generic incident" that makes no sense!
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.
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?
6s two consecutive frames from the front, one of the driver, one of the cyclist, same buildings behind.
Pages