'ThINk' Road Safety institution's video is divisive

I agree that this video is a bit of a turd, but public information films have often had a tone of warning victims rather than advising possible wrongdoers.

possible wrongdoers.

there is no suggestion anywhere in the video that the driver did anything wrong.

Apart from overtaking near a junction without indicating, checking or using his mirrors.

yeah, obviously - but I meant that the video doesn't imply or suggest any wrongdoing on the drivers behalf.

The message says the cyclist is at fault.

If they kept everything the same about the advert but had the driver being led away in cuffs/police car, or similar, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Maybe I'm watching a different video, but it seems clear to me in all the shots of truck/cyclist the cyclist is going quicker than the truck. Why do you think the truck is doing the over taking?

This video is trying to suggests that you don't bomb it up the inside of trucks in the hope that they check their mirrors and stop their indicated manoeuvre before they turn you into a pancake.

I agree that another video encouraging drivers to check their mirrors would also be appropriate and provide the balance we all crave. I remember one they did a few years back with a motorcyclist filtering up the outside of a right turning car. I'll try and dig it out later....

Edit: here we are. 1999. How time flies. Perhaps it needs putting out again, but for some reason it's always stuck with me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojXsFjlOuVE

Watch it thinking the cyclist undertakes the truck, and it looks like he does.

Watch it thinking the truck overtakes the cyclist, and it looks like he does.

The forced perspective on that shot is really confusing.

If they wanted to make it clear they could have had the truck sat at traffic lights with the left indicator on and a cyclist going up the left hand side.

Obviously they may want to avoid using a junction such as this where someone has plonked a cycle lane in the exact place the cyclist shouldn't go

https://goo.gl/maps/Jg1V8D9fzpr

1 Attachment

@Hefty ah you are right. Still the ad is nonsense.

But did the old stranger danger or green cross code? I can't remember but I thought they were squarely aimed at changing the victims behaviour...

It's a tricky one... could be have been done over multiple takes which wouldn't have helped.

Either way, I think we can agree that the lack of clarity if very unhelpful, and regardless of who is going faster, the truck driver is at fault.

I think the footage might be justified if there was some explicit narrative along the lines of: "Whether or not you're technically in the right, you can expect other road users to drive like cunts, and as a cyclist you're likely to come off worst in a collision, no matter who is to blame. So ride your bike assuming everyone else is driving like a cunt. (For example, this lorry driver is in the wrong because of a,b,c...)"

Yup, I'd be more amenable to that.

Nothing wrong with realistic, helpful information for cyclists, but doing this without

1. changing the harmful infra which encourages conflict
   
2. legislating to eliminate blindspots
   
3. correctly assigning blame
   
   

is always going to lead to backlash.

I totally understand the brief of that ad but it was terribly done. It assumes cyclists have a choice, and predictably people are saying "For God's sake, what's wrong with being safe, who cares about priority IF YOU'RE DEAD" and so on, so on that level the advert worked, if the brief was to blame people on bikes.

ride your bike assuming everyone else is driving like a cunt.

The thing with that approach is that it normalises lethal driving. Maybe the advert director was instructed to make the circumstances of the collision unclear. The road freight industry appear to have part-funded the film.

I concur.

And the fact it's not immediately obvious means it's failed.