[Closed] Victim blaming government video

Seems like common sense to me.

No, no it isn't.

🙄

Yes it is.
That's why you selectively missed out the corroborating point of my post.
You know it too.

[quote=dragon ]Yep but lorries actually do that in real life to get around corners.

Drive in a straight line along the wrong side of the road >20m from the junction? Can't say I've ever seen a lorry doing that, and it certainly doesn't look like "lorry moving out to take a junction" from the video - it looks exactly like lorry overtaking cyclist.

Won't be from the same budgets as your other issues, so this point is pretty irrelevant.

So move the money from the "making shit videos for cyclists" budget to "educating drivers" budget and "banning unsafe lorries" budget - it's not rocket science.

Can't say I've ever seen a lorry doing that

If that's really true, may I suggest that you're not paying enough attention to other road users!!!
Either that or you've never seen a lorry at all

[quote=yunki ]the people that it's aimed at are not for even a second gonna be analysing it to assess the precise maneuver that is being executed

Exactly. Which is why they're not going to notice that for a split second the cyclist is going faster than the lorry - for that you have to analyse it. All the other visual clues are of a lorry overtaking a cyclist which is what they'll see. Them and the non-cycling drivers who will have their views about cyclists keeping out of their way and causing their own deaths reinforced THAT is why the video is a problem.

[quote=sbob ]That's why you selectively missed out the corroborating point of my post.

Now you've got me - what part of your post that I snipped corroborated "The video in question shows an undertaking cyclist."?

All the other visual clues are of a lorry overtaking a cyclist which is what they'll see

you're wrong... other militant cyclists are wrong

professional outrage gone mad

the message is not aimed at professionally outraged, traffic savvy cyclists FFS!!!

This is the problem, as aracer points out. It is reinforcing the status quo: cyclists are assumed to be responsible for these kind of KSIs.

the people that it's aimed at are gonna watch it and go 'ooh, **** hell!! I'm gonna pay a bit more attention around big trucks'

Really? I hope you're right, but the response from others suggests otherwise.

Heed DezB's advice.
Look at the clip @26secs.
The cyclist is travelling noticeably faster than the lorry.
The cyclist is undertaking.
"Hanging back" instead of undertaking a lorry approaching a junction is good advice and makes sense.

"Hanging back" from a vehicle that is behind you is poor advice and doesn't make sense, which is why this isn't represented in the video.

I'm getting bored, the next reply will contain pictures...

Ah, so you're upset that I missed out part of a completely different post to the one I quoted? 🙄

the people that it's aimed at are gonna watch it and go 'ooh, **** hell!! I'm gonna pay a bit more attention around big trucks'

You know what that might be a better campaign, just a few videos showing left turning lorries with cyclists in a vulnerable position* and then freeze frame with a big arrow pointing at the lorry and in big red letters saying:

"These things are clucking dangerous and can kill! be careful!"

Message across to both sides, hammer it home, trucks can be lethal, don't put yourself in harms way if you're a cyclist, and don't endanger others if you're the driver.

The main problem is that deliberately or not, this video has bias. It probably (hopefully) wasn't deliberate, but bias by accident is evidence of the systemic problem that vulnerable road users are being targeted by these campaigns [i]more [/i]than dangerous drivers.

There are plenty of "Don't get in harms way" style informational videos and campaigns for the vulnerable (minority users), far fewer "Don't endanger others" style videos for the ones causing the danger (majority**). It's far too hard to tackle dangerous driving, far easier in the short term for them to put out some look-out-for-yourselves style videos and posters to make it look like they're doing something to address the problem.

*not showing/hinting how they got there

**by majority I don't mean the majority of drivers are dangerous, I mean that in terms of the general public 'drivers' are the majority 'cyclists' are the minority.

[quote=yunki ]you're wrong... other militant cyclists are wrong
professional outrage gone mad

Chris Boardman is wrong - well I suppose he could be a militant cyclist
West Midlands Police are wrong - I guess they must be militant cyclists too?

professional outrage gone mad

Is this the new "Pee Cee Gawn Maaad!" thing?! 🙂

from the video - it looks exactly like lorry overtaking cyclist.

It doesn't.

So move the money from the "making shit videos for cyclists" budget to "educating drivers" budget and "banning unsafe lorries" budget - it's not rocket science.

You know full well that's not how it works, and if that's the level you want to debate at I'm out.

[quote=dragon ]It doesn't.

OK, so what would the lorry be doing differently if it was overtaking the cyclist (apart from the obvious "not giving anywhere near that amount of room")? If as you claim it doesn't look exactly like that.

You know full well that's not how it works, and if that's the level you want to debate at I'm out.

On a micro level, maybe not. But I would like to debate the higher level politics which results in the making of videos like this being seen as a higher priority than addressing the other issues, which is one of the factors affecting how much money there is in any given budget. Because sure as heck that is happening.

Who's winning?

The lorry at the moment. Though I'm hoping that the remake will end with the cyclist upright looking sadly at the lorry splattered all over the road.

It's a good video... I believe that it will save lives amongst the increasing numbers of novice commuters

The fact that WMP and Boardman are furthering the debate is also good..
People will be tweeting about, arguing on forums and facebook, the profile of the vid will be raised, more folk will see it and more lives will be saved..
Perhaps as a result of the further debate, more energy will be put into improving driver education..

it's a win all round 🙂

Stephen Spielburg - The Duel II

It's a bad video, it supports the might-is-right mindset of the majority of people using the roads in this country, all road users included.

It's use will reinforce the current KSI rate and will do little to improve the lot of cyclists, it will appease the road freight industry and make some folk think that once again the cyclist is always wrong.

It's depressing that this is how far road safety has come in this country.

nonsense

[quote=yunki ]It's a good video... I believe that it will save lives of novice commuters

I can see the thought process: "ooh, lorry driving at speed down the road, I saw that video showing how dangerous it was to undertake it, better not do that. Phew, now it's stopped at the junction, can safely get past it now"...

The fact that WMP and Boardman are furthering the debate is also good..

Who cares about them? #militantcyclists

Perhaps as a result of the further debate, more energy will be put into improving driver education..

[img] [/img]

militant cyclists

It'll make the work of road safety professionals more difficult, maybe not directly, but as another increment in the current band wagon that most media outlets seem to be jumping on.

It will once again reinforce the "fact" that cycling is dangerous and risky putting more people off using bikes, meaning the critical mass of cyclists necessary to improve road safety is farther on from being reached.

Just another in a long line of failures* really.

*Or not depending on your objectives short and long term I suppose.

keep fighting the good fight aracer and chums...

although it may be more positive to focus your energies in a more useful direction than bickering about it on here 🙂

Not really, I work parallel to this field. There rarely seems to be much point.

At least here I can vent my frustrations without any direct professional/personal comeback!

Although to be fair, TfL are at least up for challenging the DfT when it comes to cyclist safety.

Shame I don't work there!

aracer - Member

Ah, so you're upset that I missed out part of a completely different post to the one I quoted?

No I'm not upset, more exasperated at your refusal to see what is directly in front of you.

You missed out the bit about "hanging back".
I quoted my post to peyote because it explained the bit about "hanging back" in the sort of painful detail that even you can understand.

This, again, was obvious.

Either you are on a wind-up, or a having a proper
[img] [/img]
moment.

aracer - Member

OK, so what would the lorry be doing differently if it was overtaking the cyclist

Travelling faster than the cyclist would be a good start, you cleft.

🙂

Ah, which would result in the lorry being further forwards than the cyclist at a later point in time?

You missed out the bit about "hanging back"

Which didn't in any way corroborate your assertion that the cyclist is undertaking the lorry - the lorry which is on the wrong side of a two way road. The thing is there are 3 bits of evidence here on which one is overtaking the other, you're ignoring the two of them which contradict your assertion and relying on the one which doesn't provide definitive proof.

Its a terrible video, tipper trucks have recently been the number one cyclist killers in London and showing one [s]overtaking a cyclist[/s] being undertaken by a cyclist on a clear road is disingenuous.

aracer - Member

Ah, which would result in the lorry being further forwards than the cyclist at a later point in time?

As the lorry isn't overtaking it doesn't really warrant discussion.

Which didn't in any way corroborate your assertion that the cyclist is undertaking the lorry

You didn't read my post did you? I can't make it any clearer.
It's an observation, not an assertion.

the lorry which is on the wrong side of a two way road

Where is the solid white line the lorry should not have crossed to warrant you saying this?

There isn't one.
NEWSFLASH!!!
Large vehicles frequently need to use more of the road.

The thing is there are 3 bits of evidence here on which one is overtaking the other, you're ignoring the two of them which contradict your assertion and relying on the one which doesn't provide definitive proof.

There is only bit of proof you need, and that's the obvious and observable action of the cyclist travelling faster than the lorry.

Watch the clip @26secs.
The cyclist is travelling faster than the lorry.
Can you really not tell?

The cyclist is travelling faster than the lorry.

If the lorry is braking to undertake a left turn this is to be expected. If the lorry has previously overtaken the cyclist, then the lorry would be travelling faster. It isn't a constant speed.

TBH this all just illustrates the problem perfectly- it's not that clear what's happening, and it should be. The actual scenario/filming is set up in a pretty weird and unrealistic way so people's assumptions about what's happening are thrown off by that. Regardless of which team of keypounders wins the argument (as if anyone will ever admit they've lost), the problem with the video is exactly the same

Northwind keypounds best IMO. 😀

Let's just declare him the winner and go to the pub.

[quote=sbob ]

Ah, which would result in the lorry being further forwards than the cyclist at a later point in time?

So now we're onto circular reasoning? You claim that the lorry isn't overtaking, so therefore it can't be further forward than the cyclist at a later point in time, so what the video shows doesn't actually happen - because the lorry isn't overtaking.

Where is the solid white line the lorry should not have crossed to warrant you saying this?

Oh, my bad, in the absence of a solid white line it's clearly perfectly normal to drive on the right hand side of the road rather than the left when just driving along, and that's why the lorry is over there, rather than because it's overtaking the cyclist.

Large vehicles frequently need to use more of the road.

Sure, and they pull a bit to the right at the junction, they don't drive in a straight line far to the right of the road way before the junction. Well not unless they're overtaking something that is.

There is only bit of proof you need, and that's the obvious and observable action of the cyclist travelling faster than the lorry.

So you're going to ignore the other evidence then, and the explanation already given that the lorry could have started to overtake but then started slowing down to turn left? What the video definitely doesn't show is the cyclist coming from behind the lorry.

Though of course that is ignoring that a casual viewer is never going to notice the relative speeds of lorry and cyclist - in order to observe that you have to pay a lot of attention to a tiny amount of footage. It's far easier to see the lorry positioning and all the other evidence, which all points to a classic left hook. The relative speeds is the only thing which seems odd for that, but as explained it doesn't contradict it at all - on the contrary I'd expect a left hooker to be going slower than the cyclist they've just passed, it's the way such things happen.

What the video definitely doesn't show is the dangerous behaviour of cyclists passing stationary lorries at junctions on the left, which is the cause of the majority if not all of the incidents of lorries hitting cyclists where the cyclist is at fault.

Watch the clip @26secs.
The cyclist is travelling faster than the lorry.
Can you really not tell?

[quote=Northwind ]Regardless of which team of keypounders wins the argument (as if anyone will ever admit they've lost), the problem with the video is exactly the same

Ah, but now you've aligned yourself with one side of keypounders, so the lot who think there's nothing wrong with the video will disagree with everything else you write.

Watch the clip @26secs.

Would also have a sister clip with heavy but faster moving traffic where truck driver overtakes and without indicating left hooks the rider - crunch - "drivers don't be dicks, keep everyone safe"

No sign of pianos or ibexes, but tbf not many of them on the high street.

*so not [i]that[/i] realistic then

I think the lorry is indicating left in the first tiny snippet.

[quote=theocb ]I think the lorry is indicating left in the first tiny snippet.

I think you're right, but it's taken several views to decide that, and it certainly doesn't seem to be on first observation - if they're trying to show that, then the lack of actual content in the video really doesn't help.

TBH this all just illustrates the problem perfectly- it's not that clear what's happening, and it should be.

The fault here is not so much the message, but who the message is coming from, and how public it is.

If your mum/girlfriend/mate said, "look, even if the lorry driver is in the wrong, just hang back ok?" it would be good fine sensible advice given in private, and *not* victim blaming.

But if the Dft, gives the same message it gives a whole different meaning. The "adivce" is now a *public* message, visible to both the HGV drivers AND the cyclists, who are both now told it's up to the cyclists to stay back (even if the driver is in the wrong). Then it becomes more like victim blaming.

imo

[quote=HoratioHufnagel ]it's up to the cyclists to stay back (even if the driver is in the wrong). Then it becomes more like victim blaming

The thing is, as much as sometimes cyclists do something wrong in these incidents, what they do wrong isn't anywhere near wrong enough for them to be prosecuted for it - often they're simply following the guidance of the infrastructure. The truck drivers however have mirrors which mean there aren't any real blind spots on the left hand side (the cyclist in the video will have been in the view of the driver in one or more mirrors for the whole of that clip). Yet the drivers are driving their trucks into a space which isn't clear and they could see isn't clear if they looked properly. It's hard to see how the driver in such an incident is never not in the wrong - I appreciate they have a lot to do, and as I've said several times better trucks with better visibility would make their jobs a lot easier, but that is no excuse not to do something which isn't impossible. Fundamentally they are still choosing not to check those mirrors properly.

I appreciate I'm sounding just like the stereotype sbob has for me here, but I have acknowledged some fault on the part of the cyclists (and I certainly will for incidents where they are more liable). Fundamentally it is still the truck drivers introducing danger to the roads, not the cyclists, and they should therefore be expected to play a bigger part in changing their behaviour to provide a solution.

I should also clarify that I'd always avoid getting alongside a lorry at a junction, and I'd always advise other cyclists to do the same.

I've not watched the video yet as I'm at work, but I've concluded two things from this discussion. The first is what Northwind said,

TBH this all just illustrates the problem perfectly- it's not that clear what's happening, and it should be.

If it's a public safety film and it's shot in such a manner that it's ambiguous as to whether the lorry was overtaking the cyclist or vice versa, or whether it's a one- or two-way street, and any of those distinctions are key to the point it's making, then it's a poor video.

Second, if it was a good video, I wonder if there'd be as many people talking about it, or if it'd disappear into obscurity?

Report back when you've seen it cougar will be interested in your view having read the thread before seeing the vid.

I'll bet for the first 25.5seconds you'll be thinking "WTF is this?" 🙂

I'll bet for the first 25.5seconds you'll be thinking [s]"WTF is this?"[/s] "Have I clicked the right link?"

Has anyone tried playing the video to a member of the target demographic to gauge their reaction yet?

Who is the target demographic, and what do you think their reaction should be (in terms of specific things they should or shouldn't do)?

It would also be interesting to see the reaction of those definitely not in the target demographic - such as truck drivers.

As for victim blaming,

If I leave my phone on a table in a pub and it gets stolen, I can hear my dear departed gran's voice in my head, "well, that's your own silly bloody fault." But she's wrong, it's not my fault, I don't [i]deserve[/i] to have my phone stolen, I'm the victim of a crime. However, if someone had said to me beforehand, "yeah, don't flash your phone about in the Dog & Duck, some ****er will have it" I might still have my phone.

That is to say, there's a difference between "being at fault" (wholly or partly) and "there's nothing you could've done." If a lorry turns into a side street and squishes a cyclist, it is unequivocally the driver's fault 100% (barring some sort of "yeah, but" fringe case that I can't think of but I'm sure some argument-seeking trombone will). The cyclist isn't to blame here.

However, you can take actions to mitigate the risk of people doing wrong or bad things. In and of itself, "cyclists, watch out for turning vehicles" isn't bad advice. But as a safety campaign it [i]must[/i] be secondary to "turning vehicles, watch out for cyclists!"

If that's not the case then it reinforces the already too-widespread notion that if you end up under someone's wheels for daring to cycle where someone else wanted to drive then it's your own silly bloody fault.

Report back when you've seen it cougar will be interested in your view having read the thread before seeing the vid.

Yeah, I must admit I'm curious.

target demographic - novice cyclists (ie: not those fully versed in correct interractions between cyclists and other traffic)

reaction - bloody hell be careful around big trucks.. specifically if they are on your right and you're near a junction

outcome - fewer dead cyclists (controversial I know)

honestly... if you can't see that you're being a bit bloody minded

In and of itself, "cyclists, watch out for turning vehicles" isn't bad advice*. But as a safety campaign it [s]must[/s]should* be secondary to "turning vehicles, watch out for cyclists!"

Thread Summary? ^

* this is the bit camp 1 are on about
** this is the bit camp 2 are on about, it should be, but isn't

yeah that's very fair amedias

The debate got so bogged down with utter nonsense about the maneuver and vehicle position and speed that the actual point got completely lost somewhere maybe?

Even if it's a 1 way street it's so wide that it's effectively 2 lanes with the lorry in the RH lane, in which case they are still responsible for checking it's clear before manoeuvring. If it's a 2 way street then it look like it's overtaking.

It's unrealistic of dangerous situations with lorry's. I can't see it makes people specifically think they should be more careful around big trucks (and it's a fairly obvious point anyway), more likely is it gives a reinforcement of the view that cycling is 'dangerous'and puts people off.

Bad video is bad.

Pedantic forum is pedantic.

reaction - bloody hell be careful around big trucks.. specifically if they are on your right and you're near a junction

Interesting - I'm glad I asked rather than being rude about what I assumed you did or didn't think. Though I was after something a bit more specific - exactly what does "be careful" mean, in terms of actions a novice cyclist might take after seeing that video?

For example do you think they will particularly avoid filtering down the left of slow moving or stationary lorries?

I'm hoping you can also answer my other question so I don't have to assume what message you think lorry drivers will get.

For example do you think they will particularly avoid filtering down the left of slow moving or stationary lorries?

I would imagine so yes

And I would assume that lorry drivers will take extra care when turning left

it's a very basic vid aimed to send a hard hitting (no pun intended) message to a very basic part of our psyche IMO

So you're expecting the cyclists to particularly avoid something which isn't shown in the video, and the lorry drivers to effectively ignore the "cyclists stay back" tagline and realise it's more their responsibility? I admire your optimism.

I guess you're also not expecting any novice cyclists to mistake that for the lorry overtaking, and then realise that the only way to "be careful" in that situation is not to be on the road?

nah, not really mate
I'm wondering if you're a bit psychotic though

There are two groups to educate here.

1) The truck drivers
2) Cyclists

Changing the behaviour of both will save lives, why focus on just one ?

I sail a lot, rules of the sea are basically power gives way to sail. In your 25ft fibre glass sailing boat it does not make sense to rely on this rule when faced with a 500ft long ****ing enormous tanker doing 20 knots.

As somesome who is nervous in traffic and has ridden in London quite a bit and witnessed a coach crushing a cyclist to death (two things related) whilst there are examples of trucks overtaking cyclists and turning left or turing left without looking (or being able to see a cyclists) in London it is also quite likely that as a truck slows down to turn a cyclist catches it up and ... undertakes or not.

So lets educate all