Seems like common sense to me.

seems like an option to get you out of the trouble someone else put you in, but wouldn’t it be better to aim the education message at the dickhead who caused the situation rather than the victim of the scenario?

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.

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

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.

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 more 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.

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.

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

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..

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

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 overtaking a cyclist 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.

As the lorry isn’t overtaking it doesn’t really warrant discussion.[/quote]

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?

Truck speeds up.
Truck overtakes cyclist.
Truck realises that needs to turn for junction.
Truck has to cut across cyclist and brakes.
Cyclist is then going faster than truck and is caught under wheels.
Obviously the cyclist should have slowed down.

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.

I agree that in the half second clip the cyclist seemed to be travelling faster, now, can you agree that in the subsequent clip the cyclist was further behind than he was at 26s? Coz if so you must be able to see how the staged video is fairly ambiguous as to what is happening (ignoring the cyclist being faster on a traffic free road, truck being way out into the middle of the road etc)
With my E grade gcse in media studies I could make a better video where the scenario was obvious and no question about what was happening and the take home message.
A realistically busy road, long line of stationary vehicles, lorry indicating well in advance*, cyclist goes up the inside as traffic starts to move – crunch – “Kids, don’t undertake trucks, stay safe”

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 that realistic then

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