[Closed] Victim blaming government video

However alongside lorries is NEVER a good place to be regardless of where it is or what you're riding/driving.

It is very frustrating when on road cycle lanes encourage this too. Once again a failure of the DfT to standardise cycle infrastructure.

Victim blaming - not sure.

Crap vid - yes.

However alongside lorries is NEVER a good place to be regardless of where it is or what you're riding/driving.

[i]useful video being minutely dissected and criticised on a renowned pedantry forum by people who already know better[/i]

I've not heard Twitter referred to as a "forum" before...

It's a shit video yunki - the fact that it's message is lost in a war of pendantry makes it a shit video.

If you find yourself on the left of any vehicle (a truck is a worst example but its still any vehicle) you're in a bad place

But yeah I'll just echo the crap vid, tbh when I first watched it I thought the cyclists looked to be going a [i]little[/i] faster than the truck at 26s or whatever it was but then the rider was further behind in the next shot. Review and yes the cyclist was def faster in the first shot but the truck was in a daft position and not indicating, so doesn't look any more clear in it's objective

If they showed a vid of a cyclist riding up the inside of a truck indicating left near a junction and saying "please don't do this" that would have been fair enough - I'd be expecting it to be run in tandem with a similar advert reminding drivers of their obligation to mirror signal manoeuvre tho.

[i]dont be using these then eh?[/i]

A bicycle? Yeah, that seems like the most popular idea!

[quote=D0NK ]dont be using these then eh?

I'm amazed you managed to find a pic of a driver not completely cutting up cyclists in that "bike lane" - pic must be staged?

Also that bike lane passes a junction without diverting you to the far side of the moon and giving drivers at the junction priority. Therefore: fake.

As an aside - according to a knobber in my office, riding in the rush hour is "asking for trouble" and we should ride "when it's less busy". Yep, that's how supposedly intelligent people think. Shame I'm new here and had to keep me gob shut.

dont be using these then eh?

Use with care. I still don't go down the inside of trucks even when those things exist. Unless I know the truck isn't going anywhere.

But I agree that their existence invites possibly dangerous manoeuvres. I'm in favour of either full integration with some dedicated separate infrastructure. In other words, big proper cycleways where they're needed (coming into Cardiff from the East for example) but at other times, make cyclists part of traffic, don't sideline them.

Wise words Molgrips.

aracer - Member

the question is what am I supposed to do about it?

Well if I were you, I'd misconstrue the video in question, then absolve myself of any responsibility whilst putting myself in more danger because the other road user is at fault.
If I were you, because that is always your MO. 🙂

Peyote - Member

The message to you may be, to me it is - "It's your fault if you get caught in this situation".

That's odd, because the message to me was "Don't get caught between a lorry and a left turn".

The clue is in the video; it's the bit where that exact message appears on the screen. 😆

I still don't go down the inside of trucks even when those things exist.

+1

[quote=sbob ]Well if I were you, I'd misconstrue the video in question, then absolve myself of any responsibility whilst putting myself in more danger because the other road user is at fault.
If I were you, because that is always your MO.

Ah well, if I were you I'd take your quote out of context, completely miss the point and ignore all the valid points everybody is making

HTH

The clue is in the video; it's the bit where that exact message appears on the screen.

Very good. 😉

Ah well, if I were you I'd take your quote out of context

Taking the piss is not the same as taking out of context.
It's obvious what you should do, it even tells you in that handy video you posted.

completely miss the point

Pretty sure that the point is not to get crushed to death by a lorry at a junction. Not your paranoid fantasy that all other road users and the government are out to get you.

and ignore all the valid points everybody is making

😆

[quote=sbob ]Pretty sure that the point is not to get crushed to death by a lorry at a junction.

For which the best solution is a combination of getting the drivers to check the space they're turning into and removing trucks like those in the video from the roads (and replacing with ones where the driver can see the space they're turning into without all the trouble of checking in a mirror which appears to be too much for some drivers, like the one in the video). Sure education for cyclists comes somewhere down the list, but when they're wasting resources on shit videos like this, then clearly they're spending less time and money than they should be on stuff which is actually important. If they want to educate cyclists rather than just reinforce the motor vehicle hegemony then maybe they should produce a video showing the sort of situation where a cyclist is actually at fault.

Not your paranoid fantasy that all other road users and the government are out to get you.

Well now you're just strawmanning

the message to me was "Don't get caught between a lorry and a left turn".

The clue is in the video; it's the bit where that exact message appears on the screen

That is pretty good advice 🙂
But the fact that there is a video telling cyclists that trucks turning into them is dangerous, but no video telling truck drivers not to drive into cyclists arguably speaks to where the makers think the burden of responsibility for these accidents falls.

aracer - Member

For which the best solution is a combination of getting the drivers to check the space they're turning into and removing trucks like those in the video from the roads (and replacing with ones where the driver can see the space they're turning into without all the trouble of checking in a mirror which appears to be too much for some drivers, like the one in the video).

So the best solution involves the cyclist taking no action.
Quelle surprise!

Sure education for cyclists comes somewhere down the list

they should produce a video showing the sort of situation where a cyclist is actually at fault

Like a cyclist obviously trying to undertake a lorry approaching a junction?
Like in the video you posted?

I appreciate that your horrendous bias may prevent you from seeing what is actually happening in the video, but it is obvious to other posters, not just me.

Well now you're just strawmanning

Pointing out your prejudice is not a strawman. In ANY discussion about a cyclist and another road user, you'll side with the cyclist and discount any suggestion that the cyclist could have done anything differently to affect the situation irrespective of blame.

That is your form.

Like a cyclist obviously trying to undertake a lorry approaching a junction?
Like in the video you posted?

You watching the same video as the rest of us? It's a clear road, there doesn't appear to be any obstruction prior to the lorry carrying out it's overtaking move before swinging left. Standard left hook surely?

So the best solution involves the cyclist taking no action.

It's often the case when an vehicle overtakes another, make sure the way is clear. Particularly if you're going to be making a turn very shortly afterwards. All this irrespective of the vehicles types involved.

MrSalmon - Member

But the fact that there is a video telling cyclists that trucks turning into them is dangerous, but no video telling truck drivers not to drive into cyclists arguably speaks to where the makers think the burden of responsibility for these accidents falls.

Possibly, but that's not the exact message of the clip. We all know that actually crashing into something is a bad idea, this video is telling you to avoid getting into potentially conflicting space.

[quote=sbob ]So the best solution involves the cyclist taking no action.

Well what do you suggest the best action is for a cyclist to take to avoid being mown down by a truck overtaking and left hooking them? You seem to be so brainwashed by the motor vehicle hegemony (well apart from it apparently being a personal vendetta) that you can't even consider the idea that the best solution is to change the behaviour of those road users who are introducing the danger to the roads. Of course the best solution is to change the thing which is actually resulting in road deaths - the vast majority of cyclist deaths involve the cyclist doing nothing wrong (go check the recorded police stats, or what West Mids Police are saying), so even if you get all cyclists to ride perfectly you'll only get rid of a fraction of the deaths. Hence quite clearly the [b]best[/b] solution involves something other than getting cyclists to change their behaviour. Are you really so blinkered that you can't see that?

Like a cyclist obviously trying to undertake a lorry approaching a junction?
Like in the video you posted?
I appreciate that your horrendous bias may prevent you from seeing what is actually happening in the video, but it is obvious to other posters, not just me.

The vast majority of posters here seem to see it exactly the same way I do - oh and not just us, also major cycling organisations and the West Mids Police (who are a lot more enlightened than you). It's a very strange road position for the truck to take on a two way road for the cyclist to undertake it, and the cyclist is further back relative to the truck in the second clip than it is in the first. It's certainly nothing at all like the normal cyclist undertaking a lorry - in fact I'd go so far as to suggest there probably hasn't been a single death of a cyclist due to the cyclist undertaking a truck moving at speed on an otherwise traffic free road. The situation portrayed in that video would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Pointing out your prejudice is not a strawman. In ANY discussion about a cyclist and another road user, you'll side with the cyclist and discount any suggestion that the cyclist could have done anything differently to affect the situation irrespective of blame.
That is your form.

Well now you're just bare faced lying.

Though even if it did contain any element of truth it would still be an ad hom - where is my paranoid fantasy on this thread?

Use with care.

Peyote - Member

You watching the same video as the rest of us?

Yes, it's the one where the cyclist is obviously undertaking a lorry.

It's a clear road, there doesn't appear to be any obstruction prior to the lorry carrying out it's overtaking move

How can the lorry be overtaking when it is obviously travelling slower than the cyclist?

DezB gets it.

[quote=sbob ]Yes, it's the one where the cyclist is obviously undertaking a lorry.

The one where the lorry is on the right hand side of a two way road, despite no obvious reason to be there other than to overtake the cyclist? The one where the lorry has travelled further down the road than the cyclist in the second clip? Strange undertake.

The whole point is that they've created a situation which looks so like a lorry overtaking a cyclist that even if the cyclist is moving faster than the lorry in one of their clips it's far from obvious that it's a cyclist undertaking. I mean even if you do notice that in the half second it happens, then it could still be (and is far more likely given all the other available information about road position etc.) that the lorry has started to overtake and then started to slow down for the left turn.

How can the lorry be overtaking when it is obviously travelling slower than the cyclist?

Lorries have brakes right? It was braking to turn left after trying to overtake the cyclist. I can't see any other reason why it would be where it was without having attempted to overtake the cyclist then slowing down to turn left.

aracer - Member

Well what do you suggest the best action is for a cyclist to take to avoid being mown down by a truck overtaking

Different subject matter.
The video in question shows an undertaking cyclist. That's why the advice to "hang back" makes sense. 💡

Well now you're just bare faced lying.

I'll admit that there may have been situations discussed where you didn't blinkeredly side with the cyclist and discount any idea that the cyclist should have done anything differently irrespective of blame, I just haven't seen those threads.
Maybe they were before I joined. 😆

Anyway, to avoid any more confusion, kids: don't undertake lorries approaching junctions.
Stay safe.

kids: don't undertake lorries approaching junctions.
Stay safe.

that would definitely seem to be the message if taken on face value (unless maybe we're scrutinising the video with our own personal agenda)

The one where the lorry is on the right hand side of a two way road

Yep but lorries actually do that in real life to get around corners.

Sure education for cyclists comes somewhere down the list, but when they're wasting resources on shit videos like this, then clearly they're spending less time and money than they should be on stuff which is actually important.

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

Molgrips got it right about the video above. I think some of you are just trying to be outraged for the sake of it.

[quote=sbob ]The video in question shows an undertaking cyclist.

No, no it isn't. See lorry positioning, and lack of forward movement of cyclist relative to lorry between the clips. It doesn't show an undertaking cyclist in anything like the normal way cyclists undertake lorries.

I'll admit that there may have been situations discussed where you didn't blinkeredly side with the cyclist and discount any idea that the cyclist should have done anything differently irrespective of blame, I just haven't seen those threads.
Maybe they were before I joined.

I'll admit it's not totally shouting out "cyclist to blame", but at least implicitly accepting that some cyclists do things wrong which lead to them being killed:

[quote=aracer ]the vast majority of cyclist deaths involve the cyclist doing nothing wrong

from this post on this thread if you've not read that one:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/victim-blaming-government-video/page/2#post-7985472

Peyote - Member

Lorries have brakes right? It was braking to turn left after trying to overtake the cyclist. I can't see any other reason why it would be where it was without having attempted to overtake the cyclist then slowing down to turn left.

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.

Come on people, this isn't difficult! 😀

Yes, it's the one where the cyclist is obviously undertaking a lorry.

don't undertake lorries approaching junctions

kids: don't undertake lorries approaching junctions.
Stay safe.

I'd rather they had just said that. Producing an ambiguous video that suggests something other than what was written seems at best pointless and at worst an attempt to push a different agenda completely.

Edited to add - What Donk said.

So the message is that when you get overtaken by a truck before it turns left you should hang back?

Seems like common sense to me.

Come on people, this isn't difficult!

A lot of people, not just here, think it is!

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

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

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

that is a very good thing

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? 🙄