US city uses graphic novels to teach kids cycle safety

Critchio wrote:

Mixed feelings on the graphic comics. Parents will see them too and sometimes shock tactics work better than what could be seen as dull education pamphlets. I get that here in the UK something like that would probably never get sanctioned, alas, livin' in America.... Road safety is *everyone's* responsibly and I often see comments directed at vehicle drivers questioning why there's no education aimed at motorists in similar fashion when cyclists are targeted. It's a valid point but that is the current culture we live in. Until attitudes change, as a vulnerable road user you absolutely must take your own safety as literally a matter of life and death. To encourage it can only be a good thing. I know it often feels like cyclists are an easy target but a cyclist is not cocooned in a steel box and surrounded by air bags so you alway have to think safety to a point where the motorists around you don't care about you and where many motorist's only see you as an inconvenience. It doesn't always mean cyclists are an easy target, or a blamed for their own injuries/fatalities when safety is directed solely at them. You only have to search YouTube to find grown men and women trying to scoot down the side of a creeping 40 ton truck in a busy city centre and watch as the gap the cyclist has gets narrower and narrower. It's alarming and shows a lot of cyclists who are ordinarily intelligent and sensible people just don't get cycle safety. Case in point; https://youtu.be/WxgUr75eCa4 As for the graphic comics, if they work then they've done their job, despite being borderline inappropriate.

Victim blaming is still victim blaming no matter how you dress it up. It may be alarming to see an adult trying to pass a 40 ton truck on a bike, but what's more alarming to me is that a 40 ton truck with incredibly bad visibility  and big blind spots is allowed on public roads with hardly a second thought about safety.

Again, driver education will produce far better results than getting kids to wear a helmet.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Again, driver education will produce far better results than getting kids to wear a helmet.

..as will rider education.

fukawitribe wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Again, driver education will produce far better results than getting kids to wear a helmet.

..as will rider education.

I'd like to refer you to Bez's excellent blog post about idiots: http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/03/14/the-rise-of-the-idiots/

Yes, educating cyclists is a good idea, but a much better idea is educating drivers. Most idiots on bikes learn sooner or later about what behaviour is dangerous or not (except when they have a fatal lesson), but idiots in vehicles are insulated from that essential feedback loop.

Additionally, the statistics are that the vast majority of road incidents are caused by driver inattention, so it makes sense to address the root cause of the problem rather than just one arbitrary set of victims. (You may as well educate all pedestrians about the danger of not using helmets while we're about it for all the good that will do).

Critchio wrote:

Road safety is *everyone's* responsibly and I often see comments directed at vehicle drivers questioning why there's no education aimed at motorists in similar fashion when cyclists are targeted. It's a valid point but that is the current culture we live in.

Safety is largely the responsibility of those responsible for creating the danger. Both morally and as a matter of pragmatic reality - they are the people who actually have the power to affect safety. All this stuff does is scare people with references to dangers that most will soon realise they don't have much power to avoid.

And the obvious effect of this sort of shock-tactic aimed at those who have very little control over the situation, is that people will decide cycling is too dangerous and will give it up. Job done, I guess, as I suspect that is the real aim of this sort of thing.

bikebot wrote:

May I introduce America's best selling automobile, the Ford F150. 

It's all about safety.

Why do they need "Forward Collision Warning"?  Isn't that the bit you can definitely see out of the front of the car? (are we allowed to call something like this a car at all?)

brooksby wrote:

Why do they need "Forward Collision Warning"?  Isn't that the bit you can definitely see out of the front of the car? (are we allowed to call something like this a car at all?)

Well they're now allowed to call it a car, that's the trick. The light duty truck is its own special category, which escapes the  higher regulatory standards of a car. They're utility vehicles, which have lower environmental and safety standards because the law regards them as essential for certain commercial use.

Ecept they're almost all now used exclusively for personal transport. LIke a car, which they now outsell in America.

Simon E wrote:

Those comic-book images are awful. Spending money teaching kids how to ride will always be more effective than any amount of 'safety' scaremongering.

IAnd nothing to give to drivers about trying to avoid killing vulnerable road users?

Maybe giving kids graphic booklets about the door zone is their sneaky way of getting drivers (parents) to read it.

Or maybe they are just crazy.