- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Think! Department for Transport still from lorry danger videoFury over Government cycling HGV warning video
The Department for Transport’s (DfT) THINK campaign has come under heavy criticism for releasing a video which appears to blame a cyclist for a collision with a left turning lorry.
The clip, which shows a number of colliding forces in slow motion, including a butcher chopping meat and two rams butting each other, interspersed with snippets of a cyclist riding on the inside of a left-turning lorry, begins with the caption “things you shouldn’t get caught between”, and ends with images of a bicycle crushed under HGV wheels.
British Cycling's Policy advisor, Chris Boardman, has led criticism of the video, calling it “desperately misguided”, while the Green Party says it makes the government appear clueless over road safety, and the message should be for lorry drivers not to put cyclists at risk. Many have called for its immediate withdrawal.
Cyclists: Don’t get caught between a lorry and a left hand turn. Watch and share our new #THINK! cycle safety ad. pic.twitter.com/AG3hqVeXjN
— THINK! road safety (@THINKgovuk) September 26, 2016
CTC: Lorries should have higher safety ratings for public projects
After the @ThinkGovUK Twitter account tweeted: "Cyclists: Don’t get caught between a lorry and a left hand turn. Watch and share our new #THINK! cycle safety ad" this morning, Boardman responded, saying: “Desperately misguided campaign that a) tries to make death fun b) vulnerable road user responsible for vehicle not fit for road.
“Companies, THINK buy lorries that let your poor drivers see more than 70% of the road, they exist,” he added.
The video sequence involving the cyclist and lorry in the montage, which ends with a still of a crushed bike under the lorry’s wheels, appears to show the lorry driver overtaking the cyclist before turning left, though it is hard to be sure if this is the case from the edit.
It finishes with the picture of the crushed bike and the caption: “Don’t get caught between a lorry and a left turn. Hang back,” with the sound of sirens in the background.
The Green Party's Transport spokesperson, Caroline Russell AM, says the video indicates a lack of government understanding over cycling safety.
"The government quite clearly shows they have not got the first idea about how to reduce danger for people cycling," she says. "Their film shows an HGV lorry overtake riskily at a junction and turn left in a classic left hook crash. Yet their message is a victim blaming call for the cyclist to stay back.
"I never filter to the left of lorries in stationary or heavy traffic but frequently find I am overtaken by lorries who put me in their blind spot by doing so. The message should have been directed at the lorry drivers to ask them to stay back from people cycling to avoid them being exposed to the risk of causing a crushing collision."
Some cyclists are asking whether a similar campaign is being aimed at lorry drivers, and companies that procure HGVs, to help prevent cyclist fatalities in left turn lorry collisions.
Stop Killing Cyclists has called the video “disgraceful” and asked that it be withdrawn “immediately.”
The video is part of a Think! Campaign which is planned to run until 23rd October, focusing on London and Manchester. West Midlands Police, of the much-hailed decoy cop close pass initiative say it shows what not to do when overtaking a cyclist.
@bellamyonabike @THINKgovuk Let's just say we won't be using it, we might use it to show drivers not what to do though. #S3RTA1988
— CMPG - Road Policing (@Trafficwmp) September 26, 2016
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Senior Road Safety and Legal Campaigns officer said the charity expressed concerns in the campaign's early phase but government chose to ignore those concerns.
He said: “Cycling UK raised its concerns with this campaign at the earliest stage and we are very disappointed this was not taken on board. Hopefully, following the understandable widespread negative reaction THINK! has received from road safety campaigners, they will rethink and re-engage to learn from their mistakes.
“The best safety initiative for our roads would be for Government to back the use of direct vision lorries in major building projects, just like the Mayor of London has done. These lorries allow the driver to see more of the road and around their vehicle, and that means they’re safer for cyclists, walkers and other road users.”
A DfT spokesperson told road.cc: “Any death on the road is a tragedy, and all road users have a responsibility to make our roads safer by being more vigilant.
“We want to protect vulnerable road users by raising awareness of specific dangers, and research shows that a large number of road incidents involving cyclists are with lorries at junctions. The THINK! road safety campaign is aimed at cyclists, motorists and HGV drivers, and they all have a role to play in improving safety.”
As cyclist Alex Ingram points out, the Think! campaign released a second clip, ten hours after the first one, showing the cyclist narrowly escaping a left turn collision with the lorry.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 1 hour 6 min ago
I had a brief moment of déjà vu about established reds Established enough, according to your reverie? This is Polestar 2 OV74 URX
- lesterama 1 hour 56 min ago
"How was the weather today?" "Balkan north wind."
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 55 min ago
I saw something about the Smart Lever a month or so ago, and was intrigued enough to put it on my Xmas list, so maybe I'll get to have a play with...
- pmkdlk 2 hours 1 min ago
Thanks good to hear I'm not missing something. I'll stick with the 50 psi , no issues so far. There are a stack of cobbles where I live so not...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 27 min ago
Who the fuck's that?
- PRSboy 4 hours 12 min ago
Rather better than my effort on Coll de Rates at 28:05, but in my defence it was 30c, I'd had a big lunch and a beer and climbed it on an old MTB I...
- Secret_squirrel 4 hours 26 min ago
Surely these are only as good as your knowledge of their placement? They seem a bit pointless without a decent amount of Sports Massage / Physio...
- lesterama 4 hours 40 min ago
Nice. I'd ride that Madone now.
- mattw 5 hours 9 min ago
This one seems to work the other way, and be genuine Nimbyism - Pimlico wanting to keep its passports....
- HollisJ 6 hours 21 min ago
Thankfully all the terrible spelling errors in my reviews are erased by the skillful subbing team before they go online. ...
Add new comment
57 comments
Maybe, just maybe, the DfT should do some basic study of the DVSA Theory & Hazard Perception components for goods and other vehicles which clearly states that all vehicles turning left must be aware of cyclists on their nearside and must always give way to road users already crossing or negotiating the left turn junction.
Interesting in the context of the "Think Bike" campaign and signage, aimed at making everyone aware of MOTORcyclists, seems to be the opposite message when it comes to cyclists.
Bristol yesterday
Lorry stops with left indicator running, cyclist goes up the inside. My first thought was daft, but when they had moved off I realised the cyclist was in an advance cycle box, however it still looked dodgy to me as because of the sight angles created by the set up, she was just in front and left of his nearside. I suspect the cyclist might have been in the lorry’s nearside blind spot, despite the plethora of mirrors the driver had.
If this was the case and an accident had resulted who would have been in the wrong?
If it had been me I suspect I would have hung back despite the advanced box, just to be on the safe side.
Okay, I've raised a complaint with the ASA to see what happens.
I think I see what they were trying to do in the advert, but it hasn't made itself clear.
A better example would have been a stationary lorry at the red light already indicating.
This just sends out the wrong message.
If trucks have such a blind spot in their mirrors, how do they manage to reverse with any accuracy?
GCN have done a clip on this issue today, decent truck properly equipped, no blind spot. Make that the standard required if you're going to allow such deadly machines on our roads, this then removes one of the defences for the drivers, then start some prosecutions, that will start to address part of the problem.
Excellent. I have long suspected this to be the case as truck drivers can be quite skillful and get the trailer between metre high bollards.
Let's get prosecuting.
Let not one death be in vain.
Because not damaging your lorry has a bigger incentive than not killing people. One probably gets you sacked, the other might get you a wee fine, if you meet a very unsympathetic jury, have a crap lawyer, and get unlucky with the judge.
Look where the blind spot typically is, why it impacts vulnerable road users and why it's irrelevent for reversing.
I saw a show where they illustrated how many people could be hidden in the blind spot. The blind spot appeared to be somewhere on the pavement at least 6 foot away from the truck.
EDIT:
GCN video blowing blind spot myth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ofpj6L6nxg
They don't talk about attitude much though...
There is no "a" blind spot - if it occurs it is dependent on the number, type and positioning of the mirrors - hence why I said "typically". The GCN video is rather good, but does not 'blow' the 'myth' of a blind spot - it just shows what you can get if you have a well-spec'd wagon with someone driving it who is looking. The point I was making was that the 'typical' blind spot (near-side, just before, by or just in front of the cab) is not an impediment to reversing as per the OPs comment.
The highlighted bit is important, those who don't look blame the fictional blind spot. There is no blind spot on the nearside, I know this as I can see drivers from a way off when filtering on their inside and they are able to reverse with pinpoint accuracy. The ones I don't see either have badly aligned or damaged mirrors (niether of which is an excuse). Few riders are run over after being in the frontal blind spot, it's always worth a look over your shoulder & make eye contact with the driver (old motorcyling trick) .
It's piss poor driving that's is the main contributor to
accidentscollisions.There can be blind spots I assure you, and on the near-side, especially with solid doors - you simply do not "know this", what you believe is wrong. There were no rules about having complete coverage from the mirrors, so nothing to follow to ensure a "correct" field of view. Having inattentive drivers is a huge issue, partly why I mentioned it, but not being able to see people near the wagon is not necessarily due to the poor alignment of mythical perfect mirror placement - having insufficient or unsuitable mirrors can do this as well. You sound awfully like you're trying to deny the existence of something to push a point - a denial of something (a blind spot) you apparently have seem demonstrated ... I find that confusing, can you clarify what you believe ?
Thai, apparently, isn't difficult.
I find the tonal inflections quite tricky and the script certainly isn't easy for a westerner.
Blind spot right behind the lorry. How often do lorries hit things directly behind them when reversing? Hardly ever in my experience. Why? Because they care enough to look carefully before moving, use a banksman, use reversing aids...
Make the punishement for driving badly sufficiently high, being caught sufficiently likely, and being let off by clowns sufficiently unklikely; watch the probalems fade away.
Unfortunately not all look behind. We had a school girl riding along a shared use cycle/footpath less than1/2 mile from home a week or so back. Tipper passes her on the road, stops and reverses back across the cycle path and killed her. The rotation system that "closes" the camera into a housing to stop itgetting caked with crud was, caked in crud, and got stuck, hence his rear camera showed almost under his rear axle as he reversed straight over her.....
Safety devices help, IF they work. If they are not, then people need to use WAY more care. This guy passed the cyclist 20 seconds earlier and had either not seen her or already forgotten.
In fairness, reversing probably usually happens from a standing start, at a low speed, and possibly just prior to stopping. Whereas side-swiping cyclists happens while in motion as part of the normal course of driving from A to B under time pressure. I can see why pyschologically they'd be different. I can't bring myself to really put the blame on the drivers, except in ludicrous cases like that bloke who kept refusing to wear his glasses.
(I'd rather blame the design of the lorries and the roads)
This is a scandalous waste of my money. The idea that these treacherous shits received my money to ignore the road safety advice, and produce this misguided claptrap fucks me off more than the muddled up message. Our collective monies pay for these pricks to blame us for the ills of operating HGV's and other completely inappropriate vehicles in urban settings. Even when people told them they were getting the facts wrong.
Just watched the video. Left hook: no doubt in my mind. Cyclist lit up, wearing a helmet, riding along; lorry overtakes him, turns left. Almost immediately. I don't see that he rides up the inside of it, at all. Is HM Govt really saying that if a lorry dangerously overtakes you then in every case you just back off?
No message here for truckers: you're driving around town in something with restricted vision, be very aware of this? You're driving something around town which really should be on a motorway or else accompanied by a banksman with a flag?
I was thinking if we could cut the lorry & cyclist parts from the video, and then send them to the police and ask them to investigate the dangerous driving?
Just watched the video, was unable to earlier.
If that's not a classic left-hook, overtaking too close to the junction and turning across the bike rider, then I'm the queen of sheba!
Talk about getting their wires crossed showing an incredibly dangerous overtaking-followed-by-left-turn manoeuvre and suggesting they're advising bike riders not to go up the inside of lorries. Un-f#*kin-believable
I'd rather do what I can to stop myself being killed than stubbornly make some kind of point about 'victim blaming'.
Both, surely?
Yep: they're not mutually exclusive, and yet here we go again with 'fellow cyclists'(?) creating moton-apologist false dichotomies.
Keep yourself safe on the roads, by all means. But make every effort you can to
1. understand the subtleties of the 'victim blaming' message (see helmet debate) and
2.counter the awful propaganda in this venomous shite.
I have to agree, political correctness doesn't matter when your life's in jeopardy.
Better to be a live coward than a dead hero as the saying goes lol
Me too, but if you can't see why others are objecting to taxpayers money being spent normalising lethal HGV driving there is not much point having a discussion.
One thing you can do to reduce the chance of being killed is to point out the victim blaming and object to it whenever it happens (partiuclarly when its officially endorsed).
There's not a lot else one can do, really, given most of what gets cyclists killed has little to do with their behaviour on the roads.
The way I read the ad is simple, you are riding your bike down the road minding your own business when I truck overtakes you, turns into your path and kills you. Seems to me that's murder, no question.
What this video should be saying is - Truck drivers if you do this - you will go to jail - except we all know nobody goes to jail for killing a cyclist, so no incentive or disincentive either way
Pages