Video: Scotland’s Nice Way Code ads go live

Quote:

This campaign seems well intentioned and imho should not make things any worse.

Latest from Nice Way Code on the back of Lothian Buses:

Don't use that bike lane on the left of this bus.
Are you really thinking of passing on the right? OK, "If you must"

This is a very good analysis from an advertising man as to why the campaign is not well thought out.
http://jake-bate.tumblr.com/post/57706381066/the-niceway-code-a-failure-...

I came behind a bus with this advertising on the back today as well. I wanted to filter to the left up the cycle lane, but didn't, because I thought the driver behind me would think I'm an asshole. This is not a well thought out campaign.

I was in Italy recently and observed that drivers are pretty intolerant of other drivers but equally tolerant of cyclists (and scooters). There were few road concessions to cyclists and many incidences of 'bad' cycling (and driving) but everyone got on and shared the road.
How can we educate drivers to respect individuals right to use the road? I am not a fan of cycle lanes unless it is done properly (as in Holland). The peek a boo cycle lanes we have here (East Dunbartonshire) are dangerous forcing the cyclist back into the traffic at inopportune and unexpected locations. A waste of money.
This campaign seems well intentioned and imho should not make things any worse.

Arfa, totally agree that the individual you describe is a danger and needs to be taken off the road. There is no excuse for that sort of action. I also agree with the point you make about those unable to meet minimum standards should be removed, but this must also apply to cyclists that fall into that category too. Only the other day, I pulled up at a zebra crossing as a pedestrian was walking across and a fellow cyclist behind blitzed thorough at 20mph plus and came within a foot of hitting the pedestrian who had to get out of the way. That sort of action, in my mind, is reckless,totally unacceptable and that individual needs removing and/or educating.

It seems too often to me that whenever a debate opens up about road safety, the cycling community (i am concious I am grouping us all together again) paints itself as blameless (not pointing the finger at you specifically, I am refering to the whole). Sadly, it is not. Likewise, the motorist community often takes a similar stance, just pushing all the blame on to cyclists which is also totally unjustified.When both sides take such opposed stances, any debate breaks down and we come back to the status quo that we find ourselves. The only way forward, in my mind, is for all to start showing each other, and the rules, more respect, whatever mode of transport they choose to use and punishing those that don't. I admit though that my thoughts may be somewhat utopianist on this matter.

I for one would never advocate using the actions of a minority to justify action against the majority, it's called discrimination plain and simple and I encounter it every single day that I choose to commute by bike in London. What I struggle to tolerate is bigots who are prepared to endanger my life because of their prejudices. For the record, my exchange took place at the lights after I asked said taxi driver why he had endangered me with 3 major highway code breaches in 1/2 a mile. Being "nice" doesn't come into it. Respecting the highway code does and the only thing that changes behaviour is fines. Funny how there has been a marked improvement in ASL compliance now that fines are in place in London.
For the record I am not in favour of critical mass or provocative action/conflict. The problem is that the law needs to emphasise that driving is a privilege that can and should be more frequently taken away from those that ignore minimum standards.

Following your logic then Colin, do you think the cab driver was justified in forcing me into the curb because he bears a grudge towards some cyclists who have jumped lights ?
Believe it or not I am a cyclist and car driver and accept that it is a minority on both sides who are the problem. However extending your logic I would be perfectly justified in forcing any old car off the road and flaming them because I saw another car driver using his mobile phone. I am sorry but this is just nonsense and the longer the poor behaviour of a minority of road users is used to detract from the real issue, that there are too many badly driven vehicles on the road, the more needless deaths and injuries will continue to be inflicted on our roads.

Disappointed with all the negative feedback in here.

I enjoyed these ads. They raise the profile of cyclists in an humerous, easy to understand way. How can this not be positive?

I live and ride in an area with lots of horse riders and cyclists on the country roads and I find it frustrating that I've never seen a motorist blast past, shout at or endanger a horse & rider, but the same level of respect is mostly not afforded for cyclists.

On my 25 mile per day commute I not only am endangered on a daily basis but have been rammed, shouted at and run off the road by car drivers. So any positive advertising is welcome.

All good stuff and the people who quote the cost really don't understand government finance. £500k may be a lot to you or I but in the bigger scheme, it's not that big a price for some TV ads. If it makes a few behave differently, then it's worth it. It also shows Scotland's commitment to cycling - surely a good thing.

Well, that's road safety solved for once and for all then: just ask everyone to behave nicely.

There's a flaw there somewhere, but I just can't spot it. Can anyone help?

Quote:

There are probably nine times as many car journeys as cycle journeys....so it is not so easy as that. Someone should start an ad campaign to help people understand statistics....

Of course there are more car journeys. I don't think it makes sense to target cyclists jumping lights just because they have a higher accident rate per journey. I think you need to reduce the absolute number of accidents, and you should concentrate on the group involved in 90% of all the traffic light cases. As a side effect, I bet you would also make the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians if you targeted the sort of behaviour that results in motorists jumping lights.

From personal experience, I agree with the comment above about motorists being the worst offenders. I used to cross a junction on my commute where I could guarantee to see at least one or two cars drive clean through a red light, every morning, as I waited for the lights to change.

The problem with this collective responsibility nonsense is that it enables diversion from the real problem, ie there are too many road users out there below requisite standards.
For example, this morning on my morning commute, after been cut up for the third time by one particular London cabbie (very deliberately forcing me into the kerb) and finally getting p1ssed off enough to remonstrate with him, I ask what on earth he thinks he's doing when I am trying to safely and sensibly make my way along the road. His response, "maked a change dun't it". So there we have it, as a result of being collectively responsible for the actions of people I have never met, let alone spoken to, it is open season for a cabbie to carve up the next cyclist as a result.
This campaign is just cobblers. People who can't abide by the highway code need to be fined into compliance or off the road not turned into "nice".

It's obviously not possible in the current economic climate to spend what's necessary to provide bike lanes everywhere that they should be, but I think introducing the same rule as in France that when overtaking motorists MUST give cyclists a wide berth of a minimum of 1 metre in towns, and 1m50 out of town, might help reduce the daily "harmless" brushing aside that we suffer.
I ride often in France, and it works. Normally the only transgressors (or the vast majority) are those with GB plates on the car !

Bring back August Althrop Wintrhop (or is Windsock?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4suF8aa4Yv4&list=FLuTuZD6mp09HkySPD9YTd-Q...

at about 5:50

And while we're at it Get Yourself Seen!

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/films/1964to1979/filmpage_pedal.htm

Data point: In Glasgow city, by my observations, most red lights that are jumped are jumped by motorists - by FAR.

If you weight red light jumping by kinetic energy of those involved, motor vehicles outweigh cyclists in red light jumping by at least an order of magnitude.

Studies in London and elsewhere show that, per cyclist, red-light compliance is quite high. There's no reason to think they're any worse than motorists, opportunity per opportunity.

If you're going to have ads to tell people to stop at lights, having those ads just single out cyclists is simply pandering to false, negative stereotypes, and flies in the face of the reality of who's actually doing the red light jumping.

Of course, cyclists *should* stop at red lights - how fucking hard is it just to dismount and push your bike like a pedestrian - legally - if you can't wait? That still doesn't make one responsible for another though.

Oh Jeez, what is it with people. You seem to act like some cycling tribe where everyone is either trying to kill you, waste 'your' cycling money or stereotype you.

You have to start seeing it half way if you want people onside. Ignoring, belittling or just dismissing others is counter productive. In this case the effort of showing a middle ground - that law abiding cyclists don't want to be tarred by the same brush as those who aren't...the corollary is that those who break the law think about how they affect others, and that narrow minded road users realise that all cyclists are not the same.

This largely treats cyclists in a positive light. £500,000 is a lot of money, I have no idea how much advertising costs, but I'm assuming its a going rate SET ASIDE FOR ADVERTISEMENT. If you don't like it then what else would you like to advertise?

The question over the cost is a different matter. As someone else has already said the money could go towards cycle lanes, cycle lanes which require upkeep, cycle lanes that I don't generally use because they're generally filled with road detritus. Cycle lanes I'm not fond of. I would rather have a solution which benefits all road users within the infrastructure limitations. I see road user education the main way to do this. We're not going to rip up our current roads and build new ones anytime soon, people are not going to melt down their cars and buy bicycles in a hurry. Live with, and abide with it.

I quite liked both ads. The problem I have is with this slavish pursuit of some fallacious idea of even-handedness.

Cyclists jump red lights, that annoys people. Motorists don't give cyclists enough space, that kills people. If you're looking for maximum return on investment, it makes no sense to spend equal amounts of time, effort and money on reducing these two misdemeanours.

Yes, cyclists jumping red lights makes people less likely to respect other cyclists, therefore potentially endangering the law-abiding. I buy that. I can see the psychology. But stopping them doing it can't be the most cost-effective way of improving cycle safety.

Quote:

I also wish they had a constructive alternative.

Introduce strict liability. That would be a concrete change that would improve road safety for everyone (not just cyclists).

Just looked up the UK Road Accident stats for 2011:
Contributory factors: Vehicles in reported accidents by vehicle type:
Disobeyed automatic traffic signal
Pedal Cycles - 196
Cars - 1,786

Nine times as many cars as cycles causing accidents by jumping traffic lights? That just makes all car drives look bad, doesn't it? Someone should start a campaign...

My opinion:

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/the-horse-and-the-python/

how about spending the 0.5million on Scottish public starter projects related to cycling safety, i dunno, say for example nice bright warning signs where local commuters feel in danger, not trying to be specific, but something that has a much more local effect on the roads being used for cycling frequently.