The constant smear campaign against cycling

User avatar
Toyopet
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:43 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby Toyopet » Sun May 13, 2018 10:46 am

Q: Why do cars need good brakes?
A: To avoid crashing into cyclists running red lights.

(so says the photo at top-left below)

Image

The car gets its brakes checked whenever it goes into the dealer for a service. But it annoys me that they pick on a cyclist for their (set up) test report photo. Yes, emergency braking is sometimes required, but it’s usually due to the actions of other drivers, not wayward cyclists!

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18833
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby mikesbytes » Sun May 13, 2018 7:59 pm

Agree Toyopet, they could of used a child crossing the road bringing forward the image of good brakes protecting our children but they use an image of cyclist. It's almost saying that good brakes will protect your car from being damaged by some ratbag on a bicycle
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

BJL
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby BJL » Sun May 13, 2018 8:16 pm

It's a stupid photo anyway. Even though the green lights appear slightly brighter, it also appears that the red lights are illuminated as well. So which is it? And given that the traffic on the other side of the intersection is backed up, it's highly likely that even if the lights are green, it has only just turned green meaning that firstly, the cyclist may have entered the intersection on amber and secondly, it's also likely the car was stationary at the intersection at the red light for a period of time before the cyclist came into view.

So what do motorists need brakes for? To stop at red lights of course!

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Sun May 13, 2018 9:25 pm

I take the opposite angle: I'm grateful that this company is spreading the message that it's important to be mindful of vulnerable road users.

fat and old
Posts: 3296
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby fat and old » Sun May 13, 2018 9:48 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:I take the opposite angle: I'm grateful that this company is spreading the message that it's important to be mindful of vulnerable road users.


Agree. Glass half full here.

BJL
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby BJL » Mon May 14, 2018 8:30 am

AdelaidePeter wrote:I take the opposite angle: I'm grateful that this company is spreading the message that it's important to be mindful of vulnerable road users.


Where does it say that?

"Ensure your safety, and that of your family".

To me, they mean the occupants of the vehicle. As if the occupants of the vehicle are at any risk if they drove into that cyclist. Maybe if they showed another car or a truck running the maybe red light.

No mention of the safety of other road users at all. Indeed, the cynic in me says that there will be a few rednecks out there that would look at this and say 'another bloody expense because of those idiot cyclists'.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon May 14, 2018 10:10 am

BJL wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:I take the opposite angle: I'm grateful that this company is spreading the message that it's important to be mindful of vulnerable road users.


Where does it say that?

"Ensure your safety, and that of your family".

To me, they mean the occupants of the vehicle. As if the occupants of the vehicle are at any risk if they drove into that cyclist. Maybe if they showed another car or a truck running the maybe red light.

No mention of the safety of other road users at all. Indeed, the cynic in me says that there will be a few rednecks out there that would look at this and say 'another bloody expense because of those idiot cyclists'.


It says that in the picture.

I've been to a couple of seminars on communication, and they always make the point that communication is not only verbal, but the visual component is at least as important. I've never done a course in advertising but I'm sure they take advantage of the sample principle: one message in the pictures, another message in the words - and they don't have to be identical. So there's no need to say "Ensure the safety of other road users" because they've made that point in the picture. (There's a car ad on TV at the moment which does the same thing, though in that case it brakes for a pedestrian wearing headphones).

human909
Posts: 8671
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: The constant smear campaign against cycling

Postby human909 » Mon May 14, 2018 10:55 am

Well said.

AdelaidePeter wrote:(There's a car ad on TV at the moment which does the same thing, though in that case it brakes for a pedestrian wearing headphones).


As a car driver having to brake suddenly or take any evasive maneuvers for pedestrians and cyclists is a rarity. Doing it for my fellow motorist is certainly not uncommon.

These advertisements perpetuate the us-vs-them thought process whether it is deliberate or not.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users