TAC choose a safe route TV advert

[antigee]

Notice that when watching TDF a TAC towards zero ad appears a lot encouraging cyclists to choose safe routes with a cyclist in a segregated lane, getting a green cycle light etc

A few things get me on this - it really does get me that if I want to get from A to B on my bike I have to spend time working out the safest way to do it ....why? Last time I checked my car GPS had a load of options but not "choose a safe route" Driving I use the GPS or follow signposts on any bit of road I choose and don't have to think "ooh i don't know a safe way to get there"

I do choose safe routes and often choose to avoid some really unsafe on road cycle lanes ... Maps like google will route me onto some roads I think best avoided but they form part of the cycling infrastructure and get flagged as suitable for cycling but shouldn't as currently laid out


And just to really get me I reckon the first shot in the ad' is Kane's Bridge near Studley Park boathouse which has more "no cycling" signs on it than the entrance to the Burnley Tunnel could be wrong might be the next bridge down but I don't think so

[gtext]

This advert just shows how out of touch the TAC is. What their saying is to the cyclist is we know the roads and the drivers on the roads are unsafe but we won't do anything about it. Including introducing the 1 mtr rule. You the cyclist make the choice. The dangerous drivers are anywhere and everywhere. Flip a coin the route you take.

[Uncle Just]

And just to really get me I reckon the first shot in the ad' is Kane's Bridge near Studley Park boathouse which has more "no cycling" signs on it than the entrance to the Burnley Tunnel could be wrong might be the next bridge down but I don't think so

Yes I noticed that and thought it a little ironic if true.

[Calvin27]

This advert just shows how out of touch the TAC is.

The TAC is one of the most out of date organisations around. Basically a puppet organisation to support government aims to raise as much revenue as possible through infringements. I they were serious about road safety and reducing fatalities they would make the obvious decision of making licensing harder. The amount of people that couldn't, wouldn't or had never tried to do an emergency stop in a vehicle is astounding and we let these people on the road with 1 tonne high powered metal tanks.

[4 1 3 0]

This advert just shows how out of touch the TAC is. What their saying is to the cyclist is we know the roads and the drivers on the roads are unsafe but we won't do anything about it. Including introducing the 1 mtr rule. You the cyclist make the choice. The dangerous drivers are anywhere and everywhere. Flip a coin the route you take.

+1 here, I wished there was a like button for this comment. I noticed today in the Herald sun that there was another death in the Melbourne suburbs around Ormond off North Road, the poor youngish lady was hit by a truck. How many deaths in Victoria would that be in the last twelve months?

[uart]

Interesting. Perhaps cycle advocacy groups could turn that around a little, like even use it as a "sound byte" to piggy back on the end: "..., but FIRST we need to provide safe routes". And perhaps use it as a campaign to highlight areas where current no truly safe route exists for bicycles.

[find_bruce]

Perhaps TAC can suggest routes where drivers are not playing with 2 phones or watching porn

[g-boaf]

Notice that when watching TDF a TAC towards zero ad appears a lot encouraging cyclists to choose safe routes with a cyclist in a segregated lane, getting a green cycle light etc

A few things get me on this - it really does get me that if I want to get from A to B on my bike I have to spend time working out the safest way to do it ....why? Last time I checked my car GPS had a load of options but not "choose a safe route" Driving I use the GPS or follow signposts on any bit of road I choose and don't have to think "ooh i don't know a safe way to get there"

I do choose safe routes and often choose to avoid some really unsafe on road cycle lanes ... Maps like google will route me onto some roads I think best avoided but they form part of the cycling infrastructure and get flagged as suitable for cycling but shouldn't as currently laid out


And just to really get me I reckon the first shot in the ad' is Kane's Bridge near Studley Park boathouse which has more "no cycling" signs on it than the entrance to the Burnley Tunnel could be wrong might be the next bridge down but I don't think so

This tells me that TAC execs or marketing people don't ride bikes at all. Doesn't matter where you ride, any route could be unsafe. Even on shared pathways where it is always possible that a drunken driver may drive up the footpath and hit a rider (or for that matter, someone in a velomobile). That happened.

The trick would be to get an advocacy group to run a counter-advert right near that one.

[ironhanglider]

The TAC is only concerned where incidents involving motor vehicles result in injury. Hence the ad mostly portrays a rider riding in places that motor vehicles don't go, or in quiet suburban streets where the chance of injury is less. The one that really irks me is the "Copenhagen lane" section where it most definitely is not safer. However riding in those lanes there is less risk of an incident involving a motor vehicle which would result in a TAC claim, but a much greater risk of a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, which is not the concern of the TAC.

The really odd thing is that everyone I know chooses their route in the first instance with ease of navigation as a high priority, and then refines it as they ride it more often. If the 'safe routes' were somehow identifiable whilst riding without using a phone (big fine now) and actually were safe, then people might use them more often.

Cheers,

Cameron

[Cardy George]

But it's Matthew Keenan, surely that make the ad credible........

Interesting. Perhaps cycle advocacy groups could turn that around a little, like even use it as a "sound byte" to piggy back on the end: "..., but FIRST we need to provide safe routes". And perhaps use it as a campaign to highlight areas where current no truly safe route exists for bicycles.

Oh but they are! Advocating for 30kmh limit in the city is surely going to make all those mean motorists see us poor cyclists in a different light!

Makes me glad I live a VERY long way g from the city!

[DavidS]

Yep it's a crap ad. Roads are for road vehicles, bicycles are road vehicles. If the road is not safe for bicycles it is not fit for purpose. Why should I have to plan my route around staying safe, why shouldn't I be able to just plan my route by the best way to get from A to B? After all, I don't have a motor to help me along, it's all my energy, why should I have to go out of my way because of bad infrastructure and/or idiotic drivers given a licence by this mob?

I particularly like the bit where the cyclist pushes a button to get a bicycle light for a hook turn. First I've heard of such a thing and what do you reckon, do you reckon it gives you a bike light nice and quick? Doubt it.

As someone above said, it is so obvious those who made the ad haven't ridden on our roads.

DS

[antigee]

But it's Matthew Keenan, surely that make the ad credible........

...........

my eyesight and memory is not great and didn't realise that the ad' is a shortened version of the Matthew Keenan ad' that was used by TAC during the TDU coverage - both ad's are on TAC's youtube channel and date from that time:

short version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ3BqFhAVv8

long version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAYOBFVrN3c

think part of the problem with this campaign is what does it say to those drivers that believe that cyclists shouldn't be on "busy" roads or "narrow" roads or "multi lane roads" etc and should be using the dedicated facilities provided...as in "get off the f'ing road, c**t"

would be interesting to know if TAC use any sort of focus group(s) to look at these ad's to see what people take away - i suspect that a lot of TDF watchers are sports enthusiasts rather than cyclists and may take away a different message to that intended - similar to "share the road" seems to mean to some people that riding on it isn't a good idea

ps and I'm pretty sure that is Kane's Bridge - a safe route because you have to be a ped' - that's what the signs say

EDIT 25/07 updated link to photos now using Flickr Pro (hopefully)

TAC Safe route Kane's bridge possibly by Robert Jones, on Flickr


20130909_130922 (2)Kanes Bridge by Robert Jones, on Flickr

[hamishm]

3rd time lucky ? no 4th time? Yep

Nope, none of your pictures displayed here.

[josskey]

was so freaked out when I saw it. they make you feel like cyclists are some road abnormality. I understand everyone should think for themselves and be careful and all that, as well as those driving cars. traffic regulations should be equally followed by all. argh

[antigee]

3rd time lucky ? no 4th time? Yep

Nope, none of your pictures displayed here.

cheers i'll look at that - i can see them but apparently thats because i'm logged into my google account - though had set correctly - back to google to find a fool proof way

[fat and old]

But it's Matthew Keenan, surely that make the ad credible........

...........

my eyesight and memory is not great and didn't realise that the ad' is a shortened version of the Matthew Keenan ad' that was used by TAC during the TDU coverage - both ad's are on TAC's youtube channel and date from that time:

Yeah, Keenan. Saw that for the first time last night. Yet another reason for me to dislike the POS sell out.

[AdelaidePeter]

Notice that when watching TDF a TAC towards zero ad appears a lot encouraging cyclists to choose safe routes with a cyclist in a segregated lane, getting a green cycle light etc

So the ad's on during the TDF coverage, so it's aimed at cyclists. It's not as if they're showing it during the footy.

It's all good advice for cyclists - avoiding main roads where possible is both what I do, and what I advise others to do. I don't have the slightest problem with those ads.

[g-boaf]

Notice that when watching TDF a TAC towards zero ad appears a lot encouraging cyclists to choose safe routes with a cyclist in a segregated lane, getting a green cycle light etc

So the ad's on during the TDF coverage, so it's aimed at cyclists. It's not as if they're showing it during the footy.

It's all good advice for cyclists - avoiding main roads where possible is both what I do, and what I advise others to do. I don't have the slightest problem with those ads.

And what happens when the non-main road (ie, the so called safe route) isn't safe because you get rounded up by some anti-bicycle driver who menaces you?

Sometimes the main roads are infinitely safer. I do ride on main roads sometimes because I don't have the alternative. It's naive to think that avoiding main roads has anything to do with safety. Back roads are also more likely to be used as rat-runs, or as an alternative to a race-track.

[kb]

The other issue is that side traffic is often more cautious entering a main road than a smaller road. Hard to generalise safety and separate hazard from hazard perception.

[AdelaidePeter]

It's naive to think that avoiding main roads has anything to do with safety. Back roads are also more likely to be used as rat-runs, or as an alternative to a race-track.

So if your partner / child / close family member was to take up cycling, you'd be advising them to start out on main roads? I wouldn't.

I can't speak for cities other than Adelaide, but back roads are safer in Adelaide for a number of reasons. First, the largest trucks are not legally allowed on them. Then, obviously there is much less traffic so less chance of being hit. And on a quiet street you can at least hear the (relatively rare) rat runners and take appropriate action. Anecdotally, I know of fatal bicycle crashes on two of the main roads in my area but none on other roads.

Yes, avoiding main roads has a lot to do with safety.

[g-boaf]

It's naive to think that avoiding main roads has anything to do with safety. Back roads are also more likely to be used as rat-runs, or as an alternative to a race-track.

So if your partner / child / close family member was to take up cycling, you'd be advising them to start out on main roads? I wouldn't.

I can't speak for cities other than Adelaide, but back roads are safer in Adelaide for a number of reasons. First, the largest trucks are not legally allowed on them. Then, obviously there is much less traffic so less chance of being hit. And on a quiet street you can at least hear the (relatively rare) rat runners and take appropriate action. Anecdotally, I know of fatal bicycle crashes on two of the main roads in my area but none on other roads.

Yes, avoiding main roads has a lot to do with safety.

Get confident at riding first, then do ride on the roads. Not 110km/h single lane each way ones obviously, but in my experience I'm less harassed by motorists on multiple-lane main roads than I am on single lane each way "back roads" or "quiet roads". Riding on some roads like Parramatta Rd in Sydney, Woodville Road, there are enough lanes for other cars to go past me with no problem.

The key thing is to not hide near the gutter, and two, be predictable. If you need to change lanes to make turn, do it early so you have time to spare.

[DavidS]

Notice that when watching TDF a TAC towards zero ad appears a lot encouraging cyclists to choose safe routes with a cyclist in a segregated lane, getting a green cycle light etc

So the ad's on during the TDF coverage, so it's aimed at cyclists. It's not as if they're showing it during the footy.

It's all good advice for cyclists - avoiding main roads where possible is both what I do, and what I advise others to do. I don't have the slightest problem with those ads.

Roads are made for road vehicles, bicycles are road vehicles. If the road is not safe for cyclists surely the answer is not to tell cyclists to avoid main roads, surely the answer is to make the damned road safe.

The ad admits that main roads may not be safe for cyclists. Surely those responsible for the roads shouldn't be blaming the victims, they should be making the roads safe for all road users.

I do have an issue with an ad which tells me that, just because I am on a bicycle, I have to take a different route because the infrastructure is not safe.

DS

[AdelaidePeter]

Notice that when watching TDF a TAC towards zero ad appears a lot encouraging cyclists to choose safe routes with a cyclist in a segregated lane, getting a green cycle light etc

So the ad's on during the TDF coverage, so it's aimed at cyclists. It's not as if they're showing it during the footy.

It's all good advice for cyclists - avoiding main roads where possible is both what I do, and what I advise others to do. I don't have the slightest problem with those ads.

Roads are made for road vehicles, bicycles are road vehicles. If the road is not safe for cyclists surely the answer is not to tell cyclists to avoid main roads, surely the answer is to make the damned road safe.

It's easy to say "make the damned road safe", but often both hard and expensive to do. And even assuming the resources exist to do it, it won't happen overnight. So until then, it makes sense for cyclists to be realistic and adjust their habits where possible
.

[DavidS]

I agree that making road infrastructure safer may cost, but, changing driver behaviour can potentially add to revenue.

There is a lot of debate about what good infrastructure is anyway. The "Copenhagen" lanes in Swanston St North of the CBD in Melbourne just don't work very well because of all the driveways and the way that cars just don't look for moving vehicles except in the main traffic lane. The best infrastructure I regularly use is just a marked bike lane on sections of Beach Rd where the bike lane is next to the parking, the feature is that the parking is wide enough to open most car doors without impeding the bike lane and the bike lane is very wide. Apart from that my favourite infrastructure is a multi-lane road where I can ride in the middle of the lane.

DS

[fat and old]

What does main rd/side rd have to do with safety for cyclists? We should be able to feel...and be.....safe everywhere. To me, this is a lost opportunity for a reasonably high profile person with access to mass media financed by a large Gov. owned entity to do his/their part and inform everyone that on the road, we're all equal. No exceptions. No ambiguity. No questions.

He didn't. And every motorist who saw/sees that ad will wonder why I didn't use the bike path or a road where there is a cycle lane. Because even the TAC (read "Government") says I should. And some will take it further. Some will abuse me. Some may even try it as a defense....."he should have known it wasn't safe on this road. The Government is spending money educating them and they are ignoring it, the ingrates".

They got it right with motorcycles...."Look rider, look driver". They are equal. They have the same rights. It's their responsibility to look out for each other.

We don't deserve that? People want to argue about this?