"Every year....."

[il padrone]

"....over one and a half thousand bike riders are seriously injured....."

Just saw this Amy Gillett ad for the first time. Not so sure I'm all that happy about the line taken and the flow on effects in attitudes towards cycling ???

[Downhill]

"....over one and a half thousand bike riders are seriously injured....."

Just saw this Amy Gillett ad for the first time. Not so sure I'm all that happy about the line taken and the flow on effects in attitudes towards cycling ???

It's a negative ad. Motorists will turn off to it. The intended message is "a metre matters", but the message it delivers is "distracted middle aged male drivers are dangerous".

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I would have shown a motorist doing the right thing, and perhaps shown the cyclist having to "wobble" around a pothole. It would also have been better to show a young female cyclist that male motorists would relate to and feel sympathy towards.

I would have preferred to see information overload as the cause of the accident. Every motorist can relate to the distraction caused by a tailgater for instance.

That said, it's all to easy to criticise from the sidelines when someone else has done all the hard work. My compliments and congrats to those involved in getting the ad to air. It's a big step in the right direction.

[high_tea]

I reckon you've got to confront the "no harm, no foul" attitude to unsafe practices somehow.

What it doesn't tackle is the expectation that cyclists stay out of the way of motorists, who are supposedly more important in the scheme of things. This expectation creates dangerous situations.

That said, I think this ad is a very good thing. Whatever my view on what it could have done better, or differently, it's putting cyclist safety on the agenda. That's a dramatic improvement.

[CommuRider]

I'd probably delete the part with the cop and replace it with the cyclist's body hitting the windscreen with blood pouring out. That's driver's trauma for you. That would be as effective as the antismoking ads. Make it confronting. How would a driver like to see a bloody broken body on top of a broken windscreen? Not a pretty sight.

[il padrone]

The point has been well and truly missed

[trailgumby]

Hypothetical:

You've got 15 seconds to make a point that makes a difference and saves a life.

You have enough funding for one advert only.

What do you do?



... I don't have too much argument with their choice, given their constraints.

[brentono]

put in... Map of Australia
and boldly placed below.
STRICT LIABILITY = MOTORISTS

Can use for stickers, jerseys... etc.

[il padrone]

My concerns revolve around safety campaigns that scare people about danger. I heard that first line and thought "OMGosh, not another horror ad about the dangers of cycling". It was not so bad I guess, but I feel the campaign is misguided. You don't make conditions on the road better for cyclists by harping on about the dangers of injuries and then expect more people to go out and ride their bikes.

I think it's much better to focus on the positives of cycling to get more cyclists on the roads. Driver education matter as well of course, but perhaps a different focus is needed for this. I don't have the answer, just concerned about the initial message as I heard it.

[Baldy]

Its a good Ad and its not aimed at cyclists or even potential cyclists. It is aimed at motorists. The type of people who have no interest in riding a push bike and may even be anti-bike[well anti bikes using their roads]

It is telling them, this amount of people are involved and there are consequences. If they dont care about other peoples safety[cyclists in this case] then the idea of being let away in a cop car and the neighbours seeing might wake them up. Lets face it, appearances mean more to some people than doing the right thing.

I agree with the others, at least its something. I hope they do plenty more, even ones that are shot with a rose colored lens

[high_tea]

STRICT LIABILITY = MOTORISTS

Can use for stickers, jerseys... etc.

Sounds great, but what does it mean? It's never been clear to me. I understand what the legal term means, but that doesn't shed much light on what changes to the law "STRICT LIABILITY = MOTORISTS" is suggesting.

I mean, the Australian Road Rules enforce strict liability (the offences, by and large, have no fault elements and the defence of mistake of fact is, AFAIK, available). Trouble is, the enforcement borders on pathetic, and the penalties go no further than fines. Want to stiffen up the penalties? Sounds good to me! Want to make a collision, with a vulnerable road user or otherwise, a circumstance of aggravation? I could come at that too. "Strict liability" isn't a very good term for those sorts of changes, though.

It's not a very good term at all, I'm afraid. To the extent that it isn't hopelessly vague (for instance, most of the YouTube videos on the marvellous European "strict liability" laws are infuriatingly coy about whether the liability is civil or criminal) the definition isn't particularly helpful.

I totally agree with the idea that road users -all road users - should be more accountable, and held to a higher standard. I think the law could be changed to help make this happen. I do not think "strict liability" is a very good slogan. At the very least, it would help if someone came out and described the actual changes to the actual law this slogan is pushing for.

[greyhoundtom]

My wife worries enough now whenever I decide to cycle on the road, if she sees that advert it will only make her worry more about my safety.

However a blood spattered windscreen in the advert and that would be it, and I will have to spend the rest of my cycling days going round and round the Casey criterium track.

Any advertising that is going to have a dramatic enough message that could affect driver behaviour in our favour, is going to have a negative impact on cyclists themselves, and it is going to have the most affect on the decision making processes of parents when it comes to letting their kids ride their bikes unsupervised, and in the process will unfortunately reduce the uptake of cycling.

[CommuRider]

*sigh*

Given the number of people on this forum having experienced accidents involving cars and always coming worse off, I don't see why we shouldn't expose the general public to the dangers that every day, ordinary cyclists face on the roads.

Every week there's a post about an accident involving a BNA member or a news story of a cyclist killed who is one or two degrees removed from us. It's about empathy - the cyclist you run over could be your sister, brother, father, uncle, friend etc.

That's just my point about a cyclist's body appearing on the windscreen. I'm sure it would jolt some people from their complacency in their caged, sardine car environment feeling that they are invincible while the rest of us - cyclists and pedestrians - feel very vulnerable when the driver behind that 2-ton piece of steel has a brain fart and hits us.

[human909]

The point has been well and truly missed

I didn't miss your point, I completely agree. When I grew up (Perth) cycling used to be something that everybody did. Sure for most people it was just quiet recreation but it was common. My parents took us kids riding to the local park but we rode on the residential roads to get there. I was probably about 6 or 7 when I was doing this.

These days we are constantly being told cycling is dangerous, cycling is dangerous, roads are dangerous.... Its not cool and it won't help cycling. (Though this is no different from the paranoia about child abduction. When I grew up I walked to school on my when i was 7.

Its a good Ad and its not aimed at cyclists or even potential cyclists. It is aimed at motorists. The type of people who have no interest in riding a push bike and may even be anti-bike[well anti bikes using their roads]

So by this comment you have just discounted 90% of the the population from ever being a cyclist. EVERYBODY is a potential cyclist. But telling everybody that it is dangerous isn't helping.

It is telling them, this amount of people are involved and there are consequences. If they dont care about other peoples safety[cyclists in this case] then the idea of being let away in a cop car and the neighbours seeing might wake them up. Lets face it, appearances mean more to some people than doing the right thing.

And reality means alot more than fantasy. Most people see that hitting a cyclist is just an 'accident'. And currently they are right as far as the law is concerned. One poor ad wont change that opinion, particularly when it is contrary to reality.

That's just my point about a cyclist's body appearing on the windscreen. I'm sure it would jolt some people from their complacency in their caged, sardine car environment feeling that they are invincible while the rest of us - cyclists and pedestrians - feel very vulnerable when the driver behind that 2-ton piece of steel has a brain fart and hits us.

I think motorist fully appreciate how vulnerable cyclists are. They either don't care or don't KNOW how do deal with cyclists on the road safely. 95% of poor driving by motorist towards cyclists is often lack of understanding of their requirements towards bikes and how to deal safely with them. Education is best, ideally by more people cycling. Short of that they need government ads and enforcement of basic treatment of cyclists. The notion that cyclists don't belong on the roads NEEDS to be changed. Even 'nice' people can often hold this opinion.

[Missy24]

I think its soft advertising, it doesn't even touch you like TAC advertisments, lets see the accidents and then have a line like, "your mother, your daughter, your father, your brother... you all know a cyclist."

I think the AGF is cute and its done a lot for cycling, but I don't believe that they're effective at making changes. I do think they are effective at having mass participation rides and a cute looking website and running programs for schools and so forth.

As far as lobbying goes, they're not going to be as successful because they're more concerned about keeping their grants. They may be not for profit but they still have people to pay, which doesn't seem to make them over effective. They're mesage is 'a metre matters' except its difficult to see it on the website.

The add doesn't look overly serious, perhaps they used bad actors? I don't know... That add where the family talks about looking the boy... now THAT hits home. The adds where you see part of a body hits home, they've done it for motor bikes, they've done it for everything, let do it with bikes.

I look at that add and I go meh... whatever. The AGF does there nice little ride in each state and people pay attention for a whole 2 weeks and maybe nobody gets hurt and then everyone slowly forgets about what happened.

They ARE trying, but they're also trying not to loose their funding.

Anyway, like I said... cute

[human909]

I just saw this thread about identity bands for cyclists. I am appalled and shocked that cyclists on this forum think that such items are needed for cycling because 'cycling is dangerous'.

When we have cycling enthusiasts holding such opinions what hope do we have of changing perceptions.

[Missy24]

I think motorist fully appreciate how vulnerable cyclists are. They either don't care or don't KNOW how do deal with cyclists on the road safely. 95% of poor driving by motorist towards cyclists is often lack of understanding of their requirements towards bikes and how to deal safely with them. Education is best, ideally by more people cycling. Short of that they need government ads and enforcement of basic treatment of cyclists. The notion that cyclists don't belong on the roads NEEDS to be changed. Even 'nice' people can often hold this opinion.

I don't normally agree with you, but on this occasion slightly...

People DON'T know what to do, I went down the Great Ocean Road with a friend last weekend and we talked about what to do, because she didn't know and she said, "well your the cyclist, what should I do?" And at one point we got to a cyclist who was on the left and we waited until it was safe and she did what I said and gave plenty of space.

The Lawyer at my work didn't know and asked me to email her the rules... two people who didn't know. The girl who does my facials knows I cycle and her dad was a keen cyclist and she said when she was learning to drive that he drilled it into her about cyclists being there.

Nobody wants to hit someone, we just need a little bit of education.

[Missy24]

I just saw this thread about identity bands for cyclists. I am appalled and shocked that cyclists on this forum think that such items are needed for cycling because 'cycling is dangerous'.

When we have cycling enthusiasts holding such opinions what hope do we have of changing perceptions.

I would expect that most people would have an ICE contact in their mobiles... walking out of the house in the morning is dangerous, who knows what could happen... live on the wild side, make it possible for someone who loves you to be contacted if your in trouble.

[human909]

I don't normally agree with you, but on this occasion slightly...

Thanks. (I think.)

I would expect that most people would have an ICE contact in their mobiles... walking out of the house in the morning is dangerous, who knows what could happen... live on the wild side, make it possible for someone who loves you to be contacted if your in trouble.

As a rockclimber, outdoor adventurer and a member of a outdoors club I do understand the need of being able to contact a partner's loved ones. I lost a friend this week to a tragic accident, I was having a drink with him about 2 weeks ago. He is a foreigner and his family is overseas. But even in such sports, some of which are clearly more risky than cycling, carrying an emergency contact is quite rare.

The concept of carrying around an identifier while cycling just strikes me as absurd and paranoid. I wonder what the dutch would think, where most of Amsterdam commutes by bicycle.

(But if we want to discuss this further we should probably take it to the other thread.)

[The Womble]

I just saw this thread about identity bands for cyclists. I am appalled and shocked that cyclists on this forum think that such items are needed for cycling because 'cycling is dangerous'.

When we have cycling enthusiasts holding such opinions what hope do we have of changing perceptions.

Geez. You dont buy one because youre worried about your safety. You buy one in case something happens. There are alot of very confident riders whod be happy to buy one

[The Womble]

Hypothetical:

You've got 15 seconds to make a point that makes a difference and saves a life.

You have enough funding for one advert only.

What do you do?



... I don't have too much argument with their choice, given their constraints.

To be fair, they have a (IMO pointless) board of directors, major sponsorship deals and they receive a crazy ammount of government funding. They could do better than a poorly executed Channel 31-esk ad

[The Womble]

Hmmm. I thought the previous post was the better of the two. Maybe I should start a poll

[Mulger bill]

We need some sort of public education advertising, but this isn't it. It doesn't hit hard enough.

It's about empathy - the cyclist you run over could be your sister, brother, father, uncle, friend etc.

Methinks this might be the angle needed. Joe Tradie or Joanne Skoolmum meets peergroup at typical gathering place happy to tell the crowd how they buzzed this rider being cut off mid brag to be told that "this rider" was friend x's loved one who went under the wheels of the car behind.

[rustychisel]

+ 1 and a lot more. My partner uses this line very effectively when she chastises !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!.

We need some sort of public education advertising, but this isn't it. It doesn't hit hard enough.

It's about empathy - the cyclist you run over could be your sister, brother, father, uncle, friend etc.

Methinks this might be the angle needed. Joe Tradie or Joanne Skoolmum meets peergroup at typical gathering place happy to tell the crowd how they buzzed this rider being cut off mid brag to be told that "this rider" was friend x's loved one who went under the wheels of the car behind.

[familyguy]

Humanisation of cyclists is the right hammer for that nail. I've often thought of getting a jersey printed up with nice bold words in a column down the back:
son
father
brother
husband
mate
neighbour

You never know who I could be and who to. Unless I force you to think.

OK, it wont save me from a pissed idiot texting, but it might make someone think twice about "hey, I buzzed this cyclist on the way home, it was so funny".

Jim

[Nate]

the motorist just gets a ride in the cop car? umm wow...
I would've liked them to be shown in jail - with Bubba caressing him or something similar

They just didnt show an emotional downside to the event.