Do we need 'a car is a weapon' type infommercial advertising campaign?

[snorri]

the SNP has been complaining about drivers having to go down to 40mph on the two lane sections.

Meanwhile the railway operates a single track with passing places system, it's ok to sit in a stationary train apparently, just as long as the important people in cars don't have to slow down to the NSL during the full 120 miles from Perth to Inverness., and don't get me on to the maintenance of joint-user paths, just don't dare.

I know it's a rant and I know it's off topic, but it wasn't me that first mentioned the SNP transport policy.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

The trouble with all of these sort of things is that 99% think they are an excellent driver and whilst other people might drive like maniacs and use their cars as a weapon, they personally are above reproach AND they'd never swing a baseball bat at someone, what a stupid thing to accuse them of doing. *eyes glazed over, mental shutters crashed into place*
The other 1% are the couldn't give a **** idiots who won't be reached no matter what you do.

The child running in the road and the think motorbike (pet niggle there) campaigns work because car drivers can rationalise them as other peoples stupidity on the roads not theirs. If the child had looked properly....... if the motorbike was a bit further out or was going slower or.........

As soon as you say to someone, your car is a weapon capable of killing, you've lost them:

1) You're 'getting at' them and their driving skills.
2) They keep getting told cars are super safe now, they get NCAP safety ratings and brilliant tyres and ABS brakes and crumple zones and air bags rammed down their throats by advertising. With all this how can cars possibly be as dangerous as they used to be? What they don't get given is the message that all of these features are only making them safer for the people inside.
3) Mechanically and electronically cars are far better damped and soundproofed now. They sit far more stable on the road and don't get buffeted about, you can't hear the air whistling past them like you used to, particularly not wth the radio at 11 or the ipod pludgged in. External air displacement and turbulence isn't something that impinges on a drivers sensibilities.
4) Unless they've cycled in traffic, They are unable to put everything together and make the emotional correlation between a 6 inch pass at 37mph on a wet day and swinging a baseball bat at someone's head.

My campaign would not tell them that they're the problem, it would be to be to remind then how vulnerable they can be made to feel by much bigger and heavier objects treating them without respect.

Make it something that they can connect to with them in the victim role, then show them how to be the hero.
Family in car, they've pulled into the kerb checking a map/reprogramming the sat nav. They're sat there in silence with stuff roaring past and shaking the car about, you see a shot of the rear view mirror with an artic lorry hurtling towards them, they're all looking back, horrified expressions, heart in the mouth moment as it swerves round at the last minute and the whole car goes dark and really rattles about, some sunglasses fall off the dashboard, can of coke fizzes over etc. Driver (dad) asks if everyone is all right, wide eyes, ashen faces, silent nods as they carry on. Then cut away to the preachy bit: a close pass by the same family on a cyclist, they look back as s/he's correcting a big wobble and someone in the car says 'Crikey Dad you're just like those lorries were on us, give the poor guy a bit of room eh'. Reset the scene, this time a good pass, car waits throught a traffic calming island, then passes well to the centre white line, cyclist unperturbed, same voice from the car, 'that's more like it dad, nice one'.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I still frequently exceed the limit on NSL roads. I know few drivers who do not, but I know many who claim that they do not.

I now do Thirty in a Thirty and almost instantly get a tail behind me of drivers caught behind this 'dithering slowpoke'.

Let she who is without sin cast the first stone, but not at my windscreen please...

I do not, especially since I got my current car. I take huge pleasure in reflecting on the fact that my cruise control system is completely oblivious to the headlight flashing and tailgating of the idiot behind.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Scene 1: a cyclist blows up a boy racer car with a bicycle-mounted rocket launcher.
Scene 2: cut to a court room, where the judge hands down a £100 fine because the cyclist "didn't see the car".

 

[Electric_Andy]

Possibly I am but just making some people aware of the way these things are perceived by other road users may make a difference to a number of people. My general feeling is the majority of drivers aren't actively bad drivers, they are however clueless & as such aren't aware of how things are perceived outside their metal cage. I mean I was in a car that got close to being squashed by a lorry because of their road position. It had never occurred to them that if they couldn't see the lorry driver the lorry driver probably couldn't see them.

I agree. If you take out the agressive and "punishment passes" from ignorant drivers (usually white vans and cabs in my case) then 80% of the rest probably don't know they are passing too close. I must admit, when I was a car driver I always thought that I was giving cyclists enough space, but I may not have been. It is only when you start cycling on the roadds that you realise how much safe space you need.

 

[byegad]

I'm with the OP on this. I'm old enough to remember the introduction of the breath test and in those far off days far too many motorists thought it an infringement of their liberty. Nowadays most drivers I see when out for an evening are aware of the risks, sadly some still aren't. Still drink driving is way down on 'when I were a lad'.

Our mere presence on the road is seen by some in the same light, an inconvenience limiting their god given right to drive like a fool. We can educate drivers and the speed kills TV adverts* of a few years back really slowed me down, not that I routinely drove over the speed limit by that much, but over the speed limit I'm ashamed to say was an all to frequent occurrence. If I can change so can others, with the right approach.

*Of a little girl hit by the same car at different speeds, 40mph and 30mph IIRC.

 

[MrJamie]

The child running in the road and the think motorbike (pet niggle there) campaigns work because car drivers can rationalise them as other peoples stupidity on the roads not theirs. If the child had looked properly....... if the motorbike was a bit further out or was going slower or.........

I think the problem is that to do the same with cycling (a perfectly sensible activity), youd have to highlight a cyclists vulnerability and it would be hard to do without essentially running a campaign that implies cycling on roads is very dangerous.

For example you could show a cyclist puffing along, switch to motorist driving peacefully along with a close pass making the cyclist wobble/crash. Or show a driver pulling out onto a road ahead of a car turning off at his exit and have a cyclist emerge at speed from the invisable space behind the car. You highlight reasons cyclists need more space/consideration but you also make cycling look dangerous to people who might be thinking of giving it a go.

Kids running out into the road or teens on phones can be targetted as silly road users, but you cant really push the same angle with cycling.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I think the problem is that to do the same with cycling (a perfectly sensible activity), youd have to highlight a cyclists vulnerability and it would be hard to do without essentially running a campaign that implies cycling on roads is very dangerous.

For example you could show a cyclist puffing along, switch to motorist driving peacefully along with a close pass making the cyclist wobble/crash. Or show a driver pulling out onto a road ahead of a car turning off at his exit and have a cyclist emerge at speed from the invisable space behind the car. You highlight reasons cyclists need more space/consideration but you also make cycling look dangerous to people who might be thinking of giving it a go.

Kids running out into the road or teens on phones can be targetted as silly road users, but you cant really push the same angle with cycling.

I know, that's why I don't suggest it.

*confused as to your point* The post you've (very selectively) quoted from (and presented out of context) goes on to show that you can easily and realistically show pretty much all road users can be made to feel vulnerable to something bigger and heavier at some time. You're not then making cycling out to be a uniquely dangerous activity at all, merely equating the feeling in the mind of the not-cycled-in-traffic driver with a moment when they have felt vulnerable in a car, a mode of transport which they undoubtedly feel sufficiently safe and riskworthy or they wouldn't be using.

 

[Octet]

The police where I live (Guernsey) did a good job with previous campaigns on drink driving, and what made it effective was the fact that they didn't hold back which I've noticed happens elsewhere.
One such example being a real car that had been rammed through a billboard with the slogan "Bl**dy Idiot"

http://www.oi-you.com/blog/2008/12/helping-to-save-lives-since-christmas-2004/

Obviously you wouldn't have it for drink driving but by having these harder hitting adverts, drink driving rates did go down and I think the same principals could be applied.

 

[MrJamie]

I know, that's why I don't suggest it.

*confused as to your point* The post you've (very selectively) quoted from (and presented out of context) goes on to show that you can easily and realistically show pretty much all road users can be made to feel vulnerable to something bigger and heavier at some time. You're not then making cycling out to be a uniquely dangerous activity at all, merely equating the feeling in the mind of the not-cycled-in-traffic driver with a moment when they have felt vulnerable in a car, a mode of transport which they undoubtedly feel sufficiently safe and riskworthy or they wouldn't be using.

Sorry, I didnt mean to quote you out of context I was just referring to the successful campaigns you mentioned in that part of your post and frustratedly agreeing that the same approach wouldnt work with cycling. I thought your idea was good in principle hence liking your post when I read it, but the cynic in me couldnt see it being as successful as the "Think!" campaigns at changing the behaviour of idiots. Firstly because scaring a cyclist however you dress it up isnt IMHO hard hitting enough to make people think, at least compared with running over a child, or drink driving ruining your life and secondly noone counter-argues that children deserve to be run over, but the media does frequently highlight unsafe cycling which not unlike Sir Wiggo says(ish) makes it harder for us to get respect in sharing road space, prosecutions or campaigning.

Unfortunately in my previous post I didnt explain that I believed something hard hitting was necessary, so it looked like I implied you had. Oops! I have a tendency to write, edit, rewrite and summise posts and miss important bits. I also remember i was going to mention that the NCAP ratings you mention, do infact have a rating for more safely hitting pedestrians with flexi bodywork which would presumably help cyclists too.