New RSA safety ad accused of being faked

I think it's clearly faked.



Should they be cheating to encourage being more cautious and aware when driving and cycling? Probably not.

So they are guilty of exaggerating a trucks blind spot...Who cares?! If everyone drove defensively on the road always assuming the worst will happen there would be less accidents!

Compare to the original:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU

When you look at the RSA one, it's faintly comical the way the cyclists have just magically teleported into exactly the spot the driver was just looking at. It doesn't work the way the original did, where the cyclists are clearly in the blind spot all along, no cheating. Despite the higher production values, the RSA one is amateurish in comparison.

The original is better also in that it's a realistic depiction of the way most cyclists end up alongside a turning truck. Most don't squeeze up close to the truck. Some do, but most don't. They are relatively far away from the truck, but don't realise that the driver can't see them when he begins to turn. That's the point to get across.

ted1 wrote: »

I really don't see the issue. 100% of stuff on the telly is staged.

The problem isn't that it's staged. It's that it misrepresents the problem, and it looks silly to boot.

ted1 wrote: »

It's putting the message out there, don't be a lunatic and go up the inside of a truck that's turning left.

Actually, they don't mention the truck turning left. They just say that a driver can't see you, and then undermine the message by clearly moving cyclists over onto the part of the road the driver was just looking at.

It's a pity, because turning HGVs and buses are the major cause of deaths of people on bikes in cities. It is indeed an important safety message, much more so than the general RSA stuff on cycling. Why they couldn't just replicate the original ad properly?

The original is more helpful in that regard too: the blind spot goes out quite a bit from the truck. You're not safe just because you have a bit of distance. The RSA one suggests that part of the problem is that you're too close to the truck whereas the issue with the blind spot comes from actually not being all that close to the truck.

interesting prehaps lorries need a beep when making turns like when they reverse? I won't go down the inside of moving cars turning left nevermind lorries. but bus blindspots are different to lorries with long trailers. Good point of call is that if you can see them they can see you.

The real blind spot comes when you've swung a truck to the right to make a tight right turn, as soon as the cab goes any bit to the right compared to the trailer, you can't see anything to your left, then as you swing left to make your turn you're dealing with huge blindspots and minding that the back end of the trailer doesn't swing into anything.

I think they could have done a better job of researching where the blind spot of a truck actually is before making the advert, but I also thing they should have made a point of saying that it is a bad idea to go up the inside of a truck anyway,rather than suggesting there is a "Danger zone" and a "safe some", you can barely feel a trailer mounting a kerb, if a truck hits you on a bike i'd be fairly certain he wouldn't even notice it.

Blind spot mirrors on a truck are a joke too, you're looking at something the size of one of them small tablets, from about 8 feet away, being convex it makes the targets even smaller, fine for when you're on the M/way and having a look in it and spotting a car, really bad for spotting a cyclist in an urban environment. As something to relate to i'd say it is like replacing your TV with an iPad mini and trying to read subtitles off it from across your sitting room. I'm not an expert seasoned truck driver BTW, I only did the lessons a few years ago, and the test, but it made me far more aware of how hard it is to see out of one, and how much room they should be given

Eamonnator wrote: »

you know, that there's a sequel?

I prefered the original before George Lucas sold off the franchise ..

tomasrojo wrote: »

Why the hell not do it the original way -- the proper way? It would have cost the same and taken the same amount of time.

This is a serious question, by the way. When they realised that the cyclists would be visible in the wing mirror, did they not realise they could reposition them so they would be out of sight, or were they committed to having the cyclists clearly doing something risky?

Arbitrary wrote: »

Obviously fake, none of them are wearing lycra!

It conveys the all important message to be aware of blind spots. I don't see the issue here.

And yet the conversation I've seen around the ad campaign revolves mostly around it being manipulated.

Yes, fantastic work, RSA.

To be clear, I've wanted the RSA to make their number one cycling safety priority the issue of undertaking for years.

I can't believe they've made such a hames of it -- for no obvious reason. It was just as easy to do it properly. And the denial is embarrassing as well.