New RSA safety ad accused of being faked

That username is already in use.

How big is a truck's blind spot?

What do you make of this ad? Some are saying it's faked and misleading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmx_FXcg_8k

A Waterford bicycle user who participated in the making of a Road Safety Authority video designed to highlight the danger of “blind spots” which can’t be seen by truck drivers says the video was faked.

He had replied to an advert posted on the Waterford Institute of Technology Facebook page and reposted on the student union page. He contacted IrishCycle.com after a large number of commenters on the Road Safety Authority (RSA) Facebook page said that the video was edited or “faked”.

Absoluvely

I think it's clearly faked.



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

tomasrojo

Rather like vampires, aren't they, cyclists?

Tefral

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!

ted1

I really don't see the issue. 100% of stuff on the telly is staged.
It's putting the message out there, don't be a lunatic and go up the inside of a truck that's turning left.

tomasrojo

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.

stecleary

the most shocking thing about it is in this day and age a blind spot still exists!

how hard would it be to fit a camera and monitor

tomasrojo

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?

Cee-Jay-Cee

Playing devils advocate, are they not simply allowing a margin of error to ensure no one gets caught in a HGV drivers blind spot?

tomasrojo

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.

tomasrojo

This from the irishcycle.com article shows the same point:

http://irishcycle.com/2015/06/29/rsa-accused-of-faking-video-of-bicycles-hidden-in-truck-blindspot/

Being right up against the truck doesn't leave you in the blind spot. It's dangerous in its own right, but for different reasons.

Into The Blue

Think ye are on to something lads.. The add where they crash the car with the little girl in it, and she ends up dying in the hospital bed.. that looks fake too.

tomasrojo

Into The Blue wrote: »

Think ye are on to something lads.. The add where they crash the car with the little girl in it, and she ends up dying in the hospital bed.. that looks fake too.

The issue isn't artifice: it's that the makers completely fail to accurately depict the nature of blind spots. Someone looking at the RSA ad could think: "well, I'll make sure not to go that close to a truck", and they'd still end up in a blind spot. Why not use the real blind spot and give viewers an accurate impression of the problem?

The two aren't comparable anyway. This ad isn't one of the RSA's blood-and-graves specials. It's meant to have the effect on the viewer where the viewer goes: "Wow, I never knew cyclists could be so hard to see from the cab of a truck". Instead, large parts of the potential audience are going: "those cyclists weren't there ten seconds ago".

The RSA are also claiming that they didn't move the cyclists, so the notion that the ad is a straight depiction of the issue of blind spots seems important to them.

manafana

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.

Eamonnator

ted1 wrote: »

I really don't see the issue. 100% of stuff on the telly is staged.
It's putting the message out there, don't be a lunatic and go up the inside of a truck that's turning left.

you know, that there's a sequel?

JBokeh

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

tomasrojo

JBokeh wrote: »

The real blind spot comes when you've swung a truck to the right to make a tight right turn

Left turn?

Dades

tomasrojo wrote: »

The issue isn't artifice: it's that the makers completely fail to accurately depict the nature of blind spots. Someone looking at the RSA ad could think: "well, I'll make sure not to go that close to a truck", and they'd still end up in a blind spot. Why not use the real blind spot and give viewers an accurate impression of the problem?

Surely the message they are trying to convey is not where to cycle in relation to a HGV so that you might get spotted in their mirror - but to show how easy it is to be invisible to a HGV driver? (Often the road will only have a few feet to work with anyway). The lesson learned here being to never assume a driver is aware of your presence, expect the unexpected, and give yourself room to react.

Frankly, I think it would be more dangerous to encourage cyclists to seek out the best viewing angles at the expense of more cautious actions.

buffalo

Dades wrote: »

Surely the message they are trying to convey is not where to cycle in relation to a HGV so that you might get spotted in their mirror - but to show how easy it is to be invisible to a HGV driver?

The message I'm taking away from the ad is that it's easy to be invisible to a HGV driver... if you're not there.

Junior

Eamonnator wrote: »

you know, that there's a sequel?

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

tomasrojo

Dades wrote: »

Surely the message they are trying to convey is not where to cycle in relation to a HGV so that you might get spotted in their mirror - but to show how easy it is to be invisible to a HGV driver? (Often the road will only have a few feet to work with anyway). The lesson learned here being to never assume a driver is aware of your presence, expect the unexpected, and give yourself room to react.

Yes, but I wasn't suggesting that cyclists play the angles. The problem is that the ad:
1. conceivably gives the impression that cycling close to the lorry is the problem (there is no voice-over or text to tell cyclists "never go up the inside"). The original is more striking because the cyclists are in danger despite being a modest distance away
2. is weak because it's clearly manipulated. The original is strong because it isn't manipulated.

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.

CramCycle

Dades wrote: »

Surely the message they are trying to convey is not where to cycle in relation to a HGV so that you might get spotted in their mirror - but to show how easy it is to be invisible to a HGV driver? (Often the road will only have a few feet to work with anyway). The lesson learned here being to never assume a driver is aware of your presence, expect the unexpected, and give yourself room to react.

Frankly, I think it would be more dangerous to encourage cyclists to seek out the best viewing angles at the expense of more cautious actions.

Precisely, there is never a smart or appropriate time to go up the inside of a HGV. Having driven a HGV and sat in the cab of one as a passenger for years, even with the best safety features, you don't know what the driver may have forgotten to do, not an excuse for them but I'd sooner not have the phrase "I was in the right" on my tombstone. I don't trust cycle lanes for it either, lead to a false sense of security for inexperienced cyclists. I have found Irish HGV drivers to be the worst (anecdoetal evidence) not giving way on smaller roads to lighter/smaller vehicles where possible, several now under the thumb in regards time management (ie the arrival time is far more important than safe driving).

If traffic is stalled, filter on the right or just complete a proper overtake when space allows or just wait behind. At no point go up the left, it doesn't matter if the lorry is turning or not, only a slight move to the left, could be enough to remove the space you need, force you into a drain, over a pothole and then potentially under the wheels, the driver may not notice for quite a few yards. If going on the right, give plenty of space.

tomasrojo

In fact, they should have added a tagline about not going up the inside. Another way this ad is a wasted opportunity.

tomasrojo

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

That username is already in use. wrote: »

How big is a truck's blind spot?

What do you make of this ad? Some are saying it's faked and misleading.

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.

tomasrojo

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.

Dades

I'd agree the ad could really use a voiceover.

However, I think people are overthinking what most viewers (IMO) will take away from it - basically that they need to be careful around trucks.

tomasrojo

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.

CramCycle

I really don't get why they done it at all. The TfL one was well done. Why not contact them and say, we are the Irish road safety authority and we thought your ad was great. Would you mind if we used it, we would even contribute a small amount to your campaign as a thank you rather than set up our own and have to pay for it all.

Stick it up on FB, twitter and then run it on Irish TV as an advert, job done.

Iwannahurl

stecleary wrote: »

the most shocking thing about it is in this day and age a blind spot still exists!

how hard would it be to fit a camera and monitor

The ideology of this State and its institutions is that individuals are responsible for their own safety*.

Challenge the RSA about this and my bet is that they will pass the buck.

Until the culture and the regulations change, you're on your own...










*It could be argued that the HSA is an exception, since the principle of collective protection in the workplace is enshrined in law.

RobbieTheRobber

I'd like to see a new ad about the blindspots if your a car driver and applying make-up while driving.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I really don't get why they done it at all. The TfL one was well done. Why not contact them and say, we are the Irish road safety authority and we thought your ad was great. Would you mind if we used it, we would even contribute a small amount to your campaign as a thank you rather than set up our own and have to pay for it all.

On reflection I have four theories:
1. The RSA has a budget to spend
2. Easier to brand one you've made yourself
3. Reshooting outdoors looks more professional
4. The Sam Browne:tabard ratio. The RSA likes a ratio of about 1:7. The TfL video is too rich in Sam Brownes

Tenzor07

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I'd like to see a new ad about the blindspots if your a car driver and applying make-up while driving.

Or a bus driver texting while in service: Facebook/98FM

OleRodrigo

The real issue here is why outrage is so popular.

CatFromHue

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The real issue here is why outrage is so popular.

I don't really see the problem here either.

Faked or not it's a very bad place to be unless you want bad things to happen to you.

Bunnyhopper

Part of the problem I have with this film is not just that the dishonest manipulation undermines the credibility of the message, but that it's yet another reason to mistrust the RSA.

This is, after all, the safety organisation that has no problem with motorists driving on and stopping in mandatory cycle lanes marked with a continuous white line. Their attitude flies in the face of the Department of Transport's position and of the Rules of the Road.

That they can't even remake an ad that's already been properly made without distorting the facts is just par for their course.

At this stage, I have no faith in the RSA's ability to advocate effectively for cyclists' safety.

galwaycyclist

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Part of the problem I have with this film is not just that the dishonest manipulation undermines the credibility of the message, but that it's yet another reason to mistrust the RSA.

This is, after all, the safety organisation that has no problem with motorists driving on and stopping in mandatory cycle lanes marked with a continuous white line. Their attitude flies in the face of the Department of Transport's position and of the Rules of the Road.

That they can't even remake an ad that's already been properly made without distorting the facts is just par for their course.

At this stage, I have no faith in the RSA's ability to advocate effectively for cyclists' safety.

They come across as doing something because they were told to tick the "cyclist safety around HGV" box but being generally disengaged with even the basics.

The RSA started as the National Safety Council which was, in essence, a marketing body for the car insurers and the motor trade. That internal culture has never changed.

tomasrojo

I think to call the manipulation dishonest one would have to know their motivation in doing the ad this way, instead of the accurate way. It's manipulation, that's pretty clear.

On the being fine with portraying drivers stopping on mandatory cycle tracks, it got better than that. They went on to refuse a Freedom of Information request on improbable grounds of commercial sensitivity, and responded to a different FOI request by saying they couldn't find the legal advice they'd been given.

Now in this case instead of saying the message is clear, who cares about the minor manipulation, they're denying the manipulation.


They're weirdly evasive.

I see Mike McKillen of Cyclist.ie wrote that he didn't see them as helpful anymore in terms of promoting cycling, because of their relentless hyping of the dangers of cycling.
EDIT: There it is:

I no longer see the RSA as fit for the purpose of increasing the modal-share towards cycling in order to attain the NCPF (2009) goal on a 10% national split by 2020. It has insisted on dangerising cycling to the extent that the public must be frightened to even consider cycling.
If you are not lit up like a Christmas tree and swathed in body armour then keep off the road!

http://irishcycle.com/2015/06/11/rsa-understands-cycling-poorly-data-collection-even-worse/

tomasrojo

And their exasperated tone when reasonably questioned:

We gave the ASAI the regulations which clearly highlight the legal situation – so you are completely incorrect in your selective interpretation below. Whether you or like it or not there is a legal ambiguity around whether the law could be effectively enforced in such a situation as depicted in the advert. We are not saying that is right or wrong, they are just the facts, which we gave to the ASAI. They made the decision not us.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/05/11/rsa-cycle-lane-advert/
(The "selective interpretation" being shared by the DoT.)

A spokesman for the RSA, Brian Farrell, said; “The video was not faked. It is an adaptation of the Transport Research Laboratory video in the UK, whose permission we sought to replicate it here in Ireland.”

Farrell added: “Some support for the campaign instead of efforts to discredit it would be much appreciated and more constructive.”

http://irishcycle.com/2015/06/29/rsa-accused-of-faking-video-of-bicycles-hidden-in-truck-blindspot/comment-page-1/#comment-218646

I guess it's been a dogged pursuit by irishcycle.com

CatFromHue

I just looked at the original and the new one is far better.

It's quicker to the point and has the writing about if you can't see the driver.

For an ad on youtube or whatever it's message will be received far better than the original.