useful response to THink road safety video on youtube
I have just sent the following complaint to the Department of Transport and the Advertising Standards Authority (linking this video): ... After carefully analysing this video, I urge you to withdraw it, as it encourages unlawful and dangerous behaviour of motorists. Please let me describe in detail what I mean by that. In the video a cyclist collides with a left turning HGV. As only a short sequence of what precedes the left turn is being shown, it is unclear what led to this situation in the first place. Did the HGV just overtake the cyclist, or did the cyclist ride into the gap between the curb and the HGV? The video clearly allows for both interpretations, where the first one would clearly be in violation of rules 167(1, 6, and 9) and 182. But let me take the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is not what led to the situation, and it was the cyclists who foolishly moved into the gap. First, in the video the HGV only starts signalling once it makes the turn, which is again in violation with rule 182, which requires left turning vehicles to “give a left-turn signal well before you turn left”. Second, throughout the scene, the cyclist should be visible in either the class IV wide angle rear view mirror, or the class V side close proximity mirror of the HGV. Both are required by law, and are visibly installed on the HGV. If correctly installed, the first creates a field of vision of at least 4.5m wide to the left of the vehicle and starting right behind the cabin. The latter creates a field of vision right next to the cabin of at least 2m width. This means, that a driver who in line with rule 182 uses the mirrors before the turn, and considers that “cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view” should have realised that there was a cyclist, and slowed down and/or abandoned the left turn. What we rather see, is an HGV driver making a dangerously fast left turn without checking the mirrors. The speed of the turn makes it even more irresponsible, as the driver would not be able to stop in time for pedestrians who might be crossing the road it turns into who, if they have started to cross before the HGV makes the turn, have priority (rule 170). So, irrespective of what led to the critical situation, the ad is socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour which violates the highway code and is prejudicial to health and safety. I therefore urge you to stop screening this ad.