Anyone hear that new RSA radio ad?

stop

Just heard it there, it has a cyclists commentating on himself racing before cutting to a RSA voice guy who describes the cyclist went over the bonnet of a car because he wasn't paying attention, then goes on to talk about number of cyclists killed on roads.

Most of the news stories II read in the news about cyclists deaths usually involve trucks or hut and runs, with leniant sentences for the drivers involved. Why do the RSA see it appropriate to blame 'cyclists not paying attention' for cyclist deaths?

tunney

stop wrote: »

Just heard it there, it has a cyclists commentating on himself racing before cutting to a RSA voice guy who describes the cyclist went over the bonnet of a car because he wasn't paying attention, then goes on to talk about number of cyclists killed on roads.

Most of the news stories II read in the news about cyclists deaths usually involve trucks or hut and runs, with leniant sentences for the drivers involved. Why do the RSA see it appropriate to blame 'cyclists not paying attention' for cyclist deaths?

because they can do nothing about driving training and the actual safety on the roads so they distract and shift blame to something that they can be seen to influence in an attempt to justify their existence.

MarkR

stop wrote: »

Just heard it there, it has a cyclists commentating on himself racing before cutting to a RSA voice guy who describes the cyclist went over the bonnet of a car because he wasn't paying attention, then goes on to talk about number of cyclists killed on roads.

Most of the news stories II read in the news about cyclists deaths usually involve trucks or hut and runs, with leniant sentences for the drivers involved. Why do the RSA see it appropriate to blame 'cyclists not paying attention' for cyclist deaths?

They already did the ad where car drivers were reminded to keep an eye out for cyclists. Did you complain about that one being one sided?

Some people use our roads like ass hats. This is a reminder for them. If you are not an ass hat, you may ignore.

laraghrider

To be fair I think the RSA have been good enough in putting out the adverts showing cycling two abreast and how to overtake etc... As always with any ad you have to have a specific target. The we all share the road campaign was squarely aimed at motorists. This new ad is squarely aimed at cyclists. It's not being biased but you have to have a target audience. If you want to avoid a prohibitively expensive 5min long advert which covers all basis then you segment it with smaller campaigns targeting specific audiences. I don't this it's biased I just think it's targeted.

Genuine question: Did you feel the advert showing cycling two abreast was unnecessarily biased towards cyclists and did you post up here accordingly?

Jawgap

They've run it before. It's pretty lame.

For a start if I'm zipping through traffic I'm not thinking about racing.....I'm thinking.......

Fian

I heard the ad this morning.

Seems biased against red light jumpers to me.

I won't claim I never break a red light, though I never do it without assessing the situation and deciding it is safe for me and won't inconvenience others. If I do break one and end up over the bonnet of a car I won't have any argument with someone who "blames the cyclist" tbh.

The ad describes a cyclist racing through a red light, in a yellow box junction, before going over the bonnet of a car he failed to stop for. It suggests breaking red lights at speed is to be discouraged.

Not an entirely unreasonable position for the RSA to take :P

Jawgap

Fian wrote: »

I heard the ad this morning.

Seems biased against red light jumpers to me.

I won't claim I never break a red light, though I never do it without assessing the situation and deciding it is safe for me and won't inconvenience others. If I do break one and end up over the bonnet of a car I won't have any argument with someone who "blames the cyclist" tbh.

The ad describes a cyclist racing through a red light, in a yellow box junction, before going over the bonnet of a car he failed to stop for. It suggests breaking red lights at speed is to be discouraged.

Not an entirely unreasonable position for the RSA to take :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiu1uLgwF1E

tomasrojo

I haven't heard the ad -- I don't have a high regard for anything the RSA has to say about healthy travel -- but based on what's said here, the ad is somewhat unfocused.

In fact, in the scenario described, the red light is less important than the yellow box. I, and some other people I know, have had their closest calls ever when blithely entering a yellow box, and none of us was breaking a red light. When motorised traffic is stalled, nobody will expect a cyclist to enter the yellow box, so it's a moment of heightened danger. It would be better to emphasise the risk of the gridlocked yellow box, as it's not well understood generally, and it's riskier than most instances of running a red light, even when legal.

Qualitymark

MarkR wrote: »

They already did the ad where car drivers were reminded to keep an eye out for cyclists. Did you complain about that one being one sided?

Some people use our roads like ass hats. This is a reminder for them. If you are not an ass hat, you may ignore.

God, I hate that cutesy Americanism 'ass hat', a Tea Partyish term for people too prim to say asshole.

Of course cyclists need to pay attention. But shouldn't the RSA's safety ads be targeting the actual, known causes of cyclist deaths?

Hunterbiker

This is part of a series of ads isn't it. There's one aimed at pedal too. It is urging people to pay attention when crossing the road.
I think the general theme is to get people to focus on the job in hand rather than what to have for dinner later...
No address is going to cover all the angles it has to be targeted and this one is t argetted at people not paying attention. If that's not you then don't listen to it...

Jawgap

Hunterbiker wrote: »

This is part of a series of ads isn't it. There's one aimed at pedal too. It is urging people to pay attention when crossing the road.
I think the general theme is to get people to focus on the job in hand rather than what to have for dinner later...
No address is going to cover all the angles it has to be targeted and this one is t argetted at people not paying attention. If that's not you then don't listen to it...

Sounds like the Bord Gais ads are going to get dozens killed then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFxnQ9izUqY

Hunterbiker

Jawgap wrote: »

Sounds like the Bord Gais ads are going to get dozens killed then

Exactly!

rollingscone

It does kind of contradict this advice though:

https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1/status/657543876161466368?s=09

DanDublin1982

I heard what I assume is a new ad from the RSA on the radio last night (can't find it on their site/YouTube etc). It encourages drivers to give cyclists at least 1 metre when overtaking a cyclist when the speed limit is 50kmph or below and 1.5 metres where its above 50kmph. I really cant understand why they would make a distinction, hasn't 1.5m been the internationally recommended distance for some time now?

Kaisr Sose

I think other countries have a tiered set of distances. It's a start and better than "a reasonable" or "safe distance"

I did not pay attention to the full advert as it took a while to register with me it was cycling specific. Road surface, weather and the cyclists style of riding are very much variables that motorists need to factor in to the mix.

ED E

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

I heard what I assume is a new ad from the RSA on the radio last night (can't find it on their site/YouTube etc). It encourages drivers to give cyclists at least 1 metre when overtaking a cyclist when the speed limit is 50kmph or below and 1.5 metres where its above 50kmph. I really cant understand why they would make a distinction, hasn't 1.5m been the internationally recommended distance for some time now?

Its a story for another thread but the fact is Irish roads often don't permit 1.5M. Our road network is pretty damn narrow, especially in urban areas.

Chuchote

ED E wrote: »

Its a story for another thread but the fact is Irish roads often don't permit 1.5M. Our road network is pretty damn narrow, especially in urban areas.

In the highly unusual situation where a road is so narrow that a driver can't pass a cyclist leaving 1.5 metres, the driver should hang back until there is room to do so. When I am cycling down narrow roads with cars parked on either side, for instance (cars that really should be parked in their owners' front driveways, but let that pass for now), if a car is coming behind me, I'll generally wait till there's a gap in the parked cars, pull in and indicate the car on. I see others doing the same. This is unnecessary - in no case is any of these roads long enough that the driver would have to wait more than 20 seconds behind me - but I do it for the sake of their cholesterol-laden little thumpy hearts.

Beasty

Chuchote wrote: »

In the highly unusual situation where a road is so narrow that a driver can't pass a cyclist leaving 1.5 metres, the driver should hang back until there is room to do so.

Might be highly unusual where you are. I live within 30km of the centre of Dublin and I reckon maybe half the roads near me would not accommodate the 1.5m. There is another option to the car hanging back. If you are holding up traffic you can pull in to let it past.

Chuchote

Beasty wrote: »

Might be highly unusual where you are. I live within 30km of the centre of Dublin and I reckon maybe half the roads near me would not accommodate the 1.5m. There is another option to the car hanging back. If you are holding up traffic you can pull in to let it past.

Read my post, quoted below, emboldened for your reading pleasure.

Ahem.

In the highly unusual situation where a road is so narrow that a driver can't pass a cyclist leaving 1.5 metres, the driver should hang back until there is room to do so. When I am cycling down narrow roads with cars parked on either side, for instance (cars that really should be parked in their owners' front driveways, but let that pass for now), if a car is coming behind me, I'll generally wait till there's a gap in the parked cars, pull in and indicate the car on. I see others doing the same. This is unnecessary - in no case is any of these roads long enough that the driver would have to wait more than 20 seconds behind me - but I do it for the sake of their cholesterol-laden little thumpy hearts.