CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

'Mutual respect'/NICEWAYCODE

(705 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by chdot
  • Latest reply from Greenroofer

No tags yet.


  1. Instography
    Member

    All that says is that Keith Brown's PR / speech writers have no imagination and just have him say the same thing about everything.

    The important thing is the content of the campaigns. And Kids in Cars isn't just doing the same as the NWC in telling people not to do these things. What it's doing is showing people the consequences of their behaviour; what they're creating without thinking. It's warning them about doing these things. It's putting adult words and attitudes into the mouths of children, which is what the adults are doing. That's much more arresting than what NWC thinks it's trying to do.

    People are now much more likely to try to set a good example and moderate their own behaviour around children (look at how they smoke and drink and swear around children compared with a generation ago) so in that sense it's a much smarter campaign than NWC.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I guess what I am really saying is whether you agree with NWC or not the argument that the Scotish Government is only targeting cyclists with it's campaigns is just simply false. The Kid in a car campaign is everywhere, far more front facing than NWC (even makes Scotish Govt front website page), and far more in your face than any of the messages aimed at cyclists in the NWC are.

    Actually, you could almost make a counter argument that the 'real' campaign is the Kid in a car campaign, after all it is far more wide reaching, and publicised than NWC, and that NWC is simply there to placate motorists by getting up cyclists nose's by telling them not to run reds, ad cycle up the inside of buses.

    I wonder if the motoring world is outraged at being told not to speed, use mobile phones, or engage in road rage? Haven't seen any open letters from the motoring lobby suggesting so?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    "and that NWC is simply there to placate motorists by getting up cyclists nose's by telling them not to run reds, ad cycle up the inside of buses."

    Well yes - that's the point.

    NWC claims it's even handed.

    A lot of 'bicycle people' seem to disagree...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. Instography
    Member

    I hadn't seen anyone saying that the Government was only targeting cyclists with its all its campaigns. I've seen plenty of people saying that NWC is only really targeting cyclists. Maybe people are just being a bit sloppy when they write about Government and NWC.

    Road Safety Scotland is pretty much autonomous. It's funded by SG but, in my experience it's much less under the direction and control of SG than Cycling Scotland appears to be. And I strongly suspect that Kids has been under development for a long time. Whereas NWC is rushed - look at the timeline of funding being announced and the campaign being launched - and shit. I honestly don't think the two are strands of a grand campaign where NWC is there to placate motorists. I honestly think NWC is a knee jerk response to bad stats.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Well yes - that's the point.

    NWC claims it's even handed

    It is even handed if you look at the messages as a whole, and not NWC, or Kid in a car.

    Scottish Govt says:
    Don't speed.
    Don't use mobile phones.
    Don't engage in road rage.
    Even worse, could affect your child.
    Don't run reds.
    Don't cycle up the inside of buses.

    Is it the way we are being asked that is the problem? Because the messages themselved seem reasonable.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. Instography
    Member

    You've lost me. What's the point?

    There's nothing even handed about NWC. You might be able to concoct an illusion of balance if you boil diverse, unrelated campaigns down to their most simple (and a misleading version of their) messages. But that's not what they say so on the slightest analysis the comparison collapses.

    Kids in cars is not saying don't engage in road rage. It's saying that if you behave like this you are teaching your child that driving is done angry. That what adults do when they drive is shout at other drivers. Is this what you want your children to think? Be what you want your children to be. That's very different. It's personal. It's not saying that all drivers are boiling cauldrons of rage. It says that your behaviour is a lesson to your children. It never says to patient considerate drivers that they are part of the problem. It never tells them not to do what the road environment allows them to do. I don't believe that you can't see the difference between that and the NWC.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. Nelly
    Member

    Baldcyclist, I get your point, but....

    Don't speed.
    Don't use mobile phones.
    Don't engage in road rage.

    Don't run reds.
    Don't cycle up the inside of buses.

    Essentially, most of the cycling "donts" are common sense and any negative outcome usually results in a cyclist injury/worse.

    Whereas the driver "donts" are a list of activities which can/do result in fatalities to others.

    This is the biggest irritant for me - govt should target its resources properly. As I have asked NWC on twitter - "how many deaths in Scotland this year have been the fault of a cyclist?"

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. Baldcyclist
    Member

    You've lost me. What's the point?

    OK, in my view NWC is just part of a bigger overall campaign called 'Road Safety'. If you want to get a message out you use different forms/styles of engagement to engage with different people, and that is what the Govt is doing here, by means of using different agencies to target different groups of people.

    Or look at it in your context @Into, OK you get, rather than give information...

    You need to get info on 'Road Safety', and you need to engage with different groups of people (this bit might be simplistic as I don't know your specific methods of comms), so you strategically work out your various little campaigns, you decide to:

    Advertise online - embed surveys within target groups online media/websites, Wiggle for cyclists, Halfords for motorists/cyclists.
    Mail shots - Not everyone uses online, send the survey out by mail, might even target certain postcodes/demographics.
    Shopping Centres - Ask people at shopping centres, set up a stand.
    Cold call* - phone people at home, get their views.

    *Really, just how did they get my f...ing phone number, how dare they, this is an ex-directory number, b.......s!?

    Some of the methods you choose to engage with people will infuriate large numbers of people, but you know that a certain number of people WILL engage with that method of communication, my guess is that you will continue to cold call people because SOME people will engage.

    My guess is that the Govt WILL continue to put out messages in a manor that *we* don't like because they know that SOME people will engage...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Essentially, most of the cycling "donts" are common sense and any negative outcome usually results in a cyclist injury/worse.

    Whereas the driver "donts" are a list of activities which can/do result in fatalities to others.

    But it doesn't really matter, if you are to be seen as 'fair', you need to target all people.

    This is the biggest irritant for me - govt should target its resources properly.

    Much has been said about the piddly sum of money set aside for NWC, and how little affect it can really have, and that it is really targeting cyclists.

    Contrast that with the 'flagship' Kid in a car camping, TV adverts at peak time, adverts on ASDA trolleys, radio coverage every 15 mins! (targeted specifically at drivers), front page of Govt website.

    It seems that the resource IS going where it should, most of the money is being used to specifically target drivers, and a wee bit for NWC with some messages for both?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    "OK, in my view NWC is just part of a bigger overall campaign called 'Road Safety'."

    Possibly - in a 'grand masterplan that not many people are privy to' sense.

    The people behind NWC put it forward (and are trying to defend it) as a 'stand alone' campaign which they seem to imagine 'targets cyclist and drivers equally'.

    Even if there was any justification for that idea, ('cyclists' are seldom more than 2% of the traffic - except in some urban areas where there is rarely room to 'swing a cat' for overtaking), THE ACTUALITY is a failure.

    Also 'cyclists' are not exactly responsible for causing 50% of road deaths and injuries - or lawbreaking RLJing, pavement misuse etc.

    Either it will have next to no impact (therefore a complete waste of £424k of Active Travel money) OR - especially the bus ads - it will make things worse for people on bikes.

    This seems to be the view of quite a few people who cycle on roads. The NOPE message will confuse some bike riders and, more concerning, will confirm some drivers' views about 'law breaking cyclists'.

    Not #Nice.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. gembo
    Member

    They should scrap the bus adverts

    Lothian bus had a clear policy of allowing cyclists to overtake on the outside,and the driver waiting, but i only know that because of this forum. This policy in itself deters you from going up the inside.

    You have to shoulder check before pulling out for the traffic behind and check oncoming traffic isn't overtaking into the space you are pulling out into.

    If going up the inside you need to be aware of the risks. You are harder to see, bus may move over to a stop, bus may start moving from stop, might be another bus in front that you did not anticipate as your view on the inside also obscured.

    Going over all old ground but riskier in most scenarios to go upntheinside.

    This is not a very easy message to get over in a 'nice' way. So they should pull them. Also Nope is not a word.

    you make a judgement call you need to be aware of the other traffic, how you look to them too is an issue.

    I will occasionally filter up the LHS of a row of cars stuck behind a bus tht is stopped because the car at the front cannot get passed the bus but I can. So I cut in front of the front car then round the bus. This does not always work as the obstruction to the front car, ususally as oncoming traffic dissipates and the front car does then try to overtake. I am then in a tricky spot. I should not do this ever but sometimes the temptation is too strong as I have made a judgement that the bike can go where the car cannot. I am not advocating this as it is not 'nice'

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

  13. gembo
    Member

    Deep in the nope montage that CHdot has linked to is the 2012 Olympic logo spelling NOPE,

    Lots of an engineer saying Nope in a computer game

    Nothing on Lothian bus ads

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. Kenny
    Member

    I've been assuming that the instruction to not overtake on the inside of a bus is meant to be for when the bus is pulling into a bus stop. I'm not sure why this is a necessary instruction because I can't imagine anyone doing it, but I now assume it must happen, hence why they have that as one of the posters. I don't think it means we shouldn't do it when we have a cycle lane and the bus is, for example, waiting at traffic lights.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. chdot
    Admin

    "I don't think it means we shouldn't do it when we have a cycle lane and the bus is, for example, waiting at traffic lights."

    You might be right.

    "

    Cyclecraft author John Franklin is strongly in favour of overtakes on the right unless the nearside lane is free of traffic in a multiple lane situation.

    "

    http://nicewaycode.com/2013/08/10/overtaking-for-cyclists-some-guidance

    So that might include a cycle lane that is at least the full length of a bus.

    Most ASL lead-in lanes are absurdly short.

    And don't forget, (if you go on the right) it's illegal (even for bikes) to cross the solid white line to get into ASL box.

    Not looking forward to PoliceScotland enforcing that one.

    As far as I'm concerned the NWC confuses more than it clarifies.

    And (as posted above) could make it more likely that some drivers will have their beliefs re-confirmed - 'all cyclists break the law and don't deserve being #Nice to'.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    "some drivers will have their beliefs re-confirmed - 'all cyclists break the law and don't deserve being #Nice to'."

    Of course that minority is exactly who education/enforcement should be addressing.

    The NWC is most unlikely to alter their views in a #Nice way.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. Kenny
    Member

    The NWC post you linked to says this:

    "We hope that making it clear that passing on the right when it’s safe to do so will help new and experienced cyclists be safer on the roads"

    I don't think the messages on the bus backs makes it clear at all - it says "if you must", which doesn't equal "when it's safe to do so", IMHO.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. KarenJS
    Member

    Someone on twitter posted at being shouted at for going up inside of cars, bus ad seems to imply not doing this in any circumstances. I feel guilty even passing bus in the cycle lane now even though I know I'm allowed. And I do wonder what drivers think when they see you filtering past a nope... It's the advert I think could cause most problems with improving road relations.

    Also, in reply to @baldcyclists previous comment about cyclists being offended by campaign that targets them when motorists are subjected to more campaigns about road safety and don't complain: first, the campaign says it doesn't target cyclists, when it clearly does; second cyclists are a minority group that is already stigmatised, and all the ads seem targeted at wrongdoing of this minority group. This feels personal. When motorists are targeted, it's such a large group a lot of them just dismiss it with, well that doesn't apply to me. It's accepted that there are a small minority if idiot drivers, whereas drivers often assume all cyclists are idiots and law breakers. In this respect, The campaign doesn't achieve what it set out to do, which was increase mutual respect.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. chdot
    Admin

    "I don't think the messages on the bus backs makes it clear at all - it says "if you must", which doesn't equal "when it's safe to do so" "

    +1

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. chdot
    Admin

    "The campaign doesn't achieve what it set out to do, which was increase mutual respect"

    +1

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

  22. Riding out in East Lothian yesterday I was on a shared use path alongside a straight, very fast road (near Knowes Farm, as I turned off for N Berwick), thinking, "I'm glad I haven't grown out of cycling on the pavement because I really can't be bothered with cars flashing past my ear at 70-80mph".

    And then, facing me... Big new Land Rover parked almost fully covering the path. I pondered if the next phase of the Nice Way Code is direct action to get us off the pavements, whether shared use or not.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. RJ
    Member

    WPQs:

    Question S4W-16830: Alison Johnstone, Lothian, Scottish Green Party, Date Lodged: 22/08/2013

    To ask the Scottish Government how the impact of the Nice Way Code campaign will be evaluated.

    Current Status: Expected Answer date 19/09/2013

    Question S4W-16829: Alison Johnstone, Lothian, Scottish Green Party, Date Lodged: 22/08/2013

    To ask the Scottish Government what evidence it has that the Nice Way Code campaign will result in behaviour change on Scotland's roads.

    Current Status: Expected Answer date 19/09/2013

    Question S4W-16828: Alison Johnstone, Lothian, Scottish Green Party, Date Lodged: 22/08/2013

    To ask the Scottish Government how much the Nice Way Code marketing campaign will cost and what budget this is drawn from.

    Current Status: Expected Answer date 19/09/2013

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. crowriver
    Member

    I like the letter from Freewheel North. Tell it like it is!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. Dave
    Member

    Beautiful!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. LaidBack
    Member

    "I don't think the messages on the bus backs makes it clear at all - it says "if you must", which doesn't equal "when it's safe to do so"

    The 'if you must' is really a summary of what a driver thinks when 'annoying' cyclists go faster than powered traffic. 'Just push through, why don't you....?'

    Sadly ASA in their letter, consider the bus back to be legal, decent and truthful.

    But then again so are all these ads for pay day loans and cars being driven in an unrealistic way.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. Arellcat
    Moderator

    To ask the Scottish Government how the impact of the Nice Way Code campaign will be evaluated.

    Way to go, Alison Johnstone!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Andrew Richards (@codeandrew)
    28/08/2013 18:56
    @CyclingEdin @LAHinds @SpokesLothian The cycling access on York Place is very odd now. From St Andrew's Sq signs say cycle on pavement.

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. gembo
    Member

    Saw LRT bus today which had sign saying do not pass of left. North the NOPE a DOPE advert just the no left filtering sign u see on lorries etc. nothing on the right hand side

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. KarenJS
    Member

    Got a reply today from Alison Johnstone re the open letter I (and others) forwarded to my MSPs. As always, she seems to be fighting the cyclists corner:

    Thank you for your email.
    Please be assured that I share your concerns and have raised them with the Minister for Transport.
    I attach my letter for your information. I will be in touch when I have a response.

    I won't post the attached letter as it's a bit long, but here are a couple of paragraphs confirming that the campaign just didn't listen to comments made...

    "I was first made aware of the campaign branding at the meeting of the Cross Party Group on Cycling on the 18th June, which you kindly attended. We were shown most of the adverts in draft form (not the video adverts) and several members of the Cross Party Group raised concerns, which were all formally minuted.

    Several members of the group felt that the range of adverts is not mutually respectful, as it is more critical of cyclist behaviour than any other road user group. This is a view I share. Very few of the concerns raised at that meeting resulted in any change to the final messaging."

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin