http://www.slideshare.net/ClaireWood4/online-booklet-24927492
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Nice Way Code - the 'code'
(44 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
slides that I didn't like:
2,3,4,6slides that I was okay about:
5,8,9,10,12undecided:
7,11Not sure how this will reach the target audience and whether it can change behaviour.
BTW I don't think there are too many humorous drink-driving adverts - they largely concentrate on the serious nature of the issue.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The red light slide basically says, "cyclists jumping red lights annoys drievrs, so it's you're own fault if they then are angry around you."
'Always' pass large vehicles on the right? So I have to come out of the cycle lane on the left to go round a large vehicle that's stuck in a traffic jam?
Interesting that the "don't cycle on the pavement" slide is "stick to the road, cycle lane or shared use path where you can" which suggests that where you can't you're allowed to cycle on the pavement.
Quick totting up:
Rules aimed at cyclists - 4
Rules aimed at motorists - 5
Rules aimed at cyclists and motorists - 1
Rules aimed at pedestrians - 1Posted 11 years ago # -
I wonder if the use of the word rhombus as a term of derision will get picked up by the OED??
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Cyclists jumping red lights annoys drivers, so it's your own fault if they then are angry around you."
I disagree with this sentiment. What really annoys drivers (IMHO) is that cyclists are jumping the queue (whether cruising past them in a cycle lane, or filtering on left or right, or dismounting and walking a crossing, or jumping a red light). It's a manifestation of drivers' frustration at being held up and someone else being able to go faster than them. They're not playing by the same rules that applies to drivers and that is really irritating.
Pedestrians have a legitimate gripe with cyclists going through red lights as they represent a direct danger to life and limb. Rationally, it should only feature on a driver's radar when a cyclist goes through a red light into another stream of traffic, causing disruption to it.
I say all this as someone who observes red lights and does not like seeing cyclists ignoring them.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Agree with all of that - the Nice Way Code conveys none of the sentiment, merely that drivers get annoyed by cyclists jumping lights and that's why you shouldn't do it (not that it's a danger to yourself or pedestrians, or simply that it's against the law...)
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I wonder if the use of the word rhombus as a term of derision will get picked up by the OED??"
Well spotted, chdot. A rhombus has all 4 sides of equal length. They are usually nearer to being rectangle. Back to class
Posted 11 years ago # -
The adverts go to some length to show cyclists in "normal clothes". However. the code tells people to dress "brightly" (hmmm, I wonder what that could mean).
Anyway, while us obsessives parse the finer details of this campaign, almost everyone else in Scotland will remain unaware of its existence. Even if a person does see a TV advert/billboard amongst all the shampoo, cars, air fresheners (does eveyone's house really smell that bad) and other guff advertised I doubt it they will remember it and, even if they do, take any heed.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"... almost everyone else in Scotland will remain unaware of its existence."
Exactly.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It will be interesting to see what they use as posters.
The actual 'code' slides are too dull and wordy.
That's wordy not worthy...
Posted 11 years ago # -
almost everyone else in Scotland will remain unaware of its existence
Yes, though you know it will still be hailed as a success by the Government ("it generated lots of discussion on social media before it was even started!").
The evaluation will no doubt have drivers asked "Have you heard of the Government's Nice Way Code campaign to encourage positive behaviours on our roads?", and the results will doubtless reveal that 75% of those questioned could indeed name the campaign that was highlighted in the question.
If, of course, in 6 months or a year, you asked the totally open question "Which Government campaigns to encourage positive behaviours on our roads can you name?", I think we can be fairly confident that numbers would be significantly lower.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The NWC got a minor level of press cover on it's not-a-launch launch date. Seems everyone's gotten bored or forgotten about it, as I couldn't see anything online in my usual scout of Scottish media sites.
Best thing for it I guess. Let it quietly get put out of its misery, then hold some sort of post-mortem.
Posted 11 years ago # -
While I agree with the "Let it quietly get put out of its misery", just to remind ourselves that this was half a million quid!
Half a million squidoos!
Usually, when programmes get a total slating like NWC, the Govt or agencies come out with the line of "this is just one part of a wider engagement campaign", which hasn't been the case here. I can't see that they've given themselves much room for manoeuvre on any other campaigns budget wise, so I suspect this is very much it. In which case, the post mortem needs to be in the full and unforgiving glare of the public.
We don't want them looking over this campaign and saying, "yeah, if only we hadn't done the horse thing..."
Posted 11 years ago # -
the post mortem needs to be in the full and unforgiving glare of the public
Absolutely!
Posted 11 years ago # -
This is how I see the NWC having come about:
Civil servant 1: The Minister wants us to do something about cyclists and road safety.
Civil servant 2 : Okay, what's the budget?
CS1: £424,000.
CS2: (Laughter) - you mean million...
CS1: No...
CS2: Did the Minister say what this "something" had to be?
CS1: No, just "something"
CS2: How much is a mile of segregated cycle lane?
CS1: Dunno, about a million quid I would have thought.
CS2: Okay, forget I ever mentioned that, here's something we could probably afford...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Please note that the website uses s $60 wordpress theme....
So thats £500,000 - £40 = £499,960 to spend on design and implementation (mostly on the TV adverts I guess)
Posted 11 years ago # -
The adverts go to some length to show cyclists in "normal clothes". However. the code tells people to dress "brightly" (hmmm, I wonder what that could mean).
Oh, they had this one sussed in the 1970s:
What I like about this is it shows kids *maintaining their own bikes* and also *riding in the road on their own*. In many ways a lot more positive than the FUD we get dished out these days. No lycra and not a h****t to be seen either!
Not sure about the hi-viz wellies or Bacofoil jackets mind you.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Slide 4: Nothing annoys drivers more than cyclists who don't observe the rules
Maybe... but cyclists don't even have to break the rules in order to anger a lot of drivers.
Cycling away from the kerb - for reasons like there are parked cars ahead and you want to make sure you're going to have the space to move out, or because the left hand side of the road is in too bad a state to cycle on (e.g. Abbeymount end of Easter Road) - also angers many drivers.
In fact, cycling on the roads and holding them up for even a few seconds, angers some drivers.
As long as there's the "they don't even pay road tax" brigade, there's going to be drivers who are angry with cyclists.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Patronising, infuriating and condescending.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I wouldn't have a problem with the 'code' telling cyclists to dress brightly, if they simply added 'at night'.
It is eminently sensible to dress brightly when cycling at night. At other times of the day, it shouldn't matter.
Posted 11 years ago # -
At night lights matter far more than bright clothing. Brightness can matter on grey, drizzling foggy days, and at dusk. But would matter less if our roads were bett designed for cycles in the first lace.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Sorry SRD, but I don't agree.
At night, motorists see your body before they see any lights (especially when looking at you from the side). Bicycle lights are not instantly recognised, nor expected, as a moving object, & there are so many other 'single' light sources adding to the confusion.
A human figure however, is much quicker for the brain to process into 'that might be a cyclist'
Posted 11 years ago # -
"It is eminently sensible to dress brightly when cycling at night. At other times of the day, it shouldn't matter"
I'd personally substitute 'reflectively' for 'brightly'. Bright does give the form, but reflective is visible from further away, and the motion helps give the game away on what it might be.
Posted 11 years ago # -
yes, reflective not brightly coloured at night. The latest research I saw was that a moving reflective thing is most effective of all - so a simple reflective leg cuff is probably better than a hi-vis but not reflective jacket.
During the day you need to stand out from your surroundings. No point wearing bright yellow cycling past a field of rape...
Posted 11 years ago # -
I still don't know what I think about this!
Rural roads, no street lights, I'd go for several lights and reflective stuff.
But that's not my normal environment.
Lights - flashing does say 'bike'.
I have a 'cycling' jacket with nice reflective panels - not yellow/dayglo.
I just ride trying to be aware of the 'unexpected' and some degree of 'escape strategy' in mind!
Posted 11 years ago # -
If by reflective you mean the grey 3M bands/patches, these only work when lit by headlights in the same position as the viewer i.e. the driver's headlights. They work by 1000s of miniature 'corner cube reflectors' that direct the light back to its source.
For example, they do not work when a car is pulling out of a T-junction, and you are approaching from the side, on the main road. This is because the reflective material is not lit by a light source coming from the same direction as the viewer. A brightly coloured jacket, however, will instead scatter light from all sources (street lights etc), and be more useful in this situation.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
The Nice Way Code (@AyeWayCode)
05/08/2013 16:07
#NiceTip: cyclists, be safe, be seen.When oot & aboot on bikes always wer something ithers wull see. Like this!
http://pic.twitter.com/mgfMjVmnaP
"
Posted 11 years ago # -
For example, they do not work when a car is pulling out of a T-junction
If you're relying on being seen side on then odds are you are already dead. By the time a driver processes a bike is nearly right in front of them they've already began the maneuver so either you're far enough across the front of the vehicle you've passed it or...
You should always aim to be seen from the front, that gives you a fighting chance of the driver pulling from a side street bothering to see you. Remember head lights are angled away from where you'd be during a T-junction or side street interaction so by time your reflectives are being picked up by the turning cars lights you've passed.
I'm not convinced "bright" colours help in any case of being seen, a Hawaiian shirt might get you noticed during the day but only because the brain might process it as different, a standard bike jacket in a sea of fluorescents is hardly going to stand out during the day and at night you're off course running decent lights flashing away which register as different in the brain due to most lights being constant.
Posted 11 years ago # -
My reasoning with a yellow jacket was that in London it means 'bike' even if drivers just catch it out of the corner of their eye and they will hopefully react accordingly. Round here (rural Dumfries) it tends to mean 'man from the coonsil' and there's no knowing what drivers will do :-)
Obviously the most important thing is lights, especially here where it gets properly dark and there's no ambient light to scatter.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Finer points of the campaign, and everything that is wrong with it aside, those adverts are frankly cringeworthy.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
