HGV Awareness campaign from LFGSS

snooks

A quick heads up.....The peeps on the London Fixed gear and single speed forum have put this together, if you want to try to do something to raise the awareness of HGV's on the roads, now you can:

News Flash!!! LFGSS Cyclist / HGV campaign plan has been proposed!
We have a plan and it includes these elements, summarised as:

* A campaign message: action must be taken to prevent the death of cyclists due to HGV collisions
* An edgy theme which will apply to all campaign elements
* Viral Video to spread the message
* A campaign-specific website
* Engagement with the media to draw wide attention to the campaign
* Direct action (peaceful) targeting one HGV opperator involved in the recent death of a cyclist. We want them to lift their saftey standards.
* Flyers to hand out during our direct action
* All of this we will achieve within October

http://www.londonfgss.com/post318077-518.html

We’ve come up with a campaign strategy (plan of attack) which we would like to use as a working brief for all of the million creatives on this forum.

While we’re not looking to dictate, we feel that it’s easier and faster to put a specific idea out there and have you guys come up with the actual ideas for it, than keep things completely open and vague.

We would like treatments for each particular part of the campaign. So if you are a film maker please have a brain storm and come up with an awesome idea for the viral. If you are a website designer and can facilitate this end of things please let us know how you see it and so on.

We will have each part of the campaign tie in with all the others through the use of the logo, theme, and perhaps a tag line.

The Decision
On Tuesday October 7th we are holding a vote for best viral, best logo, best website name, and best direct action plan. You must vote in person on this date. We will not accept any online voting. The job will be award Wednesday the 8th, with approximately 10 days to complete it.

Meeting details:
6:30pm
Tuesday 7th October, somewhere central

MEETING DETAILS TO BE CONFIRMED BY SATURDAY 4TH


Central Message
Cyclists are dying under lorries, this has to stop, both cyclists and HGV’s play an important role in this.

Theme
We would like to use watermelons throughout the campaign. We see the watermelon as a quirky media-friendly tool that is able to easily show how vulnerable cyclists are. While being very graphic and even perhaps haunting, seeing a watermelon run over is light enough to keep media, families, and drivers happy with us. We also see the watermelon as a theme that is easy to carry on, build on, and evolve into new campaign strategies.

Strategy
We will be carrying out the campaign through the following methods.

1. A 30-90 second viral film.

Our current treatment is that we will line a cycle lane with watermelons in a sort of guerilla manner. Each watermelon has a lifesize photograph of someone’s face. We then film what happens to them as HGV’s turn left.

However we would like to open this up for ideas from all of you. What is the most “viral” viral you can thinking of depicting our message.

We want your treatments, the idea doesn't have to be the above, but unless you have an entirely new whole campaign for us, if does have to involve the watermelon.

You will have 10 days from approval of your treatment to complete the viral. Also we only have whatever budget can be raised here so count the budget as close to zero as possible for now.


2. Logo.

This logo will be on all aspects of the campaign (website, flyer, spokecard, whatever)

Currently we are thinking that this will be a watermelon with a tyre track through it. But that is just a working brief and could totally change.

We need this designed! Please post ideas here!! Doesn't have to be the idea above, but again it has to be a watermelon theme unless you're coming up with a whole new campaign. Just to stress, you are proposing your ideas for the logo treatment and not submitting the final design (yet).

3. A website .

It will host:
a. the viral,
b. a list of different letters to MP’s, the mayor, etc,
c. links to different visuals.
d. Facts and figures

We need a great name for this site that’s available. We don’t wantwww.cyclesafelondon.com as it just seems too governmental in title*.
This site will have to be ready to go live in 10 days from the approval of the treatment. Would you like to make that happen?

*cyclesafelondon.com will still run in just the way it is running, the campaign website will be focussed on the campaign alone.

4. Flyers.

The text for this is currently being written. Obviously not much can be done on this right now but we’re including it so you can see all aspects. It will have the logo on it and direct people towards the website.

We will have about two weeks to design and print these. Let us know if you’re interested in assisting.


5. A Direct Action/Peaceful event

We are looking at Tuesday October 28th !! (TBC)

We are currently planning this for outside of a building site. The current plan is for Kings Cross, targeting one firm. Details a bit later on specifics.

The theme for the Direct Action will be a mass of people with their bikes outside a work site first thing in the morning. We will line the entrance with watermelons with photographs of people on them . As working HGVs drive through and squash them, it will create a silent peaceful but visually gripping protest .
We will also have spray paint and stencils of the watermelon logo at the site and will be spray painting cyclists with flouro jackets as they ride by.

Do you have additional ideas for this!?!?
We need all of you out in force for this morning.

By this point we will have the viral, website, and flyers ready and up and running.

It’s important to note that through all of this it is incredibly important that we are not blaming the cyclists nor the HGV’s as being the sole contributor to these deaths.

Your Ideas
So there you go!! Have a giant brainstorming party and start posting as many ideas as you may have to execute this brief.

** If you think of a better theme than us, great! But please realise that it will mean changing each aspect of the campaign, not just the one part. Meaning we can’t have a killer idea for the flyers but no idea how to tie it in with the viral. While we are completely open to the entire brief changing it would have to change as a whole. If you have a brief that fits all of the different aspects of the campaign that’s more kick-ass than this throw it in. HOWEVER - you have to think through the implications. We have to be able to deliver all of this on a very tight budget, and with 10 days to produce the final work.

Littigator

Sounds like a good topic of covnersation for tonight's drinks I reckon. I'll print this off and bring it along.

lost_in_thought

Good plan. It's a bit long for my brain to handle this late on a friday afternoon!

boybiker

Fuck me, never seen anything so stupid in my life

Why can't they just say Don't ride like a tw@t and don't undertake vehicles that cannot see you?
Or is that just too simple for the 'creatives' who ride fixies?
to be honest I don't think its a difficult concept to grasp even for 'creatives'

snooks

boybiker wrote:

Why cannot they just say Don't ride like a tw@t and don't undertake vehicles that cannot see you?
Or is that just too simple for the 'creatives' who ride fixies?
to be honest I don't think its a difficult concept to grasp even for 'creatives'

Well I'm a photographer (a kind of creative with gears!) I came up with:

Sorry to post again, I just like to think of everyone reaching for their sunglasses when they get to it

prj45

snooks wrote:

Sorry to post again, I just like to think of everyone reaching for their sunglasses when they get to it

It implies that all the cyclists killed by HGVs this year rode dangerously up the inside of them, and by implication deserved to get squished.

I hate it.

Littigator

prj45 wrote:

snooks wrote:

Sorry to post again, I just like to think of everyone reaching for their sunglasses when they get to it

It implies that all the cyclists killed by HGVs this year rode dangerously up the inside of them, and by implication deserved to get squished.

I hate it.

So what's your better suggestion then prj45 if you want to highlight to other cyclists the risk of going up the inside of a lorry?

prj45

Littigator wrote:

So what's your better suggestion then prj45 if you want to highlight to other cyclists the risk of going up the inside of a lorry?

Do I have to have one, or can I just hate snooks' poster?

If I do have to make a suggestion I think the implicit assertion that all cyclists killed by HGV's this year were the sole architects of their own demise because they rode up inside the vehicle should be removed.

edit: last year.

sc999cs

prj45 wrote:

Littigator wrote:

So what's your better suggestion then prj45 if you want to highlight to other cyclists the risk of going up the inside of a lorry?

Do I have to have one, or can I just hate snooks' poster?

If I do have to make a suggestion I think the implicit assertion that all cyclists killed by HGV's this year were the sole architects of their own demise because they rode up inside the vehicle should be removed.

edit: last year.

Trouble is Snook's is trying to warn other cyclists about the danger of blind spots on HGVs so that is the main message of the poster.

sc999cs

prj45 wrote:

Littigator wrote:

So what's your better suggestion then prj45 if you want to highlight to other cyclists the risk of going up the inside of a lorry?

Do I have to have one, or can I just hate snooks' poster?

If I do have to make a suggestion I think the implicit assertion that all cyclists killed by HGV's this year were the sole architects of their own demise because they rode up inside the vehicle should be removed.

edit: last year.

Trouble is Snook's is trying to warn other cyclists about the danger of blind spots on HGVs so that is the main message of the poster.

_Brun_

prj45 wrote:

It implies that all the cyclists killed by HGVs this year rode dangerously up the inside of them, and by implication deserved to get squished.

If I remember correctly, the vast majority of people killed by HGVs have been women (discounting the messengers, for fairly obvious reasons). If HGVs are indiscriminately overtaking cyclists and turning left, how are all the blokes surviving?

It could be beacause they're faster, or position themselves more assertively but somehow they're cycling in a manner that makes them less likely to fall victim to a left turning lorry. That being the case, it stands to reason that all cyclists can do more to protect themsleves from these frequently tragic accidents.

zanes

_Brun_ wrote:

If I remember correctly, the vast majority of people killed by HGVs have been women (discounting the messengers, for fairly obvious reasons). If HGVs are indiscriminately overtaking cyclists and turning left, how are all the blokes surviving?

It could be beacause they're faster, or position themselves more assertively but somehow they're cycling in a manner that makes them less likely to fall victim to a left turning lorry. That being the case, it stands to reason that all cyclists can do more to protect themsleves from these frequently tragic accidents.

No No No Brun!! Everyone knows it's always the drivers fault when a cyclist is involved in an accident. Obviously :roll:

boybiker

zanes wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

If I remember correctly, the vast majority of people killed by HGVs have been women (discounting the messengers, for fairly obvious reasons). If HGVs are indiscriminately overtaking cyclists and turning left, how are all the blokes surviving?

It could be beacause they're faster, or position themselves more assertively but somehow they're cycling in a manner that makes them less likely to fall victim to a left turning lorry. That being the case, it stands to reason that all cyclists can do more to protect themsleves from these frequently tragic accidents.

No No No Brun!! Everyone knows it's always the drivers fault when a cyclist is involved in an accident. Obviously :roll:

This is unfortunately what some people do believe, cyclists can never be in the wrong, especially some of the more militant cyclists.

prj45

zanes wrote:

No No No Brun!! Everyone knows it's always the drivers fault when a cyclist is involved in an accident. Obviously :roll:

I'm not asserting it is, however to assert that every single HGV related cyclist death last year could've been avoided by the cyclist not riding up the inside the vehicle is patently incorrect.

prj45

sc999cs wrote:

Trouble is Snook's is trying to warn other cyclists about the danger of blind spots on HGVs so that is the main message of the poster.

But there is a secondary message that all deaths were caused by the cyclist riding up the inside of the vehicle.

Am I the only one getting this?

boybiker

prj45 wrote:

sc999cs wrote:

Trouble is Snook's is trying to warn other cyclists about the danger of blind spots on HGVs so that is the main message of the poster.

But there is a secondary message that all deaths were caused by the cyclist riding up the inside of the vehicle.

Am I the only one getting this?

So what are you going to do, go round to all the lorry drivers and say' Sorry Mr lorry driver would you mind awfully trying not to kill any cyclist who may be anywhere around your vehicle and completely invisible to you, thanks'
as for pissing around making 'viral videos' the idea is so stunningly stupid it makes my teeth itch.No campaign is going to ever stop a lorry driver hitting something he has no idea is there and cannot fricking well see. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: if you creep up the inside of a lorry and he doesn't see you and he hits you then its YOUR FAULT.

biondino

prj45 wrote:

sc999cs wrote:

Trouble is Snook's is trying to warn other cyclists about the danger of blind spots on HGVs so that is the main message of the poster.

But there is a secondary message that all deaths were caused by the cyclist riding up the inside of the vehicle.

Am I the only one getting this?

Fraid you are. The poster says that all deaths caused by cyclists riding up the inside of lorries could have been prevented by the cyclists not riding up the inside of lorries so, if I were you, I'd not ride up the inside of lorries.

The crux is that when cyclists have been killed purely because of the lorries' actions, there's nothing they could do about it anyway. They can only prevent what they themselves cause or contribute to.

spursn17

prj45 wrote:

sc999cs wrote:

Trouble is Snook's is trying to warn other cyclists about the danger of blind spots on HGVs so that is the main message of the poster.

But there is a secondary message that all deaths were caused by the cyclist riding up the inside of the vehicle.

Am I the only one getting this?

I'm with you on this one. should run this poster alongside the original.

prj45

boybiker wrote:

No campaign is going to ever stop a lorry driver hitting something he has no idea is there and cannot fricking well see. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

What bunkum.

Seeing something is a positive action lorry drivers have to take, if they don't bother looking sure they won't see, ever, even if they've overtaken the cyclist and THEN turned left.

When they're turning left they should make every effort to see.

Sure, in the meantime you're a bloody idiot if if ride up inside a lorry that could turn left, but only because sometimes lorry drivers don't look first.

prj45

spursn17 wrote:

I'm with you on this one. should run this poster alongside the original.

You see that one asserts that all cyclist deaths involving an HGV in 2007 were primarily the fault of the HGV driver, which again, is patently not the case (although closer to the truth).

prj45

biondino wrote:

Fraid you are. The poster says that all deaths caused by cyclists riding up the inside of lorries could have been prevented by the cyclists not riding up the inside of lorries so, if I were you, I'd not ride up the inside of lorries.

No it doesn't it implies ALL deaths of cyclists involving an HGV were due to the cyclist riding up inside the HGV.

spursn17

prj45 wrote:

spursn17 wrote:

I'm with you on this one. should run this poster alongside the original.

You see that one asserts that all cyclist deaths involving an HGV in 2007 were primarily the fault of the HGV driver, which again, is patently not the case (although closer to the truth).

Which is why I said run it alongside the original.

zanes

prj45 wrote:

zanes wrote:

No No No Brun!! Everyone knows it's always the drivers fault when a cyclist is involved in an accident. Obviously :roll:

I'm not asserting it is, however to assert that every single HGV related cyclist death last year could've been avoided by the cyclist not riding up the inside the vehicle is patently incorrect.

But surely it's better to make an attempt to stop the accidents that occur due to cyclists being in a lorries (known) blindspots than to sit here arguing about redesigning every lorry in the country?

I'm not trying to cause an argument here, I just genuinely can't see what the problem here is. Yes, trucks have a design flaw. We know about this flaw, and it is easily avoidable (don't filter down the passenger side, give trucks plenty of space) which can prevent some of the accidents involving trucks/cyclists.

So why is it a minority on this forum seem to persist in distributing the message that instead of getting advice/information out to both sides in the next few weeks we should sit here lobbying amongst ourselves for a legislative solution (truck redesign/lorry restrictions) which could take months/years?

Yes, in an ideal world trucks would have perfect 360 degree visibility and there would be no cyclist accidents/deaths ever.

THE WORLD IS NOT IDEAL! Surely it's better to start now, trying to reduce cyclist deaths (even if it's only a proportion of accidents involving trucks) rather than lobbying for changes that won't happen for months/years/ever, whilst doing nothing apart from watching the toll of avoidable (due to the cyclist/driver lacking knowledge/thinking they can just make it/whatever) tragedies mount up.

Just so everyones clear, I'm not saying that lorry drivers are never at fault. But there again, I'm not saying that about cyclists either. Like it or loathe it, whether you think it's a stopgap solution, you have to admit that any campaign that has the potential to reduce deaths/accidents, even just a proportion of them is a good thing.

For the record, I support the campaign to educate both cyclists and drivers of the dangers. I'd also love for the roads to be free of trucks/lorries/cars/buses when I'm out on the bike, all roads to be perfect and for everyone to be courteous whilst out and about. I think that might take a while though!

In summary; Yes, trucks have flaws. Yes, we should lobby for changes in the law/design (I'm not going to suggest them, I don't have the experience/knowledge to speculate) but whilst this is happening we should be out there educating drivers/cyclists of the dangers. Even if it means admitting cyclists get it wrong sometimes. Even if it doesn't/can't save everyone. Just burying our heads in the sand and going on about changes that may takes years will do nothing except let the currentsituation continue.

*Dons flameproof jacket*

sc999cs

It is hard because I see where prj45 and snooks are both coming from.

However I think that it is wise to educate those cyclists who lack experience of the dangers of HGVs and the fact that if you're in the wrong place the driver just won't see them. A lot of lorry drivers can do things in an artic which I'd have trouble with in the car but again they're not all perfect and should make every effort. I completely understand prj45's anger at lorries which overtake cyclists and then cut them up by turning left.

I think the poster could be seen as letting lorries of the hook but for the target audience that is less important than the message that cycling in to a lorry's blind spot is dangerous.

prj45

spursn17 wrote:

Which is why I said run it alongside the original.

Great two wrong incorrect assertions instead of one!

I think it'd be more correct to remove the "X cyclists killed last year" from both of them, so blame isn't attributed.

With it both posters seem divisive about attributing generalised blame, which is not what you want, IMO of course.

prj45

sc999cs wrote:

I completely understand prj45's anger at lorries which overtake cyclists and then cut them up by turning left.

I'd also be angry if a lorry driver didn't make every effort to look left when turning left just in a case an idiot cyclist had filtered up on the inside their vehicle.

zanes

Ah, think I see prj45's point better now.

Perhaps it would be better to keep the number of deaths in, otherwise it runs the risk of being seen as a very rare accident, or one that isn't that bad when it happens.

Maybe wording like "x cyclists died last year due to collisions with HGVs" would be less blaming?

sc999cs

prj45 wrote:

sc999cs wrote:

I completely understand prj45's anger at lorries which overtake cyclists and then cut them up by turning left.

I'd also be angry if a lorry driver didn't make every effort to look left when turning left just in a case an idiot cyclist had filtered up on the inside their vehicle.

Too right. That is why I get annoyed at lorries which don't have those blind spot mirrors at the top of the cab's nearside window.

boybiker

This has really pissed me off pj45 I ride with a guy who works as a lorry driver and I want more than stupid vacuous comments about how its a lorry drivers job to see exactly how a driver driving a 35 tonne lorry is supposed to see some one on a bike ,otherwise I will have to assume that you are just a halfwit talking out of his arse

snooks

Seems that the can of worms I opened have run of in completely the wrong direction...the post was to high-light the campaign by London FG SS forum

My poster was posted again from a previous thread. The unfortunate fact is that 25 cyclist were killed by HGVs last year. The message behind the poster is for cyclist to think when they are near HGVs...Read any of the recent articles on the recent deaths and they are more unambiguous about what's been happening on our roads recently

from the London FG SS thread, they came up with this:


Which I was going to get printed (with my own hard earned cash) on the other side of my A6 flyer therefore whichever side you looked at, you'd get the message.
.

prj45

boybiker wrote:

This has really pissed me off pj45 I ride with a guy who works as a lorry driver and I want more than stupid vacuous comments about how its a lorry drivers job to see exactly how a driver driving a 35 tonne lorry is supposed to see some one on a bike ,otherwise I will have to assume that you are just a halfwit talking out of his ars*

If you're driving a 35 tonne lorry around and you turn left without first checking if anything is down your left hand side that's a terrible dereliction of responsibility and lack of due diligence.