Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

New CTC Website - Stop SMIDSY

OldSkoolKonaOldSkoolKona Posts: 655
edited October 2009 in Commuting chat
I don't think anyone has flagged up this new site from the CTC (there is a post over on Campaign but not everyone goes there and yes I did do a search)

http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/
Stop SMIDSY
Stop ‘Sorry Mate, I Didn’t See You’
Because sometimes sorry just isn’t enough.

Bad driving intimidates and harms innocent people. Cyclists and pedestrians are particularly endangered by negligent or aggressive driving because we’re not encased in a few tonnes of metal every time we set out on the roads.

Stop SMIDSY will address how the police, prosecutors, the courts, and the law itself could all do a better job at encouraging people to use the roads in safer and more considerate ways. When we lobby these institutions on your behalf, we need evidence of how they need to improve. That’s where you come in.

Report your story and help make our roads safer
Most of us have experienced bad driving. By creating a place to collect and share these stories, we will build the political will to change how society deals with bad driving.

Get information and advice
If you request help from our lawyers, we will send them the information you have supplied us. They will contact you within seven days if they think they will be able to help.

You can also learn more about the law about bad driving and download some practical tips for dealing with it.
«1

Posts

  • gtvlussogtvlusso Posts: 5,112
    Rant
    Just goes to prove how fecking useless the CTC are.....our other 2 wheeled friends, motorcyclists, set this up with local police to bring to drivers attention that motorbikes are around them - i.e. SMIDSY is not an excuse, with a big yellow sign! CTC kinda missed the point of the campaign, but thought they would hop on the band wagon as the campaign has had a good response, to raise their own profile and for some reason counter what is a useful campaign for all 2 wheelers.

    The point of the original campaign by motorcyclists was that SMIDSY is not an excuse - Where are they coming from?!

    Glad I dropped my CTC membership as I have never heard so much useless rubbish spouted by useless snobs who have no sense of modern living!

    And the magazine is rubbish too!
    /Rant
  • davmaggsdavmaggs Posts: 1,008
    It seems to be a bit of a sales campaign to get people to the site to tell (useless) anecotes, and whilst they are telling their tales they get sold membership or the chance at having their details passed on to fee earning lawyers. A bit like the 'tell us what you think' pleas on just about every TV channel (the second rate marketers effort to 'build community').

    Every person in Britain has some road story or other, and posting them all online in some unstructured way isn't going to help one jot. And the cynic in my says that they've no intention of using them to help.

    </grump>
  • Wallace1492Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    Anything to raise awareness of cyclists by vehicle drivers is good in my book.
    SMIDSY happens. Sometimes it can be cyclists not helping themselves.

    Couple of weeks ago I was nearly side swiped by a car entering main road, he screeched to a halt a foot or so from me. At this point, the weather had deteriorated, it had got extremely dark with threatening clouds, and had started raining, I had a black top on, I also had my shades on (was well before "official" lighting up time). It was only when I took my shades off, I realised that it was so dark and switched my lights on (just put on couple of days before) However driver should have been more vigilent.

    Not sure what this campaign can do.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • Not quite sure where your rant is coming from gtv, don't see anywhere on the site where is says SMIDSY is acceptable. perhaps I'm not looking hard enough :?

    I think its a useful site, for example, many people post on here asking what to do in the case of an accident, they have a really useful checklist:
    http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/information/crash
  • gtvlussogtvlusso Posts: 5,112
    Not quite sure where your rant is coming from gtv, don't see anywhere on the site where is says SMIDSY is acceptable. perhaps I'm not looking hard enough :?

    I think its a useful site, for example, many people post on here asking what to do in the case of an accident, they have a really useful checklist:
    http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/information/crash

    All they have done is jumped on the band wagon of the SMIDSY campaign created by motorcyclists and police a few years ago - in fact they are trying to undermine the SMIDSY campaign by saying that SMIDSY is not enough (which was the point of the original SMIDSY campaign - that "Sorry Mate I Did Not See You" is not enough, so will you take the risk of not checking for a motorcyclist!

    Seems like the CTC need to grow a marketing department and develop their own ideas rather than nicking and missing the point of other peoples ideas.

    Donuts!
  • gtvlussogtvlusso Posts: 5,112
    On another note - SMIDSY translated into SMIFS - "Sorry Mate I'm Frickin' Stupid".

    By the CTC petitioning to stop the oruiginal SMIDSY campaign, that is wholly based on stopping people saying "Sorry Mate I Did Not See You" (by asking the question - Is that an acceptable excuse?), is daft!

    /Rant!
  • don_dondon_don Posts: 1,007
    gtvlusso wrote:
    Not quite sure where your rant is coming from gtv, don't see anywhere on the site where is says SMIDSY is acceptable. perhaps I'm not looking hard enough :?

    I think its a useful site, for example, many people post on here asking what to do in the case of an accident, they have a really useful checklist:
    http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/information/crash

    All they have done is jumped on the band wagon of the SMIDSY campaign created by motorcyclists and police a few years ago - in fact they are trying to undermine the SMIDSY campaign by saying that SMIDSY is not enough (which was the point of the original SMIDSY campaign - that "Sorry Mate I Did Not See You" is not enough, so will you take the risk of not checking for a motorcyclist!

    Seems like the CTC need to grow a marketing department and develop their own ideas rather than nicking and missing the point of other peoples ideas.

    Donuts!

    I still don't see your point gtv.

    Presumably the original m/cycling campaign paid not one jot to cyclists and concentrated solely on motor-cyclists?

    So, if that was a perceived success, why not replicate the campaign but with cyclists as the subject?

    I'm not trying to criticise but I can't see how they've missed the point. Surely the opposite has happened?

    Anyway, I've not looked at the site yet so I'll go and check for myself. Incidentally, my worst ever 'SMIDSY' incident was with a lad on a BMX!
  • gtvlusso wrote:
    Not quite sure where your rant is coming from gtv, don't see anywhere on the site where is says SMIDSY is acceptable. perhaps I'm not looking hard enough :?

    I think its a useful site, for example, many people post on here asking what to do in the case of an accident, they have a really useful checklist:
    http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/information/crash

    All they have done is jumped on the band wagon of the SMIDSY campaign created by motorcyclists and police a few years ago - in fact they are trying to undermine the SMIDSY campaign by saying that SMIDSY is not enough (which was the point of the original SMIDSY campaign - that "Sorry Mate I Did Not See You" is not enough, so will you take the risk of not checking for a motorcyclist!

    Seems like the CTC need to grow a marketing department and develop their own ideas rather than nicking and missing the point of other peoples ideas.

    Donuts!

    You've lost me gtv - nothing wrong with jumping on a previously successful campaign, and I disagree that they are undermining the original motorcycling campaign.

    Seems you have a gripe against CTC in general, which is fair enough, but don't see the relevance to this issue. Not a member myself, but I've always heard good things about them. Given the number of people posting on here recently about being hit by cars in SMIDSY incidents and the lax attitude of the police, I think its great that CTC are campaigning to increase the profile of this common issue.
  • Stuey01Stuey01 Posts: 1,273
    Er, it doesn't say the original smidsy campaign wasn't enough, it says the excuse "smidsy" used by drivers isn't enough. Nowhere does it undermine the previous campaign, if anything surely it is raising awareness of it (I didn't know about any previous campaign til this thread).
    Nothing wrong with a bit of bandwagon jumping in a good cause.

    Way to spectacularly miss the point.
    Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Stuey01 wrote:
    Er, it doesn't say the original smidsy campaign wasn't enough, it says the excuse "smidsy" used by drivers isn't enough. Nowhere does it undermine the previous campaign, if anything surely it is raising awareness of it (I didn't know about any previous campaign til this thread).
    Nothing wrong with a bit of bandwagon jumping in a good cause.

    Way to spectacularly miss the point.
    That wasn't my interpretation of the rant (entertaining GTV - thanks).

    Wasn't the point that the CTC were furiously knitting a nice sweater, or brewing some herbal tea right around the time that the motorcycle lobbies were managing to get a load of high profile adverts on telly as part of a big campaign supported by the police?

    Now they have taken the same branding and are utilizing it in an essentially covert marketing campaign?

    If so, I agree. The only time I've ever seen the CTC represented on telly, its like being tickled with Ken Dod's feather duster. I think they are insufficiently agressive and pointed for the crowded media we have and this does appear to be a big missed opportunity.#

    Additionally - precisely WHAT is reporting some random bloke's bad driving going to achieve if you have not actually had an accident? My fear is that this site will be about as effective as the "Rants" thread on here. Sorry.
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    edited October 2009
    Have to agree with the comments that are critical of this campaign. The CTC seem to have an underlying agenda to increase their membership and increase PI work for their solicitors with whom they likely have a financial arrangment. On the occasions they have been on the radio claiming to speak for cyclists as a group they have put across very poorly the issues and dangers that regular cyclists face :( . I think there are now a significant numbers of cyclists who are now lapsed members of the CTC and others who are choosing to join alternative cycling groups and the CTC wants to poach these as it's membership receipts are falling. As a campaigning organisation I have found them next to ineffectual. Nothing in my daily cycle has been influenced or improved by them. From my impression the club, apart from Chris Juden who on occasions writes a lot of sense in his technical or touring articles, is made up of narrow minded elderly male cyclists in tweed jackets and plus fours :lol: .

    I can't see that their request for cyclists to post their stories serves any real purpose other than being purely anecdotal. Every story has two sides to it. Whilst there is no doubt drivers are often inattentive and pose a real danger to cyclists and pedestrians the CTC should be doing what the motorcycle groups did with their ThinkBike campaign by producing hard hitting TV ads in conjunction with the DoT.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    The revision of the Highway Code to make use of cycle lanes compulsory was, as I understand it, successfully opposed by the CTC (please correct me if I'm wrong). This would have had a huge impact on all of us.
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    edited October 2009
    alfablue wrote:
    The revision of the Highway Code to make use of cycle lanes compulsory was, as I understand it, successfully opposed by the CTC (please correct me if I'm wrong). This would have had a huge impact on all of us.

    Compulsory to use a cycle lane or prohibiting cyclists from using the roads......... But then the authorities would have to tackle those that obstruct cycle lanes which would mean in many instances clearing all the parked cars, trees and phone boxes out of them so we can cycle down them. Not to mention pedestrian groups who were against it as many cycle paths are shared use. Mobile phone use whilst a driver is driving has been banned but look how many people still use them :roll: .
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    alfablue wrote:
    The revision of the Highway Code to make use of cycle lanes compulsory was, as I understand it, successfully opposed by the CTC (please correct me if I'm wrong). This would have had a huge impact on all of us.
    True enough. I still think it is reasonable to be critical of the ineffectual media facing function of the organisation, however. It is frustrating because it would be so easy to improve.
  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    dilemna wrote:
    alfablue wrote:
    The revision of the Highway Code to make use of cycle lanes compulsory was, as I understand it, successfully opposed by the CTC (please correct me if I'm wrong). This would have had a huge impact on all of us.

    But then the authorities would have to tackle those that obstruct them which would mean in many instances clearing all the parked cars, trees and phone boxes out of them so we can cycle down them. Mobile phone use whilst a driver is driving has been banned but look how many people still use them :roll: .
    Yes, true, but my point is that a CTC campaign may actually have done something that impacts on all cyclists, or are you suggesting that the authorities just "saw sense" and the CTC was coincidental rather than influential in this?
  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    alfablue wrote:
    The revision of the Highway Code to make use of cycle lanes compulsory was, as I understand it, successfully opposed by the CTC (please correct me if I'm wrong). This would have had a huge impact on all of us.
    True enough. I still think it is reasonable to be critical of the ineffectual media facing function of the organisation, however. It is frustrating because it would be so easy to improve.
    I agree - but generalising wildly, most people in this country seem to prefer to put-up and shut-up and criticise anyone who ever gets militant. I can't take it any more :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :wink:
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    alfablue wrote:
    dilemna wrote:
    alfablue wrote:
    The revision of the Highway Code to make use of cycle lanes compulsory was, as I understand it, successfully opposed by the CTC (please correct me if I'm wrong). This would have had a huge impact on all of us.

    But then the authorities would have to tackle those that obstruct them which would mean in many instances clearing all the parked cars, trees and phone boxes out of them so we can cycle down them. Mobile phone use whilst a driver is driving has been banned but look how many people still use them :roll: .
    Yes, true, but my point is that a CTC campaign may actually have done something that impacts on all cyclists, or are you suggesting that the authorities just "saw sense" and the CTC was coincidental rather than influential in this?

    Pretty much.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    Oh :cry:
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    alfablue wrote:
    alfablue wrote:
    The revision of the Highway Code to make use of cycle lanes compulsory was, as I understand it, successfully opposed by the CTC (please correct me if I'm wrong). This would have had a huge impact on all of us.
    True enough. I still think it is reasonable to be critical of the ineffectual media facing function of the organisation, however. It is frustrating because it would be so easy to improve.
    I agree - but generalising wildly, most people in this country seem to prefer to put-up and shut-up and criticise anyone who ever gets militant. I can't take it any more :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :wink:
    I'm not suggesting being Mr Angry (i.e. I'm not volunteering), but I think there is something better than vague and deferrential. For example, the sort of blunt, but informed and considered rhetoric recently coming from the likes of Wiggins and Victoria Pendleton would be good. Frankly, the "lets all just get along" message doesn't work when faced with a motoring journalist arguing "but you don't pay road tax" on the BBC Breakfast sofa. There are so many good replied and "bikes are environmentally friendly" isn't quite as persuasive as, for example, "neither do Smart cars" or similar.
  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    I couldn't agree more, Always. I recently went for a couple of evening rides with my local CTC. All good and friendly, but I was struck by the deferential riding! I foolishly followed my co-riders lead and stayed too near the kerb along a narrow stretch of road, so of course, several cars made dangerous overtakes. I did a serious wobble as the first one scared the life out of me, then got a prolonged leaning on the horn by the next one overtaking! If the average CTC member doesn't understand riding primary in such situations, and do not take their rightful place in the road, then no surprise if the whole organisation is a censored !

    I may ride with them again, but I won't be kerb-hugging - I expect it may get me some advice from my elders.
  • gtvlussogtvlusso Posts: 5,112
    Stuey01 wrote:
    Er, it doesn't say the original smidsy campaign wasn't enough, it says the excuse "smidsy" used by drivers isn't enough. Nowhere does it undermine the previous campaign, if anything surely it is raising awareness of it (I didn't know about any previous campaign til this thread).
    Nothing wrong with a bit of bandwagon jumping in a good cause.

    Way to spectacularly miss the point.
    That wasn't my interpretation of the rant (entertaining GTV - thanks).

    Wasn't the point that the CTC were furiously knitting a nice sweater, or brewing some herbal tea right around the time that the motorcycle lobbies were managing to get a load of high profile adverts on telly as part of a big campaign supported by the police?

    Now they have taken the same branding and are utilizing it in an essentially covert marketing campaign?

    If so, I agree. The only time I've ever seen the CTC represented on telly, its like being tickled with Ken Dod's feather duster. I think they are insufficiently agressive and pointed for the crowded media we have and this does appear to be a big missed opportunity.#

    Additionally - precisely WHAT is reporting some random bloke's bad driving going to achieve if you have not actually had an accident? My fear is that this site will be about as effective as the "Rants" thread on here. Sorry.

    Cheers AT - yes thats what I meant!

    It is a shame that the CTC are flippin' useless!! If they had the gusto to come up with their own catchy ideas on making cycling safer, then I may give them the time of day - but from the interaction that I have with the CTC and their membership, I think they would rather cr*p on someone elses campaign and sit in their warm armchairs with a nice cup of tea and the cat purring softly on the hearth rug......
  • gtvlussogtvlusso Posts: 5,112
    biondino wrote:

    Clearly the cat is a good lawyer......!
  • Wallace1492Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    SMIDSY can never be a defence. It is an excuse, yes, but it cannot absolve resposibility.
    Not having experience of if the courts would/could have doen it in the past, by not seeing, you are by default not driving with due care and attention, therefore it can not be a credible defense.

    GUILTY AS CHARGED - TAKE HIM DOWN.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    biondino wrote:

    And this comment that follows it gives a flavour of the fruitcake drivers on the roads,

    Posted by fennesz
    So he gets £300 fine + 5 points for hurting someone. I get £60 & 3 points for speeding (was late taking my little boy to Up!). Not exactly proportional, is it?

    Up was really very good tho' & we didn't miss the start.


    The cop should have been disqualified for 6 months and fined a lot more severely. Nothing but paper shuffling for him for a few months. Mind trying to claim SMIDSY when he's a copper and clearly at fault should mean he's sacked.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • BentMikeyBentMikey Posts: 4,895
    Nothing's changed eh GTV? Same old ranting...
  • Not sure that deferential riding is something that CTC promotes, if anything completely the opposite - http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5142
    How far out you should cycle will depend on the conditions but you should not be less than 1 metre from the kerb and should be further out if it is not safe for a vehicle to pass at that point (i.e. round a blind corner).

    Groups like CTC and LCC are vital, I'm afraid if you think anything is changed without influencing and lobbying, you're somewhat naive. The Highway Code change is a good example and there are many others.

    Are they perfect, well of course not, but if you have an issue with their direction, why not engage with them or their local group. You can only change/influence from within.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Not sure that deferential riding is something that CTC promotes, if anything completely the opposite - http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5142
    Not what I meant. I've no qualms with a lot of what I hear going on behind the scenes, its just their PR and media stuff that's lacking oomph.

    They are a bit John "More Peas Norma?" Major, whereas they could do with being a bit more Vladimir "I drive a tank" Putin.
  • Not sure that deferential riding is something that CTC promotes, if anything completely the opposite - http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5142
    Not what I meant. I've no qualms with a lot of what I hear going on behind the scenes, its just their PR and media stuff that's lacking oomph.

    They are a bit John "More Peas Norma?" Major, whereas they could do with being a bit more Vladimir "I drive a tank" Putin.

    Its difficult though I imagine when you have to represent such a broad church of cycling views, you only have to look on this forum to see the various differing opinions. I do think that overall they do a good job, and if you want change, well then that's where getting involved in these organisations at a local level is key, recognising that you need to respect other's views.

    I sometimes wonder if the energy and passion shown by people on here about a subject they clearly love could be directed into helping out these organisations, the change that could slowly be made.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    I sometimes wonder if the energy and passion shown by people on here about a subject they clearly love could be directed into helping out these organisations, the change that could slowly be made.
    Food for thought. You may be right.
Sign In or Register to comment.