The latest TFL cycling Ad

il_principe

So what do we make of the latest TFL 'watch out for cyclists' advert. I don't get it at all, looks like someone just had the idea of a bank heist ad and shoehorned the cycling message into that.

UndercoverElephant

What the hell was going on with the giant security guard/police car and tiny cyclist/businessmen?

I don't understand advertisers.

Aidy

UndercoverElephant wrote:

What the hell was going on with the giant security guard/police car and tiny cyclist/businessmen?

I don't understand advertisers.

It's that the things you're looking for stand out more. So they're represented as being bigger.

MonkeyMonster

its a bit meh but might make some more people take notice - so not a total waste.

andy83

Well even as a cyclist watching that vid i remember the big police man, big button and the big money.

oh and the 2% of the actual vid of a bike!

iPete

Its a clever ad, nothing on the break dancing bear though.

Robstar24

to me the advert makes sense.

1) the bike/cyclist part is so short for a number of reasons: passes on the message that often drivers don't check for them when they should, as they are paying attention to other things (eg the bank job)

2) not paying attention to cyclists can foil even the best laid plans, like a bank job. message is therefore: check for cyclists, not doing so can have a very negative impact on your journey to work/family/tesco's etc...

3) bike small in ad because bikes are small and not that noticeable next to cars, esp as they are silent.

4) put bike right at the end so that it's the part that sticks in the memory.

it's a bit like the advert for watching out for motorcyclists, the crash only came right at the end, to remind drivers they need to still have their wits about them even when it seems they've done all the checking they need and think the road is clear.

antikythera

I figure the advertising tools used are self evident.... blah blah blah...

As I see it, it tries to emulate the "think bike" ad and at the same time missing the point. Motorist see other "hard road users" as legitimate, that's not the case for "soft road users" such as cyclist.

So to simply draw parrallels between motorcyclist and cyclist doesn't address the root cause. In that cyclists are seen as human causalities of motoring incidences.

I imagine it will be difficult for people to identify with the robbers as they would consider them a-morale to some degree that their actions don't reflect on themselves. Despite the claimed statements on this thread, which shows the a-morale nature of "some people" out-there. (I'm sure Lorraine would join everybody in being incense at the Bulnger murderers, but wouldn't see the similar "root causes" in her own opinions).

Clever Pun

I like the shout of the cyclist it adds the thought of impending nasty. People will watch it at first as it's a bit different and will be surprised by the cyclist bit. I assume that's the real aim



I still think they should aim it more like the think bike ads where the cyclist is a person and imply the catastrophic damage that can be done akin to the 30mph small child crumpled against a tree.

DonDaddyD

The more I think about it the more I like it. It's intelligent, it makes you realise the little things you take more notice of i.e. Police Man, security camera, alarm (button) big money. Everything else is made insignificant (partly due to the use of colour) until something you'd normally overlook (in a film and in real life) - in this case the cyclist - becomes significant when the person crashes into the car.

Its a little different and very Borris, though he probably had nothing to do with it.

I could see the Film Student/Graduate in me writing a essay on this and the psychological importance we place on significant images in films. - Which is kind of the adverts point.

I'm happy.

monkeyjo

Hmmm...they managed to rob a bank by shouting at people - no weapons at all! I didn't think it was that easy.

It's an ok ad and the idea makes perfect sense. I agree with Clever Pun that the shout is effective but I think as a whole the actual cyclist bit is too short. I guess that's the whole point though?

oscarbudgie

What the fukc do they call that?
The only people that is likely to influence are smart suited getaway drivers after a bank job (itself a huge anachronism. cause only a moron would try and steal from the actual bank these days)
Anyone else who sees it, because they are not of, empathetic with, aspirant to or sympathetic to the above group will be left cold and confused by this ad, because there is nothing about this ad which addresses a normal car driver. Criminals don't look out for cyclists - I'm not a criminal - I don't need to worry about looking out for cyclists.

iPete

Its a tough balance to find, I'm sure we could all come up with simple graphic left hook, not indicating type of adverts but then you don't want to cross a line where it makes people think twice about cycling.

OldSkoolKona

As said its a tough balance - the alternative 'shock them' routine of gory incidents is likely to be counterproductive by making people perceive cycling to be more dangerous than it actually is.

In general I like it and its a good sign that with the Cycle Hire Scheme and the Cycle Highways, for all their failings, are causing the powers at be to realise something needs to be done to reduce cycle incidents.

The sad thing is that I am just waiting for the Daily Wail backlash against cyclists once cycle hire comes to Lonodon, and the impact that will have on Public Opinion on cyclists (the old 'they deserve what they get rant' like in the comments on that recent fatality)

Clever Pun

oscarbudgie wrote:

What the fukc do they call that?
The only people that is likely to influence are smart suited getaway drivers after a bank job (itself a huge anachronism. cause only a moron would try and steal from the actual bank these days)
Anyone else who sees it, because they are not of, empathetic with, aspirant to or sympathetic to the above group will be left cold and confused by this ad, because there is nothing about this ad which addresses a normal car driver. Criminals don't look out for cyclists - I'm not a criminal - I don't need to worry about looking out for cyclists.

could have quite easily replaced the robbers with a mum in a people carrier with screaming kids, the point is still the same.

it's an analogy.. might be too much for the general public to get (not a go at you btw)

Bassjunkieuk

I actually quite liked it and did think of posting about if right after I'd watched it on ITV the other night.

At first it doesn't seem to make sense as you see certain things in larger proportions but then once you see the ending and read the message it starts to make sense.
It's not as in your face (scuse the pun) as the motorcyclist advert but the message is still the same - try to use your eyes when your in a car!

I've had an on-going argument with the father-in-law, who is a driving instructor, regarding drivers who have their lights on in broad daylight. He claims it makes them easier to spot whereas I argued that surely people should be looking out for the vehicle on the road regardless of lights. Still can't get him to see the logic......

oscarbudgie

Clever Pun wrote:

could have quite easily replaced the robbers with a mum in a people carrier with screaming kids, the point is still the same.

it's an analogy.. might be too much for the general public to get (not a go at you btw)

Well why not have a mum in a car with screaming kids and not bank robbers? At least thats real , recognisable, something we can relate to....whats missing in this ad are 'real' people - the cyclist is not really a person (despite the scream) any more than the robbers are people we can relate to. This sort of ad only works if it portrays people like us hurting other people like us (or the ones we love)

TheStone

It's not that bad, but needs to show the human side of being a cyclist. Drivers see us
as annoying lycra idiots and that needs to be changed.

Film from cyclist point of view would make a bigger impact.

** That said, I hate all state adverts. I don't understand why they spend so much of our
money (about a third of all adverts) and yet acheive so little.

Specialized Needs

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's intelligent

IMO that's the problem right there. I think it is too intelligent. It requires too much analysis which (importantly), if you don't do it, undermines the advert. However, I agree that it is very watchable. And at least it features (briefly) a bike - unlike the dancing bear one :roll:

FWIW, I agree that the same (interesting) approach could have been used but make it closer to home. I agree with CP and OB to go with the person (why woman?) with the screaming kids idea - make the kids big, make all of the other distractions around big. Do a similar thing with a lorry driver in a follow up advert. Then finish off the advert with all of the other things shrinking and the prone/broken body of the cyclist lying large on the road. That would be an image to be left with.

Just my take on it. Perhaps too hard?

MrChuck

oscarbudgie wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

could have quite easily replaced the robbers with a mum in a people carrier with screaming kids, the point is still the same.

it's an analogy.. might be too much for the general public to get (not a go at you btw)

Well why not have a mum in a car with screaming kids and not bank robbers? At least thats real , recognisable, something we can relate to....whats missing in this ad are 'real' people - the cyclist is not really a person (despite the scream) any more than the robbers are people we can relate to. This sort of ad only works if it portrays people like us hurting other people like us (or the ones we love)

I agree. There are some good ideas in there but the bank robbery part is a distraction from the message IMO- I think it alters the relationship the viewer has with what they're seeing, or how they feel they need to respond to it, or... something! Should've been the mum with kids or WVM in a hurry or something much more mundane.

Agree that the shout at the end is good though, and I guess you can't argue with the intent.

iPete

Specialized Needs wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's intelligent

IMO that's the problem right there. I think it is too intelligent. It requires too much analysis which (importantly), if you don't do it, undermines the advert. However, I agree that it is very watchable. And at least it features (briefly) a bike - unlike the dancing bear one :roll:

FWIW, I agree that the same (interesting) approach could have been used but make it closer to home. I agree with CP and OB to go with the person (why woman?) with the screaming kids idea - make the kids big, make all of the other distractions around big. Do a similar thing with a lorry driver in a follow up advert. Then finish off the advert with all of the other things shrinking and the prone/broken body of the cyclist lying large on the road. That would be an image to be left with.

Just my take on it. Perhaps too hard?

This.
Can see it already, huge kids in the back, large mobile phone ringing, tiny cyclist ahead, massive street sign and the drivers decides in a hurry they need to go left, the result a large cyclist on the floor.

Jay dubbleU

Moral; Police don't prevent bank jobs - tiny cyclists do therefore we need more tiny cyclists

greg66_tri_v2.0

UndercoverElephant wrote:

What the hell was going on with the giant security guard/police car

They were robbing Gringots.


I prefer this one, which although a collection of ads, has nothing to do with cycling.

lost_in_thought

Someone posted an ad a while ago which named a list of car safety parts while showing footage of a cyclist's body. I thought that was a good advert.

This one not so much.

Can I find the former? Nope.

I do think it's good that there's a campaign at all though, to be fair.

Porgy

I work for TfL and I'm the last person to see it.

Youtube is blocked at work! :evil:

il_principe

Porgy wrote:

I work for TfL and I'm the last person to see it.

Youtube is blocked at work! :evil:

You wanna have a word with your employers about these 'Super Highways' etc then please? Oh and lack of cycle parking facilities throughout London, appalling state of the roads, homicidal bus/minicab drivers, useless cycle-lanes, ridiculously phased lights, weekend tube closures on the Jubilee line (every c0cking weekend for nearly 2 years), and the uselessness of Kulveer Ranger (in Honda's back pocket). Man I'd love just 10 mins of Boris' time.

Sorry Porgy, I know none of this is to do with you, but FFS TFL.

DonDaddyD

It's done one thing, it has got people talking acknowledging the danger and discussing how the awareness could be better expressed.

Bassjunkieuk

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's done one thing, it has got cyclist talking acknowledging the danger and discussing how the awareness could be better expressed.

Fixed that for you....

Unfortunately we are only (in theory) 50% of the problem in a collision.
Until we get some non-cycling motorists involved in such a debate I think we are preaching to the converted.

If you have a look at TFL's Cycle Safety Action Plan here then you'll see details of the various types of accidents that happened and who in theory could be to blame.
Incidently I quite liked the fact that other vehicles disobeying traffic controls caused more accidents then cyclist doing the same thing - traffic controls meaning lights and give-way lines.

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I work for TfL and I'm the last person to see it.

Youtube is blocked at work! :evil:

You wanna have a word with your employers about these 'Super Highways' etc then please? Oh and lack of cycle parking facilities throughout London, appalling state of the roads, homicidal bus/minicab drivers, useless cycle-lanes, ridiculously phased lights, weekend tube closures on the Jubilee line (every c0cking weekend for nearly 2 years), and the uselessness of Kulveer Ranger (in Honda's back pocket). Man I'd love just 10 mins of Boris' time.

Sorry Porgy, I know none of this is to do with you, but FFS TFL.

Yes I am nothing to do with these - I'm London Underground.

As for doing something I do what I can as a private citizen - active in the LCC and that. Are you a member?

il_principe

Yeah I'm an LCC member - tbh I kinda get the impression that TFL consult them then proceed to ignore them completely on most issues... :shock:

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

Yeah I'm an LCC member - tbh I kinda get the impression that TFL consult them then proceed to ignore them completely on most issues... :shock:

You're almost certainly correct there.


But sometimes I wonder how bad things would be if the LCC didn;t exist.