The Worst Road Safety Film Ever

A new low in road safety films.

All these things that happen are just part of life. Something about “these streets”.

It’s city life; this big city you live in. This big, dangerous, city you live in, where you take your life in your hands – no, put it in others’ hands – simply to get to work, and that’s just the way it is. It’s city life. We can’t fix it. It’s the way it is.

Over a hundred people are killed and over a thousand seriously injured on the capital’s roads every year, and TfL is asking, “what if we let it go, and leave it behind?”

You’re implored to “breathe in, breathe out”; you’re told “it’s time to move on”.

Ignore the danger.

That’s the strategy.

We’ve given up.

20 thoughts on “The Worst Road Safety Film Ever

  1. Donnachadh McCarthy 11 July 2014 / 15:45

    The awful irony – breath in and breath out and 13,000 people have died from London’s traffic pollution over last 4 years!!

  2. paulmilnepoetry 11 July 2014 / 15:55

    Pity, because it’s quite beautifully shot. But you’re right, the “minor indiscretion” of almost ploughing into a bunch of shoolkids.

    • Bez 11 July 2014 / 15:56


      • JonF 11 July 2014 / 18:02

        Utterly despicable.

  3. Paulc 11 July 2014 / 15:58


  4. scott 11 July 2014 / 17:03

    It’s final proof of TFL’s total ineptitude at road design. They’ve thrown in the towel and it’s them admitting they have no idea and aren’t going to fix it as they don’t know how.. This stuff is easy to fix – just look at the Dutch way. UK/London road design is decades behind the cutting edge and TFL have now given up – it should be sign to sack most of their transport engineers if this is the best they can come up with. A complete fail on every level.

  5. D. 12 July 2014 / 09:10

    What a great steaming pile of tosh! I agree that, “Walk away; don’t let it take over” is an admirable ideal, but doesn’t address that getting angry really IS an appropriate response sometimes (like, if someone nearly kills you). What is worse, is that people get angry when someone tells them that they did something wrong (walks into street without looking, then gets angry at bike for nearly hitting them, for example).

    • Julian Bond 13 July 2014 / 12:50

      Quite so. Don’t blow your horn or express any criticism of white van man or the kid in a hot hatch (or any number of other stereotypes). Or they’ll hit you.

  6. Sean 12 July 2014 / 10:31

    It really does ignore the underlying major problems, astounding! It’s an interesting poem and a totally impractical sentiment.

    I wonder just how much this toss cost?

  7. andreengels 12 July 2014 / 12:53

    Well, they do have a point. We shouldn’t be so angry at people endangering our health through minor indiscretions. We should be angry at Tfl and their ilk who fail to design roads in such ways that minor indiscretions do not create major risks.

  8. rdrf 12 July 2014 / 17:59

    The crucial point here is that there is a basic message that TfL try to get across which is fundamentally immoral.


    Excuse the capitals, but we need to be aware that this is what TfL are about.

    Now, obviously it makes sense for everybody to be courteous and calm – but attempts to neutralise the difference described above dreadful It is what is wrong with “road safety” and why we have to go for Road Danger Reduction – reducing danger at source for the benefit of all road users’ safety.

    An danger – to all intents and purposes – comes form the (inappropriate) use of motor vehicles.

    Dr Robert Davis, Chair Road Danger Reduction Forum

    • D. 12 July 2014 / 18:56

      Exactly, I hit you at 10mph on 10kg of bicycle is not the same as I hit you at even 20mph driving 1.5tonnes of car

  9. Matt 12 July 2014 / 21:55

    Isn’t the message more about the emotional state we are in when using the roads having an impact upon safety and therefore if we can ‘let it go’ we are in a safer state of mind? I doubt many people watching this will read as far between the lines as most of the commenters above.

  10. rdrf 12 July 2014 / 22:18

    Matt, by “reading between the lines” – which most people do not, as you say, do = we get to understand what is gong on. And what is going on is an attempt to evade the- as we see it – need to reduce danger at source. A way of doing this is try and neutralise some fundamental differences between different kinds of rule breaking.

  11. rdrf 12 July 2014 / 22:19

    Another point: is it “minor indiscretions” which endanger others? is that what they should been as?

  12. D. 13 July 2014 / 08:39

    I find driving way more stressful than cycling, and get angrier more quickly, cars are so low down, with terrible visibility, and (as a cyclist most of the time ) I’m aware of just how potentially deadly a car is; feel much more relaxed when on the bike.

  13. David 15 July 2014 / 20:43

    When you consider all the fantastic, thought provoking, intelligent and insightful Public Information/Safety Films that are out there from around the world how come all we can manage is this piece of arty-farty trite nonsense that adds so little if anything to the debate?

  14. Tammy Blyden 5 August 2014 / 05:29

    I don’t know how we can leave it behind or ignore the danger when it is all around us. I was the victim of a driver who pulled out without even looking – she was foolish enough to admit it and I was ultimately compensated. But I am still suffering physically and emotionally as a result of her irreverent actions. Road safety is a major priority not to be taken lightly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s