Confronting but true Road Safety advertisment

[~Rich~]

Hi Guys,
Here is a NZ road safety ad that is very true, it should be shown here in Aus.

Speed ad - Mistakes - YouTube (http://youtu.be/bvLaTupw-hk)

Just need everyone to see it.

[d2dave]

Not a bad ad. I like it.

[Roverlord off road spares]

Great ad, but we have oxygen bandits on the road, they wouldn't take note.
Last night going through Carrum downs, at a red light with 3 motor bikes at the lights facing red, 1 had no headlights, 2 of them were revvving the crap out of their engines then 2 took off through the red lights and speed off never to be seen again.
I reckon Frankston district Highway patrol should have a perminate unmarked cars stationed 24 /7 in that district, the revenue coffers would be full, and crush all these hoons cars and bikes.
That area is full of hoons and they will never learn.

[mojo]

Yep, it's a very confronting ad.

I've seen some criticism of the ad - the driver appears to be doing 107km/h, which we can probably assume is only 7 k's over the limit. If he was doing 100km/h, the accident probably would have happened anyway ...

Still, it's a very good ad IMO.

[d2dave]

Yep, it's a very confronting ad.

I've seen some criticism of the ad - the driver appears to be doing 107km/h, which we can probably assume is only 7 k's over the limit. If he was doing 100km/h, the accident probably would have happened anyway ...

Still, it's a very good ad IMO.


If he had been doing 110 it would not have happened either.

[Ausfree]

Good Adv, but as Roverlord says, the hoons would take no notice anyway.:(

[101RRS]

Will have no impact whatsoever - only sensible drivers will take note not the target group.

Also the car was going too fast and many will say I don't drive like that, likewise others will say I never pull out in front of others so that doesn't apply to me. Also getting out of the car and confronting the other driver - irrespective of the tone of the discussion is now considered road rage and is now an offence in its own right in many jurisdictions.

Campaigns such as these make the pollies happy but research has shown they have no impact on drivers,

Not sure what the answer is though. I suspect it is better roads, better, safer cars etc as reflected in the lowering road toll. The toll is going down fro these reasons, despite worsening attitudes of drivers.

Garry

[Tank]

Another justification for revenue collecting ad,, speed had nothing to do with the crash, the dickhead that pulled into the line of traffic without thinking is the only cause of this accident, Regards Frank.

[mools]

....speed had nothing to do with the crash....

how so? Stationary cars seldom crash.

Ian.

[DiscoWeb]

I liked the add.

Is not the whole idea simply to get a few people thinking that perhaps I do drive a bit fast, or maybe I will back off coming into an intersection because I have my son/daughter/family on board.

I thought the add was great and sure most hoons will not pay it any mind but perhaps someone else will see it and avoid a collision with that hoon because they paid attention.

Just because the lowest common denominator does not get it does not mean it is not worth while.

The low Christmas road toll must indicate these messaged do sink in over time.

Regards,

George

[johnyrover]

There's no such thing as revenue raising, just penalties for people who think the rules do not apply to them.

[BigJon]

There's no such thing as revenue raising, just penalties for people who think the rules do not apply to them.

Baa baa...

[DeanoH]

On a similar vein.

Blazed - Drug Driving in Aotearoa - YouTube


Deano :)

[DeanoH]

There's no such thing as revenue raising, just penalties for people who think the rules do not apply to them.



Ho, ho ho, ................................................an d here's me thinking Christmas is over. :D:D ............you been 'blazing' or what ? ;)

The only thing that surprises me down here in the land of 'ca$h cow' cameras is that the government of 'The Gambling State' hasn't offered an on line roulette game where fines can be gambled 'double or nothing'. The house (Vic. Government) of course owns '0' which gives them the edge. Can't lose really. :o


Deano :)

[Homestar]

If he had been doing 110 it would not have happened either.

Correct.

[wardy1]

REALLY? I just had a look back and the 'hitter' was about 100m from the intersection (guess).at 107kmh he is travelling at 29.7m/sec. At 110kmh he would be travelling 30.5m/sec.

Using those calculations the result would have been the same as far has hitting, but the inertia involved would have been higher/more damaging (I'm not a physicist... no idea how to work that out).

Would the ad have an effect... probably not on the hoons, but to a family man...... might just make him think for a second.... or 30 metres....whichever comes first......

[d2dave]

If he had been doing 110 he would have been well past the point where the car pulled out in front of him, long before that car arrived at that intersection.

[wardy1]

VERY debatable me thinks

[vnx205]

Another justification for revenue collecting ad,, speed had nothing to do with the crash, the dickhead that pulled into the line of traffic without thinking is the only cause of this accident, Regards Frank.

I don't think the ad was suggesting that anyone except the driver in the check shirt was the cause of the accident.

In fact one of the first things he said was that he was sorry.

The ad doesn't suggest that the speed of the other car caused the accident. The point it is trying to make is that excessive speed may reduce your chances of surviving other people's mistakes.


If he had been doing 110 it would not have happened either.

Can you explain the calculations that led you to that conclusion?

My back of an envelope calculations suggest that the extra 3km/h would have just meant that he hit the other car (slightly harder) a few centimetres further forward. He certainly would not have passed in front of it.

I can identify with the driver in the check shirt. My first car, a beautiful Austin A40, was written off because I made exactly the same mistake as he did.

I was T-boned by a van at a T intersection because I thought I had plenty of time to make it across. As the speed limit was 30 mph, I expected the car on my right to be doing roughly that speed.

However a witness told the police on the scene that the van had passed him a few hundred metres back up the road and he estimated his speed to be closer to 60 mph than 30 mph. The van certainly arrived at the intersection much sooner than I expected.

In fact, I would have just made it across unscathed except that the van driver, realising that he was approaching me quite quickly, tried to go around
in front of my car. So I was actually on my side of the road and he was on the wrong side when he hit me.

So I was not at fault.

The driver in the check shirt was at fault. However, I can understand why he thought he had time to make it across. Let's not argue about the exact speed of the car involved. The higher than expected speed was a part of the reason the check shirt driver made the mistake that he did.

The ad is suggesting that if you slow down a bit, you might survive someone else's mistake, carelessness or stupidity.

[d2dave]

It is not rocket science. Assuming he was doing 110 for a period of time, lets say half an hour, he would have been one and a half kilometers further up the road, well past the point where the car pulled out.

[d@rk51d3]

There's a billboard here that says something like:

98% of people buckle up
35% of fatalities don't.


Ummmmmm, so your chances are better if you don't wear a seatbelt then?

[vnx205]

It is not rocket science. Assuming he was doing 110 for a period of time, lets say half an hour, he would have been one and a half kilometers further up the road, well past the point where the car pulled out.

No, it wouldn't have happened like that.

There was a farmer moving a big mob of sheep across the road just over the crest of that hill.

The driver would have been held up by them regardless of how quickly he had driven from his starting point a couple of kilometres back.

Assuming that he accelerated at the same rate once the sheep cleared the road, the difference between accelerating to 100 km/h and 107 km/h would have meant that he still would have hit that car.

Has anyone considered that a minor road like that one might have a speed limit much lower than 100 km/h? Maybe he was more than 7 km/h over the limit.

I suppose it depends on the message the ad wants to send. Maybe it is a bit like the "There is no such thing as safe speeding" campaign.

[d2dave]

No, it wouldn't have happened like that.

There was a farmer moving a big mob of sheep across the road just over the crest of that hill.


I just re watched it twice and I did not see any sheep.

[vnx205]

I just re watched it twice and I did not see any sheep.

You wouldn't see them in that version of the ad. As I said,
There was a farmer moving a big mob of sheep across the road just over the crest of that hill.

You have to watch the Director's Cut version of the ad to see the sheep. :D

[wardy1]

Oh come on Mr Whippy! You really are drawing a very long bow with that one:D:D:D:D:D

[d2dave]

Oh come on Mr Whippy! You really are drawing a very long bow with that one:D:D:D:D:D

It's not a long bow at all. You would have seen the wipe off 5 add we get when a car hits a girl and she is seriously hurt. They then replay it with the car going 5 kays slower.

At five kays slower she only gets a broken leg. Had he been going 5 kays faster than he was doing on the first hit, he would have missed her completely. She would have walked behind the car.

There was a good animated demonstration of this but I have been unable to find it.

[mools]

Regardless of some pretty silly arguments presented here RE the virtues of travelling at higher speed to avoid collisions (thus cheating circumstance) I think that is a good advert.

They're also right not to advertise road safety to the lowest common denominator i.e. hoons because whilst the proportion of all hoons who die on the road may be relatively high the proportion of all people who die on the road but are hoons is likely pretty low. With activities such as driving that involve a degree of emotional isolation I think it is good to be reminded of the human and emotional cost of mistakes regardless of fault - this advert does just that for me.

I find it hard to view it as just justifying speed enforcement, as some here have, I think there is more to it than that. Besides IMO if you speed and get caught its your fault and you deserve it. If the thought of speeding fines gets you down simply think of all the money your saved when you were speeding and did not getting caught!

The somber and reasonable conversation that happens in the 'Oh ****!' moment before the crash certainly made me think a little as did the very violent body motion of the boys farther.

I guess its carrot and stick when it comes to changing behavior by administrative means. Food for thought.

[UncleHo]

I was returning from a meeting in Brisbane last night at about 10.45pm and travelling at 100/102 GPS reading and at least 5 semi's and B doubles overtook me in light misting rain and they were travelling at 110+ in a 100KPH zone not a police car to be seen north bound but a couple working the south bound lanes :(

[wardy1]

Thanks Mools. You make some very good points and you're right. The arguments presented have been somewhat facile.

The simple matter is that if you reduce the inertia involved in accident, the damage to both the vehicles and more importantly the people, will be less.

Trying to justify more speed doesn't change physics and it certainly isn't an argument you'd like to try selling to an accident victim is it?

[cjc_td5]

I think that is an excellent advert, it demonstrates that all of our actions have potential consequences and we should think of the potential consequences.

The indicated speed is irrelevant. The point is that the car was probably speeding of some sort (unless say in rural WA where the general limit is 110km/h). The road also appears to be a rural road with blind curves, intersections and driveways. We place ourselves as that driver and think "was the speed appropriate for the situation".

We place ourselves as the Subaru driver and ask "was I applying appropriate attention, did I place my son in danger"?

It makes us review our split second actions and ask 'are there potential undesirable consequences for these actions'? Am I taking risks which on reflection could be undesirable to myself or my family?

[~Rich~]

They should screen it before any new action movie at the Cinema that the targeted audience would watch. Something like a new Fast & Furious.

[Ausfree]

They should screen it before any new action movie at the Cinema that the targeted audience would watch. Something like a new Fast & Furious.
I think your idea is noble, but the target audience of a "Fast and Furious" type movie would have forgotten the message by the end of the movie!!!:)

[Fatso]

I was returning from a meeting in Brisbane last night at about 10.45pm and travelling at 100/102 GPS reading and at least 5 semi's and B doubles overtook me in light misting rain and they were travelling at 110+ in a 100KPH zone not a police car to be seen north bound but a couple working the south bound lanes :(

Same thing happens in WA , a lot of trucks here will tailgate you at 110KM/H ( GPS ), and try to bluff you into going faster , I am getting to the stage now that if I notice a truck catching up to me at the speed limit I will get off the road and let them go for their coit , its not worth the agro of having one of these boneheads sitting on your arse . So much for these speed jocky,s trucks being ltd to 100Km/h .

[Ausfree]

Same thing happens in WA , a lot of trucks here will tailgate you at 110KM/H ( GPS ), and try to bluff you into going faster , I am getting to the stage now that if I notice a truck catching up to me at the speed limit I will get off the road and let them go for their coit , its not worth the agro of having one of these boneheads sitting on your arse . So much for these speed jocky,s trucks being ltd to 100Km/h .
A couple of years ago I was driving to Sydney on the F3 (now called the M1) and as I entered the freeway a semi-trailor went screaming past. I was curious as to his speed and I reached 130kph:o and he was still leaving me in his wake. I gave up and went back to the posted speed limit of 110kph.Yep, so much for speed limiting heavy vehicles. Speed limiters should be sealed so they can't be manipulated.

[Naviguesser]

Lets just get the bloke out in front with the red flag. End of problem :p

[d2dave]

Lets just get the bloke out in front with the red flag. End of problem :p

Down here in Vic this would make the pedestrian council happy. The way they are pushing to further lower limits(there has been a push for 50 kay zones to be lowered to 40) they may as well go back to the red flag.

[carjunkieanon]

Beautifully produced advertisement I must say (just found out my cousin was production manager - that's why she spent 3 weeks in NZ).

I reckon it's great that it's all blokes in the ad. Shows blokes can make mistakes, shows blokes may not be able to react in time to avoid a crash, and that it's a boy and his dad really pulls at my heart.

If you're going faster there will be greater energy in the collision and you and others will more more messed up. (I tried for a long time to argue the 'if I was going faster I'd have missed the accident but it doesn't stack up).