Thread: Confronting but true Road Safety advertisment

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

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.

Originally Posted by vnx205

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

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.

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

Originally Posted by wardy1

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

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.

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.

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

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?