Thread: Confronting but true Road Safety advertisment

Originally Posted by johnyrover

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

Baa baa...

On a similar vein.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8KAaf45g5U"]Blazed - Drug Driving in Aotearoa - YouTube[/ame]


Deano

Originally Posted by johnyrover

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. ............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.


Deano

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

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

Correct.

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......

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.

VERY debatable me thinks

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

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.