Horror highway smash footage used in road safety campaign

Forums › Off topic › Horror highway smash footage used in road safety campaign

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1550 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 322

ID Verified

Trusted

#974941 27-Jan-2014 09:31

InstallerUFB: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192432

follow up artical - one of the dirvers comment

This is very interesting indeed.
And thanks everyone for your thoughts in this thread.

Cheers,
Joseph

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#974943 27-Jan-2014 09:35

sbiddle: It's just like prior ad campaigns that have misrepresented both ABS and airbags. They write an ad to suit their agenda, the truth (or basics such as how airbags work) isn't important.

Yes, I remember another one a couple of years back where they compared the speed of impact in a crash with falling from different heights.

Basic physics showed how badly wrong they got it.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#974948 27-Jan-2014 09:45

NonprayingMantis:
sbiddle: It's just like prior ad campaigns that have misrepresented both ABS and airbags. They write an ad to suit their agenda, the truth (or basics such as how airbags work) isn't important.

Yes, I remember another one a couple of years back where they compared the speed of impact in a crash with falling from different heights.

Basic physics showed how badly wrong they got it.

The current one showing airbags really gets to me. An airbag works by inflating so your head won't move forward in an impact. The ad showing the woman suffering a major neck injury because they don't reach the airbag flies in the face of previous LTNZ advertising telling people how important airbags are.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#974955 27-Jan-2014 10:06

josephhinvest: From Youtube via the Herald.

I've watched the video through a few times. The blame is firmly placed on the truck driver for being on his phone.
But the car that he clips seems to merge from the on ramp directly across his front left corner, and actually nudges the truck to the right. It seems to me perhaps the truck would have hit him regardless. Is the car also/somewhat/exclusively at fault too? I am always very paranoid about how little a truck driver can see down the left side of their cab and never dwell in their blindspot. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Joseph

[edit] adding the link to this excellent short video demonstrating the extent of a truck drivers blind spot.

Also I would add I think there's zero excuse for a "professional" driver to not have a legal hands free kit these days.

Doesn't really matter whose fault it was - and if they were all paying attention as they ought to be, it may have been avoidable but we'll never know - the fact is that NZ roads are ridiculously dangerous for several reasons:

1) Drivers are not required to have professional instruction before taking a test.
2) The lack of car insurance requirements and ACC engender a 'she'll be right' attitude because there are few, if any, financial consequences to buggering it up
3) The highway design is amateur hour personified, as is the surface maintenance
4) There are nowhere near enough speed cameras or red light cameras - there should be around 2000 speed cameras per island and red light cameras on EVERY set of lights and radar detectors should be illegal
5) Fines, bans etc are not severe enough to deter morons

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#974956 27-Jan-2014 10:08

sbiddle:
NonprayingMantis:
sbiddle: It's just like prior ad campaigns that have misrepresented both ABS and airbags. They write an ad to suit their agenda, the truth (or basics such as how airbags work) isn't important.

Yes, I remember another one a couple of years back where they compared the speed of impact in a crash with falling from different heights.

Basic physics showed how badly wrong they got it.

The current one showing airbags really gets to me. An airbag works by inflating so your head won't move forward in an impact. The ad showing the woman suffering a major neck injury because they don't reach the airbag flies in the face of previous LTNZ advertising telling people how important airbags are.

I think it works by cushioning your face from impacting a hard surface, not stopping your head from moving.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#974963 27-Jan-2014 10:15

Geektastic:
sbiddle:
NonprayingMantis:
sbiddle: It's just like prior ad campaigns that have misrepresented both ABS and airbags. They write an ad to suit their agenda, the truth (or basics such as how airbags work) isn't important.

Yes, I remember another one a couple of years back where they compared the speed of impact in a crash with falling from different heights.

Basic physics showed how badly wrong they got it.

The current one showing airbags really gets to me. An airbag works by inflating so your head won't move forward in an impact. The ad showing the woman suffering a major neck injury because they don't reach the airbag flies in the face of previous LTNZ advertising telling people how important airbags are.

I think it works by cushioning your face from impacting a hard surface, not stopping your head from moving.

They won't fully prevent your head from moving but they will significantly reduce the amount of forward motion. The scenario represented in the ad of a head moving forward and the neck snapping because it doesn't reach the airbag is fake - it does not represent what will happen in a real world airbag deployment. Your head will have some forward motion, but will then be cushioned by the airbag.

Of course an airbag isn't magical - but to misrepresent the way things work is wrong.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#974964 27-Jan-2014 10:16

welcome to the world of advertising

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#974990 27-Jan-2014 11:01

Geektastic:
josephhinvest: From Youtube via the Herald.

I've watched the video through a few times. The blame is firmly placed on the truck driver for being on his phone.
But the car that he clips seems to merge from the on ramp directly across his front left corner, and actually nudges the truck to the right. It seems to me perhaps the truck would have hit him regardless. Is the car also/somewhat/exclusively at fault too? I am always very paranoid about how little a truck driver can see down the left side of their cab and never dwell in their blindspot. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Joseph

[edit] adding the link to this excellent short video demonstrating the extent of a truck drivers blind spot.

Also I would add I think there's zero excuse for a "professional" driver to not have a legal hands free kit these days.

Doesn't really matter whose fault it was - and if they were all paying attention as they ought to be, it may have been avoidable but we'll never know - the fact is that NZ roads are ridiculously dangerous for several reasons:

1) Drivers are not required to have professional instruction before taking a test.
2) The lack of car insurance requirements and ACC engender a 'she'll be right' attitude because there are few, if any, financial consequences to buggering it up
3) The highway design is amateur hour personified, as is the surface maintenance
4) There are nowhere near enough speed cameras or red light cameras - there should be around 2000 speed cameras per island and red light cameras on EVERY set of lights and radar detectors should be illegal
5) Fines, bans etc are not severe enough to deter morons

Boy you're a read fascist aren't you..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#975197 27-Jan-2014 15:50

old3eyes:
Geektastic:
josephhinvest: From Youtube via the Herald.

I've watched the video through a few times. The blame is firmly placed on the truck driver for being on his phone.
But the car that he clips seems to merge from the on ramp directly across his front left corner, and actually nudges the truck to the right. It seems to me perhaps the truck would have hit him regardless. Is the car also/somewhat/exclusively at fault too? I am always very paranoid about how little a truck driver can see down the left side of their cab and never dwell in their blindspot. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Joseph

[edit] adding the link to this excellent short video demonstrating the extent of a truck drivers blind spot.

Also I would add I think there's zero excuse for a "professional" driver to not have a legal hands free kit these days.

Doesn't really matter whose fault it was - and if they were all paying attention as they ought to be, it may have been avoidable but we'll never know - the fact is that NZ roads are ridiculously dangerous for several reasons:

1) Drivers are not required to have professional instruction before taking a test.
2) The lack of car insurance requirements and ACC engender a 'she'll be right' attitude because there are few, if any, financial consequences to buggering it up
3) The highway design is amateur hour personified, as is the surface maintenance
4) There are nowhere near enough speed cameras or red light cameras - there should be around 2000 speed cameras per island and red light cameras on EVERY set of lights and radar detectors should be illegal
5) Fines, bans etc are not severe enough to deter morons

Boy you're a read fascist aren't you..

Yes.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#975199 27-Jan-2014 15:59

Geektastic:
josephhinvest: From Youtube via the Herald.

I've watched the video through a few times. The blame is firmly placed on the truck driver for being on his phone.
But the car that he clips seems to merge from the on ramp directly across his front left corner, and actually nudges the truck to the right. It seems to me perhaps the truck would have hit him regardless. Is the car also/somewhat/exclusively at fault too? I am always very paranoid about how little a truck driver can see down the left side of their cab and never dwell in their blindspot. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Joseph

[edit] adding the link to this excellent short video demonstrating the extent of a truck drivers blind spot.

Also I would add I think there's zero excuse for a "professional" driver to not have a legal hands free kit these days.

Doesn't really matter whose fault it was - and if they were all paying attention as they ought to be, it may have been avoidable but we'll never know - the fact is that NZ roads are ridiculously dangerous for several reasons:

1) Drivers are not required to have professional instruction before taking a test.
2) The lack of car insurance requirements and ACC engender a 'she'll be right' attitude because there are few, if any, financial consequences to buggering it up
3) The highway design is amateur hour personified, as is the surface maintenance
4) There are nowhere near enough speed cameras or red light cameras - there should be around 2000 speed cameras per island and red light cameras on EVERY set of lights and radar detectors should be illegal
5) Fines, bans etc are not severe enough to deter morons

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#975202 27-Jan-2014 16:18

too many see the roads as a play ground and their vehicles as toys. Until that attitude changes the safe completion of journeys will remain a lottery

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#975271 27-Jan-2014 17:45

Going by the stupid behavior and lack of following distance on the motorway I've seen today, compulsory car insurance and income protection insurance would not change anything. Some people just believe bad driving is someone else's problem.

My observation on Auckland motorways and roads is that commuting traffic (morning and late afternoon) is very well behaved overall.

Holiday motorway traffic like today actually seems like a different bunch of people in comparison and maybe it is.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#975365 27-Jan-2014 20:36

This advert doesn't create any credibility for the Traffic Safety industry. They have an important job to do, BUT, they need also to be credible.

This ad reminds me a bit of the advert a few years back of the girl that was running (jogging) and ran out across the road without looking into the path of a car. The car was being driven at the legal speed BUT the driver was the one being portrayed as the one at fault for not being able to stop in time That ad got pulled pretty quickly.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

coffeebaron

6304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3567

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#975417 27-Jan-2014 22:16

sleemanj:

The one that's playing at the moment where they have an intersection collision (bullet time paused, the drivers get out and have a conversation before resuming the crash) is a classic example, clearly they put the larger amount of the "blame" on the straight through driver "sorry I'm going to fast" and playing the guilt card for (we assume) killing the kid in the other car, when it could just as easily not have been a factor at all if the crossing vehicle had pulled out close enough that a vehicle travelling under the (clearly open road) speed limit couldn't have stopped anyway, doesn't matter if you get hit at 100km/h or 80km/h, you're not in a good way.

Of course, what they didn't show was what would have happened if the driver was doing 120km/h; he would have already passed the intersection before the other guy pulled out!

Rural IT and Broadband support.

Broadband troubleshooting and master filter installs.
Starlink installer - one month free: https://www.starlink.com/?referral=RC-32845-88860-71
Wi-Fi and networking
Cel-Fi supply and installer - boost your mobile phone coverage legally

Need help in Auckland, Waikato or BoP? Click my email button, or email me direct: [my user name] at geekzonemail dot com

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#975492 28-Jan-2014 06:38

coffeebaron:
sleemanj:

The one that's playing at the moment where they have an intersection collision (bullet time paused, the drivers get out and have a conversation before resuming the crash) is a classic example, clearly they put the larger amount of the "blame" on the straight through driver "sorry I'm going to fast" and playing the guilt card for (we assume) killing the kid in the other car, when it could just as easily not have been a factor at all if the crossing vehicle had pulled out close enough that a vehicle travelling under the (clearly open road) speed limit couldn't have stopped anyway, doesn't matter if you get hit at 100km/h or 80km/h, you're not in a good way.

Of course, what they didn't show was what would have happened if the driver was doing 120km/h; he would have already passed the intersection before the other guy pulled out!

??? Are you suggesting that should be the speed limit

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5