The advert that annoys me the most lately is the one where the car hits the girl, and "We change one small thing", and reduce the car's initial speed by 5kph. Thing is, even after reducing the speed by 5kph, the car still hits the girl, so clearly the 60kph speed is inappropriate. Hitting someone sideways with a sledgehammer (i.e. the bumper bar of a car) against the side of their knee, even at 5kph, could wreck their knee for life. Why didn't the ad recommend changing the speed to 55kph instead? What if the girl had walked about 0.5s later than what she did? Then, instead of the car starting at 60kph and hitting her at 5kph, it would've still hit her at 30kph anyway. What annoys me about these adverts is that it places the blame squarely on speed, when really the incident could have, and should have been totally avoidable through correct road design, such as adding appropriate pedestrian crossings, and removing any barriers that would/could prevent the girl and driver from seeing each other. Of course, the other variable here is that the driver could've been driving at 60kph like many do, reading some message on their mobile phone and run the girl down within even touching the brakes. This absolute ridiculous infatuation that the TAC has with contributing factors, rather than the far more important causation based assessment of accidents, is what is driving this insane hypocritical attitude of attempting to justify that some random speed is inappropriate because of some exactly incorrect set of circumstances, when really the issue is that the incident should have been avoided in the first place, and that would be a heck of a lot better outcome than hitting the girl at all.