Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

New Victorian TAC ad

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by [FLUX], Mar 21, 2006.

  1. 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.
     
     Top
  2. Why was she walking across the road without looking, and why wasn't she charged for jaywalking? :?
     
     Top
  3. Their attitude seems to be:

    "People are always going to hit things. It's impossible to change that, but if we get them to do it at a lower speed the death/injury figures will fall and we'll have done our job".

    Simplistic, and therefore easy to communicate to the politicians who hold the purse-strings.
     
     Top
  4. See, I think it's that attitude that actually makes the roads more dangerous.

    Rather than looking at way in which to reduce the accident rate, they're instead looking at ways in which to reduce the severity of accidents.

    The problem is though is that an accident at >80kph is rarely minor, no matter what you do, so wouldn't it clearly be better to look at addressing the causes of accidents?

    If we reduce the accident rate, then fatalities/injuries will naturally fall.

    If we reduce the contributing factor rate, then as I suggested in my mobile phone scenario, it does nothing at all to solve the problem.
     
     Top
  5. When I was a child it was "Look left, Look right before crossing the road" I don't seem to see that message anymore. Now pedestrians aren't held accountable for their actions, drivers are.
    The policy makers in this country are ruining it for all of us.
     
     Top
  6. AGREED!!! if she had of looked, she would have seen the car and HOPEFULLY judged it better. :mad:
    That add should blame the walker, yet it blames the driver. :twisted:
     
     Top
  7. Weird!!! I posted about this, basically asking for the research data, found it (it helps if you look closely at the ad!) and then deleted it.

    If you extrapolate this argument all the way, why don't we insist on men walking in front of cars with red flags like they did in England at the beginning of the 20th century.

    What they should focus on (imesho) is that 'speeding' is not the same as 'speed'. I try never to exceed the limit in 60k zones as I assume that some daft bugger might run in front of me. But all this focus on speed as the primary (if not the only) cause, I am sure means that we are losing sight of other dangers.

    Oh, and the research data comes from Adelaide. You know, the same place that came up with the other 5kmh stuff. In fact, the ONLY place in the World with those findings. And we took it, hook, line and sinker.
     
     Top
  8. I just re-read Cathar's post and it makes so much sense.

    Speed limits. What are they, if not just a random number on a post. Why is 100kmh safe, but 110kmh not? Why is the Geelong R'd 100kmh but the Western Hwy 110 when the Geelong road is new, has the latest road safety features, newest surface but the Western has none? If the Western is safe at 110, why not 115 or 120 (like in UK).

    I know a limit has to be posted. Like it or not, you legislate for the lowest common denominator. But I just don't get the argument.
     
     Top
  9. when that ad first came out...

    the cop says "she would have only had a bruised leg... and WE WOUDLN'T HAVE NEEDED TO BE CALLED"

    it's now omitted... but that's a bit of a big mistake... ANY traffic accident injury needs to involve the cops as far as i knew
     
     Top
  10. Yep, why focus on the 5kph speed difference. Had the driver been in a car with poor tyres, worn out suspension then even at 50 he might have still hit and killed them but the TAC doesn't seem concerned (least not as much as they should) about the number of unroadworthy vehicles on the road in Victoria. Also notice the poor driver training evident in the fact the driver is hard on the brakes and makes no attempt to swerve to avoid the accident - another thing the TAC should be focusing on (most drivers only response to an emergency is to jam the brakes on and hope for the best).
     
     Top
  11. You don't watch many kiddie shows in the afternoon do you? That's when those ads are shown.
     
     Top
  12. This is what I've said to people about these latest commercials as well. Years ago, there were commercials telling pedestrians not to jump out into the middle of the road without looking. Now, these commercials seem to be saying you were going over 60 therefore it must be your fault. If you look at all three of these commercials, not once do the people getting hit ever look in the direction of the car.

    Lets say you wipe off 15, not just 5, and therefore you're travelling along at 50km/h in a 60 zone. If someone steps out within 10m of you, you have buckley's chance of avioding a collission. Will the driver then be blamed for not jumping onto the brakes quick enough, not swerving quick enough or something else.
     
     Top
  13. I must admit, I don't watch many kiddie shows in the afternoon either. :)
     
     Top
  14. I remeber another TAC ad where a young girl riding a bike is hit by a car an I think it wa suggested in that ad the driver should have been traveling slower and the accident would not have happened. It makes no mention at all about the girl who did not look at all to the left or right but istead just rode straight out onto the road.

    I am at a lose as to how they include these and pedestrian casualties into the road toll I and I am sure everyone else sees pedestrians who woalk across the red or don't look and just wonder out into the traffic.

    Surely the only way you can count these as the part of the road toll is if the motor Vehical was to mount the pavement and kill someone who is on the footpath.

    As tor that TAC ad and traveling at 5km/h less and you would do less damage to the girl, does that take into acount the old drivers who have slower reacctions times or driving older cars the do not brake so well.

    I am also at a lose as to how they can just say slow down 5km/h and all will be ok, what crap.
     
     Top

  15. Hm yep ... I'm often loathe to make comment about the TAC adverts because it's such an emotive issue. Once again this current campaign focuses squarely on "speed" .. ignoring the fact that the "victim" essentially broke a couple of basic road laws and/or failed to use "common sense" which put them in danger in the first place.

    As has been mentioned ... the woman doesn't even look .. she stepped straight out onto the road in front of a car .. but all blame is focussed on the driver!!

    Irrespective of what speed the car is doing, if you walk out onto the roadway without looking ... sooner or later you're going to get hit!! What happened to "Look to the right, look to the left, look to the right again"???

    I noticed last night, the initial part of the advert has been "clipped" and starts now just as she is being hit. Thereby deleting the fact that she stepped onto the road without looking. I guess the TAC has either "picked up" on the fact or it's the old .. initially a 60 second advert "clipped" to fit in a 30 second slot??

    There was another similar advert recently that was quite graphic involving a young girl on a pushbike in almost the same scenario.
    She rode across the road without looking properly and got hit by a car. The main theme of the advert was the "speeding" car.

    But, the girl on the bike was facing a Stop sign and didn't look .. thereby breaking a couple of basic road rules which put her in danger in the first place. This is basically ignored/glossed over with the focus aiming directly at the car which was travelling a couple of klms over the limit.

    *Sigh* .. I'm not in any way wishing to condone "speeding" but come on ... fair is fair, (or is it anymore??). The education focus needs to be more "realistic" ... roadways are roadways .. for vehicular traffic ... and there are basic rules ... one of which is about "speed" but what about the other basic rules?? If you don't look before crossing the road .. or go through a stop sign without looking then sooner or later you're going to get hit!!

    Edit" Apologies for this post repeating what's been said above .. but those posts came in while I was typing this one :?
     
     Top
  16. That ad is a complete crock of codswallop.

    What if it was a 70 zone? 80 zone? What if the driver didn't react in the exact manner that guy did? What if he swerved? What if he was driving a truck? What if the girl had walked across 10 seconds later?

    This is such a bizzare orchestrated and highly specific example of an accident - a lot like the 'two identical cars...' who crash into the side of the truck with a tiny set of parameters. The examples used are scientifically valid, but what they are really doing is generalising, saying that going slower will always reduce the severity of accidents, when that is only true in the given examples... but at the end of the day, ads showing girls getting smashed by cars helps them justify their greed cameras.
     
     Top
  17. Take a look at this one again.
    Not only did she simply ride out, but she was on teh road (So a vehicle) and failed to give way at a give way sign.
    In all ways she was at fault for the accident.
    That Add Seriosly Seriosly Shits me.
     
     Top
  18. In Kinder my kids, went to "bike" roadsafe school in Kew.
    They taught them about stop signs etc. Miss 4 enjoyed the day, and was able to tell me what i can and can not do.

    Now why are they not doing this again maybe around 8-10?
    Education needs to be on the other "traffic" not just the cars and bikes.

    K
     
     Top
  19. Of course, if he was travelling 5km/h faster, he would have missed her altogether, thereby avoiding all that pain and suffering.......
     
     Top
  20. Yep .. couldn't agree more ... remember "Hector the Cat" ... and the Look to the right .. look to the left .. etc etc .. song ..
     
     Top