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.

VIC The Age Video - Response To Safety Ads

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by adprom, Nov 10, 2012.

  1.  Top
  2. Isn't it funny how the two who don't drive had the most to say about it as if they knew what it was like. E.g. the lady who said that because she doesn't drive she is more aware. I wouldn't exactly say it had the most effect on them though IMO.

    The ones that stuck with me the most is the kiwi one because it is funny and has good music and the one that goes for about 5 minutes with the evanescence (I think) song.
  3. More propaganda for the masses.

    @OP - thanks for sharing.......I guess......not your doing or creation......
    It is very scary to see/hear how many of the public actually respond to these poorly constructed and delivered TAC "messages"

    FWIW.......what do you think is the outstanding consistent factor is all of these occurrences?

    ........Hint --> it's simple.......awareness/observation......

    People get in their cage and robotically drive to their destination......minimal thought required......THIS is the problem..... complacent behaviour behind the wheel of a 5-Star ANCAP rated car........

    Just my 2c
  4. TAC have posted a link to it on their Facebook Site and are inviting people to give their thought.

    Smee and I have already left our thoughts there....
  5. I agree with John let them have it on their facebook page.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Do you realize what you just said???
    • Like Like x 2
  7. when he's not bignoting himself and dredging up at how good he was as mra chief and actually posts something useful then yes I can agree with him.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Interesting that nobody remembered the 68 in a 60 advertisement, especially considering it is the most recent (im pretty sure) ad that the tac have put out. SMIDSY applies to advertisements as well it seems.

    As for the other ones, i dont see a problem with hard hitting graphic advertisements such as the ones the tac have been putting out for the past 20-30 years or so, if they are effective at getting road users to take driving a bit more seriously, than thats a good thing.

    the absolute worse one they have put out (though it could the be RTA, not sure) is the one where they crash two falcons into a semi, one going 60 and one 65. They crash the 60kph car into the barrier that sits between the wheels of the trailer, where as the 65 cops the back corner of the trailer which does massive damage to the windscreen as it penetrates the car at that point. That was dodgey as fcuk....

    Also, i dont see the point in interviewing hipsters who dont drive, how can they make evaluation in other peoples driving abilities if they have no idea how to interpret the grip levels, corning abilities and stopping distances of cars if they have not driven one and dont drive regularly in all conditions.
  9. I have a problem wit these so called hard hitting ads - they just don't work.

    Proof is being borne out this year in the current Road Toll. Seems to me that they aren't getting any car drivers to change their bad habits.

    Time for the TAC to change their strategy I think. And rumour has it that there is change in the wind at the TAC.
  10. We need the removal of the TAC in Victoria replaced by an independent body
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Do they really? Surely there are other factors at play in the increasing road toll.

    Doubt this would be helpful as both an 'independent body' and the TAC operate on the same economic basis. Their incentive lies in reducing road trauma to decrease claims and thereby increase net profit. So I'd guess that a private organisation would take similar actions as the TAC albeit with much more rigour to maximise profit.
  12. ^^^^ an independent body would not have "should not have the government sticking its hand in there pocket taking out money to spend on unrelated projects .
    AAMI Swann QBE are insurance company's .we pay the TAC insurance it's a no fault system .it should not be an anti motorcycling body .
    • Like Like x 1
  13. And I would be the first one to agree with you there on this exact point.

    The Road Toll is very complex and riding a motorcycle safely is a skill. The TAC take a "too simplistic approach" and as has been pointed out to them many times they need to change their style. This message has been re-inforced of late via the Parliamentary Inquiry, MB and MA Riders Division.

    Rumour has it that the Govt is hearing this message and that internal personnel changes are occurring inside TAC.

    I'm not privy to the facts, just saw something that appeared on the Australian Riders Division Facebook site that indicates to me that change is in the wind (expand the comments to see what I'm talking about).
  14. Let's put it into perspective.
    The TAC is a statutory body hence it has greater powers than just an insurance company.
    It funds police blitzes, it markets those tv ads as part of road safety.
    As an insurance entity it is excellent with what it provides for road trauma sufferers.
    What needs to be done though is to eliminate their marketing and enforcement departments as they are above and beyond what they should be doing.
    We don't expect to pay the TAC component for them to fund police blitzes or make those misleading ads. We expect and are forced to pay through our registration our insurance levy for just that, insurance cover for road trauma.
    Road safety campaigns should be left to VIC roads
    • Like Like x 4
  15. +1 Smee(y)

    TAC talk about their so called "clients". If I pay them to be my insurer, am I not also one of their clients? Should I not be allowed to have some say in how they spend my money?

    This is what is at the heart of the matter. Its my money they are wasting......and I'm not happy with the way they are spending it.
  16. Fair enough.
    • Like Like x 1