Adverts that make you wanna smash your TV set up.
Discussion
TommoAE86 said:
Hooli said:
JonRB said:
I still hate the Nissan advert where the car assembles itself around the man. I have nothing against that part of the advert though, in fact it's kind of cool. What gets me, though, is the Emergency Brake Assist feature at the end where the bloke gives a look as if to say "Phew. Just as well I had Emergency Brake Assist or else I'd have had a crash", despite it actually being quite a gentle bit of braking. Learn to f
king drive.
king drive. 
Anyone who activates such a system should lose their licence.
ktards, s deserve. Even in the bloody advert you can hear the siren going a good distance before the system activates, maybe if that bellend chimp wasn't so preoccupied with whatever miserable s
te that infecting his life he could slurp up the dribble coming from his mouth and actually drive using all of his senses!! This advert really makes me angry, can you tell!
You win.
You don't get it. The existence of radar braking is an acknowledgement that many people are st at driving - it's FOR them. Yes I'd rather they were better drivers, but as that's never going to happen I'd rather they just don't hit my car. Also there's nothing we can all do to improve standards on here, as those people don't live in this forum.
t at driving - it's FOR them. Yes I'd rather they were better drivers, but as that's never going to happen I'd rather they just don't hit my car. Also there's nothing we can all do to improve standards on here, as those people don't live in this forum. Blown2CV said:
You don't get it. The existence of radar braking is an acknowledgement that many people are st at driving - it's FOR them. Yes I'd rather they were better drivers, but as that's never going to happen I'd rather they just don't hit my car. Also there's nothing we can all do to improve standards on here, as those people don't live in this forum.
True, but the evidence it activated should be used to charge them with a minimum of careless driving.t at driving - it's FOR them. Yes I'd rather they were better drivers, but as that's never going to happen I'd rather they just don't hit my car. Also there's nothing we can all do to improve standards on here, as those people don't live in this forum. What if you built a box that emitted radar/IR/sonar pulses at the right frequency and pulse-repetition-frequency to spoof the system into thinking there was a large obstruction looming up? I'm guessing the autobrake demographic might just coincide to some extent with the tailgating demographic, so, hours of innocent fun watching the bloke behind puzzling over why he can't get within XYZ feet of you...
Halmyre said:
What if you built a box that emitted radar/IR/sonar pulses at the right frequency and pulse-repetition-frequency to spoof the system into thinking there was a large obstruction looming up? I'm guessing the autobrake demographic might just coincide to some extent with the tailgating demographic, so, hours of innocent fun watching the bloke behind puzzling over why he can't get within XYZ feet of you...
Oh I like that idea.TommoAE86 said:
Sorry but I disagree, should we really be giving stupid people a technological get out? "Oh sorry I smashed into your car, I was spaffing off over a post on facebook and my auto-braking function didn't come on in time"
well it's a fair point, and i've argued elsewhere that rather than have technology which exists only to serve the interest of the owner (such as dashcam footage which can be conveniently edited to deflect blame from the owner) then it should be a law that if you opt to have analytical technology installed, then it is a 'black box' to the driver and they can be held as much accountable as anyone else when the full dataset is analysed independently of any of the parties. However, nanny tech tends to step in quite early. I've had to fiddle with the radar cruise settings on my car so it doesn't try and maintain a very unrealistic distance from the car in front. Even the shortest gap setting is still compliant with the 2-second rule. The brakes often jump in, not quite unexpectedly as in i hadn't spotted the situation unfolding in front of me, but because it has deemed my safe avoidance of the situation to not be the course of action if prescribes. Don't forget that the brakes can only brake. When it sees something it doesn't like, it just does an emergency stop! That can actually be far less safe maneouvre than a human driver would implement; situation dependent of course.
Blown2CV said:
well it's a fair point, and i've argued elsewhere that rather than have technology which exists only to serve the interest of the owner (such as dashcam footage which can be conveniently edited to deflect blame from the owner) then it should be a law that if you opt to have analytical technology installed, then it is a 'black box' to the driver and they can be held as much accountable as anyone else when the full dataset is analysed independently of any of the parties.
However, nanny tech tends to step in quite early. I've had to fiddle with the radar cruise settings on my car so it doesn't try and maintain a very unrealistic distance from the car in front. Even the shortest gap setting is still compliant with the 2-second rule. The brakes often jump in, not quite unexpectedly as in i hadn't spotted the situation unfolding in front of me, but because it has deemed my safe avoidance of the situation to not be the course of action if prescribes. Don't forget that the brakes can only brake. When it sees something it doesn't like, it just does an emergency stop! That can actually be far less safe maneouvre than a human driver would implement; situation dependent of course.
Interesting stuff on the radar cruise and how it uses the brakes, given my viewpoint I'm sure you can tell I've never had a system (just standard cruise). I can't see the investment being taken to analyst all the systems in a car and the arguments that would follow as people have relied on extra system to further remove themselves from more personal responsibility. However, nanny tech tends to step in quite early. I've had to fiddle with the radar cruise settings on my car so it doesn't try and maintain a very unrealistic distance from the car in front. Even the shortest gap setting is still compliant with the 2-second rule. The brakes often jump in, not quite unexpectedly as in i hadn't spotted the situation unfolding in front of me, but because it has deemed my safe avoidance of the situation to not be the course of action if prescribes. Don't forget that the brakes can only brake. When it sees something it doesn't like, it just does an emergency stop! That can actually be far less safe maneouvre than a human driver would implement; situation dependent of course.
TommoAE86 said:
Blown2CV said:
well it's a fair point, and i've argued elsewhere that rather than have technology which exists only to serve the interest of the owner (such as dashcam footage which can be conveniently edited to deflect blame from the owner) then it should be a law that if you opt to have analytical technology installed, then it is a 'black box' to the driver and they can be held as much accountable as anyone else when the full dataset is analysed independently of any of the parties.
However, nanny tech tends to step in quite early. I've had to fiddle with the radar cruise settings on my car so it doesn't try and maintain a very unrealistic distance from the car in front. Even the shortest gap setting is still compliant with the 2-second rule. The brakes often jump in, not quite unexpectedly as in i hadn't spotted the situation unfolding in front of me, but because it has deemed my safe avoidance of the situation to not be the course of action if prescribes. Don't forget that the brakes can only brake. When it sees something it doesn't like, it just does an emergency stop! That can actually be far less safe maneouvre than a human driver would implement; situation dependent of course.
Interesting stuff on the radar cruise and how it uses the brakes, given my viewpoint I'm sure you can tell I've never had a system (just standard cruise). I can't see the investment being taken to analyst all the systems in a car and the arguments that would follow as people have relied on extra system to further remove themselves from more personal responsibility. However, nanny tech tends to step in quite early. I've had to fiddle with the radar cruise settings on my car so it doesn't try and maintain a very unrealistic distance from the car in front. Even the shortest gap setting is still compliant with the 2-second rule. The brakes often jump in, not quite unexpectedly as in i hadn't spotted the situation unfolding in front of me, but because it has deemed my safe avoidance of the situation to not be the course of action if prescribes. Don't forget that the brakes can only brake. When it sees something it doesn't like, it just does an emergency stop! That can actually be far less safe maneouvre than a human driver would implement; situation dependent of course.
The radar cruise doesn't slam on, but the emergency braking does. The point I was making is that it only has one strategy for dealing with an "emergency", whereas a human has several. Sometimes you may be implementing one of these when the car decides it is just going to override you and apply it's 'one size fits all' brake slam on. It mostly does allow you to take your own action though, but it's opinion on when to act is different to a human's too. The car manufacturer has to take the highest common denominator approach so it ends up being very cautious.
Blown2CV said:
You don't get it. The existence of radar braking is an acknowledgement that many people are st at driving - it's FOR them. Yes I'd rather they were better drivers, but as that's never going to happen I'd rather they just don't hit my car. Also there's nothing we can all do to improve standards on here, as those people don't live in this forum.
The problem I have with this system is these morons will become reliant on it, one day they will get into car that doesn't have it and plough into someone. t at driving - it's FOR them. Yes I'd rather they were better drivers, but as that's never going to happen I'd rather they just don't hit my car. Also there's nothing we can all do to improve standards on here, as those people don't live in this forum. TommoAE86 said:
Hooli said:
JonRB said:
I still hate the Nissan advert where the car assembles itself around the man. I have nothing against that part of the advert though, in fact it's kind of cool. What gets me, though, is the Emergency Brake Assist feature at the end where the bloke gives a look as if to say "Phew. Just as well I had Emergency Brake Assist or else I'd have had a crash", despite it actually being quite a gentle bit of braking. Learn to fking drive.
king drive. Anyone who activates such a system should lose their licence.
ktards, s deserve. Even in the bloody advert you can hear the siren going a good distance before the system activates, maybe if that bellend chimp wasn't so preoccupied with whatever miserable s
te that infecting his life he could slurp up the dribble coming from his mouth and actually drive using all of his senses!! MAN ALIVE, THAT REALLY MADE ME LAUGH!!! Took the words out of my mouth though...
All adverts are on my hate list. Cant stand the generally condescending cr4p that gets shunted at us with far too much regularity. I have to say though, the ones that really get me going are the money lending at only 10million% apr ones...
ts!!!This advert really makes me angry, can you tell!
Edited by TommoAE86 on Wednesday 4th November 15:25
Go compare! Again! 
Jesus H Christ they have re-instated the fat fake opera singer in a succession of new adverts. Can they not come up with something original after all this time? It would appear all these comparison websites employ the same ste advertising Co. to annoy the feck out of the nation.
I refuse to use any of them on principle.
Jesus H Christ they have re-instated the fat fake opera singer in a succession of new adverts. Can they not come up with something original after all this time? It would appear all these comparison websites employ the same ste advertising Co. to annoy the feck out of the nation.I refuse to use any of them on principle.
KTF said:
baldy1926 said:
Yep its just into November and it seems that every advert is for christmas stuff
Are the Christmas stink water ones out yet? They seem to be a bit thin on the ground so far...See also the adverts for stupid board/card/whatever games. Couldn't tell you what they were selling but the sort of thing you only see in the run-up to Christmas.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff