"Hit me at 30..." Advert BS

[Mr. X]

Remember that advert where the little girls comes back to life from being hit by a fast moving car, don't remember the exact words but it went along the lines of hit me a [no.] mph and theres a 80% chance I'll die, hit me at [lower no.] and theres a 80% chance I'll ive.

Well I have to ask the following questions on that advert:

1) What about the third option: "Or you could not hit me at all" lol? You can drive like a maniac but do it slower is the message?

2) If she got hit at such a high spped then that either means that since when you break the speed is reduced to up to for example 25 mph, that the driver kept on going even when he saw the little girl (which is sick and wouldn't happen) OR the little girl jumped out at in front of the car when it was 1 second away so that would be the little gilrs fault and thus undermine the message of the advert.

And I thought of all that within the first viewing time so if they want to make a message should it have less holes?

[minimac]

Type of car, size of child, angle of impact etc all have a part to play, but I think the point is that averaged out, there is a large difference in survival rates, compared to the speed difference.

[Mr. X]

But they can't sum that up in one advert.

[allaway]

[ OR the little girl jumped out at in front of the car when it was 1 second away so that would be the little gilrs fault and thus undermine the message of the advert.

And I thought of all that within the first viewing time so if they want to make a message should it have less holes?
[/quote]

It may be the little girls fault but she's still dead. Good driving is about knowing when to use speed and when not to.

[becca_]

allaway said:

Mr X said:

OR the little girl jumped out at in front of the car when it was 1 second away so that would be the little gilrs fault and thus undermine the message of the advert.

And I thought of all that within the first viewing time so if they want to make a message should it have less holes?

It may be the little girls fault but she's still dead. Good driving is about knowing when to use speed and when not to.

That's just it.

[Hooli]

shame they dont use the useful adverts anymore. things like the green cross code & how if you walk into the path of a car you will get hurt.

[Mr2Mike]

Hooli said:

shame they dont use the useful adverts anymore. things like the green cross code & how if you walk into the path of a car you will get hurt.

Don't be silly, that would imply pedestrians have to take some kind of personal responsibility. We can't have such archaic ideas in this day and age. Where there's a blame, there's a motorist.

Edited by Mr2Mike on Friday 21st September 22:02

[TheLearner]

Mr2Mike said:

Hooli said:

shame they dont use the useful adverts anymore. things like the green cross code & how if you walk into the path of a car you will get hurt.

Don't be silly, that would imply pedestrians have to take some kind of personal responsibility. We can't have such archaic ideas in this day and age. Where there's a blame, there's a motorist.

Unfortunatley very true. I do notice that a lot of the adverts have vanished though: The braking car in the highstreet one (car later found to have had it's ABS-a-like disabled, rear suspension messed with and showed no signs of manoeuvring under braking); the 'happy slappy camera phone ones' (obvious main road and the kids/teenagers run out from nowhere).

If I remember the full version of this advert their is a ball that bounces back in to her hands, ergo, the kid ran in to the road (which looks to be a 30mph - 40mph main suburban road) to get the ball. Yes, the hypothetical child is deader than three week old cut flowers, but... hardly the drivers fault if he/she is at the limit and a kid runs right out is it? So this advert tells me what? Children are stupid & need to be taught the green cross code?

[Mr. X]

The advert I mentioned seemed to suggest that the girls ran out in front of the car a split second before impact... if not then it says people will intentionally hit the girl.

This isn't so much on whether speed is a major problem, just that such messages can be confusing and contradictry.

[GreenV8S]

Analysis of the accident statistics shows that in the vast majority of pedestrian / car impacts the impact speed is not far off walking pace and very little injury is caused. Survival rates for impacts at the free stream speed are largely irrelevant. The message that you should slow down from 40 to 30 so that more of the people you hit will survive, is utterly wrong imo.

[Bing o]

FishFace said:

Seems quite reasonable to me. Children aren't perfect and will sometimes run into the road. They are taught the green cross code in school (at least the ones I know\0.

And if they choose to ignore - Darwinism at work.

[safespeed]

FishFace said:

It's only confusing if you make it so. The advert shows a child running out into the road. It doesn't appear it's the driver's fault as the child has just suddenly run out in front of him / her. The advert then claims that the child is much more likely to die if hit at 30 MPH instead of 40 MPH.

Seems quite reasonable to me. Children aren't perfect and will sometimes run into the road. They are taught the green cross code in school (at least the ones I know\0.

Obviously it is to do with speed limits so it must be evil and wrong...

It's dangerous crap because it misinforms the public about road dangers.

If 20% or 25% of child pedestrians hit in built up areas were killed it (the advert) would be informative and we could try to get the percentage down.

But in the real world only about 0.4% of child pedestrians hit (actually 'recorded as injured' - which is a far smaller number than 'hit') in built up areas are killed, so despite frequent speeding we aren't hitting the children at the speeds considered in the advert or enforced by speed limit. Something else is reducing vehicle speeds where it really matters.

[Jasandjules]

It also rather worringly suggests that when a child runs into the road people will not bother to brake, but simply continue on at their speed, and as long as it is 30 the child is more likely to live.

Shame they can't say "keep an eye out for brats, and slow down when near them etc.. so if they are stupid enough to run into the road you will have a far greater chance of stopping before hitting them etc..And good driving means good observation, not staring at the needle on 30mph...."

[BOF]

What I tell my IAM punters is...

At 30 in a 30 zone, if a kid steps out 75 feet ahead, you will maybe bruise the kid or scare the sh1t out of him...

At 40 in a 30 zone - same kid, same 75 feet, you are still travelling at 27 MPH when you kill the kid...

We can debate thinking time, braking time, tyre condition, age of driver,state of car, weather, medication, or whether it is 26MPH not 27MPH...the above is the nearest I have found for general consumption.

BOF

PS - This is long, but relevant...
STOPPING DEAD – another myth exploded

Mike Collins a former RoADA Chief Driving Examiner assembled the following from experiments conducted by the Thames Valley Police.

At an airfield a vehicle was driven in a straight line and at a given point the driver applied the brakes to 95% lock (the most effective). The point P where the vehicle stopped was marked. This exercise was repeated through varying speeds, the driver applying the brakes at the same place each time, and the final speeds at which the vehicle was traveling when it reached the point P were measured and are given below.

Readers may be surprised at some of the results measured. For example, a vehicle which stopped at P when braked from 30 MPH was still traveling at 11 MPH when braked from 32 MPH.
INITIAL SPEED FINAL SPEED
ASSUMING VEHICLE STARTS BRAKING AT 30 MPH
30 MPH 0 MPH
32 MPH 11MPH
40 MPH 26MPH
50 MPH 40MPH
ASSUMING VEHICLE STARTS BRAKING AT 40 MPH
40 MPH 0MPH
50 MPH 30MPH
60 MPH 45 MPH
ASSUMING VEHICLE STARTS BRAKING AT 50 MPH
50 MPH 0 MPH
60 MPH 33 MPH
70 MPH 49 MPH
ASSUMING VEHICLE STARTS BRAKING AT 60 MPH
60 MPH 0MPH
70 MPH 36MPH
80 MPH 53MPH
ASSUMING VEHICLE STARTS BRAKING AT 70 MPH
70 MPH 0 MPH
80 MPH 38 MPH
90 MPH 57 MPH
100 MPH 71 MPH

Edited by BOF on Saturday 22 September 11:30

[vonhosen]

BOF said:

Readers may be surprised at some of the results measured

I'm not.

[andmole]

vonhosen said:

BOF said:

Readers may be surprised at some of the results measured

I'm not.

Neither am I, but then I do have an understanding of the basic equations of motion. The results given are dictated by the laws of physics governing the motion of a uniformly accelerating, (or uniformly decelerating), object.

None of which alters the other facts given in this thread, basically summed up as "where there's a blame, there's a motorist".

[GreenV8S]

BOF said:

STOPPING DEAD – another myth exploded

What 'myth' do you think this is 'exploding'? The results are just as you'd expect from theory. This does nothing to support the suggestion that we must limit the free stream in order to limit the impact speed. You need to consider the importance of anticipating and reacting to [potential] hazards around you. In other words it is better to be travelling at 40 mph and start braking a second early in anticipation of the child pulling away from their mother, than 30 mph looking at the speedo and react a second late.

[BOF]

From page 131 - Mind Driving by Stephen Haley...ISBN-1-873371-16-0

"Choosing a safe speed is your own responsibility...

You cannot delegate it to a speed limit - or to anything else"

BOF

[andmole]

GreenV8S said:

BOF said:

STOPPING DEAD – another myth exploded

What 'myth' do you think this is 'exploding'? The results are just as you'd expect from theory. This does nothing to support the suggestion that we must limit the free stream in order to limit the impact speed. You need to consider the importance of anticipating and reacting to [potential] hazards around you. In other words it is better to be travelling at 40 mph and start braking a second early in anticipation of the child pulling away from their mother, than 30 mph looking at the speedo and react a second late.

Good point, well made. We need to move away from the facist approach to speed enforcement as the only tool in road safety, to a more rounded approach, involving all factors such as road design, better road policing, better training of drivers, AND better training of pedestrians, (and others I'm sure I've not mentioned)

[safespeed]

BOF said:

What I tell my IAM punters is...

Why not educate them in the much more useful and realistic 'safe braking zone' instead?

See http://www.safespeed.org.uk/braking.html