Hit me at 40mph and there is an 80% chance I'll die ...
Discussion
ad said:Don't hit me at all and there is 100% chance I'll live.
Hit me at 40mph and there is an 80% chance I'll die ...
Hit me at 30mph and there is an 80% chance I'll live.
Think. Its 30 for a reason.
Is it me, or is this ad particularly odious?
>> Edited by victormeldrew on Sunday 26th February 00:14
That does annoy me I have to say.victormeldrew said:
Hit me at 40mph and there is an 80% chance I'll die ...
Hit me at 30mph and there is an 80% chance I'll live.
Think. Its 30 for a reason.
Is it me, or is this ad particularly odious?
It's extremely odious, and not least because it extraordinarily misleading and pernicious.
Latest official figures for child pedestrian crashes, 2004, built up areas (30mph AND 40mph speed limits):
Injured: 11,999
Killed: 58
Proportion killed 0.48%
Traffic exceeding 30mph at sample sites: 57%
So why didn't we kill more than 2,400 child pedestrians? (11,999*20%) Because we slow down in areas of danger and brake before impact. That's why. Those important behaviours save thousands.
I complained about that advert to the ASA. www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1587 I actually think the complaint is still 'open' - I may try to reactivate it.
>> Edited by safespeed on Sunday 26th February 01:59
FunkyNige said:
Fairly typical of the road safety efforts in this country - try and
reduce damage after you hit someone instead of trying to stop
people crashing into each other.
The road isn't part of the playground.
Teach your children to avoid the road, or even supervise them
properly near roads.
In nearly all cases, the motorist is guilty until proved
innocent.
This ad really gets me going - ask anyone who is sharing the room with me when it's screened.
My usual retort is "If you weren't lying in the road I wouldn't have hit you at all."
Sadly, IMO, it's the result of government policy of a few years ago of introducing "Play Streets" - How in hell can you have Play Streets ffs.
//Rant mode off
My usual retort is "If you weren't lying in the road I wouldn't have hit you at all."
Sadly, IMO, it's the result of government policy of a few years ago of introducing "Play Streets" - How in hell can you have Play Streets ffs.
//Rant mode off
Have you seen the most recent one where the kids are using a mobile to video each other, before one walks out into the road and gets launched?
Its not the message in this case thats pissing me off, but the fact that the "safety morons" decide to put the advert on at 12pm onwards.......
Can one of these dicks explain to me how many kids this ad will appear to at that time of a night?
Its plain to me that its targetted at adults yet again, and drivers in particular as theyre the most likely to be watching, hence this bit of a rant.
Why not f@ck off the likes of eastenders, corrie, and all the rest of that stuff and put your ads in there every 5 minutes? Youd get the required coverage then you dimwits!
and they talk about "safety" and getting a message across..........
Its not the message in this case thats pissing me off, but the fact that the "safety morons" decide to put the advert on at 12pm onwards.......
Can one of these dicks explain to me how many kids this ad will appear to at that time of a night?
Its plain to me that its targetted at adults yet again, and drivers in particular as theyre the most likely to be watching, hence this bit of a rant.
Why not f@ck off the likes of eastenders, corrie, and all the rest of that stuff and put your ads in there every 5 minutes? Youd get the required coverage then you dimwits!
and they talk about "safety" and getting a message across..........deltafox said:
Why not f@ck off the likes of eastenders, corrie, and all the rest of that stuff and put your ads in there every 5 minutes? Youd get the required coverage then you dimwits!
Because that's among the most expensive TV airtime there is. I imagine the Government has to pay for the airtime these adverts use, and it's dead cheap in the middle of the night.
Good advert, though.
I've just had to sit an on line 'speed awareness' presentation and test due to my company directive. It was full up of this 80% live if hit at 30mph and 80% die if hit at 40mph etc. I believe it is the same sort of thing as when you go on a SCP course.
One question in the test was 'what do the government advise to ensure you drive below 30mph?' The answer is 'drive in 3rd gear'. Does anybody know where this government advise is sourced?
One question in the test was 'what do the government advise to ensure you drive below 30mph?' The answer is 'drive in 3rd gear'. Does anybody know where this government advise is sourced?
7db said:
what are you doing in the road though in the first place?
Roads=cars
pavements=pedestrians
people who do not realise this=morons or Neandethals
Pedestrians = Road Users, and you have a responsibility in your big metal cage not to kill them.
I'll bear it in mind next time I'm driving on the pavement
7db said:As a pedestrian I also have a responsibility not to kill a driver or their passenger by hurling my carcass through their windscreen at whatever relative speed there is between us.
what are you doing in the road though in the first place?
Roads=cars
pavements=pedestrians
people who do not realise this=morons or Neandethals
Pedestrians = Road Users, and you have a responsibility in your big metal cage not to kill them.
apache said:
what are you doing in the road though in the first place?
Roads=cars
pavements=pedestrians
people who do not realise this=morons or Neandethals
Pedestrians = Road Users, and you have a responsibility in your big metal cage not to kill them.
I'll bear it in mind next time I'm driving on the pavement
You'd do well to remember it next time you are on the road, too. If you think that, in reality, pedestrians don't end up in the road, then you are mistaken.
Pedestrians end up in the road, and there is conflict between them and cars. Regardless of how they get there and whose legal *fault* it is, you have a responsibility, as the controller of a tonne or so of metal to anticipate their presence and avoid killing or seriously injuring them if you can.
ad said:
Hit me at 40mph and there is an 80% chance I'll die ...
Hit me at 30mph and there is an 80% chance I'll live.
Think. Its 30 for a reason.
As always, ignores the distinction between the free stream speed and the impact speed. The only reason you would hit somebody at 40 mph is either you were going a *lot* faster before you started braking, or you completely failed to anticipate, observe and react to them. And failure to anticipate, observe and react is potentially deadly at any speed. The quoted 80/20 statistics are meaningless.
7db said:
what are you doing in the road though in the first place?
Roads=cars
pavements=pedestrians
people who do not realise this=morons or Neandethals
Pedestrians = Road Users, and you have a responsibility in your big metal cage not to kill them.
I'll bear it in mind next time I'm driving on the pavement
You'd do well to remember it next time you are on the road, too. If you think that, in reality, pedestrians don't end up in the road, then you are mistaken.
Pedestrians end up in the road, and there is conflict between them and cars. Regardless of how they get there and whose legal *fault* it is, you have a responsibility, as the controller of a tonne or so of metal to anticipate their presence and avoid killing or seriously injuring them if you can.
Forgive me for being a bit thick here, but, the only place a pedestrian *should* really ever BE in the road (where the murdering drivers are) is on a crossing, surely?
If this shower of shite government introduced a jaywalking law, then things would be more clearly defined, as would "blame".
Your statements 7db seem to be implying that its somehow the drivers fault, at least thats the impression im getting, apologies if im wrong, but the simple fact of the matter is that ROADS are for cars and trucks and buses, and pavements are for pedestrians. Its a transport system, not a play area for idiots to, well, play on. You don see me (or others) driving on the pavements for fun do you? But it seems that certain individuals and pressure groups see it as acceptable for kids to play in the road.
Imho, if you play in the road and subsequently get hedgehogged, jugged or otherwise mutilated, dont come crying to me or anyone else about it, its all your own fault, the blame lies with yourself for being there, except on a designated crossing.
Back home - we fine people for jay-walking. Ist also biggest means tested fine und applies to driver who dare drive 3mph above any speed limit too if copped) But bottom line ist
we appear to have very few jay-walkers
Und have just returned from little trip to USA - und State we were in also fine jay-walkers as ist "antisocial behaviour to deliberately step into road und risk getting killed und killing someone else"
Ist one thing we put into the "plus" bowl in decision making
we appear to have very few jay-walkers
Und have just returned from little trip to USA - und State we were in also fine jay-walkers as ist "antisocial behaviour to deliberately step into road und risk getting killed und killing someone else"
Ist one thing we put into the "plus" bowl in decision making
deltafox said:
Forgive me for being a bit thick here, but, the only place a pedestrian *should* really ever BE in the road (where the murdering drivers are) is on a crossing, surely?
If this shower of shite government introduced a jaywalking law, then things would be more clearly defined, as would "blame".
Your statements 7db seem to be implying that its somehow the drivers fault, at least thats the impression im getting, apologies if im wrong, but the simple fact of the matter is that ROADS are for cars and trucks and buses, and pavements are for pedestrians. Its a transport system, not a play area for idiots to, well, play on. You don see me (or others) driving on the pavements for fun do you? But it seems that certain individuals and pressure groups see it as acceptable for kids to play in the road.
Imho, if you play in the road and subsequently get hedgehogged, jugged or otherwise mutilated, dont come crying to me or anyone else about it, its all your own fault, the blame lies with yourself for being there, except on a designated crossing.
to the foxy oneAs a Mother, this seems reasonable to me.
I understood it to be trying to influence drivers to keep within the 30mph limit is residential areas. I appreciate I amy be wrong, but this seems perfectly reasonable.
Surely it's not too much to ask to try and influence people to drive a little slower, in built up areas. Can't you remember as children that you played out, and occasionally ran into the road. Surely you Gentlemen are not really so heartless that you actually are indifferent if a child gets killed, even if it is the 'fault' of that child.
Can't you imagine the heartache a parent must go through. Is it too much to ask to use this information to try and influence a driver. You can go faster later surely. Can't you see that they are not trying to affect the drivers like you that are 'good', they are trying to get the message home to others.
I understood it to be trying to influence drivers to keep within the 30mph limit is residential areas. I appreciate I amy be wrong, but this seems perfectly reasonable.
Surely it's not too much to ask to try and influence people to drive a little slower, in built up areas. Can't you remember as children that you played out, and occasionally ran into the road. Surely you Gentlemen are not really so heartless that you actually are indifferent if a child gets killed, even if it is the 'fault' of that child.
Can't you imagine the heartache a parent must go through. Is it too much to ask to use this information to try and influence a driver. You can go faster later surely. Can't you see that they are not trying to affect the drivers like you that are 'good', they are trying to get the message home to others.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff