Irish road safety advert
Discussion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ8oCq8hXps
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
Edited by Onz on Monday 7th May 00:33
Funnily enough I've just had the exact same argument, regarding the exact same video, on another web forum. Many of them still seem to be blanket followers of the overused "speed kills" mantra. The most worrying thing is that one of them (who also commented on the youtube link) advocated driving at 30mph on every "country road" (presumably meaning NSL back road) just to avoid crashing. Unbelievable.
Onz said:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ8oCq8hXps
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
The message was, the faster the speed, the bigger the mess if there is a collision. Which is actually pretty much a truth.
vonhosen said:
Onz said:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ8oCq8hXps
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
The message was, the faster the speed, the bigger the mess if there is a collision. Which is actually pretty much a truth.
Of course, it's hard to argue with the laws of physics, and the "message" taken literally is pretty clear - but it's also pretty clear what the advert implies, and wants people to think. It's subtle enough to make many people simply think that if you go fast anywhere, a big mess will occur. That in itself is hardly truthful. Some of the reactions on other sites are shocking. One person suggesting that they drive everywhere at 30mph just tells me that they have no idea how to choose a correct speed for a given situation, even when 30mph may be too fast.
That's the net effect adverts like these have, whether they come out and say it directly or not; "speed kills speed kills speed kills". What about the overtake into an unsighted bend, approaching a crossroads/farm entrance, and if you watch the end of the video, into oncoming traffic (or did the blue fiesta just appear out of nowhere)?
Too much focus seems to be spent these days on getting people to slow down and reduce the resultant energy of any collision, rather than teaching them how to avoid the collision in the first place.
BonzoGuinness said:
vonhosen said:
Onz said:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ8oCq8hXps
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
The message was, the faster the speed, the bigger the mess if there is a collision. Which is actually pretty much a truth.
Of course, it's hard to argue with the laws of physics, and the "message" taken literally is pretty clear - but it's also pretty clear what the advert implies, and wants people to think. It's subtle enough to make many people simply think that if you go fast anywhere, a big mess will occur. That in itself is hardly truthful. Some of the reactions on other sites are shocking. One person suggesting that they drive everywhere at 30mph just tells me that they have no idea how to choose a correct speed for a given situation, even when 30mph may be too fast.
That's the net effect adverts like these have, whether they come out and say it directly or not; "speed kills speed kills speed kills". What about the overtake into an unsighted bend, approaching a crossroads/farm entrance, and if you watch the end of the video, into oncoming traffic (or did the blue fiesta just appear out of nowhere)?
Too much focus seems to be spent these days on getting people to slow down and reduce the resultant energy of any collision, rather than teaching them how to avoid the collision in the first place.
An overtake only comes from a desire for progress greater than others around you.
The focus to slow people down (impose a control over the maximum speed they can legally achieve) is to give them more time to deal with rapidly changing (unexpected) events & as you say, to minimise the damage should they get it wrong.
Whilst it is of course desireable for everyone on the roads to be highly skilled, the sad fact is that the majority of people don't seek further training themselves & for the government controlling speed is a simpler, cheaper alternative compared to attempting to raise the skill levels wholesale.
Even those that do have further training & are highly skilled, are not guaranteed to have no collisions. Even the best drivers make mistakes or suffer errors of judgement & mistakes can result in a collision.
Any measures taken can only be said to be a damage limitation exercise rather than total avoidance, because when you have cars moving around in close proximity, within what can only be described as a largely uncontrollable environment, some collisions are inevitable.
Of course speed will rarely be the sole contributory factor in causing a collision, but higher speed doesn't help other deficiencies that lead to collisions, it just magnifies them by giving you less time to recover from problems resulting from those deficiencies & a bigger mess when you can't.
As it's a damage limitation exercise & speed affects the outcome, it's a place to start (although I agree it isn't the only thing that needs to be addressed, but then I'm not of the opinion that it is the only thing that is addressed).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 7th May 02:28
vonhosen said:
BonzoGuinness said:
vonhosen said:
Onz said:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ8oCq8hXps
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
The message was, the faster the speed, the bigger the mess if there is a collision. Which is actually pretty much a truth.
Of course, it's hard to argue with the laws of physics, and the "message" taken literally is pretty clear - but it's also pretty clear what the advert implies, and wants people to think. It's subtle enough to make many people simply think that if you go fast anywhere, a big mess will occur. That in itself is hardly truthful. Some of the reactions on other sites are shocking. One person suggesting that they drive everywhere at 30mph just tells me that they have no idea how to choose a correct speed for a given situation, even when 30mph may be too fast.
That's the net effect adverts like these have, whether they come out and say it directly or not; "speed kills speed kills speed kills". What about the overtake into an unsighted bend, approaching a crossroads/farm entrance, and if you watch the end of the video, into oncoming traffic (or did the blue fiesta just appear out of nowhere)?
Too much focus seems to be spent these days on getting people to slow down and reduce the resultant energy of any collision, rather than teaching them how to avoid the collision in the first place.
An overtake only comes from a desire for progress greater than others around you.
The focus to slow people down (impose a control over the maximum speed they can legally achieve) is to give them more time to deal with rapidly changing (unexpected) events & as you say, to minimise the damage should they get it wrong.
Whilst it is of course desireable for everyone on the roads to be highly skilled, the sad fact is that the majority of people don't seek further training themselves & for the government controlling speed is a simpler, cheaper alternative compared to attempting to raise the skill levels wholesale.
Even those that do have further training & are highly skilled, are not guaranteed to have no collisions. Even the best drivers make mistakes or suffer errors of judgement & mistakes can result in a collision.
Any measures taken can only be said to be a damage limitation exercise rather than total avoidance, because when you have cars moving around in close proximity, within what can only be described as a largely uncontrollable environment, some collisions are inevitable.
Of course speed will rarely be the sole contributory factor in causing a collision, but higher speed doesn't help other deficiencies that lead to collisions, it just magnifies them by giving you less time to recover from problems resulting from those deficiencies & a bigger mess when you can't.
As it's a damage limitation exercise & speed affects the outcome, it's a place to start (although I agree it isn't the only thing that needs to be addressed, but then I'm not of the opinion that it is the only thing that is addressed).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 7th May 02:28
True, it would probably be too much to expect that every driver either wanted to improve their skills, or would even have the basic ability to do so. In that case damage limitation is probably the most effective "catch all" method.
How about some form of recognition for drivers who have passed a much more rigorous test then? I know some insurers offer discounts for IAM/RoSPA qualifications, but the last time I was quoted, neither made enough difference to the insurance quote to cover the costs of the courses. That wouldn't put me off doing such a course anyways, but some people might need more of a "carrot" to get them in. Grading licences according to the similar qualifications then allowing a bit more leeway with speed limits may also be worthwhile? I'm not suggesting a balls-to-the-wall "go as fast as you like anywhere" approach, but perhaps bumping NSL up to 70/80mph and motorway up to 90mph, for those who have shown they can handle it to a very strict standard (with the appropriate re-evaluation every x years perhaps as well)?
Edited by BonzoGuinness on Monday 7th May 09:20
BonzoGuinness said:
Too much focus seems to be spent these days on getting people to slow down and reduce the resultant energy of any collision, rather than teaching them how to avoid the collision in the first place.
Too true!! Im not sure if any of you guys are from ireland but if you were you would agree that the last few campaigns of ads (and i do think all it is is an advert) have done SFA about the amount of crashes on our roads. I thought we were making progress woth the one or two "How to drive better" ads over the last while but it seems the government have gone for the shock and awe approach once again...sad really.
If they want to reach out to the young drivers here they should come up with some sort of incentive for them to do driving courses like IAM ( only one on ireland off the top of my head) with greater drops in insurance premiums than there is already. I think one of the main problems here is the fact that you dont need driving lessons before you can legally get into a car on your own and start driving! If more people were trained to drive before the drove on their own there would less accidents, or at least then they could be justififed targeting US young male drivers for ignorance on the roads.
I hope to start IAM in the coming months. None of my friends have heard of it...nor my parents...nor my girlfriends parents....nor anybody i have talked about it with except other motor enthusiasts!! And about 2 out of 10 drivers my age that i know have taken lessons before getting into their car. I am the demographic this ad is aimed at, it would be nice if the next campaign addressed issues like that.
BonzoGuinness said:
vonhosen said:
BonzoGuinness said:
vonhosen said:
Onz said:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ8oCq8hXps
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
Very graphic advert but what irritates me is the fact that it blames all of that on speeding and nothing else...is it just me that thinks its not exactly the speed that causes that accident but the poor judgement in the driving, overtaking coming up to a junction, trying to swerve to miss the dog etc...the very same accident could still have happened had he been driving at the speed limit (maybe not have rolled so many times?).
Surely the longer we have adverts like this making people think that speed and nothing else (aside from alcohol) is repsonsible for all the deaths on the roads, the longer it will be before safety genuinely improves on our roads.
The message was, the faster the speed, the bigger the mess if there is a collision. Which is actually pretty much a truth.
Of course, it's hard to argue with the laws of physics, and the "message" taken literally is pretty clear - but it's also pretty clear what the advert implies, and wants people to think. It's subtle enough to make many people simply think that if you go fast anywhere, a big mess will occur. That in itself is hardly truthful. Some of the reactions on other sites are shocking. One person suggesting that they drive everywhere at 30mph just tells me that they have no idea how to choose a correct speed for a given situation, even when 30mph may be too fast.
That's the net effect adverts like these have, whether they come out and say it directly or not; "speed kills speed kills speed kills". What about the overtake into an unsighted bend, approaching a crossroads/farm entrance, and if you watch the end of the video, into oncoming traffic (or did the blue fiesta just appear out of nowhere)?
Too much focus seems to be spent these days on getting people to slow down and reduce the resultant energy of any collision, rather than teaching them how to avoid the collision in the first place.
An overtake only comes from a desire for progress greater than others around you.
The focus to slow people down (impose a control over the maximum speed they can legally achieve) is to give them more time to deal with rapidly changing (unexpected) events & as you say, to minimise the damage should they get it wrong.
Whilst it is of course desireable for everyone on the roads to be highly skilled, the sad fact is that the majority of people don't seek further training themselves & for the government controlling speed is a simpler, cheaper alternative compared to attempting to raise the skill levels wholesale.
Even those that do have further training & are highly skilled, are not guaranteed to have no collisions. Even the best drivers make mistakes or suffer errors of judgement & mistakes can result in a collision.
Any measures taken can only be said to be a damage limitation exercise rather than total avoidance, because when you have cars moving around in close proximity, within what can only be described as a largely uncontrollable environment, some collisions are inevitable.
Of course speed will rarely be the sole contributory factor in causing a collision, but higher speed doesn't help other deficiencies that lead to collisions, it just magnifies them by giving you less time to recover from problems resulting from those deficiencies & a bigger mess when you can't.
As it's a damage limitation exercise & speed affects the outcome, it's a place to start (although I agree it isn't the only thing that needs to be addressed, but then I'm not of the opinion that it is the only thing that is addressed).
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 7th May 02:28
True, it would probably be too much to expect that every driver either wanted to improve their skills, or would even have the basic ability to do so. In that case damage limitation is probably the most effective "catch all" method.
How about some form of recognition for drivers who have passed a much more rigorous test then? I know some insurers offer discounts for IAM/RoSPA qualifications, but the last time I was quoted, neither made enough difference to the insurance quote to cover the costs of the courses. That wouldn't put me off doing such a course anyways, but some people might need more of a "carrot" to get them in. Grading licences according to the similar qualifications then allowing a bit more leeway with speed limits may also be worthwhile? I'm not suggesting a balls-to-the-wall "go as fast as you like anywhere" approach, but perhaps bumping NSL up to 70/80mph and motorway up to 90mph, for those who have shown they can handle it to a very strict standard (with the appropriate re-evaluation every x years perhaps as well)?
IAM & RoADA don't teach/test you to drive outside the same current parameters, they teach you to drive better within them.
Insurance companies don't offer huge differences I'd imagine, because the numbers involved aren't significant enough to show large statistical differences, between members & non-members.
I agree if we want to encourage people to take up further training in order to improve overall standards, then we need to find a carrot to encourage it & that is a challenge, but I personally think it unlikley that they'd go the relaxed speed limits route.
It would take a large investment to set up sufficient infrastructure for retesting of drivers to our current basic driving test standard, let alone anything higher & from some quarters I would expect that there would be a lot of resistance to compulsory testing.
I can't see the DSA relinquishing control over testing.
There's some interesting points and vonhosen's point about the greater the speed the greater the mess is very true but I guess what caused my initial dismay is that you won't see an advert demonstrating the danger that overtaking in inappropriate situations can cause or an advert illustrating the possible consequences of tailgating...its always drink driving (which, is obviously fair enough) and speeding, why is there no focus on poor driving in general?
It would take a large investment to set up sufficient infrastructure for retesting of drivers to our current basic driving test standard, let alone anything higherI can't see the DSA relinquishing control over testing.
A large investment that could be funded by the revenue generated by speed cameras? If such revenue were put to such a cause I'm sure the general public would be much more accepting of the fines just like if all the revenue generated from road tax/fuel tax etc were entrirely channeled into improving the roads and public transport.
vonhosen said:
It would take a large investment to set up sufficient infrastructure for retesting of drivers to our current basic driving test standard, let alone anything higherI can't see the DSA relinquishing control over testing.
A large investment that could be funded by the revenue generated by speed cameras? If such revenue were put to such a cause I'm sure the general public would be much more accepting of the fines just like if all the revenue generated from road tax/fuel tax etc were entrirely channeled into improving the roads and public transport.
Onz said:
There's some interesting points and vonhosen's point about the greater the speed the greater the mess is very true but I guess what caused my initial dismay is that you won't see an advert demonstrating the danger that overtaking in inappropriate situations can cause or an advert illustrating the possible consequences of tailgating...its always drink driving (which, is obviously fair enough) and speeding, why is there no focus on poor driving in general?
But there are tons of adverts & campaigns over a wide range of issues, it isn't all about speeding, it's just people choose to forget.
Have a look at all the video campaigns
www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/mediacentre/mediapage.htm
Onz said:
vonhosen said:
It would take a large investment to set up sufficient infrastructure for retesting of drivers to our current basic driving test standard, let alone anything higherI can't see the DSA relinquishing control over testing.
A large investment that could be funded by the revenue generated by speed cameras? If such revenue were put to such a cause I'm sure the general public would be much more accepting of the fines just like if all the revenue generated from road tax/fuel tax etc were entrirely channeled into improving the roads and public transport.
I'm of the opinion that enforced retesting would be very unpopular with the majority of the public. I fancy they'd rather take their chances with cameras.
The investment would have to on a huge huge scale & would take a long time to filter through. The current number of examiners struggle with the numbers wishing to take the test now, let alone the tens of millions requiring a retest.
They would have to recruit & train an awful lot of examiners, not to mention the numbers of ADIs that would be required for refresher training.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 8th May 07:35
vonhosen said:
Onz said:
There's some interesting points and vonhosen's point about the greater the speed the greater the mess is very true but I guess what caused my initial dismay is that you won't see an advert demonstrating the danger that overtaking in inappropriate situations can cause or an advert illustrating the possible consequences of tailgating...its always drink driving (which, is obviously fair enough) and speeding, why is there no focus on poor driving in general?
But there are tons of adverts & campaigns over a wide range of issues, it isn't all about speeding, it's just people choose to forget.
Have a look at all the video campaigns
www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/mediacentre/mediapage.htm
Onz said:
vonhosen said:
It would take a large investment to set up sufficient infrastructure for retesting of drivers to our current basic driving test standard, let alone anything higherI can't see the DSA relinquishing control over testing.
A large investment that could be funded by the revenue generated by speed cameras? If such revenue were put to such a cause I'm sure the general public would be much more accepting of the fines just like if all the revenue generated from road tax/fuel tax etc were entrirely channeled into improving the roads and public transport.
I'm of the opinion that enforced retesting would be very unpopular with the majority of the public. I fancy they'd rather take their chances with cameras.
The investment would have to on a huge huge scale & would take a long time to filter through. The current number of examiners struggle with the numbers wishing to take the test now, let alone the tens of millions requiring a retest.
They would have to recruit & train an awful lot of examiners, not to mention the numbers of ADIs that would be required for refresher training.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 8th May 07:35
The crux of the problem is always money. It's highly likely that politicians have sat down at some point, discussed this idea and worked out that it would be cheaper to continue letting people die (not being sarcastic, just realistic) than to really tackle the problem. Life is cheap I'm afraid.
Onz said:
...its always drink driving (which, is obviously fair enough) ...
I'm not even sure that conclusion is valid since I've read several studies which conclude that talking on a hands-free kit on your mobile phone is more dangerous than driving at twice the legal alcohol limit.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 10th May 15:30
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff