That annoying "Think!" 35mph advert again
Discussion
grrrrr! they are at it again. I'm sure I can see either;-
a) the steel cable that tows the car when the wheels are locked
b) the blatant LIE that a car takes that long to stop!!
Why do they keep trying this brain wash tactic? and why doesn't the stupid pedestrian get TF off the road?
a) the steel cable that tows the car when the wheels are locked
b) the blatant LIE that a car takes that long to stop!!
Why do they keep trying this brain wash tactic? and why doesn't the stupid pedestrian get TF off the road?
And the guy driving is a complete numpty for not letting off the brakes and STEERING the bloody thing!!!
Do they really THINK! that we're this stoopid?
They do dont they!
As for the lemming in the road playing footie, well a quote from Pink Floyd should suffice; "Stay out of the road if you wanna grow old". Serves him right for being in the road in the first place, pillock.
Do they really THINK! that we're this stoopid?
They do dont they!
As for the lemming in the road playing footie, well a quote from Pink Floyd should suffice; "Stay out of the road if you wanna grow old". Serves him right for being in the road in the first place, pillock.
Bloody advert 
waste of time and money even showing it. And why use and old bloody Nissan Stanza. There can't be many old cars on the roads these days. I should think that 90% of cars on the road should be able, at 35 mph in dry conditions, stop within one car length max. I know a lot of it depends on the driver and their ability to drive but that advert is just one big joke.
waste of time and money even showing it. And why use and old bloody Nissan Stanza. There can't be many old cars on the roads these days. I should think that 90% of cars on the road should be able, at 35 mph in dry conditions, stop within one car length max. I know a lot of it depends on the driver and their ability to drive but that advert is just one big joke. 
well,it certainly looks that way to me) 
I thought last time this was mentioned, people were saying that rear brakes on most production car were setup to not lock up. The main problem is the thinking time if someone runs out in front of you, the car might be able to stop quickly but only if the driver hits the brakes in time.
Anyway 35 in a 30 limit can be ok depending on the conditions - we can all see that a wide road with good visability is much less of a risk than a narrow residential street with cars parked along it where 20mph is often too fast.
Anyway 35 in a 30 limit can be ok depending on the conditions - we can all see that a wide road with good visability is much less of a risk than a narrow residential street with cars parked along it where 20mph is often too fast.
grrrrr! they are at it again. I'm sure I can see either;-
a) the steel cable that tows the car when the wheels are locked
b) the blatant LIE that a car takes that long to stop!!
Why do they keep trying this brain wash tactic? and why doesn't the stupid pedestrian get TF off the road?
mate, I know where yer coming from, but, technicalities aside, if it helps to stop people speeding through built up areas it's got to be a good thing
What about "THINK! Dont let your fcuking child step out into the road in the first place" or "THINK - Look both ways before crossing you twat"
If prevention is what they are after then prevent people from stepping out into the road, make it a criminal offense or somthing.
Roads are designed for vehicles!
If prevention is what they are after then prevent people from stepping out into the road, make it a criminal offense or somthing.
Roads are designed for vehicles!
Must admit I was sitting in the car eating my KFC last night on a 30 mph road in Dartford, now the road is quite wide but there is houses and a park in the road, some cars were making mine rock they were passing so fast, one 3 series must have been doing 70-80mph down there, I sat there thinking no wonder the speed campaigners are winning with twats like that on the road.
In the advert, does the extra 21ft include the extra 7ft thinking time or not. What is the distance between when we see the car actually dip (i.e. applying the brakes) to the car hitting the 'stunt-kid'? How many of us here WOULD NOT steer as well as brake?
I tried this test (but from 40mph) in both my Corrado (with 330mm AP brakes) and my M5 (with 343mm brakes) and both stopped in less than 40 feet. This does not include 'thinking' distance because I was thinking about it until the moment I pressed the brake.
When I tried it in my M5 I forgot to tell my passenger and she nearly got a pen through the roof of her mouth. Stupin bint shouldn't have been chewing it in the first place.
Can we get Top Gear to try this out in some of today's typical motors (typical in the sense of Mundanos, Pestscorts, 318's - I don't mean Nobles, GT2s or Caterhams).
I tried this test (but from 40mph) in both my Corrado (with 330mm AP brakes) and my M5 (with 343mm brakes) and both stopped in less than 40 feet. This does not include 'thinking' distance because I was thinking about it until the moment I pressed the brake.
When I tried it in my M5 I forgot to tell my passenger and she nearly got a pen through the roof of her mouth. Stupin bint shouldn't have been chewing it in the first place.
Can we get Top Gear to try this out in some of today's typical motors (typical in the sense of Mundanos, Pestscorts, 318's - I don't mean Nobles, GT2s or Caterhams).
mate, I know where yer coming from, but, technicalities aside, if it helps to stop people speeding through built up areas it's got to be a good thing
I think thats the problem it won't in fact the opposite. I've yet to meet anyone that believes the advert because the figures are clearly wrong. So numpties/yoofs will continue to drive inappropiately as they wil say "well my car is better than that". As far as I can see they are based on the highway code stopping distances. But seeing as they are completely out of date then.....
A far better advert was the "now you see him, now you don't" in which no blame is made just an accident.
AJLintern said:
But why did the biker overtake someone turning right?!? Surely his own stupid fault?
Thats why I like the advert it actually shows errors on both sides. Yes the biker should have noticed the car turning right but just because someone makes a mistake doesn't desolve the car driver for not paying attention either. He/she knew there was a bike around so a good look prior to turning would also have prevented the accident. Equally it shows bike riders that car drivers may not be able to see them all the time.
The whole point of safe driving/riding is considering other people. Thats why I like this advert it doesn't go saying "its the bikers fault or the drivers fault" is says "look out for each other". Unlike the car travelling at 35mph advert which points the blame on the car driver and emphasises it with incorrect data.
alpine-star said: Bloody advert
So you're saying that at 35mph in dry conditons you can stop in one cars length ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff