That new safety (swerving car) advert

[speedy_thrills]

Why are there cats eyes growing from the road in that new advert to try and stop people cornering so fast? It’s no wonder the chap crashed with a road layout like that, in a crude RWD tank like that Ford, in the wet, carrying speed into corners...

[Kiwi XTR2]

Bloody big cats-eyes

[speedy_thrills]

Kiwi XTR2 said:

Bloody big cats-eyes

Are you sure they are supposed to be landmines? I’ve never been in the military (like most of the New Zealand population) but isn’t it traditional to hide them under the surface so that they cant be seen?

Edited by speedy_thrills on Monday 10th September 07:40

[Kiwi XTR2]

Yes they're landmines. Are you trying to apply logic to advertising by LTNZ ?






:wink:

[RobDickinson]

Well, honestly if there planting landmines all over the roads it'll put some people off driving.

[Esprit]

Given that he's driving a Falcon, they must be anti-tank mines... quite safe for normal vehicles to run over

[Marksteamnz]

I'm surprised Henry isn't giving LTSA grief for saying that Falcons give no warning of breakaway.
Does seem a bit of a finger raise from LTSA to Ford's won't come off the slot car track stability control ad??

Cheers
Mark Stacey

Edited by Marksteamnz on Monday 10th September 23:24

[speedy_thrills]

Kiwi XTR2 said:

Are you trying to apply logic to advertising by LTNZ?

I guess then pointing out that they have an astoundingly poor understanding of the basic laws of physics given the adverts commentary would be pointless as well?

[RobDickinson]

Wait till they have blokes walking in front of all the cars holding red flags...

[Kiwi XTR2]

speedy_thrills said:

Kiwi XTR2 said:

Are you trying to apply logic to advertising by LTNZ?

I guess then pointing out that they have an astoundingly poor understanding of the basic laws of physics given the adverts commentary would be pointless as well?

Now Tom, do you really think that they don't understand the basic laws of physics?

Or maybe their understanding of physics does not suit their policy objectives.

[GravelBen]

Saw the ad last night for the first time - I actually thought it was just a Ford ad and was quite enjoying it (an ok car being driven swiftly but safely on a fun road etc) until the mines started popping out of the road. Then for some reason he seemed to either pull the handbrake on, or somehow disabled the ABS system and fired out the anchors halfway round a corner, I'm not quite sure how or why?


The immediate thing which sprung to mind when the voice-over decided to tell me "theres absolutely no warning" or something to that effect was "have they even driven a car?". Even my flatmate who thought 4wd was 'a type of tyres' until I explained it to her can tell when her car is approaching the limit, its not rocket science...


/rant over (for now)

Edited by GravelBen on Friday 14th September 13:45

[Kylie]

The first thing I thought about the ad, was either Ford have been paid a serious amount of money to have their brand of car fall off the road, or Ford are serioulsy peeved off. "Honey we cant buy a new Ford they cant go round corners", "Lets buy a Holden dear".

[Kiwi XTR2]

Kylie said:

The first thing I thought about the ad, was either Ford have been paid a serious amount of money to have their brand of car fall off the road, or Ford are serioulsy peeved off. "Honey we cant buy a new Ford they cant go round corners", "Lets buy a Holden dear".

Maybe they got a guarantee that all cop cars bought in the next 3 years will be Falcons . . . at the list price.

[Kiwi XTR2]

Ford has called in their lawyers and a barrister to draft an injunction to have the advert pulled.

[Kylie]

Shit I just heard this on the radio in my car just half an hour ago. They said something about Ford not being happy because even though the Ford has been de badged, Fords new cars have a better traction control and as I said earlier general public may perceive otherwise of its handling. But I think its shame people may think like this its just an Advert. Perhaps they used a 70's French car now that would be more appropriate. Then they could blow it up at the end too

[Roger A]

sAAB 96?

[Esprit]

Roger A said:

sAAB 96?

Nah, I'm sure I've seen Erik Carlsson roll one down a bank several times, end up on his wheels and drive off... it doesn't work if the car rolls and still looks showroom-fresh!

[GravelBen]

This on the other hand contains some common sense - quite surprising really.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1352084

[Bull1t]

Cant say I agree with putting the drivers licence age up. I couldnt wait to get mine (booked in for learners on birthday etc). I like many other (though obvioulsy far from all) 15 yos at the the was relatively responsible and didnt endanger anyone any more than if Id been 16 or 17 or whatever.

As has been said (though usually not in a pro raising the limit article). A 16 yo is not really any less accident prone than a 15 yo if theyre both starting.

The issues I see for me are:
Training/testing on being able to handle a car rather than just drive it
Strong penalties for breaching learners/restricted conditions
Focusing on bad driving rather than fast driving

[GravelBen]

Yeah fair point, I definitely agree that improved training etc is a much better option than more (or more restrictive) rules. However I agree with the ideas in the article of zero drink-drive tolerance for young drivers (though not sure how they define that - under 18? 20?) and a harder restricted licence test. They should make all our licence tests much harder IMO, so that people actually have to be able to drive to pass.