RE: Did they Think! about it?
Friday 29th June 2001
Did they Think! about it?
Hitting the child, missing the point?
Discussion
The one major thing that annoy's me about the advert is that it shows a car skidding to a stop. As everyone knows, locking the wheels is the last thing you should do. No doubt some people will take this as meaning that the quickest way to stop is to lock the wheels which will cause more accidents.
Secondly, why again attack the motorist? surely if the real issue is childrens safety then they should also be targetted with adverts like the 'green cross code man' from my youth. Unless this is just another attempt to make speed socially unacceptable so that more cameras can be introduced whith opposition.
Once again lets educate the driver he is the villain of the peace. When I was young we got constant road safety adverst such as 'Green Cross'
Do you know that a human being is one of the fastest and most agile animals on this planet.
Watch the Pelican crossing by your school, how many children use it?
Paul Lacey V10 Viper GTS
Paul S Lacey
Decelerator is correct the quickest way to stop on a good road surface in the dry is wheels locked, (wet is different.) on dry roads ABS can in fact lengthen the stopping distance. The downside of locked wheels is that itprevents you steering the car, ie it just goes in a straight line. ABS on the other hand gives you the ability to steer. Great but how many people have actually tried to brake and steer round the child,car or whatever, most just grip the wheel, hit the brakes and hope, judging by most of the RTA's I deal with (there again I suppose I don't see the ones that do get it right). Someone maybe on another post did mention 'cadence braking' in respect of this add "get real" I have been taught this technique, it's difficult to use to say the least but if we can't get people to use observation skills/anticipation what chance have we got with cadence braking. The add does make a valid, although, limited point though.
1.The car should have had ABS. It was a primera wasn't it? Don't they all have it as standard?
2.The driver didn't steer to avoid, there is easily room to do so.
3.The child was in the middle of the sodding road. Where was his parents? Why wasn't he looking as he crossed a main road?
Why didn't the driver see him before it happened, he should have been observing all hazards as he drove and literally been covering the brake pedal as the children on the pavement were spotted. The driver was obviously badly educated and reacted incorrectly to the situation.
The whole thing is flawed, it should be an advert for children to learn their green cross code - not for drivers to be condemned to hell for driving 5mph over the speed limit.
It also asks the question that if this area was notorious for children not looking and drivers not being adequately capable to drive to the conditions/hazards around them then maybe the council should have had at least a crossing nearby as it's a row of shops.
Education education education.... yeah right Tony B! Obviously none of those apply to roadcraft or highway code.
Considering the flaws in the advert, couldn't the ABD make an official complaint to the ASA as the advert tells us the cause is the speed when in fact several factors are to blame - misinformation - surely a form of government propoganda?
I agree, the advert places the emphasise on speed alone, when it should be emphasising observation skills. But then, 99% of drivers have never been taught these skills, so how could they be expected to know them? People will happily drive along a busy high street fiddling with the stereo, fixing their hair in the rear view mirror, etc, unaware of potential hazards.
Until these skills are taught to all drivers (compulsary advanced driving courses as part of the driving test?), getting people to slow down is the next best thing. Fiddling with the stereo at 30 at least gives more reaction time than fiddling with the stereo at 35.
The ad is trying to make a point and as with all entertainment won't let the facts get in the way! Its a waste of time pointing out that particular model of car should have ABS or driver should have steered around victim, then there would be no story. As a tool to make a point, I guess its quite successful. The problem is it fuels the ignorance of the flat cap brigade who think that it is dangerous and immoral to overtake at speed on a clear road and would sit alongside another car for 2 miles on the motorway, rather than put their
foot down a bit more and overtake briskly and safely.
Expect more flashes and gesticulations from the ignorant, but indignant, majority after this.
These people should be making the films that I saw at school when I was younger. Not scaring adults with rules etc.
The films I saw like: Don't go near power lines. The kid did and you heard the electric bolt and the scream. And then the message came up. I'll tell you something, neither me or my friends have been playing about near power lines since seeing that film. We should be educating the children with the sort of films I saw which were probably banned because they were politically incorrect. Adults are not always the ones in the wrong.
I think its a great advert for all cars to have ABS fitted as standard! ABS no skidding = shorter stopping distance, Yes?
No matter how good a driver you are or how quick your reflexes, in a situation we would all probably stamp on the brakes (not to recommended pumping to avoid locking up!).
This advert just makes the point that ABS is a life saver!
Thanks, Golders
http://www.geocities.com/golders_uk/
Cheers,
Golders
I couldn't disagree more. Driver’s aids like ABS are excellent systems but that is all they are an AID. People who believe that ABS is the "life saver" tend to evolve into "Volvo driver syndrome". In that the driver drives quicker/inappropriately because the perceived risk is less to them. ie "my car has ABS so I stop in a shorter distance" = "I can drive closer to the car in front and still stop" (or "I can do 35mph in a built up area with kids in the street"
. When in fact ABS (if you have been reading the above posts) only makes a major difference in WET conditions, in the dry there is little in comparison to locked brakes.
The more people learn about good observation and where appropriately slowing down prior to being in the incident the better. A friend of mine once said "I could cut down on speeding in one go... how? By fitting a large spike in front of the driver!!" (No, I'm not suggesting it’s a good idea!) The key to cutting accidents is by education NOT by relying on safety equipment to “get you out” of a situation.
. When in fact ABS (if you have been reading the above posts) only makes a major difference in WET conditions, in the dry there is little in comparison to locked brakes.
The more people learn about good observation and where appropriately slowing down prior to being in the incident the better. A friend of mine once said "I could cut down on speeding in one go... how? By fitting a large spike in front of the driver!!" (No, I'm not suggesting it’s a good idea!) The key to cutting accidents is by education NOT by relying on safety equipment to “get you out” of a situation.
I agree that this advert possibly gives the impression that you are safe AS LONG AS YOU DRIVE AT 30mph, thus ignoring other factors.
However, I reckon any advert that, in the style of the old Power Lines advert, makes us think about Bad Things that can happen while driving is probably a good idea.
Maybe, for balance, we should write to the department responsible for this and insist that they make a few follow-up ads e.g.
- Bloke on mobile phone, 3" from the car in front in the pouring rain, causes horrific accident.
- Woman driving at 29mph down busy high St with screaming kids in the back and a misted up windscreen causes horrific accident.
etc...
MattC - well volunteered
Actually I agree with you - there needs to be some recognition that there are other causes of accidents and that if we can cut down on them as well as persauding people to slow down a bit then that can only benefit everyone.
I happen to think that the ad works at a certain level (admittedly quite low !) on the basis that it *might* make people more aware of their actions. I think it's probably fair to say that the sort of speeding people with sports cars, i.e. us lot, get up to (open roads, driving quickly for the enjoyment of it, etc.) and the sort of speeders this ad is aimed at are very different (charging around busy urban areas in too much of a rush to pay attention to other road users, etc.).
An unfortunate consequence of the media today is that it seems that only shock tactics work on us, i.e. showing a little kid (dummy) being battered by a car is the only way they feel they can get the message across. Sadly I think too many of us are hardened (or at least ambivalent) to these images as a result of a) knowing it's not real and b) thinking we know it all, and it takes progressively stronger and stronger images to get the message across.
The approach on the BBC programme "So you think you're a good driver" is quite good, i.e. film someone and then scare the crap out of them with an idea of what *might* happen if they got it wrong, but I think that works because it's personal to that person. The rest of us walk away with a "couldn't happen to me" attitude. Interestingly next week's programme features an "enthusiastic" biker so it will be interesting to see his before and after reactions.
Actually I agree with you - there needs to be some recognition that there are other causes of accidents and that if we can cut down on them as well as persauding people to slow down a bit then that can only benefit everyone.
I happen to think that the ad works at a certain level (admittedly quite low !) on the basis that it *might* make people more aware of their actions. I think it's probably fair to say that the sort of speeding people with sports cars, i.e. us lot, get up to (open roads, driving quickly for the enjoyment of it, etc.) and the sort of speeders this ad is aimed at are very different (charging around busy urban areas in too much of a rush to pay attention to other road users, etc.).
An unfortunate consequence of the media today is that it seems that only shock tactics work on us, i.e. showing a little kid (dummy) being battered by a car is the only way they feel they can get the message across. Sadly I think too many of us are hardened (or at least ambivalent) to these images as a result of a) knowing it's not real and b) thinking we know it all, and it takes progressively stronger and stronger images to get the message across.
The approach on the BBC programme "So you think you're a good driver" is quite good, i.e. film someone and then scare the crap out of them with an idea of what *might* happen if they got it wrong, but I think that works because it's personal to that person. The rest of us walk away with a "couldn't happen to me" attitude. Interestingly next week's programme features an "enthusiastic" biker so it will be interesting to see his before and after reactions. 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff