NZTA ad - They have it wrong? [Archive]

The End

4th January 2015, 18:05

ellipsis

4th January 2015, 18:18

Saw this ad on the television tonight and couldn't help but wonder; if the lady in the car was driving slower would she not have hit the child instead of the bag?

Think about it...

The car is doing 56 km/h at the point where the child holding a bag moves out in front of the stationary vehicle. If the lady in the car was travelling at a slower speed, she would have got to the point where the child was standing at a later time, meaning the child would have been further out into the lane thus being hit by the car.

I guess on the contrary, it could be argued that if the car was moving at 50km/h (the presumed speed limit for the area) it would have braked in time to not hit the kids, or the kids would have been out of the way entirely. Although I doubt that the Ford Focus in question (Car Jam Link) (http://www.carjam.co.nz/car/?plate=gnp209) would be able to come to a complete stop in time to avoid the child. So I guess the NZTA are going on the basis of the kids being out of the way entirely.

Either way, shitty parenting to let your kids cross the road in front of a car like that.

/rant.

...scaring the non thinking populace through shit like that is how money is sucked from one bunch of folks to another...it's called propaganda and is there only to make fuckwits believe the story...you know the story, the one where they do the thinking for you and everyone pays to have more instalments...

Hitcher

4th January 2015, 18:23

If she'd been doing 60kmh she would have been past that much earlier. Pedestrians should wear fluoro vests. These sorts of ads are a nonsense. Roads are dangerous. Inattention kills people, not speed.

mossy1200

4th January 2015, 18:23

The importance of looking before you try running across a road is apparent. I feel learned in looking after myself now.

Virago

4th January 2015, 18:26

Saw this ad on the television tonight and couldn't help but wonder; if the lady in the car was driving slower would she not have hit the child instead of the bag?...

Or if going faster would have missed the event altogether. Or if she had taken a different route, might have run over your grandmother instead.

Pointless "what ifs" don't prove anything.

R650R

4th January 2015, 18:36

She has an air of Smugness about her "the I'm a good driver I don't need to pay attention"... and how the fuck did a woman back her car into the driveway at the start!!! That totally calls it fake. ;p

I wanna see part two where she gets out of the car and goes mental at the girl and her mother "Oh dear lord my fucking new car, look at the scratches on the paint from your shitty sports bag and racket. You bitches are going to be mowing my lawns for the next ten years to pay for that respray"

Actually she will be not at fault in this case. The police wont attend as its non injury, a new car like that will have ABS so there will be no skid marks to mention anyway. She wont even lose her no claims bonus FFS.
A week or so later the scare will have worn off and she will be driving the same. This ad achieves nothing.
Note the feckers at NZTA wont let people comment on these vids anymore.....

unstuck

4th January 2015, 18:47

Inattention kills people, not speed.

Not in all instances surely?

mossy1200

4th January 2015, 18:50

Im saying she had poor awareness of what was happening and also after first child should never had been so close to parked car in road position and should have already had foot over brake pedal.

I love the way the driver in parked car swings door full travel and gets out without checking traffic also.
Are these one of the families that people mention weeding out of the gen pool.

Disclaimer: Driver doesn't possess the skills to drive about 30kph so speed is a factor also.

TheDemonLord

4th January 2015, 18:54

if she had been driving one of those 2015 hover cars like in Back to the Future, she would be 20 ft in the air and missed the child completely

Lack of Hovercars is killing kids!

#Hovercar2015

Murray

4th January 2015, 18:58

Virago

4th January 2015, 19:03

Im saying she had poor awareness of what was happening and also after first child should never had been so close to parked car in road position and should have already had foot over brake pedal...

Yup.

Over the last few years I've run over and killed two cats. In both cases I didn't hit the cat that suddenly ran across the road - I hit the second cat which was chasing the first. A learning experience - next time it could be a kiddy.

haydes55

4th January 2015, 19:26

Another thing to kill the ads message.... at what speed does a car have to be traveling to be able to stop in less than 3m (guestimate of the distance from the point the girl is visible)?

Even at 40kmh the collision would have happened.

Let her remove herself from the gene pool.

As for the driver, she should have been a lot further towards or over the center line, covering brakes and slowing down whenever there is activity to the side of the road. Speed isn't a factor at all. The only relevance of speed would be increasing the likelihood of damage to the braindead girl.

The ad should have used younger girls, that way we couldshift the blame away from "she should have known better" to "what is a kid to know better?"

Yet again, the ad should remove any allusion of speed, where speed is not the cause of an accident, nor will a change of speed reduce the chances of a similar accident happening.

Hitcher

4th January 2015, 19:29

Not in all instances surely?

There are exceptions?

caspernz

4th January 2015, 20:17

NZTA may as well advocate that the solution to a leaking roof is to have a plentiful supply of buckets :facepalm:

mashman

4th January 2015, 20:29

If she'd have been traveling at 50 for 1km of her journey she'd have missed her too... or might have at least spanked her arse with the wing mirror.

unstuck

4th January 2015, 20:33

There are exceptions?

The dude in his pimped out prelude doing 180, fully focused but loses control anyway. Surely his speed would have been a bigger factor in him losing control than inattention was?

Scuba_Steve

4th January 2015, 22:04

NZTA pretty much ALWAYS get it wrong & not just their propaganda either...
But yes if you haven't noticed by now all the propaganda that come from them is filled with strawmans & red herrings, hell give them time & I'm sure they'll even throw godwin's law in for good measure "Nazi's used to speed, are you a Nazi. Slow Down"

Berries

4th January 2015, 23:45

With all the 57's being shown I thought it was an advert for baked beans.

Gremlin

5th January 2015, 00:08

We're focussing all wrong. In Raglan a few days ago, a car reverses out of a carpark... completely failing to check whether there was a car passing... there was (and it wasn't busy). Crunch, into the side of the station wagon leaving a scrape from behind left front wheel across the passenger door...

When drivers are that bad, is it really worth focussing on more complicated matters?

mossy1200

5th January 2015, 06:10

They are justifying a tax machine for outside every school, park, town centre, dairy and corner in NZ.

Akzle

5th January 2015, 07:12

not one fuken bob the week on coro. Not one aucklander in their lane nor doing more than 50 nor using slow vehicle bays.
Not one fuken tourist that can drive gravel or corners.
I feel so safe

unstuck

5th January 2015, 07:32

not one fuken bob the week on coro.

They were all down here between mossburn and Qtown. Fuckin hoards of them like flies.:eek:

neels

5th January 2015, 08:58

Same message as the previous ad where the guy pulls out in front of an oncoming car at an intersection.

The general tone seems to be pointing the blame at the driver who is a few k's over the speed limit rather than the one that is seemingly doing their best to remove themselves from the population, despite the fact that in both cases even at the speed limit there would be insufficient distance to stop.

Don't do retarded shit on the road, or you might end up dead seems more appropriate in both cases.

oldrider

5th January 2015, 09:57

If speed is so dangerous and unwarranted? - why do police always use excessive speed with lights sirens etc blazing to travel to an emergency?

Less haste more speed is what they tell us but do the exact opposite themselves! :facepalm: Just thinkin, just thinkin?

Often see them driving like nut cases doing U-turns etc and start wondering - was that all necessary? - was it actually required and fit behaviour?

Trouble is there is never any real way to know or do we even need to know - other than just thinkin about it at the time! :shutup:

Well it does not endear :Police: in the public perception - IMHO and from remarks heard or even overheard! :oi-grr: Too much TV perhaps! :mellow:

Tazz

5th January 2015, 11:58

That ad is wrong on so many levels.

Good to know it's no fault of my own if I run out in front of a car like a spastic and get hit though!

yokel

5th January 2015, 12:20

That ad is wrong on so many levels.

Good to know it's no fault of my own if I run out in front of a car like a spastic and get hit though!

^^^^
This

bogan

5th January 2015, 12:39

Pedestrians should wear fluoro vests. These sorts of ads are a nonsense.

Nah, it's glowing numbers, think about it, none of the things in glowing numbers were hit in that video. It's a crystal clear message "if you want to cart dildos about in a gym bag, put glowing numbers on it otherwise they will be spread about the tarmac".

willytheekid

5th January 2015, 13:04

LOUD PIPES!!...they actually DO stop dumb fucks stepping out into moving traffic:yes: (Just ask the intersection window cleaners in ChCh :laugh:)

mossy1200

5th January 2015, 13:14

LOUD PIPES!!...they actually DO stop dumb fucks stepping out into moving traffic:yes: (Just ask the intersection window cleaners in ChCh :laugh:)

At last justified loud pipes.
I got them just because I like them.
Now I like them and im protecting pedestrians.

willytheekid

5th January 2015, 13:39

At last justified loud pipes.
I got them just because I like them.
Now I like them and im protecting pedestrians.

Safer communities! :yes:...plus the sound of a V4 750 getting the boot makes children smile :D (But not there parents??:confused:)

unstuck

5th January 2015, 15:09

Safer communities! :yes:...plus the sound of a V4 750 getting the boot makes children smile :D (But not there parents??:confused:)

Their parents must live down my street.
I thought everyone would appreciate that sweet sound in the very early am.:Oops:

willytheekid

5th January 2015, 15:21

Their parents must live down my street.
I thought everyone would appreciate that sweet sound in the very early am.:Oops:

Some people just have no friggin taste mate <_<...at least there's hope for the kiddies :laugh: (Plus, we is teachin them good road rules regarding - look!, before stepping out in front of the V4 thats getting the boot stuck into it :shifty:...all for safer communities!:yes::laugh:

....I wonder if rastuscat can organise us a fair pay rate:confused:

neels

5th January 2015, 17:10

Safer communities! :yes:...plus the sound of a V4 750 getting the boot makes children smile :D (But not there parents??:confused:)
Turning the noisy handle on a V anything seems to make the kiddies smile and wave, the mothers look slightly disapproving, and the dads pushing the prams a bit wistful and envious. This makes me happy.

I wonder when the lighty up numbers will become standard equipment for pedestrians, would be helpful to have a multitude of mobile speed check signs wandering around the place.

willytheekid

5th January 2015, 17:29

Turning the noisy handle on a V anything seems to make the kiddies smile and wave, the mothers look slightly disapproving, and the dads pushing the prams a bit wistful and envious. This makes me happy.

I wonder when the lighty up numbers will become standard equipment for pedestrians, would be helpful to have a multitude of mobile speed check signs wandering around the place.

At the speeds unstuck usually "entertains" the populace...Thank god for obesity!:killingme (The numbers may "just" fit)

-ditto on the V-anything Noise :drool: (I Really miss taking my old guzzi through central, and letting the termignoni's test all the window "flex" on main street :killingme (My god my Old PhatGirl was loud!...but sooo sexy loud ;)...and I NEVER had anyone step out in front of me on that! :laugh:)

Ride safe mate...hope your xmas NY went well :niceone:

FJRider

5th January 2015, 17:47

Not in all instances surely?

Those first three words are frequently heard by plod ... I never saw ...

The next most popular first three is .... I didn't think ... (that would happen)

unstuck

5th January 2015, 17:50

Those first three words are frequently heard by plod ... I never saw ...

The next most popular first three is .... I didn't think ... (that would happen)

Watchoo talkin bout willis?:wacko:

husaberg

5th January 2015, 19:37

There are exceptions?

Hitcher, not all people that die in accidents are at fault, For instance when a driver crosses the centreline on a corner and has a head on collision it is rarely the on coming drivers fault, for not being able to react.
It is most often a result of the other driver going too fast around a given corner, while some may argue it is because of the drivers inattention. The prevailing causative factor in most peoples opinion is excessive speed.
Consider how many motorbike riders are killed in head on collision's where some idiot car driver is on the wrong side of the road on a corner.
This is more often a result of the car going too fast to complete a given corner on the correct side rather than just lazy or poor attention. Of course there are exceptions.

scumdog

5th January 2015, 19:46

neels

5th January 2015, 20:03

The dumb bimbo that was 'speeding' was also obviously not paying attention...

Well if that's what they meant, they should have shown her drinking her latte, doing her makeup, or checking her hair in the rear vision mirror.

Maybe even add some kids in the back seat so she could turn around and shout at them, while looking for a parking space less than 100m from the school gate, while texting her friend to sort out where they are meeting for coffee after dropping the kids off.

A bit of reality wouldn't go amiss if they want to reduce accidents..

mossy1200

5th January 2015, 21:46

If we get paranoid about the possibility of a kid running out whenever we drive down the road sooner or later we will get rear ended as we step on and off the brakes. I struck a most unusual situation some time back where I noticed a tall girl standing in the middle of the road waiting for me to go past then suddenly a shorter girl on the other side of her starts running across the road in front of me and it was real lucky she stopped otherwise I would have definitely hit her with the fault being indirectly the tall girl obscuring my vision of her.

So the barely legal girl with hot legs and short skirt had you looking in the mirror while you ploughed down the 6 year old who was walking on the footpath.

haydes55

5th January 2015, 22:23

Imagine if this driver was anal about her speed. Imagine she wasn't speeding..... Imagine instead, that she looked at her speedo as she approached the parked car. She wouldn't have braked at all before the contact.

On a sunny day, I drive in sunglasses. With sunglasses on, my eyes take a good 2-3 seconds to adjust to the speedo's dim light to see where the needle is. So I lift my glasses up to glance at the speedo. Yes my eyes aren't the best, I have worn glasses most of my life, I'm long sighted. But 1-3 seconds of taking my eyes off the road would cause a fuckload more damage than being 5-10 km/h over the limit.

Berries

6th January 2015, 06:32

If we get paranoid about the possibility of a kid running out whenever we drive down the road sooner or later we will get rear ended as we step on and off the brakes.
You need to consider the possibility at all times. In the ad the woman didn't even slow down after the first bird ran in front of her. I am not talking braking, just moving your foot from the accelerator to cover the brake just in case. Then she acts all surprised when the other one jumps out. Same with the toddler who ran out of the shop, the driver didn't flinch. You don't need to be constantly hitting the brakes but if you ride/drive around in your own little bubble like the woman in the ad then something like this will happen. The risk of a rear end is nil unless you drive/ride like an idiot.

In this ad the car should have hit the girl running across the road to teach her some road sense and then the driver given the exact same injuries with a crow bar for being unobservant. It might seem a tad harsh but you have to think of the children.

awayatc

6th January 2015, 06:58

In this ad the car should have hit the girl running across the road to teach her some road sense and then the driver given the exact same injuries with a crow bar for being unobservant. It might seem a tad harsh but you have to think of the children.

Now we are talking.....

Very tiring to see this mindless endless supply of sticky plasters being handed out by nzta....
why don't we take away the cut throat razorblades....?

ah wait....to easy...?

Berries

6th January 2015, 07:03

Now we are talking.....
I did think about reversing back in to chick #1 while she attended to chick #2 because she started it all off.

R650R

6th January 2015, 07:09

On a sunny day, I drive in sunglasses. With sunglasses on, my eyes take a good 2-3 seconds to adjust to the speedo's dim light to see where the needle is. So I lift my glasses up to glance at the speedo. Yes my eyes aren't the best, I have worn glasses most of my life, I'm long sighted. But 1-3 seconds of taking my eyes off the road would cause a fuckload more damage than being 5-10 km/h over the limit.

You need to hand your licence in if that's the case, your eyes are fucked.

But I suspect the comment is utter bullshite invented to support your post. I often drive/ride with sunnies on too and never been an issue. If anything it makes it easier on the eyes in the scenario talked about as the transistion across the dynamic range of light will be shorter with sunnies....

Gremlin

6th January 2015, 11:37

You need to consider the possibility at all times. In the ad the woman didn't even slow down after the first bird ran in front of her. I am not talking braking, just moving your foot from the accelerator to cover the brake just in case. Then she acts all surprised when the other one jumps out. Same with the toddler who ran out of the shop, the driver didn't flinch. You don't need to be constantly hitting the brakes but if you ride/drive around in your own little bubble like the woman in the ad then something like this will happen. The risk of a rear end is nil unless you drive/ride like an idiot.
Watching it on the telly, the 2nd girl is clearly visible in the previous frames on the footpath, left side of the car (ie, forward observation), so she didn't magically appear in front of the car.