PDA

View Full Version : Public stupidity announcement



sAsLEX
7th April 2004, 11:06
Was watching the new anti-speed ad on TV the other day.

Situation two modern cars heading along a straight road one at 60 the other at 65, truck pulls out and both brake hard. The ad in my poinion is flawwed in many ways.
1. One car crashes into the flat side of the truck for minimal damage , the other "speeding car" catches the rear of the trailer on the windscreen, not quite comparable in my view!!

2. Why dont they turn?? At that speed with ABS, or even without, it would be comparitively easy to turn out of the way of the truck!!

3.Target Fixation, why is this not addressed, this would have to one of the major cause of crashes in this country! People are constantly crashing into the only tree powerpole around for ages all because the only traing they receive through the government and LTSA is for hazard identification, which they duly identify and drive straight into.

Its about time that someone relises that speed alone does not cause half of the major accidents.

James Deuce
7th April 2004, 11:15
Was watching the new anit-speed ad on TV the other day.

Situation two modern cars heading along a straight road one at 60 the other at 65, truck pulls out and both brake hard. The ad in my poinion is flawwed in many ways.
1. One car crashes into the flat side of the truck for minimal damage , the other "speeding car" catches the rear of the trailer on the windscreen, not quite comparable in my view!!

2. Why dont they turn?? At that speed with ABS, or even without, it would be comparitively easy to turn out of the way of the truck!!

3.Target Fixation, why is this not addressed, this would have to one of the major cause of crashes in this country! People are constantly crashing into the only tree powerpole around for ages all because the only traing they receive through the government and LTSA is for hazard identification, which they duly identify and drive straight into.

Its about time that someone relises that speed alone does not cause half of the major accidents.

Saw it last night for the 1st time too. I call BS too!

It is a misconception that ABS fitted to passenger cars helps you stop quicker. It is there to allow you to steer while braking as this is a skill out of reach of most drivers. Performance Bikes did a test against an ABS equipped car and even a Valkyrie out-braked the car which had traction control, yaw control, and ABS - IN THE WET!

I think those drivers both deserved a nice big forehead dent for having:

a. A crap reaction time
b. crap reactions and threat id.
c. accepting money from the LTSA to be in one of their BIG FAT LIE adverts.

White trash
7th April 2004, 11:25
But in saying that, it is probably the best shot ad I've ever seen.

That guy walking in and out of the cars while they're braking in slow motion is pretty cool.

I like it. Doesn't slow me down though.

sAsLEX
7th April 2004, 11:48
It is a misconception that ABS fitted to passenger cars helps you stop quicker. It is there to allow you to steer while braking as this is a skill out of reach of most drivers.

Yeah, got to play with this at the Holden Advanced Driving school, braking hard from 60-80 and turning with and without ABS, and using different braking techniques

750Y
7th April 2004, 11:59
yet at the same time they have that alpha romeo ad something about "put your foot down". dam hypocrites. i don't think the establishment are reading off the same page somehow.

jrandom
7th April 2004, 12:00
But in saying that, it is probably the best shot ad I've ever seen.

It should be. You paid for it. Glad you're happy.

Motoracer
7th April 2004, 12:17
I thought it was a bit silly as well but I reckon their sole purpose was to demonstrate how much difference there is in the impact speed when the intial speeds are different. It goes with their strong message of cuting down on speed alone to begin with. Thats what I thought anyway.

White trash
7th April 2004, 12:19
It should be. You paid for it. Glad you're happy.

Fuck it. They're going to spend millions incorrectly to get a message through to people who don't aggree with it anyway. Might as well be entertaining!

k14
7th April 2004, 12:31
It just shows one thing, they have too much fucking money. Too many speeding tickets so they have money to waste on these high budget ads, that tell most people shit.

He says that half the speed is wiped off in the last 5m of brakeing, wonder if that is true, or just some more propaganda.

Another thing i thought it showed was that fords suck!! :msn-wink:

spudchucka
7th April 2004, 12:37
3.Target Fixation, why is this not addressed, this would have to one of the major cause of crashes in this country! People are constantly crashing into the only tree powerpole around for ages all because the only traing they receive through the government and LTSA is for hazard identification, which they duly identify and drive straight into.

Its about time that someone relises that speed alone does not cause half of the major accidents.
Good point about target fixation.

Speed alone may not cause the crashes in the majority of cases but it sure as hell has a lot to do with the damage that results in a crash.

White trash
7th April 2004, 12:40
Not propoganda.

Do the test yourself.

Find a big empty carpark, mark a spot. Ride towards the spot at 30kph, hit the brakes on the mark and stop asap.

Measure your distance.

Now perform the same test at 60kph.

You'd think it takes twice as much room. You'll be amazed, I promise.

Now bear that in mind when you're doing 200kph through a blind sweeper on a road you don't travel often

jrandom
7th April 2004, 12:52
demonstrate how much difference there is in the impact speed when the intial speeds are different

The point, I think, is more an attempt to demonstrate the implications of the fact that kinetic energy is a function of velocity SQUARED.

If any of you run ballistics software, try inputting the parameters for a 1500kg car moving at, say, 80kph, and compare the go-splat terminal energy to, say, a 750 grain .50BMG projectile at 1 metre from the muzzle. Then you'll understand why getting hit by a car is so hurty.

[edit: if you don't have the software handy and still want to work it out, that's 1500kg at 80kph vs ~50 grams at ~3000kph]

MD
7th April 2004, 13:02
WTs right, its an entertaining ad that's got people talking. Any anti-speed ad iritates me but there's no escaping the fact that impact is the killer. Its not the falling off a tall building that kills you - its the sudden stop at the bottom. Thats the point of the add. Nothing to do with ABS, reaction times blah blah - just impact.
Saslex & Jim may have missed the point but you're right, where is the education on target fixation, driving to the environment... and all the other driving habits that are the true cause of most crashes. Speed contributes and certainly determines the seriousness but on it own it doesn't usually 'trigger' the start of a crash.

k14
7th April 2004, 15:10
Not propoganda.

Do the test yourself.

Find a big empty carpark, mark a spot. Ride towards the spot at 30kph, hit the brakes on the mark and stop asap.

Measure your distance.

Now perform the same test at 60kph.

You'd think it takes twice as much room. You'll be amazed, I promise.

Now bear that in mind when you're doing 200kph through a blind sweeper on a road you don't travel often

Your exactly right, if you double the speed the energy goes up by a factor of four. So if the conditions are identicle for both runs the distance to stop will be more (but probably not 4 times more, maybe twice depending on brakes and tyres etc).

But what the point that we are trying to make is that the target could have easily been avoided and that it is just a stupid and expensive ad.

They could have spent the money on roads or something constructive.

Ms Piggy
7th April 2004, 15:16
I thought it was a bit silly as well but I reckon their sole purpose was to demonstrate how much difference there is in the impact speed when the intial speeds are different. It goes with their strong message of cuting down on speed alone to begin with. Thats what I thought anyway.

Yeah this is wot I thought too.

White trash
7th April 2004, 15:23
I agree. (mostly)

However, as Mark pointed out, we're talking about the ad aren't we? Wether it's pointless or not is irrellevant. You noticed it, I noticed it and everybody else on this site noticed it. Good ad!

Advertising agencies reckon that the most effective ads are the annoying bastards that stick in your mind and you hate.

I'm the first to admit that I ride fairly quickly on open roads and wont be slowing down but it still makes me think.

James Deuce
7th April 2004, 15:42
WTs right, its an entertaining ad that's got people talking. Any anti-speed ad iritates me but there's no escaping the fact that impact is the killer. Its not the falling off a tall building that kills you - its the sudden stop at the bottom. Thats the point of the add. Nothing to do with ABS, reaction times blah blah - just impact.
Saslex & Jim may have missed the point but you're right, where is the education on target fixation, driving to the environment... and all the other driving habits that are the true cause of most crashes. Speed contributes and certainly determines the seriousness but on it own it doesn't usually 'trigger' the start of a crash.

Didn't miss the point at all. It is seriously patronising to everyone who did 5th form/year 10 physics, and ignores the fact that driver education will save more lives than beating people with the scary stick. As far as making me think, it makes me think, "Oh, good, a government agency thinks I'm an idiot and thoroughly incapable of making decisions or educating myself."

Until people understand the difference between speed and relative velocity and it's relationship to energy in this type of situation, the point the LTSA is making is in the realms of the psuedo science arena. If you're going to spend my money, I should get something out of it.

Jackrat
7th April 2004, 15:57
Yeah this is wot I thought too.

Me too,I mean if they where trying to teach the average car driver anything more than simple,this is what happens if.
Well the add would have been two hours long an still wouldn't work.
These adds are not intended to do any more than get one single point across,
In this context it is a good add.You are reading more into it than was intended.Remember it was not aimed at bikers who already know about riding around things rather than just locking it up an praying like most car only drivers would do.I do agree with you as far as it looking pretty stupid from our point of veiw though.I also took one look an thought,why not just drive around the thing,but those other road users out there don,t think like us.

vifferman
7th April 2004, 16:20
Well, I liked the ad, and as we have 4 drivers in our household (me, the wife, and two boys), it prompted a lot of discussion. Of course the arrogant 17 year-old thought it was crap, and that he could've stopped in a few metres cause he's so HIGHLY SKILLED and has LIGHTNING REACTIONS. :laugh:

What was I on about....? :Oops: Oh yeah - I reckon, that seeing they're making shitloads of money from speeders, and the road toll is going up regardless of all their stupid ideas, they should ENCOURAGE people to speed. Then they'd have even more money to employ people to make stupid ads. :laugh:

Posh Tourer :P
7th April 2004, 20:12
Your exactly right, if you double the speed the energy goes up by a factor of four. So if the conditions are identicle for both runs the distance to stop will be more (but probably not 4 times more, maybe twice depending on brakes and tyres etc).

But what the point that we are trying to make is that the target could have easily been avoided and that it is just a stupid and expensive ad.

They could have spent the money on roads or something constructive.

Yeah, but that is not the point. put yourself on a two lane road with a car parked on one side. Whether the accident in that scenario could be avoided or not, it couldnt have been in some other circumstances. The ad is well shot cos it isnt cluttered. The lack of other obstacles and other things is for dramatic effect. A real life ad would be less direct and visually impacting

Jackrat
7th April 2004, 20:39
I like the new add with the guy buried on the gravel road.
Cracked up big time first time I saw that. :laugh:

Two Smoker
7th April 2004, 20:52
I like the new add with the guy buried on the gravel road.
Cracked up big time first time I saw that. :laugh:
shit yes that was a crack up :lol: have you seen the one where he is trapped by the bed????? hehehe

As for the ad, fuck the ad they should spending the $$$ on promoting and teaching better driving skills habits and hazard identification and avoidance......

speedpro
7th April 2004, 20:58
I could be wrong (again) but I just did some simple maths. Two identical cars, one doing 50K the other 100K. If they both jam on the brakes at the same time by the time the 50K car stops the 100K car is still doing 86.6K. That is supposing that the brakes dissipate energy at the same rate, which they won't because of the differance in speed but the tyres can only supply so much traction so . . . . . .

simple maths, aye, but probably not too far out.

jimbo600
7th April 2004, 21:05
"But in saying that, it is probably the best shot ad I've ever seen.

That guy walking in and out of the cars while they're braking in slow motion is pretty cool.

I like it. Doesn't slow me down though."

Be good if I could do that in a porno movie.

Andrew
7th April 2004, 21:25
Your exactly right, if you double the speed the energy goes up by a factor of four. So if the conditions are identicle for both runs the distance to stop will be more (but probably not 4 times more, maybe twice depending on brakes and tyres etc).

But what the point that we are trying to make is that the target could have easily been avoided and that it is just a stupid and expensive ad.

They could have spent the money on roads or something constructive.

Ek = 1/2mV^2

Marmoot
7th April 2004, 21:34
but you have to agree with White Trash, that was the best special effects shots in a propaganda machine I've ever seen. The guy walking in and out of slow-mo scene is just so cool.

johno
7th April 2004, 21:48
What bugs me is the the spin they put on it of which is the most important fact. They have an impact result of two cars, of considerable mass, one of which is travelling proportionately very much quicker than the other at the point of impact, and we are supposed to marvel at the difference in the damage. We are told it is because of the starting speed difference of only 5kph more at start-to-brake time. This is possibly correct, but is an optimum moment. What is the risk factor of such an optimum moment. Given a little change in parameters, say the truck is 10 metres further away, would both cars have stopped? Not such a convincing add then. Given the truck is a bit closer, would the damage difference proportionately to each other be a lot less? I bet one of you guys could draw a graph- The worst demo I have ever had was at school swimming safety. To demondtrate the unsafeness of wearing jeans in the water, jeans were weighed dry, and then dipped into a bucket and reweighed. Wow, you can't argue with that!

k14
7th April 2004, 22:28
I could be wrong (again) but I just did some simple maths. Two identical cars, one doing 50K the other 100K. If they both jam on the brakes at the same time by the time the 50K car stops the 100K car is still doing 86.6K. That is supposing that the brakes dissipate energy at the same rate, which they won't because of the differance in speed but the tyres can only supply so much traction so . . . . . .

simple maths, aye, but probably not too far out.

Might you be able to elaborate as to how you got that answer?

bikerboy
7th April 2004, 22:59
The ad is flawed for several reasons. The point of any ad is to convey a message, and the message here is pure physics, and nothing else. I thought it was a traffic safety ad, not a physics lesson.

Auto, motor und sport, a german car program, reviews various makes of cars from the same size group, in comparison tests. These cars are different manufacturers version of the same type car. They always do a braking test from the same speed. The stopping differences alway vary from half a metre to several metres.

So, would a Holden stopped a metre shorter than the Ford at the same speed? Would it stop at the same distance at a higher speed? Perhaps that is why they used the same car, would have been rather embarassing if both stopped before impact with one car traveling faster. :eek5:

Jackrat
7th April 2004, 23:14
What bugs me is the the spin they put on it of which is the most important fact. They have an impact result of two cars, of considerable mass, one of which is travelling proportionately very much quicker than the other at the point of impact, and we are supposed to marvel at the difference in the damage. We are told it is because of the starting speed difference of only 5kph more at start-to-brake time. This is possibly correct, but is an optimum moment. What is the risk factor of such an optimum moment. Given a little change in parameters, say the truck is 10 metres further away, would both cars have stopped? Not such a convincing add then. Given the truck is a bit closer, would the damage difference proportionately to each other be a lot less? I bet one of you guys could draw a graph- The worst demo I have ever had was at school swimming safety. To demondtrate the unsafeness of wearing jeans in the water, jeans were weighed dry, and then dipped into a bucket and reweighed. Wow, you can't argue with that!

Pretty one eyed way of looking at things,May not of been the best demo' but are you stupid enough to swim in jeans on the west coast?.
Weather the demo' was any good or not the message was very real.And the message in this add you all find so worrying is also very real.
To all you guys that think it is just propoganda,prove it's not true,To a lot of people it is a good add,it does point out the difference in impacts from different speeds.And lets hear a better idea from any of you know it alls.So you want your money spent on education,hell there it is,whats your problem.The same goes for the two most resent adds with the guy on the gravel road an the guy with the unsafe load.Shit you want to see education but when you get it your still not bloody happy.You certainly don't need lessons on being Drama queen bitches thats for sure.You can twist it any way you like there was only one messsage in that add.Optimum moments,change in parameters,hell now who's playing the spin doctor.

Lou Girardin
8th April 2004, 06:47
LTSA always concentrate on the end result, as if it's inevitable. Never a mention or incentive on how to AVOID accidents.
As for different cars stopping distances, Autocar has tested their quickest stopping car to date, a Mazda 3 of all things. It could travel at 65 km/h and still stop quicker than a Holden at 60.
It's all glossy bullshit made by LTSA's mates at Monash U with our hard paid fines, designed to appeal to the 'Gee, look at that' demographic.
Lou

Ms Piggy
8th April 2004, 07:08
I like the new add with the guy buried on the gravel road.
Cracked up big time first time I saw that. :laugh:

Yeah that was great!! :laugh:

k14
8th April 2004, 11:18
Well what about those stupid stupid ads with that guy "Toddy" who lost his license for "doing 130 down the main".

Yeah, I know it got my attention and all that bullshit but come on, those ads were just about good for a laugh and thats all, apart from that they were stupid.

Motu
8th April 2004, 12:59
Looks like I should get a life and watch a bit more TV,then I could post on this thread with enlightening comments.

Ghost Lemur
8th April 2004, 13:21
Looks like I should get a life and watch a bit more TV,then I could post on this thread with enlightening comments.

I'd have to buy one first. :D

Drunken Monkey
8th April 2004, 16:16
It is a misconception that ABS fitted to passenger cars helps you stop quicker. It is there to allow you to steer while braking as this is a skill out of reach of most drivers. Performance Bikes did a test against an ABS equipped car and even a Valkyrie out-braked the car which had traction control, yaw control, and ABS - IN THE WET!

The Valkyrie is only a third of the weight of a car. It's easier to stop a lighter vehicle, even with smaller brakes. A Formula 1 car has compatively very small disc brakes - it only weighs 600kgs - compared to a Skyline GTR - at 1500kgs and still stops faster. An all-four-wheels-locked-up skidding car definately does NOT stop quicker on Tarmac than the same car fitted with ABS -for your average 'joe citizen' driver-. Any professional driver, and probably even most 'above average' skilled drivers may be able to go against the trend, but most of us aren't that good.
Get a car with ABS. Do a stop test - foot hard to the floor. Unplug the ABS and do it again. Go on, surprise yourself.

However, your point -It is there to allow you to steer while braking as this is a skill out of reach of most drivers.- is entirely true...

Let alone the fact that these ads tend to ignore:
differences in car design
worn shocks
tyre compound
tyre condition
brake pad compound
brake temperate
and the list goes on...

James Deuce
8th April 2004, 16:39
The weight isn't the issue so much as the tyre contact patch, and how much energy is transmitted through that contact patch during braking. The car, even accounting for weight has a huge advantage in how much rubber is on the road, and "common" knowledge dictated that this advantage meant that cars stopped better than bikes. I think the Performance Bikes blokes were as surprised as anyone else that the bikes performed so well, and put the improvement down to improvements in brake feel, tyre compound, and suspension control. Interestingly, the non-ABS equipped bikes stopped better than their ABS equipped equivalent model when ridden by a good rider, and the trend reversed when ridden by an average rider.

The two cars I've owned that had ABS could be stopped quicker with it turned off. I never, EVER just slam full brakes on. I try to eke every last bit of traction out of my tyres as I stop. It's about technique and it can be learned. Locking the wheels up in a car is a sign of a skilless bunny.

riffer
8th April 2004, 16:46
It's about technique and it can be learned. Locking the wheels up in a car is a sign of a skilless bunny.
Ooooh lets have a big long discussion about cadence braking!

Two Smoker
8th April 2004, 19:32
mmmmmm cadence braking.... the human equivalent of ABS, it can be very effective when braking and needing to turn... i don't see that ABS as a "braking" improvement.... but a handling improvement....

sAsLEX
8th April 2004, 19:33
Some driving instructors say to lock up the brakes with one big foot to the floor hit, then relax back to 85% then back on and repeat.

James Deuce
8th April 2004, 20:34
Some driving instructors say to lock up the brakes with one big foot to the floor hit, then relax back to 85% then back on and repeat.

Locking up means you're out of control. I have "issues" with "instructors" who suggest losing control of a vehicle as an optimum method of maximising your safety. It equates to "laying the bike down" to avoid an accident. Which as we should all know is surrendering your fate to the lap of what ever faith system you subscribe to.

k14
8th April 2004, 21:41
Locking up means you're out of control. I have "issues" with "instructors" who suggest losing control of a vehicle as an optimum method of maximising your safety. It equates to "laying the bike down" to avoid an accident. Which as we should all know is surrendering your fate to the lap of what ever faith system you subscribe to.

I think he is talking about car driving and not bike riding.

When i had instructors they said the same, but his exact words were "going from 101% to 99% back and forward," he used the term "Threshold Braking," and it was at the holden advanced driving school. It is pretty much impossible to get the maximum out of your braking without momentarily locking the brakes up a few times before coming to a stop, cause if you don't there is no way of knowing that you are getting the maximum out of your brakes. But yes, i do agree that you can get more out of your non abs system than an abs system, but for 99% of the people out there, the mash as hard as you can method is the best they can ever comprehend. But look at the GT3 porsches, they have ABS and have to keep that on for racing, so it must be good for something.

James Deuce
8th April 2004, 22:04
I think he is talking about car driving and not bike riding.

When i had instructors they said the same, but his exact words were "going from 101% to 99% back and forward," he used the term "Threshold Braking," and it was at the holden advanced driving school. It is pretty much impossible to get the maximum out of your braking without momentarily locking the brakes up a few times before coming to a stop, cause if you don't there is no way of knowing that you are getting the maximum out of your brakes. But yes, i do agree that you can get more out of your non abs system than an abs system, but for 99% of the people out there, the mash as hard as you can method is the best they can ever comprehend. But look at the GT3 porsches, they have ABS and have to keep that on for racing, so it must be good for something.

I was talking about car driving. I still have issues with Instructors who advocate losing control of a vehicle in an emergency. Brakes aren't there to make your vehicle stop, they are a negative acceleration device, and as such are used to adjust your velocity. Some times you need them to make a stop. Too much driver education focuses on using your brakes to come to a complete halt, particularly when an emergency situation may call for a different approach. ABS is designed primarily to allow the average driver to steer in an emergency situation with the brake pedal mashed to the floor in such a way that he/she would be utterly out of control without ABS. I've seen accident scenes where the dashed tyre marks indicating a rapidly pulsing ABS system ultimately still end in an impact because the driver was target fixated and made no attempt to steer. Probabaly because no one told he could thanks to ABS. His original mash the pedal to the floor and lock it up instructions had been imprinted and he'd not practiced, or even visualised the scenario with the ABS making the difference.

sAsLEX
8th April 2004, 23:26
Jim, alot of the holden driving course focuses on the negative effects of target fixation and how looking through and around hazards at clear road will greatly reduce the likelyhood of an incident. Very little of the course was straight line "stopping" but maintaining control of the vehicle when decelerating.

One of the excersises was to nail a litlle suzuki up and over a little rise and fly towards three lanes of cones, you weren't allowed to brake until the instructor lit up a traffic light infront of you which also indicated the lane you were required to go into, you then had to brake and turn quite severly to avoid cleaning out a dozen cones.

These skills should be practiced/shown to everyone as part of driver training in my opinion and this would greatly affect the road toll.

James Deuce
9th April 2004, 00:14
Jim, alot of the holden driving course focuses on the negative effects of target fixation and how looking through and around hazards at clear road will greatly reduce the likelyhood of an incident. Very little of the course was straight line "stopping" but maintaining control of the vehicle when decelerating.

One of the excersises was to nail a litlle suzuki up and over a little rise and fly towards three lanes of cones, you weren't allowed to brake until the instructor lit up a traffic light infront of you which also indicated the lane you were required to go into, you then had to brake and turn quite severly to avoid cleaning out a dozen cones.

These skills should be practiced/shown to everyone as part of driver training in my opinion and this would greatly affect the road toll.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. Is the Holden driving course affordable for beneficiaries?

sAsLEX
9th April 2004, 07:27
Wouldn't know the prices as it was all payed for by some trust!

k14
9th April 2004, 09:59
Yip, both mine and his were free through school, can't remember who paid for it though.

But I could easily say that it was the most educational and fun days when i went to school.

FROSTY
9th April 2004, 11:24
the hitting the corner of the truck think had me scratching my head too.
I'd have thought that the faster car would have center punched the truck and the slower car would have caught the corner.The truck would have travelled further through the intersection or whatever it was.

scumdog
10th April 2004, 09:29
Just got a new 'puter and catching up with all the threads on this site, boy I've missed Kiwibiker.
After reading the messages (mainly the earlier ones) on this thread there seems to be an awful lot of know-all twats who have slagged-off the "slow-down' ads. on T.V., - obviously the govt. is employing the wrong people, they should be checking out this site and this thread and contacting the negative know-all twats who say the ad. was a waste of time and get THOSE guys to do the ad. shit I bet we would see a few doozies and have a bloody good laugh and get to find out what a REAL waste of money looks like.(if they put an ad. together with the same thought and logic).
RULE ONE: If you are moving you will have to stop - eventually.
RULE TWO: How you stop may not be when/how you planned!
RULE THREE: The faster you are travelling when RULE TWO crops up the bigger mess and less reaction time you have.
MESSAGE FROM SCUMDOG: ride as fast as you bloody well want, just remember the above thre rules AND don't come bleating on this forum about the after effects of those rules or any speeding tickets you got - just remember the saying "speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?" does not just refer to tuning and performance improvements!! :sneaky2:

Jackrat
10th April 2004, 16:16
Hey Scum dog,Good to hear from you again.
In fine form I see.
Good on ya'. :niceone:

scumdog
12th April 2004, 09:08
Jackrat, thanks for the comment, I love this site as it gives a chance of voicing comments to those to scared to say what they want at a party or bike rally site. (I'm politely saying it gives gutless people a chance to vent their spleen!!)
Some of the thing said on this site surprise me - I could understand it if they were said in the heat of the moment after a few ales but to sit down and type out their thoughts with time to reflect on what they are saying - sheesh!!! give me strength!! :gob:

wkid_one
12th April 2004, 10:17
Jim, alot of the holden driving course focuses on the negative effects of target fixation and how looking through and around hazards at clear road will greatly reduce the likelyhood of an incident. Very little of the course was straight line "stopping" but maintaining control of the vehicle when decelerating.

One of the excersises was to nail a litlle suzuki up and over a little rise and fly towards three lanes of cones, you weren't allowed to brake until the instructor lit up a traffic light infront of you which also indicated the lane you were required to go into, you then had to brake and turn quite severly to avoid cleaning out a dozen cones.

These skills should be practiced/shown to everyone as part of driver training in my opinion and this would greatly affect the road toll.
This is the same as the Ford ADT course as well. It is interesting.

What it does show tho - is that without fore-thought about a possibly accident - you are largely fucked. Had any of the scenarios actually occured for real (ie: we weren't told about them, and didn't know to expect a whistle to signal when to brake) - we all would have been severely injured - ABS or not.

SPman
12th April 2004, 23:18
Some of the thing said on this site surprise me - I could understand it if they were said in the heat of the moment after a few ales but to sit down and type out their thoughts with time to reflect on what they are saying - sheesh!!! give me strength!! :gob:
I know some of the things said on here are in the heat of the moment after a few ales! :apint:
With no reflection at all on what is said .....until later! :rolleyes:

madandy
13th April 2004, 06:04
seems to me our fearless leaders have decided it will be easier and cheaper to scare the speed out of us rather than teach how to speed safely.Our Roading network will not support higher speeds for all...two lanes, trucks boats campers and cars...some can speed some cannot...the speed we are all able to travel safely at is the speed they will govern us to not the speed(s) SOME of us can attain.The lowest skill level on the roads is the one we will all be credited with.
It will cost so many billions to up-grade our roads and as much again to educate all drivers with the skills some people profess to have...LTSA is a band-aid quick/cheap fix outfit who exist to save the Government money by convincing the public that driving slower is the answer to road death and injury...

DEATH_INC.
13th April 2004, 12:46
Remember those ads Brock did a few years back?you know 'brake on the straight before it's too late' ect.Those are the sort of ads they should waste our money on, not running into trucks with cars...... :Pokey:

pete376403
13th April 2004, 16:53
There was another one, "get up to speed before you pass" good common sense, must have given the LTSA the absolute shits, a respected motor racing driver suggesting that people actually increase speed!! Shock horror!!