Gory pseudo accident ads

[Jantar]

A comment by Rainbow Wizard in another thread promted the ide for this one.

How many of you have noticed how rediculous the accident ads from the LTSA really are. The inconsistancies that I have picked out are:

The one where a guy driving home from the pub suddenly sees a motorbike coming towards him. He brakes suddenly and looks in his rear vision mirror. No bike, only the white lines going directly away from him. When he arrives home his wife asks if he saw Matt, who apparently was riding a bike. It turns out that Matt was killed and of course our driver blames himself. However look at the white lines in his rear view mirrior, then look at the car's skid mark going ACROSS the road. There is no way that the driver in the ad could have made that skid mark yet still have seen white lines in his mirror.

[Jantar]

Then take the ad where a guy says to his wife "we'll be there in 10 minutes" They are in a red car. At the accident scene when she is being loaded into the helicopter he says "don't worry, we'll be there in 10 minutes" but the car has changed colour to a bluish grey.

[Will]

Can't say that I have looked at those ads close enough to notice.

I noticed the intersection accident involving the bike and could see it as a put up because any biker would not have ridden into such a scene or would have been able to ride out of it. The guy was ditching his bike before anything got near enough to knock him off.
And as we all know, that's the last thing you do. Instead, suck that bike right up your a.... and use what ever means (accelerator, brakes, counter steering etc) to get you out of there.
Then if all else fails, aim for the driver because it is gonna hurt and you might as well inflict pain on the culprit.

[Jantar]

Or consider the ad where two girls in a car brake suddenly at an intersection yet still hit the car in front. One of the girls is catapulted through the winscreen and lands on the bonnet of another car two car lengths in front.

It takes her 4 seconds from impact to land on the bonnet, that gives her a forward velocity after impact of 2.5 m/s and a vertical velocity of 20 m/s. The trajevtory angle of incidence would be 78 degrees, therefore the velocity of the car imediately prior to commencing braking would be sqrt(20^2 + 2.5^2)/cos 78. This gives a speed at commencement of braking of 168 m/s or 604 km/h.

This ad would have belivable if sh had have landed 40 m or more away from the impact, or if the time to landing had only been 1 second. But the LTSA must think we are all thick or something.

[SPman]

This ad would have belivable if she had have landed 40 m or more away from the impact, or if the time to landing had only been 1 second. But the LTSA must think we are all thick or something.

They do!
Must be going for maximum impact!

[Waylander]

Dude..... your getting way to serious about this, its just a silly ad that isnt gonna change anything really.:wari:
(just like that smilie)

[Jantar]

Dude..... your getting way to serious about this,

Oh, I didn't mean to sound too serious, Its just that get a laugh out of how rediculous these ads are. I actually enjoy watching each new one now to find the stupid errors they make.

:yeah:

[Waylander]

Oh, I didn't mean to sound too serious, Its just that get a laugh out of how rediculous these ads are. I actually enjoy watching each new one now to find the stupid errors they make.

:yeah:
Was takin the piss mate, i get a laugh out of them to. You dont see stuff like that in the states so its prety funny to watch.

[Blakamin]

. This gives a speed at commencement of braking of 168 m/s or 604 km/h.


where can I buy one of them cages????? :spudwhat:

[Skunk]

...but the car has changed colour to a bluish grey.And model. And the car he's hit is damaged on the right and his damage is on the left. Yep, both travelling in the same direction... I think John Woo worked on the physics of that one. :spudwhat:

[Mongoose]

It takes her 4 seconds from impact to land on the bonnet, that gives her a forward velocity after impact of 2.5 m/s and a vertical velocity of 20 m/s. The trajevtory angle of incidence would be 78 degrees, therefore the velocity of the car imediately prior to commencing braking would be sqrt(20^2 + 2.5^2)/cos 78. This gives a speed at commencement of braking of 168 m/s or 604 km/h.

This ad would have belivable if sh had have landed 40 m or more away from the impact, or if the time to landing had only been 1 second. But the LTSA must think we are all thick or something.

Some people just have way to much time on their hands, or are wired up a wee tad different to most. Who would be bothered working out all that math to come to that conclusion?
Guess that ad did its job though, made people think, even if it was not what the ad set out to make you think of. :whocares:

[onearmedbandit]

I like the ad where the guy is doing a commercial for house paint. You know the one, he's on a ladder talking to a camera about company x's new paint. He reaches too far to get that last bit of paint on, then falls off the ladder. I mean, what are the director, film crew, boom operators, agent all doing after he falls? Just standing there watching??

I realise it doesn't change the point of the ad, just the continuity is fucked up. Its the same with the mother talking about a new muslei bar, trips over the tiny little toy and smashes through the glass table. Once again, the crew who must be filming her making the ad about said muslei bar just stand there. Fire 'em all, they're fucking idiots!

[Waylander]

I like the ad where the guy is doing a commercial for house paint. You know the one, he's on a ladder talking to a camera about company x's new paint. He reaches too far to get that last bit of paint on, then falls off the ladder. I mean, what are the director, film crew, boom operators, agent all doing after he falls? Just standing there watching??

I realise it doesn't change the point of the ad, just the continuity is fucked up. Its the same with the mother talking about a new muslei bar, trips over the tiny little toy and smashes through the glass table. Once again, the crew who must be filming her making the ad about said muslei bar just stand there. Fire 'em all, they're fucking idiots!
I hope your kidding, you do know that those are Stunt men and women doing that to advertise for how dangerous regular housework can be, or something about insurance.

[Jamezo]

I hope your kidding, you do know that those are Stunt men and women doing that to advertise for how dangerous regular housework can be, or something about insurance.

you are somewhat mistaken, he was not referring to the actions or lack thereof of the actual film crew filming the ACC ads, just the observation that if it were a real commercial, as it aims to appear as, the film crew would undoubtedly not just stand behind the camera like stunned mullets.

edit: PS. the ladder dude cracks me up no end...

[Waylander]

you are somewhat mistaken, he was not referring to the actions or lack thereof of the actual film crew filming the ACC ads, just the observation that if it were a real commercial, as it aims to appear as, the film crew would undoubtedly not just stand behind the camera like stunned mullets.
:doh: well damn dont i feel silly now.......:Oops:

[FzerozeroT]

that ladder dude cracked me up fully, but then my mates uncle-in-law fell off a ladder doing the same thing, they switched off the life support 4 days later. Apparently he landed directly on his melon though.

[Holy Roller]

[QUOTE=FzerozeroT]that ladder dude cracked me up fully, QUOTE]
Notice that the drive is laid with the same stuff that kids playgrounds have to stop them hurting themselves when they fall off the equipment.

[scroter]

I like the ad where the guy is doing a commercial for house paint. You know the one, he's on a ladder talking to a camera about company x's new paint. He reaches too far to get that last bit of paint on, then falls off the ladder. I mean, what are the director, film crew, boom operators, agent all doing after he falls? Just standing there watching??

I realise it doesn't change the point of the ad, just the continuity is fucked up. Its the same with the mother talking about a new muslei bar, trips over the tiny little toy and smashes through the glass table. Once again, the crew who must be filming her making the ad about said muslei bar just stand there. Fire 'em all, they're fucking idiots!

I reckon the film crew would have been doin the same thing i was when i first saw these ads, laughing there heads off. After all there doctored. the guy falling down the stairs carrying his box isnt as funny, i think cause it dosent seem quite so dangerous as falling off a ladder. i remember when i first when flatting me and the flatemates use to always say things like "dont say sorry to me, say sorry to his kids" and "call a cab." i never thought they were anything but funny.

[Clockwork]

I wish the LTSA would stop wasting time and money on these ads in a lame attempt to shock us :shit: and maybe replaced them with some ads to educate people that the national speed limit on a single carriage way (no passing) road is 100kph NOT 80kph and that if you have to do 80kph on such a road then don't speed up when you get to a passing lane.
Or stopping to give way on merging lanes that are designed to allow traffic to get up to speed to merge safely :Pokey: ..... or how about a slogan like...."People who don't allow traffic to merge in are bloody idiots!" :tugger:
etc etc.....

[scumdog]

Some people just have way to much time on their hands, or are wired up a wee tad different to most. Who would be bothered working out all that math to come to that conclusion?
Guess that ad did its job though, made people think, even if it was not what the ad set out to make you think of. :whocares:

Nah, Jantar can do that kind of shit in his head while having a cup of tea!! :yeah:

[Skunk]

that ladder dude cracked me up fully,
Notice that the drive is laid with the same stuff that kids playgrounds have to stop them hurting themselves when they fall off the equipment.Nah, it's asphalt. He lands on boxes that were removed post production... I know the digi effects artist who did it. :apint:

[Hitcher]

Or consider the ad where two girls in a car brake suddenly at an intersection yet still hit the car in front. One of the girls is catapulted through the winscreen and lands on the bonnet of another car two car lengths in front.
The thing that annoys me most about this ad is that if the car had been going faster, it would have gone past before our gormless jogging bint decided to step out on the road without first looking...

[SuperDave]

What the hell are you guys on about with the film crews and shit? Those ACC adverts such as the mother with the muesli bar and the man with the paint, are meant to look like adverts to start with and then abruptly change tone, that's the whole point, so it hits you with more of an impact...

[Hitcher]

I like the ad where the guy is doing a commercial for house paint. You know the one, he's on a ladder talking to a camera about company x's new paint. He reaches too far to get that last bit of paint on, then falls off the ladder. I mean, what are the director, film crew, boom operators, agent all doing after he falls? Just standing there watching??

I realise it doesn't change the point of the ad, just the continuity is fucked up. Its the same with the mother talking about a new muslei bar, trips over the tiny little toy and smashes through the glass table. Once again, the crew who must be filming her making the ad about said muslei bar just stand there. Fire 'em all, they're fucking idiots!
Now these ads annoy me because Granny State has the gall to tell people to tidy up their lounge-rooms and to make sure they use a bathmat! They'll be giving lessons on how to clean the bath and make a batch of scones next...

[Waylander]

SD, read the post that i made earlier and the responses to them... then you can feel silly too.

[SuperDave]

No pun intended with the use of 'impact'. But while on the topic of the humour of those ACC adverts, I reckon the shower one where the guy walks out and cracks his head is the funniest, especially when the camera zooms out and you can just see his foot twich.

[SuperDave]

SD, read the post that i made earlier and the responses to them... then you can feel silly too.

I read it. I'm sure I didn't miss anything even on the first read. Anyways, can't be bothered arguing with it, I'm off for a ride now :D

[onearmedbandit]

Continuity is all I'm talking about SD, not the impact or point of the ad, only the continuity. Seems everyone else got it... If you just step back and look at the bigger picture, you'll get what I'm on about. I realise that it has more impact to make it look like an ordinary ad and then hit you with the 'accident', it was only an observation I was making.

[Clockwork]

Nah, it's asphalt. He lands on boxes that were removed post production... I know the digi effects artist who did it. :apint:

Name dropper! :cool:

[What?]

They'll be giving lessons on how to ... make a batch of scones next...
Now THAT makes sense!!!! :yeah:

[ZorsT]

I have difficulty understanding how someone who wasn't wearing their seat-belt and who crashed, suddenly changed direction from going frontwards to sidewards. He then hits his girlfriend/wife who is in the drivers seat.

:wari: - this smilie is cool AD is correct

[ajturbo]

Can't say that I have looked at those ads close enough to notice.


Then if all else fails, aim for the driver because it is gonna hurt and you might as well inflict pain on the culprit.

:wari: :2thumbsup :2thumbsup :2thumbsup :2thumbsup

[Sniper]

It takes her 4 seconds from impact to land on the bonnet, that gives her a forward velocity after impact of 2.5 m/s and a vertical velocity of 20 m/s. The trajevtory angle of incidence would be 78 degrees, therefore the velocity of the car imediately prior to commencing braking would be sqrt(20^2 + 2.5^2)/cos 78. This gives a speed at commencement of braking of 168 m/s or 604 km/h.

This ad would have belivable if sh had have landed 40 m or more away from the impact, or if the time to landing had only been 1 second. But the LTSA must think we are all thick or something.


Ummm, I lable myself as thick. I was never any good at maths, and what you just wrote boggles my mind :brick:

[Krayy]

Nah, it's asphalt. He lands on boxes that were removed post production... I know the digi effects artist who did it. :apint:
Now heres something stupid....a few years back when I wasn't so wise, a bunch of us were installing some computers on a weekend in a large office sapce. As each computer was in a box, the boxes ended up stack against a wall at the end of an aisle, which made us think it was a perfect run up space. So of course the boxes all got laid out neatly and we took turns doing the old superman dive onto them. Now heres the trick, if you're planning on doing this yourself, don't use boxes made of thick cardboard as the sides won't collapse and you'll bruise a rib like I did. :brick: It frickin hurts. I assume that stunt people use special boxes that have thinner sides that collapse easier.

P.S. Did meet a cute nurse while getting the rib taped up though :doctor:

[Skunk]

Name dropper! :cool:Pfft! :2thumbsup

[Holy Roller]

I wish the LTSA would stop wasting time and money on these ads in a lame attempt to shock us :shit: and maybe replaced them with some ads to educate people that the national speed limit on a single carriage way (no passing) road is 100kph NOT 80kph and that if you have to do 80kph on such a road then don't speed up when you get to a passing lane.
Or stopping to give way on merging lanes that are designed to allow traffic to get up to speed to merge safely :Pokey: ..... or how about a slogan like...."People who don't allow traffic to merge in are bloody idiots!" :tugger:
etc etc.....

That would certainly help in stopping accidents especially on the Bombay to Thames road, where slow drivers frustrate others into doing something silly and the road there is not at all forgiving to silly manoeuvers. The thing I find most frustrating is the stopping at merging lanes
:angry2:

[spudchucka]

I have difficulty understanding how someone who wasn't wearing their seat-belt and who crashed, suddenly changed direction from going frontwards to sidewards. He then hits his girlfriend/wife who is in the drivers seat.

:wari: - this smilie is cool AD is correct
Haven't seen that add but unrestrained people bounce all over the place in a crashing car. Sometimes they go flying out th efront windscreens, other times they bounce around and come out a back or side window. Othertimes they bounce all around in side and then just sit there being dead.

[Jantar]

So now the LTSA want us to believe that a 90kmh impact is the same as falling from the 1st floor of a building. Gee, they got that one wrong.

Using V^2 = U^2 + 2gd where g = 9.81m/s^2 and d is the distance fallen:

90 kmh = 25 m/s
25^2 = 0^2 + 2 * 9.81 * d
or d = 625 / 19.62
d = 31.85 m.

According to the ad an impact at 90 kmh is the same as falling from the 1st floor. How many buildings do you know of where the 1st floor is almost 32 m above the ground.

A more correct statement is that an impact at 90 kmh is the same as falling from the 8th floor.

Similarly for 110 kmh

d = 47.56 m, or the equivilent of falling from the 12th floor


and for 125 kmh

d = 61.44 m, or the equivilent of falling from the 15th floor.


Or perhaps they want us to believe that cars are installed with some totally different laws of physics to the rest of the universe.

[Beemer]

I think your time would be better spent doing this weekend's Grand Challenge (I see you claim to be a Rusty Nuts survivor) than dazzling us with your fifth form physics. Do what most of us do, mute the ads and read a book! You obviously watch WAY too much television!

[Ixion]

..

A more correct statement is that an impact at 90 kmh is the same as falling from the 8th floor.

..

Or perhaps they want us to believe that cars are installed with some totally different laws of physics to the rest of the universe.

Perhaps they are are allowing for the crumple factor in a car ?

[Jantar]

Perhaps they are are allowing for the crumple factor in a car ?

Yes, that's possible. But as a car falling has tyres and suspension that act the same as a crumple zone, along with the fact that the occupied part of the car is suspended between the suspension mounts, the difference would not be great. It may however reduce the effective height by up to 30%, but not by 7 floors.

[Waylander]

Mate, did you not notice that at the end of the ad when the dropped the highest car it started to go front first? Don't think they were thinking about it landing on it's wheels.