NZTA ad - They have it wrong?

**The End** · 4th January 2015, 18:05

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) 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.

**ellipsis** · 4th January 2015, 18:18

Originally Posted by The End

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) 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

Originally Posted by The End

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

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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.

5 sentences in a line and 5 words, or 4 words when I quote it. Good effort!

**Virago** · 4th January 2015, 19:03

Originally Posted by mossy1200

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.