Public stupidity announcement

[White trash]

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]

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]

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]

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.

What was I on about....? 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.

[Posh Tourer :P]

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]

I like the new add with the guy buried on the gravel road.
Cracked up big time first time I saw that.

[Two Smoker]

I like the new add with the guy buried on the gravel road.
Cracked up big time first time I saw that.

shit yes that was a crack up 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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Jackrat]

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.