Nutha NZ road safety ad.

Gidday ST

That's cleverly and well done.

Gets the message across far better than ours ...
 
Yes a very powerful ad indeed.

It would have to be one of the best, if not the best ad I've ever seen.

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
It's certainly well thought out. But to say that if the guy was going 2-3 km/h slower then the accident would not have happened is ridiculous (remember, if they want to be fair dinkum, if you take speedo error into account he was probably just on the speed limit- assuming 100km/h limit). The bloke in the Forrie caused the accident. I had a similar thing happen yesterday morning on the way to work. I am on the main road, and a bloke exits the side street right in front of me. Fortunately for both of us, I was watching him- as in watching his face, and I realised he had not looked in my direction. So I knew he would pull out in front and I took pre-emptive action. I was doing about the speed limit, but that was not what saved us. For everyone's sake, get away from the speed being the problem. Everyone needs to pay more attention and give driving the respect it deserves. And the fact I was looking at him, rather than my speedo, could well have been a life saver.
 
Well said Rally & yes I thoroughly agree.

It's not always speed thats the cause, but also the stupidity &/or lack of concentration of drivers.

That particular incident is a prime example where the XT should've waited.

However, if this ad saves just one life, then it's done it's job :cool:

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
^ I agree with that point too, Rally.

So do a number of the boys in blue whom I have spoken to about it.

Specially in school zones:

Is it school holidays?
They are different for State and Private schools ...
Why can't the individual school take responsibility for the putting up/taking down of signs stating "SCHOOL IS ON HOLIDAYS"?

Is it inside the (somewhat stupid) hours?

What speed am I going?

BUMP.

What the hell was that kid doing there? :(

When in fact, one should be able to concentrate on the pedestrians and other children, and not worry if one is going too fast, too slow and all the other crap.
Basically, drivers are increasingly being subjected to information overload - meanwhile, forget prime function: which is not to run over any kids, or their (sometimes) idiot parents.

We all have to care for one another. That is what the Law set out to do at the start, and became more and more complicated along the way. Eventually ending up where we now are, where form is more important than substance.
 
Could have been 107kph in an 80 zone.

I know I am better equipped to determine what speed is safe fir me than a third party and that I am better off focussing on driving than the speedo, but this is an excellent reminder of the consequences of interacting with the other minions.
 
Totally agree Rally. Excess speed isnt usually the primary factor, IMO lack of concentration is No1.

BTW, speed is a factor in every accident. If there was no speed, the cars would be stationary :rotfl:
 
Ah yes, but then so is breathing
 
WOW, very effective.
Sorry, Can't understand this argument that speed isn't a factor!
Physics and simple math say If an accident happens slower then the outcome for the occupants in just about every instant is going to be better.
Traffic engineers [the people that decide where and what signage goes up] actually have a list of very thorough and detailed physics to refer too before putting up signs etc.
For instance, traveling 2 seconds behind someone at 80kph and 3 seconds behind at 100kph takes into consideration the worse case scenario, ie distracted, slippery road, bad light, older drivers [and remember we all become older drivers despite extra training] Yeah I just realized, not an example of signage.
Our main access road has a lot of Fraser island 4wd traffic on it. Most still have reduced tyre pressures so they wander across onto our side quite regularly [They are all expert 4wd drivers without exception, just ask them!] So the speed limit was reduced from 100kph to 80 kph, irratating! you bet, but after too many close shaves I now understand why they did it. Yeah and I laugh out loud when I hear people talk about proper advanced driver training. Too many vested interests for that to happen.
regards
 
Bobam said:
Sorry, Can't understand this argument that speed isn't a factor!
Physics and simple math say If an accident happens slower then the outcome for the occupants in just about every instant is going to be better.
Click to expand...

Speed isnt the problem...excess speed for the conditions is what causes these types of accidents.

A few days ago I nearly had a headon with some d*ckhead on a bike. He had it leaning over hard around a blind corner, going way too fast & in the middle of my lane! Excess speed & dumb**s attitude nearly killed him :madred::yell::furious:

Yep, we did that Fraser I thing in a rental 4WD aired down, wasnt a fun drive back to the rental yard.
 
There is a difference between being a factor and being a cause. Take away the cause(s) and there are no factors to worry about.

As for the maths, there is one factor you have not taken into account- reaction time. If you are an elderly driver, or one not paying sufficient attention, your reaction time can be quite long. The elderly do have longer reaction times, and some people have very quick reaction times- such as racing car drivers. So we settle on a speed limit based on what reaction time? The average? Let's say the average is 1.2 seconds and the speed limit is based on that. But what if your reaction time is 2.2 seconds? You are effectively travelling at the same speed as someone with say a 0.8 second reaction time at say 95km/h. The impact would be exactly the same as someone travelling at 95 with a 0.8 second reaction time, with the same outcome in terms of injury and death. If speed is indeed the mighty evil it is being portrayed as, why is there no testing of reaction times? Why are people with potentially lethal reaction times allowed to have a license?

A mate of mine is an engineer for RMS. He designs, builds and maintains the area of a certain part of NSW. He works with the safety guys who determines speed limits for particular sections of road. One of the items in the list you describe (but never written down) is "political input".

Take for example the M2 in Sydney. The western most 3km is a 90 zone, the rest of the M2 to the east is 100, and so is the M7 to the west of it. The standard of the road, the visibility, curvature, surface and everything else is exactly the same as the rest of the M2, yet since it was opened it has been 90. Why- political influence. (My mate is not responsible for this section of road). The fact that there is a blanket speed limit in each state means that the government has made the decision, not the engineers. Such a decision means that no matter how much better the roads, the cars, the tyres, the collision avoidance systems or even the drivers, the speed limit will NEVER change to reflect this. What laws of physics were used to arrive at that decision?

In this ad, as with all the others, they are saying speed and this will happen to you. The reverse of this must be the message- don't speed and this won't happen to you. Where are the ads informing people about how roundabouts work, or keeping left unless overtaking (this should be a leaflet given to every Camry driver) or why you should not brake through a corner? As the former police officers in Wheels magazine confirmed, speed does not cause anywhere near the accidents that we are told it does. The very database is corrupted by grossly inaccurate information. The data is presented as though it were scientifically arrived at- yet these police confirm that this is simply not the case. The paperwork that they fill in almost demands that speed be made a cause or the report cannot be submitted.

I have to deal with engineers every day at work. This idea that they are the great bastion of knowledge in their chosen sphere is an absolute joke. Sure, there are a few good ones out there who are brilliant. Many have absolutely no idea of the practicalities of their profession and specify things that are not physically possible or if implemented would cause a major calamity. Most are just too lazy to even keep abreast of changes in Australian Standards, and their only real knowledge is the ability to cut and paste specifications and confuse everyone who reads what they have done. They don't even proof read their own specifications. Some of the speed limits I see on our roads tells me that these traffic engineers are no better.

The fact is the rules are there to protect politicians, vested interests and their budgets, not road users. Every overseas example showing this to be the case, and that speed alone is not the culprit it is being made to be, has a convenient excuse to be cast aside.
 
Gidday Bob

How goes the hunt?

BTW, I have dragged up some torque curves and figures for the EJ-25 (it looks to be an EJ-253 donk). It has over 90% of its maximum torque from 2,000 rpm to 6,000 rpm. I also saved a page from Subaru comparing the torque curves of the EJ-252 (MY05) to that of the EJ-253 (MY06 onwards). The MY05 drops away sharply from 4,000 rpm onwards, by around 15% less (~30 Nm, approx.). It is also not as smooth from 1,000 to 2,000 rpm. This is consistent with my practical experience with the two engines, albeit only about a 40 min test drive in an MY04.

Bobam said:
WOW, very effective.
Click to expand...

Too right ... !

Sorry, Can't understand this argument that speed isn't a factor!
Physics and simple math say If an accident happens slower then the outcome for the occupants in just about every instant is going to be better.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Queensland, but down here they continually try to tell us that going 5 km/h slower wipes hundreds of metres off one's stopping distance (or some such ... :iconwink: :lol:).

A couple of things about these statements:

1) They are arrant nonsense for the reasons you mention - simple maths and Newtonian physics ... ; and

2) Our speedos have already been "rigged" to register about 5 km/h too fast, so that at a registered speed of 60 km/h per the speedo, one is actually only doing around 55 km/h (how strange that all our modern Australian made cars had deadly accurate speedos ... ); and

3) "Wiping off five" further reduces this to about 50 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, contributing to the slowing of all traffic in Melbourne to a parking lot ... :puke:

Social engineering and political correctness at their worst, IMNSHO.

Traffic engineers

. . . the worse case scenario, ie distracted, slippery road, bad light, older drivers

etc
Click to expand...

The onus is, and should be, on the driver to drive within the limits imposed by their experience, skills and abilities; the road conditions; the particular car's limitations.

I agree with all that last part.

Some history. I grew up in Qld. Did the first 100,000+ miles of my driving experience there. In my youth, speed of itself could constitute "dangerous driving", and people were successfully prosecuted for this for doing 61 mph in a 60 mph zone (as well as the speeding charge ... ).

At that time, doing 59 mph in a nearly, but not quite, defectable FJ Holden was deemed to be "safe"; but doing 61 mph in (say) an E-Type Jaguar in perfect condition in every respect was deemed to be "dangerous driving". That was, and is, a patent nonsense.

The TAC adverts here in Victoria would have some semblance of acceptability if they were to be more realistic in what they state as "scientific fact"; a little bit of scientific accuracy wouldn't go astray, either ... :rotfl:.
 
There is some great input here guys. And yes I have to agree with most of it, if not all of it.

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
That's a great ad

I started last week with a pedestrian down on a
pedestrian crossing

over the nit picking and finger pointing re road safety
everyone needs to take a chill pill and focus
on stopping distance

not speed
 
Gidday Matt

I think that the point you are making is what all here appear to be saying - It is more important to be aware of what is going on from moment to moment than it is to be doing exactly whatever the speed limit is ...

We have plenty of "nice little earners", where the speed limits change seemingly arbitrarily for the same stretch of road and conditions. This sort of opportunistic revenue raising is very counter-productive, IMNSHO. Government should be encouraging people to take care on the roads, rather than (not even) prosecuting them for minor infringements of the arbitrary speed limits.

The Perrin Court system is a legal abomination, the like of which has not been seen in any Common Law country since the abolition of the Star Chamber about 400 years ago.

Similarly, the abolition of the presumption of innocence and the legislative removal of any possible defence against certain traffic camera offences.

These things are symptomatic of a society heading for totalitarianism, and an out of control nanny state, just IMO.

The old adage "The road to ruin is paved with good intentions" springs readily to mind. That's not nit-picking, it's stripping away the politically correct BS and exposing the humbug for what it mostly is.

I have great respect for the three pillars of our society - the Doctrine of the Rule of Law, the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation and the Doctrine of Natural Justice - that underlie our Constitution, parliaments, laws, etc. These doctrines cannot be legislated, as they exist outside of governments, and law. They have independent existence that has its roots in philosophy and ideas like the social contract ...

All the above from a retired professional person in his mid sixties not some callow youth ...
 
You make a good point about the presumption of innocence. Nowhere else in our legal system that I am aware of are you guilty until proven innocent- which is how traffic laws are treated. Similarly, unlike other crimes, there is no partial sentencing. When was the last time ANYONE got the full gaol term for murder, rape, manslaughter, theft, ABH, GBH, etc? When was the last time anyone did not get the full fine applied to them for speeding? It seems to me, that where there are custodial sentence available, there are a myriad of mitigating circumstances to make it all but impossible to receive the maximum sentence. Where there are traffic fines, the government does not allow for only part of the fine to be payable.

That bloke who was convicted over the death of Thomas Kelly in Sydney. He received about 1/6th of the maximum sentence. Apply that to a traffic offence, and gee whiz, wouldn't government revenue take an almighty dive. Gaol's cost the government money, fines bring it in. Co-incidence that the expense is variable and kept to a minimum, while income is fixed and always at a maximum. The income is innocent until proven guilty, the income is guilty till proven innocent. No wonder no one calls it a justice system. No wonder they push the speed kills line. It's like a victim of theft being made to feel good about being robbed. In some places, it is called propaganda.
 
NachaLuva said:
A few days ago I nearly had a headon with some d*ckhead on a bike. He had it leaning over hard around a blind corner, going way too fast & in the middle of my lane! Excess speed & dumb**s attitude nearly killed him :madred::yell::furious:
Click to expand...

Thus the reason we have 4wd's with bullbars. Run them over, same goes for push bikes. Strongest of the fittest and my Foz would quite easily win over some idiot riding in the RH lane on his push bike wearing bright yellow, skin tight clothing!

As for the XT if he dumped the clutch from 5k rpm he would of had heaps of time.
In all serious though, always keep your eyes on the road. All it takes is a split second for it all to go wrong.
 
I cruise at 72-80 with cruise control on

>
We have plenty of "nice little earners", where the speed limits change seemingly arbitrarily for the same stretch of road and conditions. This sort of opportunistic revenue raising is very counter-productive
>
use your gps to show these mine beeps if I am over
and shows my speed in red if it is over
 
^ Matt, among other things, I have also done analysis of the logs from a GPS device that was used in a court case to exonerate a driver who was involved in an accident where a police officer was killed ... The "accident" was not the driver's fault, in any way.

To say that GPS units are inaccurate at any given moment, under any given conditions, would be a slight understatement.

When the device has a clear view of the sky (no hills, buildings, overhanging trees, road cuttings, etc, etc), they can give very precise readings. Sometimes this actually happens ... :iconwink:.

I have two in my car. One has accurate maps, but inaccurate speed limit data; the other has inaccurate maps, but (fairly) accurate speed limit data. Both made by the same company ... Both are extremely accurate for speed under ideal conditions. At other times their readings can only be described as "allegorical" - and that's being kind.

What I, and others, are saying is that we should be able to expect that the government and police should uphold the Rule of Law in a reasonable (defined word at law) manner.
For just one example, radar gun readings are routinely accepted in court as being conclusive evidence of the speed of a vehicle when both the manufacturers, and other police forces around the world, state categorically that the devices should not be relied upon under the particular circumstances.

How can we expect our children to abide by the Rule of Law when the government and the police routinely flout its most basic tenets, and treat what's left with contempt?

Which is why many members of the present generation of children and young adults treat the law with contempt.

Not a good outcome, IMNSHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top