RTA ad re speeding - is it a crock?

[vxcalaiszzz]

Most of you in NSW would have seen the RTA ad about speeding.

The television advertisement features two cars travelling side-by-side, one at 60km/h and the other at 65km/hph, and shows the difference in outcomes when a truck unexpectedly pulls across the road ahead. The car travelling 60 hits truck at 5kph, the car travelling 65 hits the truck at 32kph.

Sure the car travelling at 65kph hits the truck harder than the car travelling at 60kph.

My point is that if both cars had been on the road for five minutes travelling those speeds, the car travelling 65kph would have been over 400m ahead of the car driving 60kph and would therefore have been well ahead of where the truck pulled out.

Moral of the ad is, sh!t happens. Is the ad sensationalism or do I have a warped way of looking at these things?

[team illucid]

yeah ... they should do this ad with 1 car as a stocker doing 60 and the other with big fat brakes and good tyres doing 60 - and watch the difference - then encourage everyone to buy good brake kits :)

[RICHO]

Interesting point of view / view of the world....

Once could also argue that in those circumstances a driver would have taken evasive action. Action that could include accelerating to avoid the truck or moving onto the wrong side of the road to avoid the truck, and so on.....

I guess the only people that buy the rubbish peddled in that add are the same ones that would slap their foot onto the brake pedal and drive into the side of the truck!!

[team illucid]

I dont like the ad of the guy in the falcon ute hooing through the bush and "suddenly" coming up on a truck, swerves and hits a magna head on - serioulsy, if you are not looking a couple of hundred metres down the road, you shouldnt be going that quick - period ...

[VX2VESS]

Most of you in NSW would have seen the RTA ad about speeding.

The television advertisement features two cars travelling side-by-side, one at 60km/h and the other at 65km/hph, and shows the difference in outcomes when a truck unexpectedly pulls across the road ahead. The car travelling 60 hits truck at 5kph, the car travelling 65 hits the truck at 32kph.

Sure the car travelling at 65kph hits the truck harder than the car travelling at 60kph.

My point is that if both cars had been on the road for five minutes travelling those speeds, the car travelling 65kph would have been over 400m ahead of the car driving 60kph and would therefore have been well ahead of where the truck pulled out.

Moral of the ad is, sh!t happens. Is the ad sensationalism or do I have a warped way of looking at these things?


so it would have missed it cuase it was going faster.

[Speedy Gonzales]

Load of crock, there is such a thing called peripheral vision.

[smoke]

The same people who swallow those speeding ads, also think it is a good idea to limit speedos to 130km/h :lol: POLLIES, AUTO CLUBS ETC, ETC.

[VX2VESS]

and that other add, with the ford speeding and looses it around that truck. he get hit side on, the other car gets headon with air bags and he dies ????

[ProVK]

yeah ... they should do this ad with 1 car as a stocker doing 60 and the other with big fat brakes and good tyres doing 60 - and watch the difference - then encourage everyone to buy good brake kits :)


I think for most street cars the tyres are the limit of braking ability. With ABS making it nice and simple to brake hard, the better the tyre the shorter the stoppoing distance. Sure bigger and better breaks help but they are more usful on the track where the brakes get work heaps more than they ever do on the street.

If more people ran quality tyres at the right pressures and with good suspension and brakes there would be a lot less rear enders and accidents in general.

[Brendan]

Ad is a crock.

Real world scenario is:

Car doing 60kph - driver has eyes glued to speedo so as not to exceed speed limit by even 1kph, doesn't see truck and hits it at 60kph.

Car doing 65kph - driver is driving heads up checking speed regularly but spending more time scanning road environment ahead for potential hazards, and having spotted the truck approaching the intersection at speed has already lifted off the accelerator and is covering the brake pedal with his right foot in anticipation of a hazard, truck pulls out and driver then applies maximum braking while smoothly steering around hazard.

Now one of those drivers is the product of an unwavering zero tolerance speed enforcement policy and the other is the product of well rounded defensive driver skills training program.

Free lollipop to the first person to identify which is which. :rolleyes:

[seldo]

I think for most street cars the tyres are the limit of braking ability. With ABS making it nice and simple to brake hard, the better the tyre the shorter the stoppoing distance. Sure bigger and better breaks help but they are more usful on the track where the brakes get work heaps more than they ever do on the street.

If more people ran quality tyres at the right pressures and with good suspension and brakes there would be a lot less rear enders and accidents in general.
All very true. It doesn't matter how good your brakes are, how good your steering and suspension is, or how good a driver you are, the only things that ultimately determine whether you stop or swerve or crash are your tires. And I have seen blokes on this forum fitting re-treads Ferchrisakes!! :shock: I always buy the best tyres I can get. They help keep you out of trouble, esp in the wet.

[ProVK]

I have yet to own a car that doesnt lock the wheel up from too much pressure on the brake pedal. So i think a push on quality tyres is far more important than not doing 5k of the limit. The car doing 60 may have bald tyres and the car doing 65 might have some nice quality tyre at the correct pressures, he will pull up heaps quicker than the car with bald tyres.

[indecisive]

Funny you should ask I was just reading this (http://www.aussiemotorists.com/pr/pr030708.html) now about this ad.

As the article says, there are too many variables to say that the car doing 5 km/h over the limit is dangerous is fact for me.

Maybe I'm just too cynical

[RICHO]

Funny you should ask I was just reading this (http://www.aussiemotorists.com/pr/pr030708.html) now about this ad.

As the article says, there are too many variables to say that the car doing 5 km/h over the limit is dangerous is fact for me.

Maybe I'm just too cynical

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?? Or should I say revenue raising enterprise??

[VKCommo]

The other blanket statement they make which is embarrissingly false:

"That a vehicle looses half its speed in the last 5 metres".

So If I travel at 160kmh, then I will lose 80kmh of speed in 5 metres, but if I travel at 30kmh then I will only loose 15kmh of speed in the last 5 metres? Why cant these ads even contain accuracy. Hence I will never trust any further speed information coming out of monash uni if they cant even get something like that right.

[Brendan]

Hence I will never trust any further speed information coming out of monash uni if they cant even get something like that right.
Mate - you shouldn't really trust any previous info coming out of the Monash "We'll produce any facts you pay us to" Traffic Research Unit

[LSX-438]

didnt one of the motoring mags do an analysis on this issue surrounding the TV ad, exploring reaction times etc.

[VZSS_Freak]

This ad, i dont know wether it is the exact same, has been shown in melbourne for about 1 yeah now, it features 2 AU falcons, interesting that for sure!!

Cheers

[Rt!]

the ad shows that right lane hogs are idiots who delibrately crash into the corner of a truck :D

[M&Ms]

But the moral of the story is... Even though he was speeding, he didn't die. So therefore, speeding is not deadly. Well, that's how I view that ad.

[Ryzz]

didnt one of the motoring mags do an analysis on this issue surrounding the TV ad, exploring reaction times etc.
Motor did, ill see if i can dig it up

[plonkerchops]

maybe the bloke who whacked the back of the truck should have swerved and missed it completely :confused:

[davidred]

Or that the truck driver shouldn't have pulled out in front of 2 cars doing ~60km/h when they are only 37m down the road..

[ABS]

The ad is a crock of shit anyway. The car travelling at 65km/h hit the back of the truck thus accentuating the damage.

[MyCat-cc]

I dont like the ad of the guy in the falcon ute hooing through the bush and "suddenly" coming up on a truck, swerves and hits a magna head on - serioulsy, if you are not looking a couple of hundred metres down the road, you shouldnt be going that quick - period ...

Besides that have a closer look at the road. After the prang look at the line markings. He crossed double lines.

[paulvdb]

I think for most street cars the tyres are the limit of braking ability. With ABS making it nice and simple to brake hard, the better the tyre the shorter the stoppoing distance. Sure bigger and better breaks help but they are more usful on the track where the brakes get work heaps more than they ever do on the street.

If more people ran quality tyres at the right pressures and with good suspension and brakes there would be a lot less rear enders and accidents in general.

This had been particularly shown by the motoring mags - the difference in crap tyres to good tyres is much more significant than the 5kph difference - same story for old cars vs new, and also idiots on mobile phones.

This advert is simply BS disguised as fact - it carefully promotes the "speed kills" message and completely ignores EVERYTHING else.

[V8R]

must admit i too havent owned a car that cant overwhelm the tyre / road relationship. no matter what tyres i put on i can always lock em up.. the difference is how much retardation is available to use..
personally, im of the view that the person religiously sticking to 60 will hit the truck @ 60, cause they are to busy looking @ the speedo.. the person doing 65 will miss it completly, because they are well aware they are "taking their lives into their own hands" and will be on the lookout for the cops.. both under the same draconian dictatorship that is, Victoria :)

JM

[sloone]

I wonder if either of the drivers was reading a book/paper/document and failed to see the truck?
The amount of people I see driving along reading is phenominal. One guy even had the Melbourne Age fully open across the steering wheel. How can these people (idiots) not realise that doing this is dangerous!

[Gambelli]

This ad is soooo bad....

Why would a truck run an intersection then bury the brakes?

How did the truck manage to pull up in that short a distance himself to be the cause of this scenario?

Why was the guy who was speeding looking at the guy next to him instead of straight ahead (look at the ad, it's true)?

Why did the guy speeding stay buried on the brakes right until impact instead of casually steering around the truck at 32kph?

How oh how on Earth does it take 38 meters to stop from 65kph, even with reaction time?

And the radio ad, jeez, don't get me started on the radio ad, anyone know how long the screeching goes for in the radio ad before the impact? It seems like atleast 5 seconds or so and the impact is still massive, I heard that ad driving home one day coming into my street, it was wet, so I did 65 then hit the ancors at the house before mine, pulled up well before my driveway, maybe 20 odd meters, in the wet????

They want to reinforce the speeding issue, then do so with utter garbage, yes it was apparently all correct in the exact context of that ad, in a world ideal for that ad, otherwise it was garbage.....(according to Motor)

JMO