> Still, it would have been more accurate had they shown a few idiot drivers > pulling out though.
Agree on all counts.
BTW, just in case someone hasn't seen this one yet, it is still my favourite, even if (or possibly because) it is a send-up! Cheers http://fat.ly/h0bpl
> BTW, just in case someone hasn't seen this one yet, it is still my > favourite, even if (or possibly because) it is a send-up! Cheers > http://fat.ly/h0bpl
> Still, it would have been more accurate had they shown a few idiot drivers > pulling out though.
They've obviously chosen examples of single vehicle motorcycle crashes which involved no external factors or influences to make a specific point. Not sure what you think adding a few idiot drivers would do to make it more accurate, besides making it less accurate. You obviously don't get it. You're probably exactly the type of rider they're aiming for... The ones who would like to believe that every accident is the fault of a Volvo driver.
> From other states, I've only ever seen accusatory ad campaigns. Only > in SA, have I seen educational campaigns.
> I wonder how we hire their ad consultants?
I don't think it's the consultants that need to change. It's the people writing the cheques who are asking for a specific message to be portrayed and who make the final decision over what the public sees. Unfortunately for the driving public who's premiums fund the TAC road safety advertisements, under the current laws, because they are not selling something, they are not required to be truthful or factual follow the other laws which apply to advertisers. I have made a number of complaints over the years to the Advertising standards bureau about them and have received the same response every time. The laws only apply to product advertising.
On the flipside, if enough people put some money together, it would be quite legitimate to run a counter advertising campaign pointing out that every k over wasn't a killer and that speeding might actually save lives.. but because the TAC have such a large advertising budget, I would imagine that would come with a large amount of influence over the broadcasters, who would probably not screen any opposing views if the TAC threatened to withdraw advertising.
On Nov 8, 11:18 am, "Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote:
> Deevo wrote: > > Still, it would have been more accurate had they shown a few idiot drivers > > pulling out though.
> They've obviously chosen examples of single vehicle motorcycle crashes > which involved no external factors or influences to make a specific > point. Not sure what you think adding a few idiot drivers would do to > make it more accurate, besides making it less accurate. You obviously > don't get it. You're probably exactly the type of rider they're aiming > for... The ones who would like to believe that every accident is the > fault of a Volvo driver.
Come on Nev, are you trying to point out that the 65% of motorcycle fatalities (WA figures) that don't involve another vehicle are really not the fault of the Volvo drivers?
> Not any more...seems most of them have switched to SUVs... > G.
classic comment on topgear last season.. on long the lines of all the fuckwits have moved on, Volvo are starting to make car that you actually want to drive
>> Still, it would have been more accurate had they shown a few idiot >> drivers pulling out though.
> They've obviously chosen examples of single vehicle motorcycle crashes > which involved no external factors or influences to make a specific point. > Not sure what you think adding a few idiot drivers would do to make it > more accurate, besides making it less accurate. You obviously don't get > it. You're probably exactly the type of rider they're aiming for... The > ones who would like to believe that every accident is the fault of a Volvo > driver.
In terms of statistics there are a high percentage of crashes caused by other drivers. The last figure I had seen quoted was something like 85% though that was a few years back now. As far as my own experience is concerned I've had four serious crashes while riding motorcycles on the road, two were caused directly by vehicles disobeying traffic signs, one was a classic "didn't see you" moment when a driver didn't give way and the fourth was my failing to see a stream of water flowing across the road in the shadow of a bridge off the Mitchell Freeway entrance in Perth some years back.
It really comes down to this, all road users need to be educated on how to deal with traffic, not just one group and not just one group being singled out. -- Deevo Geraldton Western Australia
theo wrote: > On Nov 8, 11:18 am, "Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote: >> Deevo wrote:
>>> Still, it would have been more accurate had they shown a few idiot drivers >>> pulling out though. >> They've obviously chosen examples of single vehicle motorcycle crashes >> which involved no external factors or influences to make a specific >> point. Not sure what you think adding a few idiot drivers would do to >> make it more accurate, besides making it less accurate. You obviously >> don't get it. You're probably exactly the type of rider they're aiming >> for... The ones who would like to believe that every accident is the >> fault of a Volvo driver.
> Come on Nev, are you trying to point out that the 65% of motorcycle > fatalities (WA figures) that don't involve another vehicle are really > not the fault of the Volvo drivers?
On Nov 8, 2:35 pm, theo <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> Come on Nev, are you trying to point out that the 65% of motorcycle > fatalities (WA figures) that don't involve another vehicle are really > not the fault of the Volvo drivers?
Hi Theo Do you have a reference for that one ? 65% Single vehicle motorcycle accidents is well outside the rest of Oz norm (IIRC and am not out of date). I'd be curious to know what the details were around that one.
>>> Still, it would have been more accurate had they shown a few idiot >>> drivers pulling out though. >> They've obviously chosen examples of single vehicle motorcycle crashes >> which involved no external factors or influences to make a specific point. >> Not sure what you think adding a few idiot drivers would do to make it >> more accurate, besides making it less accurate. You obviously don't get >> it. You're probably exactly the type of rider they're aiming for... The >> ones who would like to believe that every accident is the fault of a Volvo >> driver.
> In terms of statistics there are a high percentage of crashes caused by > other drivers. The last figure I had seen quoted was something like 85% > though that was a few years back now. As far as my own experience is > concerned I've had four serious crashes while riding motorcycles on the > road, two were caused directly by vehicles disobeying traffic signs, one was > a classic "didn't see you" moment when a driver didn't give way and the > fourth was my failing to see a stream of water flowing across the road in > the shadow of a bridge off the Mitchell Freeway entrance in Perth some years > back.
> It really comes down to this, all road users need to be educated on how to > deal with traffic, not just one group and not just one group being singled > out.
I don't understand how educating all road users on how to deal with traffic will have any bearing on reducing the number of single vehicle motorcycle accidents where the rider hits a stationary roadside object. You've obviously missed the point completely. It's the same sort of reaction that one sees on netrider and other forums predominatly populated by L-Platers.
> theo wrote: > > On Nov 8, 11:18 am, "Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote: > >> Deevo wrote:
> >>> Still, it would have been more accurate had they shown a few idiot drivers > >>> pulling out though. > >> They've obviously chosen examples of single vehicle motorcycle crashes > >> which involved no external factors or influences to make a specific > >> point. Not sure what you think adding a few idiot drivers would do to > >> make it more accurate, besides making it less accurate. You obviously > >> don't get it. You're probably exactly the type of rider they're aiming > >> for... The ones who would like to believe that every accident is the > >> fault of a Volvo driver.
> > Come on Nev, are you trying to point out that the 65% of motorcycle > > fatalities (WA figures) that don't involve another vehicle are really > > not the fault of the Volvo drivers?
On Nov 9, 11:00 am, JL <jlitt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2:35 pm, theo <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> > Come on Nev, are you trying to point out that the 65% of motorcycle > > fatalities (WA figures) that don't involve another vehicle are really > > not the fault of the Volvo drivers?
> Hi Theo > Do you have a reference for that one ? 65% Single vehicle motorcycle > accidents is well outside the rest of Oz norm (IIRC and am not out of > date). I'd be curious to know what the details were around that one.
Not off the top of my head. It was included in a one page newspaper report a few months ago. It was fatalities, not accidents.
|
