Now you can get the top stories from Kotaku delivered to your inbox. Enter your email below.
By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Accidents tend to happen because there’s no time to react, or because someone makes a mistake. Either way, once things are in motion, that’s that. You can’t pause an accident if you’re in the middle of one.
But if you could pause an accident as it was happening, like in this anti-speeding ad by NZTransportAgency? Things might get rather somber.
Damn.
Speed ad – Mistakes [NZTransportAgency]
The Cheapest NBN 1000 Plans
Looking to bump up your internet connection and save a few bucks? Here are the cheapest plans available.
Honestly I think the part in Rush where Niki Lauda(/the guy playing him) explains why he isn’t driving fast at that time will have done more for road safety than any of the crap, failed propaganda governments have shovelled hundreds of millions into producing for years.
When it comes to driving at high speed, governments have no credibility or authority, so no one with a brain will ever listen to them, nor should they. But with someone who drives fast professionally and is an ace at it, their word will always be respected, as long as it’s not a paid/’forced’ safety message.
Yeah, governments have no credibility. But they should listen to the scientists who the governments pay, who put this shit together to figure out what the human reaction time is and how that translates into stopping distance which is what this stuff is based on.
People who think that politicians and fish shop owners come up with this stuff off the top of their heads instead of consulting experts who know a shit-tonne more about this than you will ever know and want a celebrity to tell them something instead? Those people are idiots.
The one assumption that is made is that only the ‘average human reaction time’ is used for calculation. They all assume that the reaction happens as soon as the ‘hazard’ is seen, and that the hazard is seen immediately.
In the real world, hazards are mostly not seen until too late anyway. Human reaction times also differ. And furthermore, the actual reaction will not be identical.
Amazing ad. Really well made.
I nearly got taken out by a speeding van this morning while riding the motorbike to work. Was changing lanes, did a headcheck, checked the mirrors, everything was fine and then this van just speeds past me out of nowhere.
Was a 60 zone and he must have been doing 80+
Wow, That was a really great advert. Pulls at the heartstrings without going over the top and doesn’t feel like your average low budget, generic, government advert. Bravo!
Chilling ad, I think this one really does drive it home.
Defence of most speeding speeders are that they are in control and can react properly at any time. But the reality of life is that people make mistakes so you should always drive defensively.
People make mistakes. People die. Sometimes these two things are related, sometimes not. Such is life.
I saw this as it was doing the rounds on Facebook. I object heavily to it.
– It is labelled as an anti-speeding ad.
– Speed is not a factor in the situation.
– One stupid cliche moment shows the speedo, showing 105 (?) kmph. Nothing else hints at speeding in the video.
– The dude who pulled out saw the car, clearly. He even admins “I thought I had time”.
– GUy who pulled out wouldn’t have time even if the other car was doing 50 kmph.
– Uses another stupid cliche of “think of the children!”
Mistakes happen. Sometimes they are fatal. The mistake in the video is the guy pulling out, not the dude doing 104kmph. I hate how everyone hops on this bandwagon and calls that guy the devil.
It’s an effective ad though, I’ll give it that. It’s just labelled wrong. It needs to focus on the mistake of the person who pulled out; to think twice before you take an action.
Agree with you Stickman. Great commercial but leaves me thinking that it wasn’t the “speeders” fault. Shows too much that it was inevitable even at 100 kph a crash would happen.
I thought it was about the mistakes people make abd how a tiny one can affect everyone on the road
I’ll address a few of your points.
– Speeding is a factor, as the ad outlines, because it reduces response time and even small speed differences result in significantly longer braking distances. The driver of the speeding car notes that if he’d been travelling slower he might have been able to avoid the collision and that’s likely true, either because he could brake in a shorter distance or because he’d have had more time to react.
– They hint at speeding throughout. The driver of the car who pulled out did indeed see the other car, but it can be difficult to judge the speed of objects travelling directly towards you, so he assumed based on the distance to other car that he had enough time to pull out – something he says when they converse. He made a mistake by misjudging the speed of the other vehicle, but that mistake was contributed to by the fact other car was travelling at an unusual speed for the road.
– I don’t see any evidence that the accident couldn’t have been avoided if the other car had been travelling at 50km/h. When the camera shows a wide external shot just after time freezes, the car pulling out is halfway into the intersection already – if the other car had been doing half the speed, A) the amount of time between reaction and impact would have doubled, and B) braking distance would have been considerably shorter due to lower speed.
I take from the ad that both drivers made mistakes. One driver’s mistake of speeding contributed to the other driver’s mistake of believing he had time, and both mistakes contributed to creating an accident that likely wouldn’t have occurred otherwise.
1. Speeding: see here: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/01/an-anti-speeding-ad-that-will-haunt-my-dreams/comment-page-1/#comment-2342261
Additionally, the driver never notes that he could miss the car. All he says is “im going too fast”. Even at 60kmph, he’d be ‘going too fast’. The guy who pulled out was committing suicide (and manslaughter), whether he was aware of it or not.
2. Speeding is not hinted at all. It’s a country road, speeds above 80kmph are to be expected. Please show me where the hints are. The guy who pulled out did not misjudge speed – he misjudged the distance blatantly. How is 104kmph unusual for a country road? Once again, show me where the hints are, because all I see is a typical twat thinking he’s allowed to pull out on a totally empty country road in front of a car.
3. As above, it’s country road. 50kmph would probably be fine, but it’s unrealistic speed for the setting. Secondly, if the driver pulled out at this distance, he’d pull out at a much shorter distance if the setting was urban. He’d be t-boned in any case.
4. Speeding is only a legal mistake here. Morally, he has a clear conscience and did not act to negatively provoke or be an asshole, or be blatantly unsafe. 100 and 104kmph is 5% difference, which is almost nothing if contemplating that it’d make a difference to the judgement of the guy pulling out. Reminder: he has a kid in the back seat, why would you take the risk?
I still stand firmly that this ad should focus on the idiotic actions of the father.
From the ad, he was doing closer to 108km/h than 104km/h. Plus when we get a look at the speedometer, the car would have been under heavy braking reducing the speed seen. That said, who knows how much speed would have been reduced in that time.
Yes the father made the bigger mistake in this scenario – but the speeding driver is still going to hit the car at a higher impact speed than what he would have at 100km/h, with possible life altering (if not fatal) consequences.
It would be interesting to see how the police would assign blame/lay charges in the scenario.
If police found evidence of speeding, that guy would get the blame. Otherwise it would be inattentiveness of behalf of the dude who pulled out.
1. He does acknowledge speed was a factor:
Driver A: “I don’t have time to stop.”
Driver B: “Come on mate, it was a simple mistake.”
Driver A: “I know if I was going a bit slower…but…”
Not going to entertain your accusation of manslaughter to the driver that pulled out. Any crash investigation unit would determine speed as the root cause of this accident.
2. I detailed how speeding was hinted at in my earlier reply. It’s mentioned explicitly by the driver of the speeding car, and it’s indicated implicitly by the way the driver of the other car notes the presence of the speeding car at distance and determines he has time to cross the lane. I don’t think these are particularly obscure flags.
3. You gave the 50km/h example, I simply replied that it was an absurd statement. Raise it to 80km/h, the same factors still apply – reduced response time and significantly increased stopping distance. The driver decided to pull out because of the judged speed and distance (“I thought I had time”), so suggesting he’d pull out at a shorter distance in an urban setting doesn’t seem relevant to what we’re looking at in this ad. It does seem to suggest that you want to blame that driver though, so you’ll ascribe behaviour to him that isn’t shown in the video as long as it makes him at fault.
4. I wouldn’t have a clear moral conscience if I were driving the speeding vehicle there, and neither should you. If you exceed the limit, which on country roads especially is determined for safety reasons, you’re ignoring posted safety advice determined by people who are in almost all cases better qualified to understand the environmental factors than you are, and are absolutely doing something unsafe whether you’re aware it’s unsafe or not.
As someone who lives in New Zealand, where the ad was filmed and airs, I can absolutely assure you that that is not a country road. You can see in the ad that there is a stop sign at the intersection, and there would likely not be a stop sign at a country road in NZ. Based on the size and condition of the road, it could easily be our main state highway, which for 80% of its length is two lanes, and pretty narrow. I think you are missing the entire point of the ad in pointing the finger at the guy making the mistake.
The point of the ad is that no matter what you do, or how good a driver you are, it is simply a fact that people make mistakes. And if you are speeding, that could increase the likelihood of a fatality, regardless of where the blame lies. It isn’t about casting blame, it is about promoting intelligent defensive driving to save lives. I can also assure you that the open road speed limit in New Zealand is 100km/hour, so anyone in NZ who saw that ad, and saw he was doing 105+, would know that speed was a factor. It isn’t even a “hinted” at, it is completely obvious to anyone aware of the speed limit in NZ.
Leave a Reply