Road Safety ad misleading?

Submitted: Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:20
ThreadID: 107324 Views:2330 Replies:12 FollowUps:26
This Thread has been Archived
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for road safety but IMHO this ad is a little over the top.

Queensland Road Safety Ad

It initially shows a car braking from 60kph and not hitting the pedestrian. Then it shows the same car travelling at 67kph braking at the same spot, It states that the car would be travelling at 30kph when it hits the pedestrian yet shows the car stopping to a dead stop within a car length.

I would question if a car with an initial speed of 7kph faster at initial braking would be then travelling 30kph faster at the point of impact, and could a car stop within, say 5m from 30kph

Misleading or not?
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - John - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:38

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:38
Bunder, I agree, used to be an ad here in Vic about the same subject, had a girl not concentrating walking off the footpath into the path of the car, same thing, don't speed and you don't get them, missed the point entirely that the girl should have been looking where she was going.

Agree that the ad is misleading as the car stops within a metre or so from a supposed 30k/hr............. artistic licence maybe?
John and Jan

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 530724

Follow Up By: Mick O - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:31

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:31
Not quite correct John. In the Vic TAC ad, the girl was struck down on both occasions it's just that in one scenario the vehicle travelling at 60kph and bled a lot more speed under brakes than the car travelling at 65 kph (I think that was the speed - It was with the Wipe off five campaign they were running as I recall). It indicated that her injuries would have been a lot less.

The whole premise of the add was the increased risk factor when speeding in a built up area. It wasn't about the inattentive chick, it was about any of those unforseen situations that happen to us all while driving, a dog on the road, a small child running out, another car backing out. Even small increases in speed can cause a vast difference in stopping ability of a vehicle. Your end result at 65kph may be a whole lot worse than if you'd been travelling at the speed limit of 60kph.

The majority of a vehicles stopping power is executed in the last few metres of breaking, particularly with today's modern vehicles with ABS/TRS etc. Plenty of empirical evidence on the net. These brake tests are conducted by every vehicle safety agency as well a manufacturers.

Cheers Mick

''We knew from the experience of well-known travelers that the
trip would doubtless be attended with much hardship.''
Richard Maurice - 1903

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813675

Follow Up By: Bludge - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 14:39

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 14:39
Slightly more graphic, but the physics is correct irrespective of who should be doing what.

Speeding or jaywalking, 2 wrongs have never made anything right.



TonyV

Cairns FNQ.

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813701

Reply By: Shaker - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:40

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:40
Does it really matter?
If it upsets you that much you could run your own tests, but be prepared for a stint in hospital!

AnswerID: 530725

Reply By: John and Regina M - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:51

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:51
Yes you've missed the point haven't you?

As said, test it yourself and let us know if your arms aren't broken.
AnswerID: 530727

Reply By: Member - PJR (NSW) - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:07

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:07
I don't think that he missed the point at all. He is just stating an obvious lie. And I would say that truth is not a major factor in advertising. Personally I think people switch off as soon as these speed kills advertisments come on. We have seen too much. It seems that the only ones who take any notice are those who don't speed anyway. Drink and drive advertisments the same. We still live in a "head in the sand" and "it won't happen to me" society.

No. I don't think that he missed the point. Like you and us here he actually watched the add.

Phil
AnswerID: 530728

Follow Up By: Member Bushy 04(VIC) - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:32

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:32
Got to agree with Phil on this, artistic licence the norn and all they want is for you to watch the add.
Bushy
0
FollowupID: 813672

Follow Up By: Shaker - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:28

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:28
PROVE that they are wrong!!

0
FollowupID: 813692

Follow Up By: Member - Coldee - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 15:49

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 15:49
The proof is they are not wrong. It isn't an obvious lie. What is stated in the ad is true. Check the data.
0
FollowupID: 813776

Reply By: olcoolone - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:20

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:20
Yes this type of theory is floored and more of a marketing campaign than saving lives.

Unfortunately not all pedestrians decide to steep out in front of a car at exactly 26.77 meters....... what happens if the pedestrian steeped out in front of a car at 12 meters or 48 meters.

Plus different road conditions, the vehicle, the driver and the physical condition of the car and driver are so variable it's not funny.

All they are doing is bleeping the obvious that the slower you go the less stopping distance...... a two year old kid understands that so why spend millions on ads and campaigns.

These types of advertisements are a key points in in most cases revenue raising, the main objecting of these types of ads is to get the general public to accept, think and support the government in there campaign for more speed cameras, red light cameras and now in Victoria long distance detection cameras.

The same goes for each states Motor Vehicle Accident Commission and government funded research centers...... the government spends for example $10 million in funding for these organisations to spruik the so called facts and advantages to the general public and they accepts it..... so the government can reap $100,s of millions in fines from a $10 million investment.

Why do you think they employ top marketing and advertising executives for this role?

If it isn't revue raising why is it in the forwards budget and classed as an income stream?

By using so called specialists and professionals to spruik that we all think they know what they are on about we will think they are right and act on it........ SURE...... Medical Doctors and Medical Surgeons for years have been spruiking to use to stop smoking, stop drinking , stop eating bad food and excises more..... and has it worked...... NO!

I don't think nobody should speed and I support on the spot fines but I don't support fines that come two weeks later in the mail nor do I support incorrect and misleading ads...... if a business did this they would be taken to court by the ACCC for misleading advertising.

The New South Wales government got caught out a few years ago by using old data from a small town in the USA, the data was collected back in the mid 70's.



AnswerID: 530729

Follow Up By: Mick O - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:47

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:47
A few points in response;

Victoria TAC is self funding through 3rd party registrations and other investments;

Victorian Road toll has dropped to below 200 for the first time since 1927 (when very few people drove); In the 70's it was up near 1000 people killed per annum. This has occurred in an era when the actual numbers of drivers and vehicles on the roads is at an all time high and increasing rapidly.

While vehicle safety improvements has contributed to this, the overwhelming evidence indicates that road safety campaigns and enforcement are responsible for the drop in numbers.

Government and the TAC are also responsible for the medical bills and a whole lot more of those injured or killed as a result of road trauma. They also have to build roads, barriers and have laws to protect ourselves from ourselves. If you get a fine two weeks later, well it's more of an indication of your poor driving. If you'd stuck to the speed limit or not run that red light, you wouldn't be complaining

There is ample REAL evidence in at least 30 countries on road safety trauma reduction and what methodologies have been effective in reducing road trauma. In a nutshell, your argument is flawed and I'd suggest you do a bit of research - Start with the Vic Govt response to Road Trauma. Pulls a lot of those threads in to context for you.

Oh yeah and as I mentioned above, there's plenty of info on Brake tests as well which will provide you with the actual physics involved, vehicle systems and the exact processes and time lines involved in a vehicle bleeding inertia at speed.

Cheers Mick
''We knew from the experience of well-known travelers that the
trip would doubtless be attended with much hardship.''
Richard Maurice - 1903

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813677

Follow Up By: Shaker - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 18:27

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 18:27
Mick, in the 70s it actually hit 1054 dead, anyone that says that road safety campaigns have no effect, have got their heads firmly up their fundamental orifice!

0
FollowupID: 813714

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 19:39

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 19:39
I haven't got an argument Mick and wasn't looking for one!

Mick didn't mention anything bad about TAC or the roles accident commissions play and yes I do know what they do but I also know they get funding for additional advertising campaigns to change the public perspective on road related issues and not all issues or outcomes are fact or for the right reason..... I would love to think all government departments and close organisations were 100% above board, truthful, trusting and looking out for number 1.... but money talks and so does control.... you don't bite the hand that feeds you!

Not denying the governments of Australia have done a good job of reducing the road toll and yes it has changed peoples driving habits to a degree, but the number of times over the last 5 years I see people who are speeding slow down for fixed speed cameras is astounding and the number of people running red light where the intersection hasn't got a red light camera is also astounding and more are doing it making our roads less safe for law abiding people.

As for the road toll dropping, the government can't take all the praise for it, safer cars play a big part and statistics can be manipulated.

I'm all for officer based speed detection and fine issuing but when they start concentrating on the real problems like unroad worthy car, mobile phones and people not obeying the basic road rules and those who don't have the ability to drive safely instead of taking traffic police off the road and installing more fixed and mobile non officer based speed detection then I might have a different view.

Here in South Australia I know for a fact the number of real police officers on the beat can be as low as 4 mixed crew in ta local regional area that spans 130 square kilometers and with only 3 cars patrolling.

I do know speed and red light detection makes money and police offices cost money.

Don't know about Victoria but here in little old South Australia the state of the roads are deteriorating to a point whereby some roads are dangerous to drive on...... the solution here is lower the speed limit and then carry out speed detection issuing fines for speeding.

If they were serious in stopping accidents and repeat offenders they would issue heavier fines and bring back this thing called driver education...... instead of issuing fines for speeding; why not send the offenders to 6 weeks of schooling carried out on a Saturday and Sunday..... I'm sure that would stop them re offending but that costs money, not generate.

$750,000 for a 6 day marketing campaign telling people about the dangers of driving over Easter or $750,000 for one on one driver education... know what I would sooner see.

Motorbike learners training here in SA have had a drastic budget cut and funding pulled but the cost and rate of accidents is the highest..... DOT here in SA have had future projects put on hold to concentrate on fixed speed detection installations... all done by one minister and his trusty pen.

And one last thing about their campaigns, no matter what you tell someone or they see on a TV ad they will always think in their heads it is never going to happen to me and nobody goes out in their car thinking I'm going to die today so I better drive slower, go a different way, am I leaving a 5 second gap or stay home.

I don't see why you are getting so upset as I didn't think I said anything bad.



0
FollowupID: 813718

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 19:50

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 19:50
Shaker, didn't say all campaigns and if you read my first four paragraphs it was to do with the speed vs pedestrian.

I'm not denying the fact the slower you go the less impact but in this scenario there are so many uncontrolled variables that make the argument childish.

can you tell me where I said "anyone that says that road safety campaigns have no effect," was?

I did say "These types of advertisements " and if you didn't know this is what I was referring to below....

"Unfortunately not all pedestrians decide to steep out in front of a car at exactly 26.77 meters....... what happens if the pedestrian steeped out in front of a car at 12 meters or 48 meters.

Plus different road conditions, the vehicle, the driver and the physical condition of the car and driver are so variable it's not funny.

All they are doing is bleeping the obvious that the slower you go the less stopping distance...... a two year old kid understands that so why spend millions on ads and campaigns. "
0
FollowupID: 813720

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 09:42

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 09:42
Here is a bit about TAC flawed motorcycle ads campaign..... page 12 to 24 are interesting.

http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au/uploads/INFO/VMCSupplementaryPublicHearing.pdf
0
FollowupID: 813753

Reply By: pop2jocem - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:57

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 08:57
Try this one


anti speed ad

Cheers
Pop

AnswerID: 530732

Follow Up By: Wayne's 60 - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:49

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:49
Hi Pop,

For whatever reason tou link returns a "Page Not Found" message.
Odd, because when you roll (mouse) over the link, the thumbnail works??

Cheers,
Wayne & Sally.
0
FollowupID: 813678

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:46

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:46
Yeah, you're right. Should have tried a bit further. It's a NZ add that I thought had a fair impact.
0
FollowupID: 813687

Follow Up By: pop2jocem - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:58

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:58
Try typing direct into Google

www.nzta.govt.nz/about/advertising/speed/mistakes

This seems to work, no idea why the link ended in a dead end. Probably me (:-(( but anyway if this ad doesn't strike some sort of cord in anyone well.....

Cheers
Pop
0
FollowupID: 813689

Reply By: evaredy - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:44

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:44
They used to have something similar here in WA.

Most of us are aware that it takes longer to stop the faster you travel, but there are many many other factors that come into it.
They are just trying to justify their existence and wasting tax payers money at the same time with these stupid ads.

It makes no real difference what speed you are travelling at, it comes down to the initial distance, the pedestrian steps out in front of you, plus a lot of other factors.

So travelling along a road with a sped limit of 70 kph, if a pedestrian steps out 15 meters away from you, you are doing 60 kph, you are going to hit them, on the other hand, if you were doing 70 kph, you may very well pass them before they step out.

I think they are targeting the wrong people, if you are a pedestrian you should be paying attention to what the hell is going on before you step onto the road. It is not up to motorists to try and figure out what a pedestrian is going to do.

Shouldn't the onus be on the pedestrians, rather than motorists? What happened to look right, look left and look right again before you cross the road?

AnswerID: 530735

Follow Up By: Kris and Kev - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:50

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:50
You make some good points. I believe modern day is ruled by ‘harm minimisation’. I heard this a few years back and ever since each new law/regulation reminds me of that theory. In other words do not target the actual problem, maybe too difficult/expensive etc, but target the other. In other words it is too difficult to stop pedestrians running onto the road, so target the speed of vehicles. I know that sounds very simplistic, but you get my drift. Kevin
0
FollowupID: 813682

Reply By: Bludge - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:51

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:51
The information in the ad is correct, drive along at 30kmh and hit the brakes, most cars (and many 4WD's) will stop in the cars length or 5-6 mtrs.
If they didn't stop so quick, there would be a mass of tail end shunts in traffic jams .

Have a play with Forensic stopping distance calculator

In the second screen put in 30kmh and the stopping distance is 5.06mtrs

Then put in 60kmh and the stopping distance is 20.24 mtrs
At 67kmh the stopping distance is 25.24 mtrs

The 5mtr difference equates to 30kmh.

This is without the drivers attention being distracted, radio, mobile, GPS,looking for streets, talking to passengers etc. etc.
TonyV

Cairns FNQ.

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 530739

Follow Up By: Bludge - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:02

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:02
As a follow up, if you take a Low Risk driving course you will experience the stopping distance test on tar and gravel, its quite revealing how venerable not only pedestrian and animals are but also the front of your vehicle.

So not just over Easter but always, watch your speed, keep the 3 second space rule and remember if you are towing you will need extra distance, if you are not towing respect the gap in front of anyone who is towing (especially trucks) and have a safe Easter break.
TonyV

Cairns FNQ.

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813684

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 14:46

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 14:46
Thanks Bludge for applying some scientific scrutiny to this subject rather than some of the emotional clap-trap in some of the above posts.
And thanks also for revealing the Forensic Stopping Distance Calculator...... a useful applet.

Actually, the advertisement is conservative. The real-life situation is even worse as the reaction time was not added to the additional speed. Both brake applications were from "the exact same point". With the additional 7kmh, the vehicle would be a little closer to the pedestrian before the brakes were applied.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813703

Reply By: The Bantam - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 22:09

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 22:09
Unfortunatly almost without exception road safety advertising is sensationalised, over simplified, statistically inaccurate and scientifically flawed....and all to often has some other agenda......and people know it.

This is why road safety advertising is so ineffective.

Road safety advetising politically motivated and more about and being seen to be doing something than actually achieveing resuits.

Anybody who claims that road safety advertsing is responsible for the reduction in the road toll is either a politician or very much mistaken.

The single biggest factor in the reduction in the road tool is vehicle design...actual crash survivability of vehicles has made quantum leaps since the 70's.

A few years ago..I pulled up to help at an accident on the freeway....a couple of young blokes had been a bit too enthusiastic, got badly out of shape and bounced off the guard rails a couple of times.....not a straight pannel on the vehicle..not two wheels pointing in the same direction...these guys had not a scratch on them.....shaken and $#@t scared about explaining to the police...but physically fine.

If they has been in a car from the 70's or early 80s they would have been dead...but they where in a modern car with a strong pasenger cell, crumple zones, seat belts and airbags.


Its about time the the politicians, roads authorities and police realsied that they need relivent, realsitic and accurate road safety adveretising.

They need to acknoledge that it is not the person doing 10% or less over the speed limit that is the real danger it is then person doing 20 pluss KPH over the limit, or the person that is inattentive, follows too close or habitually brakes late.

The best road safety adds I have seen where the "ease back" motorcycle adds...they where not sensational or over simplistic and emphasised the well proven motorcycle survival principles of looking a head, being aware, braking early and increasing following distance.
They showed realistic situations that many motorcycle riders with encounter and gave simple realsitic advice on avoiding the hazards without harping on speed.

Most of the speeding adds are targeted at low range speeding and could easily be pointed to as beeing there to justify unreasonably harsh speed enforcement aimed at fund raising.

cheers
AnswerID: 530768

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 23:12

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 23:12
Bantam,

"Its about time the the politicians, roads authorities and police realsied that they need relivent, realsitic and accurate road safety advertising.'

If your driving is on a par with your spelling we are all at great danger! LOL
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813732

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 23:35

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 23:35
If you want to correct spelling...go take up school teaching.

This forum gives me no oportunity to edit my post to correct spelling or typografic errors.

so to put it bluntly..if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion..go drop on your head.

Yeh I know there is a spell checker....not interested..its an internet forum not a publishing house.

cheers
1
FollowupID: 813734

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 23:46

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 23:46
If you cannot be bothered with a little more accuracy in your spelling, how can we place any credibility in the accuracy of the "facts" you so like to present to us? Like most of what you spout, it's just plain sloppy.
As you say, it is an internet forum, a place for comment!

"typografic"? Classic! FDL
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813735

Follow Up By: Member - Nolo (Brisbane) - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:12

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:12
Ignore Allan Bantam. I'd rather have your contribution than not. Life's too short to worry just about grammar and spelling, it is the content that counts. Keep it up.
1
FollowupID: 813741

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 08:50

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 08:50
So allan as well as having nothing to contribute to the discussion and arguing about spelling on an internet forum (a well established pointless activity), you now begin with personal attacks.

go drop on your head.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 813745

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 08:56

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 08:56
Sorry Bantam, it was a joke (spot the "LOL"?) but obviously not in your good taste.
Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813747

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:16

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:16
About 18 months ago BBC motoring program Top Gear did a comparison against 2, 3, 4 and 5 star rated cars basically outlining the difference between the severity of injury or death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA4tQn7smKU

Yes some forget the advantages of safety ratings and what they mean..... here is another comparing old and new.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
0
FollowupID: 813766

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 13:56

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 13:56
Those two links realy do show what I am talking about.

some of the earlier vehicles from the 70's and 80s where genuine death traps.
The BMC/leyland mini was shovking for lower leg injuries, lots of the american derived cars with metal glovebox lids where known for chopping the pasenger off at the knees....death from rapid blood loss was common.

Then there is the ability of the car to stop and corner....in the 70's and 80s the actual drivability of vehicles was very variable..some drove, stopped and cornered well others where simply atrocious.

pretty well all of the modern vehicles drive pretty damn well and that is before you introduce things like ABS brakes and traction controll.

OH yeh baby....the gretest proportion of the reduction in road toll is due to improvements in the vehicles we drive.

The second greatest proportion is the roads we drive on.
It shows as conspicuous when you see the sections of road in the north "repared" after cyclone Yasi.

Because any major construction must now meet current standards, you will see a section of road that looks completely out of place with the road either side of it.

Guard rails or other edge protection, wide verges, a sealed portion that extends well beyond the drivable part of the road, a white line on the edge of the road, improved line marking, more stringent requirements on gradient, visability, improved surface materials and just about everthing else about the road and its surrounds.
And that is on a single section of road with no intersectuion.

Tell me arround town how long is it since you have seen an uncontrolled intersection where you have to exercise the simple rules of right of way.
If its not a "T" junction it will either havea roundabout, trafic lights, a stop or give way sign controlling the intersection.


The road safety advertisers...the government will fradulently claim that it is advertising or enforcement or reduction of speed limits that have produced the reduction in the road toll..and give the impression that it is by far the major part.

This is a falsehood plain and simple...it is the changes in cars and the roads we drive them on that account for the great and overwhelming majority of the improvements in road safety.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 813771

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 14:05

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 14:05
There was a rare road safety expert that actually made some sence on one of the TV programes a while back.

His comment was the single biggest improvement you can make to your own safety on the road is.

To look both ways at every intersection you cross.....regardless.

even if it is contrlled by trafic lights or whatever.

Look both ways first.

I have never seen a road safety advertsiment with this message.

It is just so simple , but thyere are no votes in it and it does not justify any government action or polocy.

This is why... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oljgQB59N8

LOOK BOTH WAYS..ALWAYS.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 813772

Reply By: CSeaJay - Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 22:37

Thursday, Apr 17, 2014 at 22:37
Responding to the original post
Misleading, somewhat yes but I remain in favour of the ad as it is.

Why it is misleading is the parameters they apply in their calculation.
Change the response time (from being aware you have to hit the brakes to the time you actually hit them) and the difference at the end will be the 30 m. Think about it, change that response time by another 2 seconds to the response time and the difference will be another 32 m!
But Reduce that response time and the difference will be significantly less
Cheers, CJ
AnswerID: 530772

Follow Up By: Bludge - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:41

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:41
CSeaJay,

If you view the ad the parameters are set without response /reaction time and the calculations are accurate.

I personally don't think its misleading but that my opinion.

The original question BlunderDog ask:
Quote - "It initially shows a car braking from 60kph and not hitting the pedestrian. Then it shows the same car travelling at 67kph braking at the same spot, It states that the car would be travelling at 30kph when it hits the pedestrian yet shows the car stopping to a dead stop within a car length.
"
The answer to that is yes, a roadworthy car travelling at 30kmh will stop in 5-6 mtrs. Anyone can test this the global forensic evidence support this.

In my view, I cannot see how this is misleading unless you want to add data that is not and never intended to be part of the calculation or the famous "what if".

This is impossible to input, or do we then suggest that Bowling hats in the back window add 5 seconds, a tradie on the phone, add 3 seconds, young girl putting in makeup.... and the list goes on.

As for reducing reaction time, well just watch what people are doing in their cars, in general it's not watching the road.
TonyV

Cairns FNQ.

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 813763

Reply By: mikehzz - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:38

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:38
If the car was doing 100 then it would be in the next suburb before the pedestrian stepped off the footpath.......just kidding, everyone go back to arguing. :-)
AnswerID: 530777

Reply By: Member - Coldee - Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 15:47

Friday, Apr 18, 2014 at 15:47
Seriously, look at the data on the forensic calculator. The advertisement is not misleading. In fact it presents a best case scenario.

The stopping distance of a car travelling at 30km is 5.06 metres. True that reaction time, surface, slope, weather, condition of the car are all factors that will create a variation to the data but the basic point of the add that a car travelling at 67 km an our under controlled circumstances takes about 5 metres further to stop. The length of a Corolla is 4.275.Therefore a car that was doing 67 km an hour would, at the point where the 60km an hour car stopped, be doing 30km/h and stop approximately a car length from the first! Do the maths. Draw yourself a graph. Check the data! Everything else is hearsay and conspiracy.

The point that also needs to be made is that this is a controlled test. This is a best case scenario and that an less skilled driver not focussed on driving, not expecting or anticipating the point where the brakes need to be applied, driving a heavier vehicle on wet or icy asphalt going down hill would take longer to stop and be travelling faster.

The "It will never happen to me" drivers are never going to be swayed by an ad but let's not be "that can't be right and therefore it isn't" drivers either.
AnswerID: 530804

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)