Why on earth are they re-running that tv & radio ad, persuding us it's OK, to run into a child at 30mph?
Guess you know the one I mean .... childs voice...hit me at 40 & I'll probably die.. hit me at 30, maybe I'll live...
Oh that's all right then, I won't bother to avoid you, then.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic - it just annoys me every time it's on, as it's so missing the point.
Some clever, over paid advertising exec & government official, both feel it gives the correct message, though, obviously.
Rant over.
VB
|
Fully agree VB.
Why is it not drilled into kids these days that traffic is dangerous, and to be avoided, like I was as a kid in the early 80's.. not like today's output who seem to go out of their way to run out in front of passing traffic...
|
it's particularly simplistic as well.....most accidents of that sort have some form of braking involved first, which obviously scrubs off speed
so to hit a kid at 40 mph, unless they came out from behind something and you hit them instantaneously, the chances are you'd have been driving a lot faster than 40 mph.... and if you're the sort of person who does that during the time kids are about in a built up area, you're hardly going to take notice of Govt adverts are you
they'd be better off reminding people about kids with headphones, kids around ice cream vans, kids in parks, kids on bicycles etc........which is what the average driver might not consider
in other words drive to the conditions not a speed limit
|
|
|
Why is it not drilled into kids these days that traffic is dangerous and to be avoided like I was as a kid in the early 80's..
>>
I agree, as father to a 10 year old, I would like kids to be shown the FULL horror of being hit by a car to such a degree that they, above all else think about it every time they go to cross the road. Kids these days by and large, have less traffic sense than back in the 70's when there was a fraction of the amount of traffic.
|
|
|
|
It's a bit like the domestic pet, let the cat/dog roam the streets and it becomes street-wise, keep it in the house and it has no road sense, gets killed the first time it gets out. People are the same with kids these days, they keep them in the house for fear of predators (and rightly so), but take them everywhere in the car and they don't get street-wise. Parents should try walking places with their kids and teaching them road safety along the way. On the other hand there are an enormous number of inattentive drivers on the roads these days (not including backroomers of course ;-))
|
People are the same with kids these days they keep them in the house for fear of predators
Are there really more "predators" now than, say, 50 years ago? Or are some parents just neurotic about such things?
--
L\'escargot.
|
Are there really more "predators" now than say 50 years ago? Or are some parents just neurotic about such things? -- L\'escargot.
No, but people are more scared, because it gets more publicity, and is taken more seriously. In the past it was hushed up when some priest or care home worker fiddled with a kid. Often the child was punished for saying lies. I am astonished at how molly coddled todays children are. At age 10 I would walk several miles to school. Today they get a lift. And the parents traxi them to and from friends houses, and to and from after school clubs.
|
I am astonished at how molly coddled todays children are. At age 10 I would walk several miles to school. Today they get a lift. And the parents traxi them to and from friends houses and to and from after school clubs.
Absolutely. And telling children about the dangers of being hit by a motor vehicle is all very well, but one of the the most important factors is actual experience of being a pedestrian and nowadays children aren't allowed to gain that experience.
--
L\'escargot.
|
And telling children about the dangers of being hit by a motor vehicle is all very well but one of the the most important factors is actual experience of being a pedestrian and nowadays children aren't allowed to gain that experience. -- L\'escargot.
I suspect driving has got worse as far as pedestrians are concerned. When young I walked everywhere, including along country roads. Now I am wary of walking along a country road as I know that most drivers will happily drive within a few inches of me at high speed, and it can be disconcerting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with this ad, which makes eminent sense to me. Education for children is a separate point - there are plenty of drivers who need their horoscope read where speed in built up areas is concerned.
|
|
I agree with you Manatee but no amount of adverts will educate some of the pig headed oafs who speed around the country.
|
I have no problem with the hard hitting nature of this ad, it drums home the danger that vehicles can be to kids however it is an example of the lack of joined up thinking.
I.e. speed is not the only factor, the driver travelling at 30 may not see the child because of the proximity of the vehicles in front or those coming in the opposite direction where as if the average speeds are 10 mph higher congestion would be lessened and the drivers MAY have significantly better sight lines.
Furthrmore roads should be better seperated from pavements frequented by children etc.
|
And if the child had said at the end of the advert: -
"If I hadn't been in the road you wouldn't have hit me and I would be unhurt" then it would throw it into perspective and could be used as child road safety advert as well.
|
|
Re the original post by Vansboy, In my opinion it is a good road safety ad and the message comes over as clear as the production team intended.
|
I think it's a good and effective ad. It's aimed, rightly, at the perception that 40 in a 30 area is 'no big deal'. Better still would be to educate drivers about staying in third gear, which - as we've mentioned here before - naturally keeps most cars at or below 30. The 'naked engine' ad that's also out at the moment may be having the opposite effect. As someone said, joined-up thinking.
As for
>Why is it not drilled into kids these days that traffic is dangerous...?
it certainly is into mine. If others aren't getting the message, it may ironically be because parents are over-protective of children, won't let them play outside and drive them everywhere. (See also obesity etc.)
|
|
|
|
Forty-odd years ago I did an ACU (Auto Cycle Union) motorcycle training course. Part of that course included very graphic film of the results on humans of traffic accidents, I mean real accidents, real people. Several people opted not to attend, others left part way through.
It still affects the way I use the roads today, but I'm still here, and, AFAIK, I've not been responsible for anyone else being harmed.
Thank you ACU!
|
Glad it's not just me, then.
At least it does the one thing any ad is supposed to do & got noticed!
VB
|
"in other words drive to the conditions not a speed limit"
Such a message is too intelligent for the current government. It is too radical to have safe driving as the aim.
Many years ago I did drive into a child on a bike, or more accurately he drove into the side of me and he was going pretty fast. He drove down a sloping driveway, behind a hedge, and straight into the road. I saw him a fraction of a second before impact. Fortunately I was doing about 15 mph or less due to parked cars either side of me, which probably saved him from injury.
The limit was 30. Had I been doing 30, he might have been seriously hurt. I was doing 15 mph at most, and he was okay. I was surprised though to see him flying through the air and then get up unhurt.
The car was damaged (dented wing, broken mirror and flat tyre) and despite my not being at fault, the child being okay due to my safe driving (I assume) the relatives made no attempt to pay for the damage or even help me replace the tyre. They were concerned for me which I suppose is something.
|
"in other words drive to the conditions not a speed limit" Such a message is too intelligent for the current government. It is too radical to have safe driving as the aim.
Unfortunately such a message is also too subtle for many drivers - one rountinely sees cars and particularly vans and small works trucks being driven hell-for-leather in residentail areas. Hopefully this ad may do a little to slow them down.
My own three children received extensive road-safety education at school - far more than I ever had. This included 'simulated' road scenes with toy Pelican crossing etc. They also did a cycling proficiency course.
They are all careful road users, but one day my young daughter did shoot away from us and ran across a road without looking - her friend was across the road with a new puppy and shouted my daughter, who reacted without thinking. She was just lucky she didn't get hit.
I accept that kids shouldn't run into the road, but kids are kids and they do things without thinking - its not right, but the death sentance is a bit harsh for such a mistake.
|
"Why is it not drilled into kids these days that traffic is dangerous"
It is - I'm pretty sure it is part of their PSHCE lessons (Personal, Social, Health, Citizenship Education??) lessons. There are some pretty hairy videos shown and visits by police to emphasise road safety etc that are part of it - from what I heard from my kids. Also included are use of seat belts, drink driving etc.
Now, whether it is the job of schools or parents to impart this education is a different argument, as is whether the kids take any notice. Children do tend to assume that
a) They know everything it is possible to know (especially at the age of 13)
b) They are immortal.
--
Phil
|
It is - I'm pretty sure it is part of their PSHCE lessons (Personal Social Health Citizenship Education??
OMFG. And I thought 'PSE' for Personal Social Education sounded ridiculous when I was at school...
|
"'PSE"
Known colloquially nowadays, I gather as P****
That won't get through the filter but if you add HIT between S and E you will get the idea
Apologies mods, but PU can practise his editing (or use delete button) at this stage
it did funnily enough ! - PU
|
To keep the thread on track...the cynic in me has noticed how they use a rather 'proper' sounding kid...
"Oi, if ya plaaa inta me at 40 mile an hour, i'll end up braaan bred"...
Forget the message, it's all about the presentation.
|
|
|
Furthrmore roads should be better seperated from pavements frequented by children etc.
Unfortunately we don't usually have the space to do that.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank God it's not just me. I mute the radio every time it comes on.
The pink fluffy dice at whom this is aimed do not care about such things, and it merely grosses everyone else out, so what's the point?
Also, no-one in authority has yet really addressed the problem of what the child is doing in the road in the first place. Time was (1980s, when I was a lad) when we got taught the Green Cross Code and all that.
|
Also no-one in authority has yet really addressed the problem of what the child is doing in the road in the first place. Time was (1980s when I was a lad) when we got taught the Green Cross Code and all that.
Kids today eh? Must be all that Skiffle music sending 'em wild...
Funny thing is, I've been driving a long time, and all through the 1980's kids were running out into the road etc. and getting knocked down. I don't think things have changed much. They still get taught road safety and they still behave like children....
|
Kids today eh? Must be all that Skiffle music sending 'em wild... Funny thing is I've been driving a long time and all through the 1980's kids were running out into the road etc. and getting knocked down. I don't think things have changed much. They still get taught road safety and they still behave like children....
>>
Fair point, but what I resent is this assumption that this sort of thing is always the motorist's fault irrespective of the circumstances. And as I said, the true idiots at whom this is aimed won't pay a blind bit of notice anyway.
|
Fair point but what I resent is this assumption that this sort of thing is always the motorist's fault irrespective of the circumstances.
I don't thing anyone is making that assumption. I think it is widely recognised that kids run out into the road after footballs and make ill-judged decisions to cross. This campaign seeks to highlight the fact that lower impact speeds mean less injury (think kinetic energy - proportional to the square of velocity). This thread indicates it IS raising awareness.
|
|
There's something unpleasant and creepy about the ad, even though the nipper is first dead and then alive. I'm sure it gets to people in a way but wonder what is really retained from it.
|
Well i think it is a good ad.
There are people (not hugely unlike myself a while ago) who think that 40 in a 30 is no big deal. This ad will explain why it is a big deal.
Train the kids up, sure. But just as there are some drivers who will never get the message, there are also some kids who will forget safety and run across the road to retrive a ball, rush to the ice cream van etc.
If I ever hit one of those, I cannot imagine that I would say to myself "ok not my fault, he shouldn't have been there". and if i was doing 40 and killed the child, i couldn't be able to live with myself.
Rather ads like this than a blanket 20 mph limit.
|
The reason I am sympathic to kids 'wandering' into the road is because of an incident that happened to me back in the '60s as a child.
I was with a mate and we had bought an ice cream each. It was a really hot day and I was enjoying the ice cream. We were walking toward a road junction. My mate stopped, but I didn't, I was so engrossed in the ice cream - like kids often are. I walked straight into the road without thinking, right in front of a car. Fortunately he was just far enough away, and going slowly enough, that he managed to do an emergency stop without hitting me.
I'd done the 'Kerb Drill' at school etc etc and been well taught by my mother - but kids tend to daydream and do daft things.
|
It was a really hot day and I was enjoying the ice cream. We were walking towarda road junction. My mate stopped but I didn't I was so engrossed in the ice cream - like kids often are. I walked straight into the road without thinking right in front of a car. Fortunately he was just far enough away and going slowly enough that he managed to do an emergency stop without hitting me. I'd done the 'Kerb Drill' at school etc etc and been well taught by my
> mother - but kids tend to daydream and do daft things.
which is why all drivers should drive to the conditions.... in this case being careful past an ice cream van........not slavishly stick to limits.... sometimes it can still be sensible (albeit illegal) to drive faster than a limit, whereas on other occasions it is more prudent to be doing less than a limit.......the driver should choose having done in effect an immediate risk assessment, not complying with a limit set by someone else's risk assessment some years previously in an office
|
|
I used to say that to my old mum, that with a bike I could accelerate out of trouble.....finally vindicated by a Police Officer !
|
I used to say that to my old mum that with a bike I could accelerate out of trouble.....finally vindicated by a Police Officer !
aah.......but anonymously posted, try getting me to confirm that otherwise!
|
|
which is why all drivers should drive to the conditions.... in this case being careful past an ice cream van........not slavishly stick to limits.... sometimes it can still be sensible (albeit illegal) to drive faster than a limit whereas on other occasions it is more prudent to be doing less than a limit.......the driver should choose having done in effect an immediate risk assessment not complying with a limit set by someone else's risk assessment some years previously in an office
No ice cream van involved. Bought it from a shop. The road involved was a fairly 'fast' road, but fortunately this particular driver was going relatively slowly. It was an old dog-dirt brown Mk1 Cortina IIRC (although it was probably new at the time...).
|
Aprilia said: "Unfortunately such a message is also too subtle for many drivers - one rountinely sees cars and particularly vans and small works trucks being driven hell-for-leather in residentail areas. Hopefully this ad may do a little to slow them down."
I don't think any of the critics of this ad doubt what you say. Dangerous driving especially excess speed is a real problem where I live, and I'm sometimes left open mouthed at some of the antics. But I doubt this advert will penetrate the reality shield of those nitwits.
My problem with the ad is that it is too crass and too easily dismissed as scare mongering. That sort of ad turns me off completely as I do not like being preached at. They should have safe driving ads. Have a series of ads to teach people about safe driving, and show the consequences of tail gating, of overtaking on a blind bend, of going past a parked ice cream van AT THE LEGAL SPEED which is TOO FAST but legal. If you hit a child at 30 she may well die. Make it 'cool' to be observant and safe.
But they won't. They will decide that it is okay to hit a child at 20 mph, and then introduce blanket 20mph speed limits. The speed limit on a road will be determined by the lowest safe speed at any point of the journey, rather than the legal maximum when conditions permit.
|
Does HJ not have any contact with any other high-flying media types? :-P
Sure if anyone of us can say how drivers rather than car users interpret this drivel, he can. Probably put it better than I did too. (Utter drivel, maybe?)
|
They should have safe driving ads. Have a series of ads to teach people about safe driving and show the consequences of tail gating of overtaking on a blind bend of going past a parked ice cream van AT THE LEGAL SPEED which is TOO FAST but legal. If you hit a child at 30 she may well die. Make it 'cool' to be observant and safe. But they won't. They will decide that it is okay to hit a child at 20 mph and then introduce blanket 20mph speed limits. The speed limit on a road will be determined by the lowest safe speed at any point of the journey rather than the legal maximum when conditions permit.
>
Leif,
Thorougly agree. The problem is, the total oik won't take notice of anything, except hard hitting personal enforcement, which nowadays he won't be getting.
Furthermore, many law abiding drivers don't think much for themselves when they drive....they miss things, are unware of other road users etc....which is why they are comfortable sticking to limits that others have decided upon...... hence inattentive driving e.g. poor lane discipline, middle lane hogging etc, etc (e.g. all the moans we whinge about on here).
I'd far rather be crossing the road with my family with a keen, interested, experienced, sensible driver approaching, (who sometimes speeds when it's appropriate).......than someone who slavishly sticks to 30mph, but has zilch awareness.....because driver 1, will slow right down for extra danger, whereas driver 2, wil plough on regardless oblivious to the danger....i do accept though that driver 3, (selfish git who couldn't care less about anyone lese) is the real danger
|
|
Westpig: You make many good points. But I would be curious to see if safe driving ads would work. And another area of driving education would be in the schools. They already teach the effects of smoking on health.
|
>> I'd far rather be crossing the road with my family with a keen interested experienced sensible driver approaching (who sometimes speeds when it's appropriate).......than someone who slavishly sticks to 30mph but has zilch awareness.....because driver 1 will slow right down for extra danger whereas driver 2 wil plough on regardless oblivious to the danger....
The snag is that without the 30mph limit and enforcement, Driver 2 will carry on with zilch awareness and oblivisous to danger, but probably at higher speeds. If he's going to hit me I'd rather it be a 30mph than at 50mph.
|
|
fair point, well made........:-)
|
|
|
|
