I thought the fear mongering on Fox News was a bit much, but this takes fear mongering to a new level.

I watched it, and at the end I thought it said "Belt up for fucks sake".

It still gets me after all this time, I think besides the obvious, it has something to do with the woman's voice, its just so calm and restrained.

>> ^ziggystardust:
I thought the fear mongering on Fox News was a bit much, but this takes fear mongering to a new level.


Are you kidding me? This is reality, not fear mongering. Fox is politics; this ad is common-sense, life-or-death safety.

just goes to show: trust no-one. not even your own son.

Jesus fucking Christ, Britain! Why did everyone downvote ziggystardust's comment above? Seriously, this is blatant fear mongering whether you believe it's there for the common good or not. Scaring people into buckling up isn't a responsible form of education.

I disagree blankfist. While the commercial may elicit fear, it doesn't mean it's fear-mongering nor irresponsible. Fear-mongering usually involves trumping up something that isn't necessarily worth fearing. In this case, an un-seatbelted passenger is a very real thing to be worried about.

It sometimes amazes me how complacent most people are with one of the most dangerous things you can subject yourself to: the simple act of riding in a vehicle. This commercial is a dose of reality which is only shocking because of that complacency.

the message is clear; not wearing a seat belt is murder

>> ^Mondo:
Fear-mongering usually involves trumping up something that isn't necessarily worth fearing.


From wikipedia: "Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end."

In the case of this commercial, the fear is a horribly graphic death from an unsecured passenger in the backseat used to "influence the opinions and actions" of the drivers "towards a specific end" which is the use of seat belts. I think the definition is clear.

Let's *promote blatant fear mongering and call it common sense!

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 5:02pm PST - promote requested by blankfist.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Mondo:
Fear-mongering usually involves trumping up something that isn't necessarily worth fearing.

From wikipedia: "Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end."
In the case of this commercial, the fear is a horribly graphic death from an unsecured passenger in the backseat used to "influence the opinions and actions" of the drivers "towards a specific end" which is the use of seat belts. I think the definition is clear.
Let's promote blatant fear mongering and call it common sense!


Well in fairness blankfist, its arguable over if this is scaremongering or just grim reality, and even if it is scaremongering, I think that some times people really need to wake up to the grim realities of these things, education can go a long way, but there are still doctors that smoke.

^I understand that you and Mondo believe this is illustrating a realistic issue of motorist safety. It's still using fear to push an agenda, whether you think that agenda is a force for positive change or not.

By the way, I've been driving for twenty years, and not once has someone in the backseat slammed into me and cracked my skull open. Not once.

I understand what both of you are saying. I think you are speaking a bit at cross purposes.

Fearmongering means selling via fear. That's it, and I am pretty sure we all agree that this PSA does that. What there is disagreement about is if the fear is factual, justified, and benevolent. I think Blankfist is saying two things: it is selling via fear, and it is alarmist. I think what the other people are saying is that whether or not it is selling via fear, it is realistic.

I don't know the answer to whether or not it is realistic, but I suspect the British Ad Council equivalent wouldn't waste money on it if it weren't a problem.

(I didn't' wear a safety belt until I was in my twenties, and I was never hurt in an auto accident, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. Hell, I've never been hurt by a drunk driver, but statistics say it is still an important social problem.)

Actual data from http://www.flachslaw.com/library/the-dangers-of-unbelted-backseat-passengers.cfm

A study at the University of Buffalo reveals that passengers who don’t wear seatbelts significantly increase the driver’s risk of dying in an auto accident. When a car is in a head-on collision, the passenger in the backseat becomes a “backseat bullet,” shooting from his seat and slamming into the back of the driver or other passengers. Dietrich Jehle, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Buffalo says that, “the odds of death were almost three times higher for the unbelted passenger and two times higher for the driver,” in head-on collisions.

In the District of Columbia, all passengers are required to wear safety belts. However, in Virginia, only those passengers in the front seat are required to wear belts. But, as in many cases, just because the action isn’t illegal doesn’t make it a good idea.

Researchers at Buffalo ran tests with crash test dummies and found that when the passenger behind the driver is unbelted, there is a four-fold increase in the maximum force to the driver’s head and chest.

Jehle estimates that if 95% rear passengers wore seatbelts, we would save more than 800 lives a year and prevent more than 65,000 injuries. This would represent a savings of about $3.8 billion a year in the United States.

*brief *wheels

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by kronosposeidon.

Adding video to channels (Wheels) - requested by kronosposeidon.

Wikipedia's definition does not exactly do justice to the etymology of the word "mongering". While in its usual, and chiefly British, sense it simply means "a dealer of a specific commodity" (e.g. fishmonger), its derogatory sense conveys pettiness and undesirability (e.g. warmonger). Thus "fear mongering" is not just "the use of fear in order to influence opinions and actions towards a specific end", but its use towards a petty or undesirable end. The use of fear is itself petty and sometimes undesirable/unnecessary, but the end can nevertheless be grand, as it is in this instance. But the use of fear, though acceptable in this case, cannot be generalized, as it not only desensitizes people to fear in general but makes them even more complacent towards real danger.

The Daisy Girl commercial from the Lyndon Johnson campaign in 1964 is the best example of fear mongering. Instead of using fear to pass a message of general public interest, the ad aims to sully the reputation of a political adversary while making oneself look good. It is equivalent to taking your constituents hostage while disguised as your opponent and then playing the hero by "rescuing" them.

>> ^blankfist:
By the way, I've been driving for twenty years, and not once has someone in the backseat slammed into me and cracked my skull open. Not once.

lol. That's called anecdotal evidence and has zero statistical significance by itself.

It would seem that this commercial is fear-mongering after all, according to wikipedia at least. But two points about that. First off, the wikipedia definition continues (in the next sentence) to state "The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated..." Other sources seem to indicate that exaggeration is the norm, not the exception. Princeton WordNet defines scaremonger as "a person who spreads frightening rumors and stirs up trouble". Merriam Webster defines scaremongering as "one inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly". It seems we're both correct, depending on the degree of exaggeration involved. So I'll agree that this commercial is fear-mongering.

However, the other thing to consider is whether or not it's responsible to use fear as a way of pushing an agenda (assuming we agree that the subject is in fact something to be feared, and not an exaggeration). Sometimes we are supposed to fear things, otherwise we would have died out as a species long ago. The less you understand about a particular danger, the more likely you are to learn the hard way. It's my argument that people in general do not understand the dangers involved in driving.

I know it's an anecdote, but personally, I have found myself driving super-paranoid and defensively after a near accident. I bet this happens to most people. I think it's in that moment that we are really cognizant of how precarious things are out there. Unfortunately (in this case, fortunately in others) our minds have a way of scabbing over those types of memories. A commercial like this pokes that scab.

>> ^blankfist:
By the way, I've been driving for twenty years, and not once has someone in the backseat slammed into me and cracked my skull open. Not once.


That's like saying:

I've driven drunk PLENTY of times, but I've never gotten into an accident. Not Once.

I've had unprotected sex for twenty years, and not once have I gotten an STD. Not once.

I agree with Bidouleroux's comment whole-heartidly

^You are correct, Tymbrwulf. That's exactly like saying I've driven drunk plenty of times and I've never gotten into an accident. If you disagree with that, then I see you as a man who loves preemption.

Goddamn those Europeans and their whole "wanting to get the point across"! Don't they know the best way to do that is with analogies like frying eggs in a pan for drugs abuse or a montage of George Bush photos to illustrate the hazards of chronic masturbation?

>> ^blankfist:
^I understand that you and Mondo believe this is illustrating a realistic issue of motorist safety. It's still using fear to push an agenda, whether you think that agenda is a force for positive change or not.
By the way, I've been driving for twenty years, and not once has someone in the backseat slammed into me and cracked my skull open. Not once.


Yeah I understand that it is using fear, but as I said we still clearly need fear to truly motivate people, and I think/hope people have enough gall to realise when the fear they feel is needed like in this case, or uneeded, say over the consumption of a sandwich, people really need to get out of the mentality that it won't happen to them.

I've said it once, and I'l say it again, every day I pass my local hospital and I see nurses smoking away, who must be well aware of the effects of cigarettes on the body, yet they still do it, despite the shear pain and agony that someone with lung cancer goes through.

much more so than the woman's son.

>> ^Kerotan:
It still gets me after all this time, I think besides the obvious, it has something to do with the woman's voice, its just so calm and restrained.

>> ^Kerotan:


We need fear to motivate people? How about if I come to your house and fire a gun over your head to remind you to brush your teeth? Sheesh.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

As I mentioned in a similar thread- I think the lives saved as a direct result of this video are not worth the mild psychological trauma spread over the millions of people who have been affected by watching this.

What the hell is "PSA"?

>> ^SaNdMaN:
What the hell is "PSA"?


Public Service Announcement

>> ^Bidouleroux:
>> ^blankfist:
By the way, I've been driving for twenty years, and not once has someone in the backseat slammed into me and cracked my skull open. Not once.

lol. That's called anecdotal evidence and has zero statistical significance by itself.

wouldn't you say that this PSA is a form of anecdotal evidence as well? It's not even anecdotal it's hypothetical as far as we know...

^Exactly. All of these fear mongering PSAs are hypothetical, but that, for some reason, doesn't stop people from claiming they're "reality".