Tags for this video have been changed from 'driving, intersection, speed, cars, accident, australia, talk, psa' to 'driving, intersection, speed, cars, accident, New Zealand, talk, psa' - edited by eric3579

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, January 7th, 2014 3:23am PST - promote requested by eric3579.

Saw this on TV the other day, and it pissed me off immensely.

The guy who's going a whopping 7kph over the limit (about 64mph for non-metric people) is portrayed as the unsafe driver, while the idiot who pulls out onto a main road is portrayed as the victim.

WTF?

Instead of demonising someone for a very minor infraction (and to be brutally honest 110kph is standard cruising speed in NZ), how about we make an ad of "Mistakes will cost you. Look before you pull out onto a main road, moron"?

Besides, even if the guy was doing 100kph, he'd still have hit him, given the difference in stopping distances is ~8m.

While I agree with your sentiment, I think there's also the issue that what's "perceived" as barely over etc. I've done filming like this for PSA's where we can't actually portray anyone committing an infraction.

But the point the video is making is pretty clear: if someone else makes a mistake, you better be prepared. You may not be at fault, but you're now involved, so do something that'll help minimize the casualties.

Additionally, perceived speed and actual speed can vary greatly. If driver A is used to driving that road at X speed, but driver B drives X+Y, then driver A will overestimate the amount of time they have.

Lastly, 10 MPH in speed makes a huge difference in impact velocities. Used to be pretty standard to say you'll walk away from 50, but carried away at 60.

I agree that you should do everything you can to avoid hitting someone even if it's their fault.

My point is that in the situation portrayed here, there was nothing he could have done. Even if he'd been at the speed limit, he was still going to t-bone the other guy.

And he wasn't doing 10mph over the limit he was doing 7kph over the limit (barely 4mph).

Meanwhile, the other guy is sitting at an intersection on an open stretch of road. He could have waited another 5 secs and been perfectly safe, yet he pulls out across oncoming traffic. THAT is an actual, genuine problem on NZ roads.

The reason this ad is being shown at the moment is that the police in NZ have started a crackdown on speeding. There used to be a 10kph tolerance (to allow for the fact that focusing on keeping your speed exactly at or under the limit is more dangerous than actually paying attention to the road), but now it's 4kph and this ad is trying to justify it.

What really irks me is that I drove about 1000km over xmas, all over the South Island, and the ONLY place I saw a speed check was on the main highway. The straight, flat, wide, can-see-for-miles-in-either-direction highway.

Meanwhile on the narrow dangerous winding sections? Not a cop in sight.

An American watching this psa there kiwi, one that actually drives his car and pays fucking attention to the road and the creatures on it who could give a fuck about the moment, is that both of these dimwits had they been in the U.S., would have been on their motherfucking cellphones with masturbatory thumbs ushering them into the next world.

Nearly involved in a 4-car-collison today, mid-afternoon here in Texas (Houston has some of the most distracted and retarded drivers on any road) because some dumbshit was on a phone, along with 2 other drivers who barley escaped jacking-off similarly behind the wheel.

This rural situation is a cake-walk here, but dumbasses still manage on unpolluted roads to fly unconscious in a helicopter to hospital.

Legalize GTA-style citizen watches and watch the shit change overnight....

NZ make the best Traffic PSAs even if I completely disagree with the point of this one. Basically it's part of the process of conditioning the populace to be more accepting of penalties for incidental speeding. Demonize the person who drives at 105kmh in a 100 zone and make it seem like they're doing something as stupid or reckless as someone doing 130.

I think some of you are missing the point. The ad lays no blame, it just states that mistakes are made and those mistakes can have consequences. The guy with the kid made the mistake of overestimating the time he had to pull out, or maybe made the mistake of proper attention on a road he likely is very, very familiar with. The other guy made the mistake of driving over the speed limit and not being fully aware of what someone else's mistake might be. We've all been both of those drivers at least once. The ad is a cautionary tale, not a "blame game" one.

*poor attention, not proper attention. oops

What annoys me is that this ad is absolutely a blame game.

The guy who pulls out is implicitly portrayed as the victim. He's dressed in "normal" clothes, has his kid with him, and the first words out of his mouth are "mate, I'm sorry". Everything about this ad is designed to illicit sympathy for him.

Look at this guy. Hard working kiwi bloke, cares about his kid (who's even in the right booster seat).

and he's murdered by an arrogant business man who's portrayed as unwilling to prevent the accident.

Finally what's the message of the ad? Not "be careful when pulling out onto a main road", but "slow down".

btw, you can edit your posts if you make a mistake.

Since cars built to Australian design rules have speedos which are supposed to read a little high, he is very unlikely to have faced charges after the investigation. He was still, it seems, driving too fast to avoid the mistake made by the other driver... and would have been even if the needle was spot on the 100 mark (i.e. 96-98km/h in most cars).

Bad example.

The speeding had literally no bearing on the outcome, as it was inconsequentially close to the limit.

Take the speed down from 7 over to 7 under, and you're still at ~90% of the original speed. The crash still would have happened.

The only way to avoid it would be not violating right of way right in front of another car.

(Or, to be fair, the 'speeder' could have been going ~half the posted limit, then maybe everyone could have gotten away with just a tap.)

-scheherazade

"Other people make mistakes, slow down". Emphasis on "other people". Says it right at the end there. ChaosEngine, you may have also heard (or read on billboards, I forget) something like "its a speed limit, not a goal". This is all perfectly fair when you take a look at NZ highways, it's not exactly the Autobahn.

No, it's not the autobahn, and that's why the speed limits are ~100kph. If it was the autobahn they would (and should) be higher.

But people drive at or around the speed limit. That is reality.

I'm not some insane person who thinks we should be able to drive at whatever speed we like, but I would like to see a more reasoned debate on this. I 100% agree that there are plenty of roads in NZ that should have a lower limit*, but as I said earlier, why aren't the cops speed checking those roads?

And on the flip side, there are plenty of roads that are perfectly safe to drive on at 110kph, but it is politically unpalatable to admit that.

* After my xmas holiday, I drove home over danseys pass. There are signs at the entrance: 4wd only, no boats, no caravans.... 100kph speed limit... insanity.

Jesus, guys, it's just a PSA for defensive driving. Drive more defensively and move on with your life. (And, by the by, continue living.)

I disagree. It SHOULD be a PSA for defensive driving, but instead it's a scare tactic to try and convince people that driving 7km/h over the speed limit is killing the children of hard working folks.

This PSA puts the emphasis on the speeding as though it's the problem. The real defensive driving lessons people need to prevent such an accident have nothing to do with speed. Obviously the guy driving out in front of the oncoming car should never do that, and that's not a small mistake, that's a kill myself and everyone in the car with me mistake. Lastly, the more important point that lots of drivers could stand to learn is regardless of if you are speeding or not, watch the road ahead for cars that might cut you off, and if it looks like they are start slowing down. If I spot a guy coming in too fast on a stop sign ahead, or rolling up to it, I slow down even though I have right of way, just in case. 9 times out of 10, it turns out it didn't matter, but it has spared me an accident on more than 1 occasion where even a little below the speed limit, there was just no way I was gonna slow down.

And the 7km over IS a ridiculous line for the PSA to draw. Just compare the difference that extra speed makes to your stopping distance and time to the difference in judgment required of the guy pulling out. The guy pulling out is gonna misjudge the oncoming traffic arrival time and distance by more than a second or meter or two.

The person that pulls out is clearly portrayed as being at fault. He apologizes for his error, in the fictional scenario where they get to talk before the impact.
One of the human biases is the feeling of self-perfection at certain tasks. It directs it glare at the attitude 'I can travel at or just above the speed limit with impunity as I won't make mistakes.' This advert shows that even if we assume you are perfect, we can't assume all other drivers are perfect - it is a known fact that other people are regularly at fault for road incidents, even if you are not.
Nevertheless even if you drive well, an accident could find you as someone else might make an error you perfect driver you.

One should be cautious when approaching a junction with a vehicle at it, and driving at or above the speed limit shows, to me, a lack of due care and attention.

Because he was travelling a little over the speed limit rather than the more sensible just under it given the road conditions (vehicle approaching a side junction), this meant that once the man had pulled out - the man on the major road travelled maybe an extra 4 metres before even beginning to apply the brakes. In total his braking distance was probably 15-20 metres longer.

The consequence of these factors (slower initial speed and greater distance to stop in) is that speed of impact difference is greater than the 10mph variance in speed of travel. So the impact energies would be considerably less had the initial speed been a mere 10mph slower, even if an impact remains unavoidable.

Hopefully the advert will increase the number of people who will realize they can't trust other drivers completely, and may slow and have their feet ready to hit the brake in the event that somebody pulls out/stops suddenly/unexpectedly reverses/changes lane. And in their cases this may considerably reduce the amount of energy during impacts.

The advert shows both drivers as eminently human. It does not demonize the person at fault for the crash happening, nor does it demonize the person who was travelling over the limit. It just portrays two people showing regret for their part in the consequences.

Fellow German here. I can drive as fast as I want, if I like, to start things off.
Take the following calculations. Let's say your daily route to work is 20 km. You're driving with 107 kph the whole duration. It'll take you ~11 minutes to arrive at your destiantion.

Now drive 80 kph when you're going back home. You now need 15 minutes.

This doesn't take into account that often times you're driving through towns, where you have to go around 30-60 kph and have to decelerate and accelerate everytime. So if you're going 107 tops, your average speed may vary.

I am aware that many people have to and will travel farther. I am aware that they may actually want to drive as fast they're feeling ok with. But the heightend risk is realisitcally almost never worth the time you save.

But - to me - this ad is about being aware about the fact that people make mistakes. And that your participation on the road is not some privilege. It's a risk. Reduce that risk whenever you can. It may save a life.

In the light of the current tactics of the police in NZ I get that you take it differently @ChaosEngine.

The point I get from this video is not that his speed was a problem but the seeming fact that he saw a potential driver who could make a life endangering decision, yet he ignores it because he "isn't at fault". Just because you're not at fault, doesn't make your action correct. I'm guilty of this personally, but then again, the roads are absolutely mad in southern california -- I feel like every moment is potentially this, especially with wildly changing 5+ lane traffic. Sometimes one lane will be fast and then it's slow and the next lane is fast, so almost every moment is this moment. So drive 30 MPH for 20 miles or go 50-65 when you the opportunity presents itself and hope no one makes a mistake. LOL

Where does it say that the speed limit is 100 kph??

4mph difference in initial speed is still going to be more than 4mph at impact. Also kinetic energy is speed^2.

So yah. The accident is obviously not the fault of the guy speeding. His speed didn't make the accident inevitable, he just made it worse. Would an ad campaign urging drivers to be more cautious have any effect? No. People don't stop making lapses in judgement/mistakes because you ask them politely. Dangerous drivers perhaps believe that their driving is good enough and, again, are unlikely to drive more safely. You can attempt to address the causes of these errors - tiredness, inebriation etc.

I think perhaps the heavy handed tactic to combat speeding backfires somewhat. People, from their own experiences, know that when they go a bit faster they don't immediately have a crash, and they also probably don't believe that 5mph is going to be the difference between little Timmy buying it in most cases - and I think their probably right. So this message that a bit of extra speed equates to disaster is rejected; it comes across as inaccurate and emotionally manipulative. Instead I might try to communicate why maintaining and policing a speed limit is important - that the sheer volume of people that go that 5mph faster makes a statistically significant impact on the number of injuries and fatalities in accidents.

it just is.

And the video is not a bold new declaration from the state of Arstotzka informing you of a new law. It is, as rancor said above, just a PSA for defensive driving in NZ.

But I do get Chaosengines point about misallocation of police resources, they do often appear to be more about extorting extra tax, rather than "safer communities together".

It's everyones responsibility to be safe. It's not about blame, it's about what you have control over. You have control over your speed, and your timing at an intersection.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.