Is the anti speeding campaign counter productive

[prydey]

not sure if its in all states, as the ad's are done by the motor accident commission, south australia, but there are a series of ads that are on the radio at the moment regarding 'creeping'. this angle of attack has been around for some time now, but the latest ads to me take away all credibility the campaign may have once had.

the ads pretty much infer that if i travel a bit (creep) over the posted limit, then i'm basically a dead man walking (or driving). they have all the sound effects of a big crash etc etc. there was even a notion that 1km/h would make a difference. now i'm sorry, but when they carry on like this, i personally find it very counter productive.

it annoys me when they constantly make a link between any speed over the limit, and the massive carnage you see from very high speed incidents.

maybe its just me, but i feel they would be more productive if they were at least half believable.

i am not condoning speeding or that its ok to drive a bit over the limit. it just annoys me that they carry on like 2km over is the same as 50km/h over.

[sleek7]

Havn't heard them here yet but by the sounds of it, its going to have the same effect KFC radio ads have on me.... Makes me NOT want to buy their product cos the ads just drive me up the wall - "CAN'T BEAT IT, CAN'T BEAT IT!!....."

[mik]

i agree mate , there`s a big difference between a bloke minding his p`s and q`s driving carefully a little over the limit to someone driving on the limit weaving in and out of traffic,accelerating hard , brakeing hard , unpredictably and erraticly, but they will always push the speed is evil thing, because it legitimises the blanket fines for minor infractions, its about money.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

not sure if its in all states, as the ad's are done by the motor accident commission, south australia, but there are a series of ads that are on the radio at the moment regarding 'creeping'. this angle of attack has been around for some time now, but the latest ads to me take away all credibility the campaign may have once had.

the ads pretty much infer that if i travel a bit (creep) over the posted limit, then i'm basically a dead man walking (or driving). they have all the sound effects of a big crash etc etc. there was even a notion that 1km/h would make a difference. now i'm sorry, but when they carry on like this, i personally find it very counter productive.

it annoys me when they constantly make a link between any speed over the limit, and the massive carnage you see from very high speed incidents.

maybe its just me, but i feel they would be more productive if they were at least half believable.

i am not condoning speeding or that its ok to drive a bit over the limit. it just annoys me that they carry on like 2km over is the same as 50km/h over.

I agree with you in part:
while I havent heard the ads you refer to, you are suggesting that if you go 2km/h over the limit you'll crash and burn, clearly this is not the case and I sense there are many who therefore think the whole speeding thing is designed just to collect taxes from "innocent" motorists.

Indeed many carry on about how they regularly exceed the limit by x amount and have never crashed and burned so its all a crock!

There will be some that tell us they regularly drive at 0.07, whatever, and have never crashed and burned and therefore bac 0.05 is all a crock too.

This doesnt change the reality that the overall risk of crashing going 2km/h faster or 0.02 over the limit increases. Although it is perceived by the individual that the risk hasnt changed or is still minimal, that small increase in risk multiplied by a large population has proven to add up to a lot more collisions, injuries and deaths, that is why they matter is being persued.

I think a far better campaign was the wipe off five adds in vic where you got accurate and graphic representations of how much difference that 5km/h could make would be better, but obviously might not work so well on radio.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think a far better campaign was the wipe off five adds in vic where you got accurate and graphic representations of how much difference that 5km/h could make would be better, but obviously might not work so well on radio.

You mean the add where the guy steps out infront of a car doing the speed limit and the car stops. Then the same scenario with the car at 5km/h over the limit and the car is gone before the dead beat steps out without even looking?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by irish2

You mean the add where the guy steps out infront of a car doing the speed limit and the car stops. Then the same scenario with the car at 5km/h over the limit and the car is gone before the dead beat steps out without even looking?

I take it that's an attempt at humour: about if they were going faster they would have gone past before they stepped on the road?

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I agree with you in part:
while I havent heard the ads you refer to, you are suggesting that if you go 2km/h over the limit you'll crash and burn, clearly this is not the case and I sense there are many who therefore think the whole speeding thing is designed just to collect taxes from "innocent" motorists.

Indeed many carry on about how they regularly exceed the limit by x amount and have never crashed and burned so its all a crock!

There will be some that tell us they regularly drive at 0.07, whatever, and have never crashed and burned and therefore bac 0.05 is all a crock too.

This doesnt change the reality that the overall risk of crashing going 2km/h faster or 0.02 over the limit increases. Although it is perceived by the individual that the risk hasnt changed or is still minimal, that small increase in risk multiplied by a large population has proven to add up to a lot more collisions, injuries and deaths, that is why they matter is being persued.

I think a far better campaign was the wipe off five adds in vic where you got accurate and graphic representations of how much difference that 5km/h could make would be better, but obviously might not work so well on radio.

You are entirely right sudzy, any increase in speed equals an increase in risk. But where is the logical conclusion of that arguement?

Lets pretend for a moment we could wave a magic wand, and for the next 6 months no-one exceeded the speed limit. There would still be accidents and deaths. Lets not debate the numbers - no way to really tell.

What then?? Guarantee the next step won't be OK lets look at other causes. It will be OK the speed limits must be too high, lets drop them all 10 km/h. Again I wave my magic wand and no-one speeds, people still die on the roads and the limit is dropped again.

Fast forward to the end game, speed limit for cars is zero so no more cars. People still die on roads by tripping and cracking their heads open as they walk to work. Suddenly the light goes off in some politicians head - hey maybe it wasn't all about speed after all !


PS: prydey - agree with you. I do think the ads have gotten to the point of being counter-productive.


PPS: sudszy - I can sincerely say I am not trying to counter everything you say, it just seems we have polar opposite views on a number of issues. Law of averages says we'll end up on the same side of the fence one day.

[Riksta]

Originally Posted by prydey

maybe its just me, but i feel they would be more productive if they were at least half believable.

I agree in making them more believable.

The problem is, to the type of half witted cretin neanderthal brainwashed dimwit they're targeting the ad to, they probably are believable!

And all of a sudden, you've got people frustrating you doing 10km/h LESS than the limit in perfect weather conditions because hey, better safe than sorry!

[Ben73]

I have heard these ads. I think it was in QLD.

Anyway It's a load of crap. They saying that you creeping up to 62 you will kill someone, when in reality due to your cars speedo error you maybe actually be doing 58 and not 62.
yes you can crash at 2 over the limit. you can crash at 2 under the limit. They need to start actually looking at what is more dangerous and start stopping that.
Tomorrow morning in peak hour I will accelerate hard, weave in and out of traffic without indicating, stopping hard and changing lanes at the last second..... but it will be ok, because it's peak hour I wont break the speed limit. Although It will be hell of a lot more dangerous then doing 62 in a 60 zone in average traffic but you don't see ads about this sort of driving.

[WMD351]

I like the campaign. Personally I always wipe of five so that I don't ever have to worry about being killed or hitting that moron who walks out in front of me with eyes glued to the text message they're sending.


No, I fear the idea actually sends a counterproductive message.

[vztrt]

Well lets see what has happened in Vic (IMO) over time.

People now watch their speedo and make sure they stay under the limit. I would say its more of a case of not getting pinged by the police then the message of speed kills.

But I have noticed that there is a large increase of people going through red lights. By red lights I mean RED lights not amber but has changed to RED. There is two things that come to mind as to why this is happening, travel time is perceived to take much longer or they are busy doing other things then paying attention. But you do notice people brake hard as soon as there are cameras at that intersection.

Another wonderful thing is people wont jump on to freeways at 100kph. I notice the police like to sit there and catch people speeding so you get people getting on at 80kph and then merging into the next wave of traffic instead of getting on at about 100 and missing that wave and actually not causing potential incidents.

Also is it me or has road rage jumped through the roof since the speed cracked down?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Also is it me or has road rage jumped through the roof since the speed cracked down?

nope, its not you.

[WMD351]

Road rage? One question, how much revenue does that raise?

[Ben73]

Thing about most speeding ads, they are not really aimed at drivers. (well they shouldn't be)

Its always the same thing. Some halfwit steps onto the road without looking. Car hits them. If that idiot didn't step onto the road everyone would be ok.
So perhaps they need more ads aimed at dumbass pedestrians.

[Coyote mk3]

Originally Posted by WMD351

I like the campaign. Personally I always wipe of five so that I don't ever have to worry about being killed or hitting that moron who walks out in front of me with eyes glued to the text message they're sending.

It is scary when you say it like that.
There would be so many people out that there that would seriously believe that they are perfectly safe because they are not breaking the limit.

In all truth I have a couple of female friends that will not get into the car with me because in their mind they believe I am a hoon (I think.)
Now, these two had the idea that I must be because I am a car enthusiast, the type of car I drive and that I "speed on the highway" Actually it was once, I came onto the highway and up to 100 quickly and was then just doing 101 (They were in the car behind and their speedo is also off.)

however they are happy to get into the car of another friend who I refuse to get in with because they seriously lack the ability to drive safely- swerving, not paying attention, too fast IMO in the wet, etc.

One of them now has their license and i will also refuse to get in the car with them because they are much the same as the other driver.
But I am the dangerous driver because I accelerated quickly to merge onto the highway and was doing 101 on the highway - which would have appeared as about 105-106 on their speedo.


Anyone experienced a situation similar to mine?

P.S I have driven many people around and never had one person say anything about my driving and all are happy to get in with me again.
This includes people of all different ages (inc grandparents)

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Thing about most speeding ads, they are not really aimed at drivers. (well they shouldn't be)

Its always the same thing. Some halfwit steps onto the road without looking. Car hits them. If that idiot didn't step onto the road everyone would be ok.
So perhaps they need more ads aimed at dumbass pedestrians.

You'll find its the lobbying pedestrian council that is making the speeding laws come about.

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think a far better campaign was the wipe off five adds in vic where you got accurate and graphic representations of how much difference that 5km/h could make would be better, but obviously might not work so well on radio.

I'd say 5kph over and being attentive will be more beneficial then watching your speedo and being on the limit. Just remember those 5 kph over ads assumes your reaction time is very slow (about 1.9 seconds).

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think a far better campaign was the wipe off five adds in vic where you got accurate and graphic representations of how much difference that 5km/h could make would be better, but obviously might not work so well on radio.

If I was 5km/h over the speed limit I probably would have narrowly avoided my accident, haha.

[Romulus]

If the ads were true then I'd be dead!

The speed 'issue' is doing the rounds again now with a new chair for Office of Road Safety in WA. Fatalities where speed is a contributing factor accounts for 20% of the road toll in WA. Or at least that's what the ORS tell us. What is good to hear is rather than radio hosts running with it, Paul Murray from 6PR in particular is asking what the ORS is doing to counter the other 80%. It's interesting listening to the reply (or lack of credible reply) from the chair of the ORS.

Further to the OP's original topic, are they implying there's no difference travelling at 1-2km/h over 60km/h compared to 1-2km/h at 110km/h? The over-simplification of the ads just illustrates how stupid these bodies think motorists are.

[Ben73]

I have only been the driver in 1 accident. The road limit was 50, it was school zone so down to 40, I was doing 30. Basically 20 below the legal limit for that stretch of road.
All I did was look away from the road for a second, look back and some idiot coming the other way was well and truly turning in front of me. If i was doing 40 or 50 I would of passed the intersection before the other car got there.

Anyway even if I didn't pass in time if I was doing 40 I believe I would of avoided the crash, because I would of not looked away if I was doing 40, I only did because I was going slow.
But I learnt from it anyway. Doesn't matter how fast you going you need to pay attention all the time.

[In Focus]

Ever noticed how much time you spend looking down at your speedo in areas you know speed cameras are often found in?

Of course, speeding excessively is potentially dangerous, but so is constantly taking your eyes off the road to make sure you don't go five or ten kays over the limit.

[2011G6E]

Here in Queensland we have the old "Every K over is a killer" adverts. hell, it's even on the side of cop cars in a lot of places.

So...if I'm driving at 100kph I am perfectly safe and will never have an accident of any sort and will survive any impact, but at 101 I am a dead man walking...is that right?

That's the sort of ***** that turns people off anti-speed campaigns...

[Ben73]

Just now reading a respected Australian motoring magazine and in one of their side coloums they had a piece about how in July 2009 NSW police had a pay dispute and in turn refused to issue on the spot fines for speeding.
It was estimated that it cost the NSW government $2Million in just 1 week.
Apparently July 2009 NSW had one the of the lowest road tolls in history.
Hmmm people getting away with speeding (apart from speed cameras) and there is less fatalities?
That couldn't be right because if you do 2km/h over the limit you are as good as dead. We all know that..........

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Just now reading a respected Australian motoring magazine and in one of their side coloums they had a piece about how in July 2009 NSW police had a pay dispute and in turn refused to issue on the spot fines for speeding.
It was estimated that it cost the NSW government $2Million in just 1 week.
Apparently July 2009 NSW had one the of the lowest road tolls in history.
Hmmm people getting away with speeding (apart from speed cameras) and there is less fatalities?........

So alas there must have also been police strikes in the months of December and November which also recorded their lowest road tolls since records begun? was there one in June too, where the result was the equal lowest and February where it was the lowest for 62 years too?.

And what about 2008, new record lows were set in 6 months of that year where obviously there must have been police strikes as well?


Surely the "respected" motoring magazine just didnt cherry pick one little event to push a point of view in order to gain favour with some of its faithful?

[prydey]

actually, there was an 'expert' on the news here a few weeks back claiming speed camera's would never reduce the road toll. camera's can not stop a speeding motorist, so the mantra 'speed camera's save lives' is completely false!

2 weeks later when you get a fine, is often the first time the offender is aware of his error.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Here in Queensland we have the old "Every K over is a killer" adverts. hell, it's even on the side of cop cars in a lot of places. So...if I'm driving at 100kph I am perfectly safe and will never have an accident of any sort and will survive any impact, but at 101 I am a dead man walking...is that right? That's the sort of ***** that turns people off anti-speed campaigns...

thats what i'm talking about. i'm not against anti speeding, but to get up on your soapbox and tell the public these sort of messages, can't be anything other than counter productive.

the crashes that result in mass carnage (cars wrapped around trees, spread all over the road, torn in half etc etc) aren't the result of someone doing 62 in a 60 or 103 in a 100!! most people know that these crashes are as the result of someone 'excessively' speeding or just driving dangerously. sometimes the result can be exactly the same even if the car was below the posted speed limit. to try to make a link between creeping over the limit by a couple of km's, and these massive crashes is what annoys me about these 'experts'!!

if you take out the amount of deaths caused by alcohol, drugs, excessive speed etc, you would probably find the road toll was a fair bit lower.

these days, there is many more cars on the roads, a much higher population but the road toll is actually trending down. cars are also safer than they have ever been. apparently in 2010, 62% of cars sold were rated 5 star, with only 10% 3star or less.

i would say, a lot of the reduction in the road toll is due to the increase in cars active and passive safety, not the result of any anti speed campaign.

[AussieAV]

^^ +1. Well said prydey!

[EXIT]

If some of the money wasted on these type of campaigns were spent on roads it would definitely save more lives.

Take the Bruce highway from Brisbane to the Sunshine coast for example. The people responsible for this road should be in jail! The road is a dual lane highway built up high with massive drops and ditches on both sides and in most parts there is virtually no shoulder to the road and no guard rails.

It is a mathematical certainty that when you have two lanes of high speed traffic there will be situations arrise quite frequently where somebody gets forced off the road due to bad lane changes or whatever. But there is absolutely no margin for errors in many parts of that road. You go off the road, you die. Virtually guaranteed.

It has been that way for at least 25- 30 years despite being one of the busiest roads in Australia. Criminal negligence in my opinion.

[burnz]

yes but studdies around the world is somthing like 98% of speed related fataleties are below the posted speed limit..

[prydey]

yes but none of the nufties make a differentiation between speed and speeding. they all get lumped into the same statistic, which is wrong.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

2 weeks later when you get a fine, is often the first time the offender is aware of his error.

I suppose you are going to say that their lethal driving has been and gone and they could have killed someone, well that happens when the cameras arent there too, dont see you carrying on about that.

As I mentioned before, exceeding the limit doesnt mean you crash and burn instantly, but it increases your risk. Surely most thinking people who receive an infringement notice that had no idea they incurred, then moderate their driving practices in the future, the camera has had an effect(unfortunately for some it has to hurt their wallet before it will change their behaviour)

Originally Posted by prydey

the crashes that result in mass carnage (cars wrapped around trees, spread all over the road, torn in half etc etc) aren't the result of someone doing 62 in a 60 or 103 in a 100!! .

Typically not, but a car leaving the road at 103km/h hitting a tree, yeh that can be ugly. Or the difference in stopping distance between 62 and 60 could be the difference in avoiding a 40 tonne truck that has done the wrong thing.

Originally Posted by prydey

to try to make a link between creeping over the limit by a couple of km's, and these massive crashes is what annoys me about these 'experts'!

I dont really see any "experts" persuing this line, can you quote some.

Originally Posted by prydey

these days, there is many more cars on the roads, a much higher population but the road toll is actually trending down.

Undisputed fact

Originally Posted by prydey

cars are also safer than they have ever been. apparently in 2010, 62% of cars sold were rated 5 star, with only 10% 3star or less.

Not in dispute either, but the % of 3 and 5 star ratings of cars sold last year is a meaningless stat in the context you are arguing. Perhaps if you gave a stat the compared the ratings of the average car on the road today with one from 3 or 4 years ago.

Originally Posted by prydey

i would say, a lot of the reduction in the road toll is due to the increase in cars active and passive safety, not the result of any anti speed campaign.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, though its also quite meaningless with nothing to back it up.

But there are stats to back up the enforcement of reduced limits. When vic abolished the 10% tolerance and went to the 3km/h margin there was an observed difference in the average speeds of vehicles, people slowed down.

Over the whole population this translated to less deaths, injuries, collisons on the roads.

This was within a year, not something that could be accounted for by the whole vehicle fleet becoming safer overnight.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I suppose you are going to say that their lethal driving has been and gone and they could have killed someone, well that happens when the cameras arent there too, dont see you carrying on about that.

As I mentioned before, exceeding the limit doesnt mean you crash and burn instantly, but it increases your risk. Surely most thinking people who receive an infringement notice that had no idea they incurred, then moderate their driving practices in the future, the camera has had an effect(unfortunately for some it has to hurt their wallet before it will change their behaviour)



Typically not, but a car leaving the road at 103km/h hitting a tree, yeh that can be ugly. Or the difference in stopping distance between 62 and 60 could be the difference in avoiding a 40 tonne truck that has done the wrong thing.




I dont really see any "experts" persuing this line, can you quote some.



Undisputed fact


Not in dispute either, but the % of 3 and 5 star ratings of cars sold last year is a meaningless stat in the context you are arguing. Perhaps if you gave a stat the compared the ratings of the average car on the road today with one from 3 or 4 years ago.



Everyone is entitled to an opinion, though its also quite meaningless with nothing to back it up.

But there are stats to back up the enforcement of reduced limits. When vic abolished the 10% tolerance and went to the 3km/h margin there was an observed difference in the average speeds of vehicles, people slowed down.

Over the whole population this translated to less deaths, injuries, collisons on the roads.

This was within a year, not something that could be accounted for by the whole vehicle fleet becoming safer overnight.

Just wondering sudszy, what sort of Fords you drive or own? What sort of driving do you do? What state are you in? What do you do for a job?

Because so far your posts are 100% "speed camera self appointed academic expert troll".

Surely you are not here just to push the nanny state agenda......

If so, you are not the first, will not be the last but I suspect will share their fate.