Remember this tac ad?

[ef_classic]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/78200/slo_mo/

It is so well done.

Wipe of 5 guys.

[Mechan1k]

And many other nice videos in there as well.

[JC]

But if the car travelling at 65 had've been doing 80, they would have been past the truck, and only the car travelling at 60 would have hit it. Think about THAT!

[Mechan1k]

And if he had ripped the handbrake and pulled it sideways he probably would have stopped it quicker ... LOL

[Falcon Freak]

Originally Posted by ef_classic

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/78200/slo_mo/

It is so well done.

Wipe of 5 guys.

Nice to see tax payers money wasted on creating propaganda.

Ff

[flappist]

I love these "single cause" academic dogma driven ads;

If a third car, a TS50 (as they are using AUs), was fitted with brembos and good quality performance rubber e.g. Yoki 103s or whatever, and was doing 70 it would have stopped sooner.
If a forth car was a 15 year old junker fitted with super-el-cheapo razor blade tyres and crap brakes and was doing 55 it would have splatted more.
How about a fifth vehicle, say one of the popular urban tractors that our yummy mummies seem to like blatting about in was tested. Maybe wipe off 25 would be a better idea.

The problem is that it is easy to take money from "speeding" because of the perceived moral high ground position that the government spin doctors spew.

If all cars had to stop from 60km/h in 20m or less and those that could not were put off the road "for safety reasons" there would be screams from all the do gooders about how this disadvantages the poor (i.e. those who would rather spend their money on booze, smokes, pokies and giant plasma TVs to play the latest DVD rentals rather than something that might save their lives).

There IS a road problem but the real solutions are politically unpalatable so we are stuck with stupid feel good nonfixes and dogma.

[TEaaron]

Any more TAC ads they're all pretty good like that.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by flappist

I love these "single cause" academic dogma driven ads;

If a third car, a TS50 (as they are using AUs), was fitted with brembos and good quality performance rubber e.g. Yoki 103s or whatever, and was doing 70 it would have stopped sooner.
If a forth car was a 15 year old junker fitted with super-el-cheapo razor blade tyres and crap brakes and was doing 55 it would have splatted more.
How about a fifth vehicle, say one of the popular urban tractors that our yummy mummies seem to like blatting about in was tested. Maybe wipe off 25 would be a better idea.

The problem is that it is easy to take money from "speeding" because of the perceived moral high ground position that the government spin doctors spew.

If all cars had to stop from 60km/h in 20m or less and those that could not were put off the road "for safety reasons" there would be screams from all the do gooders about how this disadvantages the poor (i.e. those who would rather spend their money on booze, smokes, pokies and giant plasma TVs to play the latest DVD rentals rather than something that might save their lives).

There IS a road problem but the real solutions are politically unpalatable so we are stuck with stupid feel good nonfixes and dogma.

^^ i couldnt have said it better myself, was going to post exactly that but you beat me to it, above all it is utter bullИИИИ with the breaking distances and speeds that they hit after just completing driver training it has more to do with your ability and your cars ability.

:monkes: is what the government is, band aid approach to everything.

[EFFalcon]

i wonder if ppl from other countries wonder why the cars in 'new zealand' are so ugly :P

[blackers10]

and wouldnt car on the right have swerved AROUND the truck to start with.. even the other car woulda had a chance if it swerved..

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by ef_classic

It is so well done.
Wipe of 5 guys.

You’ve got to be joking…

Originally Posted by flappist

I love these "single cause" academic dogma driven ads;

If a third car, a TS50 (as they are using AUs), was fitted with brembos and good quality performance rubber e.g. Yoki 103s or whatever, and was doing 70 it would have stopped sooner.
If a forth car was a 15 year old junker fitted with super-el-cheapo razor blade tyres and crap brakes and was doing 55 it would have splatted more.
How about a fifth vehicle, say one of the popular urban tractors that our yummy mummies seem to like blatting about in was tested. Maybe wipe off 25 would be a better idea.

The problem is that it is easy to take money from "speeding" because of the perceived moral high ground position that the government spin doctors spew.

If all cars had to stop from 60km/h in 20m or less and those that could not were put off the road "for safety reasons" there would be screams from all the do gooders about how this disadvantages the poor (i.e. those who would rather spend their money on booze, smokes, pokies and giant plasma TVs to play the latest DVD rentals rather than something that might save their lives).

There IS a road problem but the real solutions are politically unpalatable so we are stuck with stupid feel good nonfixes and dogma.

I like your style Flappist.

Typical bullsh*t government propaganda.
Imagine if they put a 911 GT3 with carbon ceramic brakes on it next to the AU. The driver of the Porsche would probably have to accelerate again to get to the truck.

Sadly some of the lawmakers and ill informed coppers out there actually believe this garbage. This ad has absolutely no credibility and before any one gets on the government bandwagon supporting this and telling us about how many accident they’ve seen blah blah blah, think about this. If they were fair dinkum they would have showed the two cars hitting an identical object to show the true difference.
Let’s face it. The car that hit’s the edge of the truck will always have more damage than the car that hits the side underrun beam. I can’t believe how gullible they think we are.

Cheers, Danny

[WizBang]

Originally Posted by flappist

I love these "single cause" academic dogma driven ads;

If a third car, a TS50 (as they are using AUs), was fitted with brembos and good quality performance rubber e.g. Yoki 103s or whatever, and was doing 70 it would have stopped sooner.
If a forth car was a 15 year old junker fitted with super-el-cheapo razor blade tyres and crap brakes and was doing 55 it would have splatted more.
How about a fifth vehicle, say one of the popular urban tractors that our yummy mummies seem to like blatting about in was tested. Maybe wipe off 25 would be a better idea.

The problem is that it is easy to take money from "speeding" because of the perceived moral high ground position that the government spin doctors spew.

If all cars had to stop from 60km/h in 20m or less and those that could not were put off the road "for safety reasons" there would be screams from all the do gooders about how this disadvantages the poor (i.e. those who would rather spend their money on booze, smokes, pokies and giant plasma TVs to play the latest DVD rentals rather than something that might save their lives).

There IS a road problem but the real solutions are politically unpalatable so we are stuck with stupid feel good nonfixes and dogma.

This so ture it's not funny and the fact that they teach us to pass a driving test and we never learn on how to drive a car before we go on the road is a joke in it's self

[LUXO_8]

Originally Posted by flappist

.

There IS a road problem but the real solutions are politically unpalatable so we are stuck with stupid feel good nonfixes and dogma.

japan has a good system in place, make registration so expensive on older cars, that it becomes unviable for people to keep them and have to get themselves into a newer car..... i believe fuel is pretty expensive over there as well. so that would also keep cars off the road...

the older cars get sent to the scrapper, (but a lot find themselves being exported to other countries....) only the rich can afford to keep a classic etc...

but like you said, it would be very hard to just start implementing a system like that ... its something that would have needed to be in place already many years ago.....

[BPXR6T]

Yeah lets send my XT falcon classic to the scrapper because it needs to be driven with more care. Yeah, your right. I shouldn't be able to own my XB GT because I earn under $250,000 p.a.

Lets vote for a government that would implement eliteist policies to effectively ban our lifestyle. If the working class weren't driving, maintaining, and enjoying these older cars then how many classics would have been scrapped. Give me a break, I'm shocked to be hearing this retohric on a forum for car enthusiasts...

[LUXO_8]

im not saying i agree with it entirely....... i an going to be doing an XR resto next year. i was just saying what's going on to rid japan of crappers...i'd presume you can get leniency for classics et al

[Bucknaked]

Yes. Very good point. After all the number of High Performance FPV's and HSV's far out number the stock cars you see on the road everyday. Because a majority of people have the big brakes and have done the driving course they got with their performance car to realise that they can stop a whole lot better than whats shown in the ad.

Seriously, its an advertisement. And it shows that by wiping of 5, it can make a difference. Who cares if it does or doesn't. If they didn't do the ads at all, there would be people whinging that the government is not serious about road safety.

[BPXR6T]

The TAC scare campaign is just another attempt to terrorise the public into thinking a huge problem exists, which in the end is simply an effort to justify the level of over governence we endure here in Australia.

I'm so sick of this rule by fear ethos our politicians have borrowed from our American brothers. It assumes we are all moronic sheep that need to be guided by the enlightened hand.

The below statitcs are posted on the NSW RTA website. Note the road toll is down at 1940 levels but still the government feels the need to spend our money and spit this BS at us. There are many variables and you could interpret those stats in numerous ways. But the bare facts are the ratio of people on the road to road fatalities is the lowest it has ever been.

[BPXR6T]

P.S.
I have no problem with the government educating the public, but I do have a problem with the government half educating the public as is the case with this propoganda...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by FourBarrel

Yeah lets send my XT falcon classic to the scrapper because it needs to be driven with more care. Yeah, your right. I shouldn't be able to own my XB GT because I earn under $250,000 p.a.

Lets vote for a government that would implement eliteist policies to effectively ban our lifestyle. If the working class weren't driving, maintaining, and enjoying these older cars then how many classics would have been scrapped. Give me a break, I'm shocked to be hearing this retohric on a forum for car enthusiasts...

You will probalby get a bit emotional about this but YOUR CARS ARE NOT AS SAFE AS NEW ONES. They are not as safe for you, your passengers and for other road users and pedestrians.

This is a fact, no amount of emotion or rhetoric will change it.

Yes you love your XT and XB but they are part of history and unfortunately really should be treated as such.
If you can upgrade your old cars to include comply with the latest ADRs and can prove they are as safe as current technology then you have a position, if not then you are on the low ground.
Maybe your cars are immaculate and are maintained and driven with love and care but unfortunetly many are not and older cars are far less forgiving of mishandling.

You are an enthusiest and you can produce a million reasons why your ill handling, non stopping, crumple zone free, polluting, non airbag fitted, high performance pride of joy should be able to be driven anywhere at any time in the same way that I can produce a million reasons why I should still have my machine gun collection including several rare and collectable pieces but in the REAL world both of these items are more dangerous when mishandled than the current breed.

And yes I am also a car enthusiest who currently owns 9 vehicles (7 fords) and race some of them on the odd occasion but I also drive on the road a lot and have nearly been splatted several times over the years by ancient unroadworthy pseudo muscle cars driven by super heroes with more enthusiasm than talent.

As I stated earlier, the real solutions are unpalatable (to us) so we are stuck with the government band aids.

[BPXR6T]

Have I woken up in stalinist russia. Yeah sure I admit not all my cars are as safe as my others if pushed to the limit. There are some things I just wouldn't do in my 69 falcon that I can get away with in my 2004 XR8. There are also things I can do in my M3 that I can't do in my XR8. Using your logic my XR8 should be banned as it doesn't come close to meeting the specification of my M3.

If you know the capabilities of your car and drive within those capabilities and the LAW then there is no reason why my XB GT is less safe than my M3. Are you going to complain about motorcycles next. ИИИИИ, they don't have seat belts, ABS, crumple zones, or air bags either. I can kill myself, my passenger, and pedestrians a hell of a lot easier on my bike.

Are you seriously suggesting for a second that punishing everyone for the stupid acts of a few is a valid point to stand on. Are you suggesting a blanket ban on all older cars because a few are poorly maintained and are seriously dangerous is a valid standpoint. What a joke.

[Fairlane]

Sort of irrelvant, but all of these ads have go me thinking that State government bodies hate Ford's.

I was thinking all the recent RTA/QLD Transport ads and most of them involve some poor Ford either killing someone or just getting splattered.

The 2 Forte's into the truck
The bloke in the modded Ford AU ute, that takes out a Magna
An old QLD ad in which an EA ran over a kid running onto the street
Numerous drink driving ads
Not to mention the fatigue billboards with an XF that runs into a tree

Its an anti-ford conspiracy people (insert X-files music)

*Im yet to see an ad with a "white camry of death"(tm) running someone down

[GlennBA]

if that silver AU didn't hit the end of the truck it'd have stopped sooner.. and probably would have been less damage.

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by GlennAUII

if that silver AU didn't hit the end of the truck it'd have stopped sooner.. and probably would have been less damage.

What if it had been on a treadmill?

[big fella]

Originally Posted by flappist

If all cars had to stop from 60km/h in 20m or less and those that could not were put off the road "for safety reasons" there would be screams from all the do gooders about how this disadvantages the poor (i.e. those who would rather spend their money on booze, smokes, pokies and giant plasma TVs to play the latest DVD rentals rather than something that might save their lives).

.

You spoilt what could have been a credible argument by presuming everyone can afford a new car they just choose to allocate funds elsewhere. I don't drink, smoke, gamble, have a giant TV. I have a very modest home that I am paying off (total 13sq), a wife who works evenings because of the price of childcare, and three children. Our big splurge is a weekly meal of fish and chips. The term "working poor" is valid in our case, and I am deeply offended by your assumptions. I'm sure you work hard for your money, and I'm damn sure I work hard for mine. I would suggest you broaden your horizons a little before you make any more sweeping statements about sections of society you are unfamiliar with.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Fairlane

Sort of irrelvant, but all of these ads have go me thinking that State government bodies hate Ford's.

I was thinking all the recent RTA/QLD Transport ads and most of them involve some poor Ford either killing someone or just getting splattered.

The 2 Forte's into the truck
The bloke in the modded Ford AU ute, that takes out a Magna
An old QLD ad in which an EA ran over a kid running onto the street
Numerous drink driving ads
Not to mention the fatigue billboards with an XF that runs into a tree

Its an anti-ford conspiracy people (insert X-files music)

*Im yet to see an ad with a "white camry of death"(tm) running someone down

The latest in Victoria (the revenue state) is of an EL Futura hitting a Pedestrian!

[BPXR6T]

Good on ya big fella! Well said.

[GRNKPR]

i liked the other vids there esecially the bikini shoot one

[AshMan]

what about the hilux ad where all the e series falcons get piled up sideways... and that show that had all the bad drivers in it, all the "prop" cars were falcons :( ya know, the cars they use to fill up the closed car park... the ones that the dumb blonde keeps hitting... lol

[flappist]

Originally Posted by big fella

You spoilt what could have been a credible argument by presuming everyone can afford a new car they just choose to allocate funds elsewhere. I don't drink, smoke, gamble, have a giant TV. I have a very modest home that I am paying off (total 13sq), a wife who works evenings because of the price of childcare, and three children. Our big splurge is a weekly meal of fish and chips. The term "working poor" is valid in our case, and I am deeply offended by your assumptions. I'm sure you work hard for your money, and I'm damn sure I work hard for mine. I would suggest you broaden your horizons a little before you make any more sweeping statements about sections of society you are unfamiliar with.

Ah but you COULD afford a new car if they were not so overpriced with fees and taxes.
Look how much a new car costs in Europe, Asia or USA.
A new entry level Mustang is about $20k ($30k Aus).

We are all being ripped something severe in this country.
If cars only had a life span of 10 years, a five year old one would be quite cheap wouldn't it.

Look at the big picture. If all cars were gone at 10 years you would be buying 9 year old ones for bugger all AND getting a new car every year. These cars would use less petrol and be safer for you and your family.

You suggest that I do not understand your situation because of my statements. That is an assumption on your part.

I see from another thread you seem to have enough spare money to FLY to another state to buy a 20 year old carburetted V8 falcon. You obviously have enough spare money for V8 rego and the squillion litres of petrol or gas you need to run it.

Would you not rather have a 9 year old 6 cylinder for the same money that goes better, uses less fuel and is safer and cheaper to insure and register?

Think about it..........

[big fella]

Originally Posted by flappist

Ah but you COULD afford a new car if they were not so overpriced with fees and taxes.
Look how much a new car costs in Europe, Asia or USA.
A new entry level Mustang is about $20k ($30k Aus).

We are all being ripped something severe in this country.
If cars only had a life span of 10 years, a five year old one would be quite cheap wouldn't it.

Look at the big picture. If all cars were gone at 10 years you would be buying 9 year old ones for bugger all AND getting a new car every year. These cars would use less petrol and be safer for you and your family.

You suggest that I do not understand your situation because of my statements. That is an assumption on your part.

I see from another thread you seem to have enough spare money to FLY to another state to buy a 20 year old carburetted V8 falcon. You obviously have enough spare money for V8 rego and the squillion litres of petrol or gas you need to run it.

Would you not rather have a 9 year old 6 cylinder for the same money that goes better, uses less fuel and is safer and cheaper to insure and register?

Think about it..........

If all cars had to stop from 60km/h in 20m or less and those that could not were put off the road "for safety reasons" there would be screams from all the do gooders about how this disadvantages the poor (i.e. those who would rather spend their money on booze, smokes, pokies and giant plasma TVs to play the latest DVD rentals rather than something that might save their lives).

I don't see in your original post where you mentioned the over priced nature of our domestic vehicle market being the cause of the poor not being able to afford new cars. I do see quite plainly where you defined the poor as "i.e. those who would rather spend their money on booze, smokes, pokies and giant plasma TVs to play the latest DVD rentals rather than something that might save their lives". You make no qualifications or exceptions, just a broad definition of "the poor".

If you read my thread about the XE I bought, then you would have seen that it cost me $800. I'll detail all the other costs involved to add a little perspective.
Flight from Melbourne to Sydney = $99
Taxi from airport to North Sydney = $35
Fuel for trip from Sydney to Melbourne = $95
Accomodation for trip = $0, slept for 3 hours across the back seat.
Roadworthy inspection = $80
Repairs for roadworthy = $0 + 10 hours of my labour + parts from the last XE I had, that I kept just for this purpose.
Transfer of remaining registration to my name = $28.90 duty + $32.00 fees + $60.90
Original purchase = $800

TOTAL = $1170

As for registration, I am unaware of any difference in price here in Victoria, however I haven't checked, so there may be.
I work 3km from home, six days a week, so my weekly total is 36km. I would perhaps add another 20km to that each week for running around outside of work. I live in a small town and rarely travel outside of it.

The trip from Sydney saw an average of 12.5 litres per 100km. Around town I average closer to 20 litres per 100km. While this is far worse than a BA or BF, it is very nearly the same as I was getting from my last XE 4.1 six cylinder. I could drive a 4 cylinder, however I do need to tow reasonably regularly, and we have 3 growing children, so a small car is inpractical.

Because I am over 30, my full comp insurance has sky rocketed from $185 per annum to $197 for the V8.

If I were buying a new 9 year old car each year it would then be deemed unsellable due to age. It would also be worthless for parts because no other of the same model was allowed on the road. I would then have to find the money each year to buy another vehicle. I would have to invest time to make sure each one was safe and sound to transport my family. I would have to spend more money on a roadworthy and tranfers. More time to repair issues raised at roadworthy, issues that I may well have fixed 12 months ago on the last car I owned.

You suggest that I do not understand your situation because of my statements. That is an assumption on your part.

I do suggest that, but it's not an assumption, it's a logical conclusion from your definition of poor. If you are writing, rather than speaking, you can't use tone or inflection, therefore, you have to add qualifiers to any statement you make. If the statement only applies to some people in the situation you refer to, then say so. If it applies to most people, then say so. If you say nothing, and leave no one out, then it must be read as applying to everyone in that situation, in this case, the poor.

I'll reinforce my original point. I agree, in general terms(qualifier), that newer cars are far superior in safety, emmissions, comfort etc. You imply by saying that the poor are only poor because they drink, smoke and gamble, that poverty is a choice they make. I don't choose to be in the lower reaches of the socio-economic spectrum, but I am there. It's late, and I'm already waffling on. I would love to present another argument as to why the working poor are necessary in society for there to be affluence in society. I'll save you the boredom and go to bed instead.