Guys, stop speeding. | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Guys, stop speeding.

Not that I necessarily disagree but which driver in this ad do you think was in the wrong?

While the point of the ad is to say "slow down" (which is ok) it's basically a propaganda campaign that says 'it's always the speeder's fault even if you do something stupid' (not ok). To be clear: both driver's were in the wrong.

I feel more than comfortable with my riding/driving ability to do well over the speed limit in most situations (in the city/urban environments are different obviously). I do not however trust other road users. That's the message. YOU might think it's safe to do 110-120 in the 80, but grandpa frank and aunt edith will still assume you're doing 80 or under when they're turning out. Mind you I only came to this revelation after totalling a car but that's life.

Specially in the winters when stopping distance is a toss-up.
 
Last edited:
An object moving towards us does not look as if it is moving as fast as it really is. The driver turning would have seen the speeding car as far enough away for him to turn out based on his perception and assumption that the other car is travelling at the speed he expects it to be at. Not realizing the car is actually approaching faster than he anticipated. Many cars have been hit trying to go through railway crossings as a train is approaching because they think the train is further away than it really is. Our brains play tricks on us when an object is approaching us from a distance it looks slower. Look at a jet airplane in the sky approaching you and it looks like it is moving really slow but in fact it is travelling towards you at up to 500 MPH

This is true. I feel it's still the responsibility of the driver to assess the situation and act accordingly. Whether the other vehicle is going under, over or at the speed limit this phenomena still exists so it's a matter of judgement and experience. Drivers shouldn't expect other drivers to be observing all of the rules.

That's not the same as 'always the speeder's fault'.

Both are wrong, both are dead, the guy that was speeding made a conscious decision to drive that fast whereas the guy that pulled out in front of him made a mistake (due in part to the higher than normal closing speed of the speeder). As a motorcycle rider you should be well aware that other drivers can easily misjudge closing speeds.

It seems that some people in this thread feel that the right-of-way trumps self preservation (I really think that if someone is going to be driving/riding well above the speed limit then they forfeit the grounds to complain about people pulling out in front of them). Righteousness won't protect you from someone else's ****up.

The message of the video is showing what you can do to manage risk (ie slow down). You can't often prevent others from making mistakes but you can alter your own driving to reduce certain risks.

I re-watched the video and you're right. The text at the end says "Other people make mistakes SLOW DOWN". Heavy emphasis on the speed and not totally impartial but they do acknowledge the other driver's error. I agree with your statement with the exception that speeding can also be accidental. They should've included an additional warning: "stay out of a speeder's way". I might sound like I'm advocating speeding but I'm really just trying to balance the message.
 
I re-watched the video and you're right. The text at the end says "Other people make mistakes SLOW DOWN". Heavy emphasis on the speed and not totally impartial but they do acknowledge the other driver's error. I agree with your statement with the exception that speeding can also be accidental. They should've included an additional warning: "stay out of a speeder's way". I might sound like I'm advocating speeding but I'm really just trying to balance the message.

How about Slow down, Pay attention don't trust other drivers to follow the rules. Your idea is a bit pro speed
 
Why do you think old people drive so slow?
(They've had thousands of yahoos pull out on them, and their bodies are less able to tolerate a collision, so they don't play chicken).

Oh is that why they're so slow



















476.gif
 
Speeding is the cause of approximately 5% of accidents, stupidity accounts for the other 95%. If they wanted to make the video accurate, the guy speeding should have had the kid in his car, with the a$$hat that pulled out in front of him texting while he was pulling out. Crap like this annoys me.
 
Speeding is the cause of approximately 5% of accidents, stupidity accounts for the other 95%. If they wanted to make the video accurate, the guy speeding should have had the kid in his car, with the a$$hat that pulled out in front of him texting while he was pulling out. Crap like this annoys me.
The purpose of the ads isn't to reassure you that life is fair and all is right in the world. The purpose is to annoy you into slowing down.
 
I can see now the point is we should all slow down, but I am still having a problem here with this, and I think I need some help (maybe it's 'cuz I'm an idiot) but what I want to know is: What is the appropriate speed to approach an intersection when a 'tard is going to fail to yield your right of way and pull out in front of you causing an collision?

80kph? 50kph? 5kph?
... as far as I can see the only safe place is hiding under the bed.

Thank you Renboy for seeing the light.
We all see the point they're trying to make, just some of us see that they picked a REALLY LOUSY example to demonstrate the point.
Good idea, bad writing.
 
Ahhhhh
I see now. Thanks.


The guy in the sedan should have been doing twice the speed limit.
That way he would have cleared the intersection before the idiot that doesn't know the rules of the road even arrives there.

Nope, that wasn't that compicated.


What you say is true. The left turner would not have even been at the intersection as the sedan drove by.

Not that I necessarily disagree but which driver in this ad do you think was in the wrong?

While the point of the ad is to say "slow down" (which is ok) it's basically a propaganda campaign that says 'it's always the speeder's fault even if you do something stupid' (not ok). To be clear: both driver's were in the wrong.

I'd agree with the propaganda theory. The message says slow down, not drive at the speed limit. I would say the sedan did not seem to be driving at an excessive speed. I think that politicians in whatever country it was filmed are probably being pressured to increase speed limits. The film is the work of a group of special interest soccer moms who routinely pull out into traffic with screaming kids seating behind her.
 
Last edited:
LOL.

The ad is propaganda furthering "speed kills" and "its always the speeders fault" yet the driver in the ad didnt seem to be driving too fast?
Which is it?

Ive been known to slow down at times when I feel I someone might be about to make a mistake on the road.
I must be brainwashed.
 
What you say is true. The left turner would not have even been at the intersection as the sedan drove by.



I'd agree with the propaganda theory. The message says slow down, not drive at the speed limit. I would say the sedan did not seem to be driving at an excessive speed. I think that politicians in whatever country it was filmed are probably being pressured to increase speed limits. The film is the work of a group of special interest soccer moms who routinely pull out into traffic will screaming at the kids behind her.

I did a little bit of digging...

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/about/advertising/speed/mistakes.html

Our approach

Previous campaigns have shown that the faster you go the less time you have to react, the longer it takes to stop and the bigger the mess when you do stop. But people still deny this truth or think it doesn't apply to them. Their speed may be over the limit but it is minimal, e.g. 107 km/h in a 100 km/h area. In their minds they're not 'speeding', but driving comfortably, and they feel in control.This campaign aims to reframe the way that people look at their speed when they're driving. A person may be a good driver but they can't deny that people do make mistakes – after all, to err is only human. And in life, mistakes are made often. We usually get to learn from our mistakes; but not when driving - the road is an exception. Even the smallest of mistakes on the road can cost us our life, or someone else's.
In a Safe System no one should pay for a mistake with their life. When we drive, we share the road with others so the speed a person chooses to travel at needs to leave room for any potential error – whether it is theirs or someone else's. At speed, there is less opportunity for a driver to react to a mistake and recover, and this is the key message for this campaign.
The target audience

Our new campaign targets competent drivers who regularly drive and put the 'Ks' in. These people drive 'comfortably' fast; typically a bit faster than the posted speed limit or other traffic. But they don't consider it to be wrong or anti-social because it's not really 'speeding' in their minds. They feel competent and in control of their vehicle.
The campaign

This campaign launched on 5 January 2014 and encourages the audience to be conscious of other road users and to choose a safer speed that factors in the chance for human error.

Based on that, I no longer think that the message is that the speeder is at fault at all. 107 in a 100 zone isn't really speeding at all. I think the message is the same message that has been preached to motorcycle riders for years. We all agree that proper lane blocking position and awareness of cross traffic helps us, so why is it stupid to send the same message to drivers?
 
Last edited:
I can see now the point is we should all slow down, but I am still having a problem here with this, and I think I need some help (maybe it's 'cuz I'm an idiot) but what I want to know is: What is the appropriate speed to approach an intersection when a 'tard is going to fail to yield your right of way and pull out in front of you causing an collision?

80kph? 50kph? 5kph?
... as far as I can see the only safe place is hiding under the bed.

Thank you Renboy for seeing the light.
We all see the point they're trying to make, just some of us see that they picked a REALLY LOUSY example to demonstrate the point.
Good idea, bad writing.

The description on the video page explains what they expect;
"... the speed we choose to travel at needs to leave room for any potential error."
Which if you take it literally means we should always slow to a crawl when we encounter an oncoming car on a two-lane road, and at every intersection, or really whenever we come within a few meters of any other car. Obviously, that would be perfectly safe but utterly impractical.
It's like crossing RR tracks; people think it's best to stop, or slow to a crawl, or slow a bit, or maintain your speed. Some might even argue to speed up. Of course there are much fewer rail crossings than other cars on the road so those who slow down as a rule aren't impacting traffic as severely as if they did the same around every other driver on the road. But the thinking is the same - "perfect" safety vs. accepting the risks inherent with daily life.
 
....and instead of teaching us that target fixation and slamming on the brakes and hoping for the best is the solution, how 'bout someone mention "collision avoidance".
Instead of "T-boning" the suv and killing the kid maybe the sedan could have turned left, and gone behind the suv.
Yep, the sedan would be wrecked in the ditch, but no one killed (or maybe even hurt).
And that way the sedan driver gets to punch the crap out of the idiot that caused him to wreck his car... then go back and do it again when he finds out his insurance company adjusts the wreck as a single vehicle collision because there was no contact with the idiot in the suv.

For motorcycle riders you guys don't seem to be very good drivers.
... and just so you know, this ad is from New Zealand and the sedan's speed would be considered in adjusting this collision. Here in Ontario speed would not be considered in physical damages, but could be argued in tort.
 
....and instead of teaching us that target fixation and slamming on the brakes and hoping for the best is the solution, how 'bout someone mention "collision avoidance".
Instead of "T-boning" the suv and killing the kid maybe the sedan could have turned left, and gone behind the suv.
Here in Ontario speed would not be considered in physical damages, but could be argued in torte.

That would be a piece of cake unless he was texting. Or worse, sexting. All these possibilities need to be taken into account. Could be a multi layered piece of cake.
 
The reality is that the accident didn't when it did. And I know this is going to be an effort for some of the members on this forum. The accident happened 10, 20 or 30 minutes ago. That ringing phone that you decided to pick up before you left for your drive, put you in a different point in time when and position where the collision occurred. Your last moment decision to buy a lottery ticket at the gas bar changed the location at a point in time where a collisin took place. How many times have you come across this situation? You are driving down a road, you are approaching a cyclist from behind, an on coming car is approaching, you all meet up perfectly aligned at the same point in space. Moving objects are destined to collide. Politicians can make as many laws as they want. But in the end **** happens. That is why M/C's weave when approaching intersections to provide a linear distraction, avoiding the SIDSY (sorry I didn't see you syndrome.)
 
Politicians can make as many laws as they want. But in the end **** happens. That is why M/C's weave when approaching intersections to provide a linear distraction, avoiding the SIDSY (sorry I didn't see you syndrome.)

**** happens. I think the point is less **** happens if you take proactive counter measures. Using some basic strategies I can avoid creaming the side of a CCOOD (car coming out of driveway) as I crest hill at retard clip.
 
Agreed. But this mantra about speed kills is BS. Try driving the speed limit, every body behind your is in a fit of road rage and passing aggressively.
 

Back
Top Bottom