Why didn't the drivers see the oncoming truck or swerve out of the way? Maybe they were distracted by the narrator walking in the middle of the road. Sheesh, some commenters are so literal-minded.
so if you're going 5 miles faster then the driver next to you, you'll only slow down to half the speed of the other driver? yeah i'm calling bullshit. Any idiot would also swerve out of the way of the truck. Especially coming that close to the end of the truck. He wouldn't just drive straight into it. These commercials are so unrealistic but I do agree with safety. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go operate my 240sx at dangerous high speeds, hitting 30mph corners at 55mphs.
It said it's an unexpected stop in front of you. What if turning right there's no where to go?
Making excuses means you don't get the message. If you're ok with the consequences of speeding go right ahead. NHTSA's figures are 31% of all FATAL crashes are due to speed. That's over 11,000 people in one year in the US alone. If that was a terrorist cause people would be up in arms.
I work in the high schools and when students aren't physically driving in their driver's ed classes, they send them to other classes to just sit and be an "aide". How about showing kids some of these videos? That's what we did back in the 80s. There are too many distractions on the road....this commercial could have easily been about someone texting and driving or talking on the cell phone and driving. When you are distracted AND speeding, there literally is no time to react.
And these commercials are also incredibly UNREALISTIC. Who would just drive straight into a truck when they can swerve out of the way? Who wouldn't be able to see a giant ass truck hurling down the road with no signs of deceleration or stopping? Also explain to me why there's an intersection at a highway? Last I checked 65 was a speed only for highways / express ways. This commercial is just trying to scare people. And fear is another form of control. Use common sense when driving.
@glazealotabrass420 i dont mean to chime in, but you do realise this is an Australian TV Ad meaning the speed is measured in KM and not MPH.. 60km is roughly 37 miles and 65km is roughly 40 miles.. 60km is about 17 metres per second... ive done my own tests in my falcon, similar to those in the video and found i need 26m to stop (without reaction time. i was only testing brakes...)
@glazealotabrass420 The commercial is to show that IF something happens, AND IF nothing can be done other than decelerate than a measly 5 K more an hour, can make a difference of 20+ on the point of impact...
Between speed and lack of concentration, the one bloke is lucky he didn't lose his life. Even if he was going faster, if he had been concentrating on his driving, he might have still been able to stop before totalling his car.
Why didn't old mate in the silver car avoid hitting the truck?? surely he could have turned a lil to the right so he wouldn't had hit or is a ford really that shit?? ahh well another year of your tax waisted to pay for the car for this crutty commercial....
Before anybody moans that hitting the corner of the truck is not like a front-on impact, this was the only way they could film it so that the stunt driver wasn't injured. I've been in contact with the Professor in this advert and he was telling me how they made it.
On the flip side. if the reason that truck went by a stop sign, and the faster car would not get hit but the slower one would have. All on how it pans out. Pretty soon we will all have to move in cusioned blow up bubbles, to be completly safe. I just say thats life.
i'm not convinced, that had to be set up so that it was perfect for the other car to just hti slightly and the other to cause significant impact, not very realistic.
The "point" of this video is that its not the speed that kills you its the unexpected stop at the end. More accurately its your 'ability' to stop unexpectedly. As the man says: "you lose half your speed in the last 5 meters of braking." The faster you go the longer it takes to stop.
And if both drivers had been paying full attention to the road, they would've seen the truck approaching from the side at a speed too fast to stop, and thus would have been able to begin braking a second or two earlier, avoiding a collisoin all together. It's not all about speed.
@alextact No, but speed can play a major factor in how well you come out of something that happens when you're least expecting it. The fact that people don't understand this simple physics fact annoys me, and they moan like babies because they're being "told what to do" by someone that might just know better.
@wuzzlevideos No denying that, it's simple physics. I ignore the 50km/h limit on many residential streets for that reason... I stick to 30km/h. You cannot deny however that the sooner someone reacts, the better chance they'll have of avoiding the collision altogether. A driver paying proper attention to the task at hand whilst driving a little faster will have a second or two more to react than a person who is fiddling with the radio with cruise control engaged.
@MattSarge69 At the very instant of the crash, yes it is all about speed. The faster a vehicle is going, the more trauma is going to be suffered by all persons involved in the crash. However, if we continue to focus on reducing the severity of crashes, rather than preventing crashes all together, then the number of fatal incidents on our roads is not going to decline as much as it could... as can be seen by the relatively static road toll each year since the shift to focusing on vehicle speed.
@alextact Or it's a kangaroo out of some bushes, or it's someone not stopping at a blind stop sign. It may not all be about speed, but the speed limits are there for a reason, and assuming you don't need to abide by them is both arrogant and dangerous.
@Vitus17 Speed limits have remained relatively similar since they were introduced decades ago. We've since learnt that at a speed of 50km/h, a pedestrian has less than 50% chance of survival in a crash. At 30km/h, the chance is 95%. Why are residential streets and roads still 50km/h and 60km/h? Why do these roads contain nowhere near as many speed cameras as freeways, where pedestrians are banned, and we're only allowed to travel 40-50km/h faster by default? Limits are out of date all round.
just to let you all know...ALL 40 school zones and ALL 40/60/80 work zones are bouble points.......I got done doing 50 in a school zone,$136 and 4 points......
@ACEDcomputers Australia is metric like the rest of the world, not like you dumb ass americans still using imperial messurments(inch's). get with the times dude....
" not like you dumb ass americans still using imperial messurments(inch's)"
-No need to be an arrogant prick. Using the imperial measurements requires more brain power and number crunching. One could argue that the rest of the world is stupid because they had to switch to an easier method made for herp derps.
"get with the times dude"
-I am with the times. In the United States we use imperial measurements. Thus metric is irrelevant to me, and imperial is relevant to me.
Yes, but it only because 15 mph (24k) when the schools are getting out. So usually 2-3, or 3-4, and the school zones themselves are usually only a block around the entire school.
@reivenne and also if it stops someone from coming around at 50 km and the same situation as shown in the add happens but this time its not a nice big truck its an 8 yr kid who just lost around 80yrs of his life cause someone in the government thought 24kmph is a little bit to slow....
I think everyone is missing the point. They purposely crashed the faster car into the corner of the trailer so it wouldn't do the driver as much damage! All of the impact was taken by the passenger side, so the driver was probably unharmed. If they had crashed the faster one into the underrun bars on the trailer too it probably would have fucked the driver up.
can anyone please give me some informations about this campaign ? like : who requested it , who made it , how much it costed , who was the target audience , when was it launched how much it stayed on air , at which hours etc etc . it's for a school project . thank you.
notice the "speeding" car bypasses its crumple zone. thus making the impact that much stronger...if he had run into the tyres the impact would have destroyed more of the car but the driver wouldnt be as harmed. stupid test is bias and therefore invalid
The faster car can't have a full frontal hit because the stunt driver would've suffered even more injuries. See the amount of damage done to the passenger compartment?
No, less, the passenger compartment would be intact in a 32K full front. Look at Euro NCAP/ANCAP/IIHS crash test results; those are OFFSET, more damage than full front, and the occupant compartments in modern cars are usually undamaged or slightly damaged. And this is at 64K.
well technically speaking, the truck cleared the front of the car and the impact was all taken at the windshield. sedan went under and the truck did all the damage to the top of the vehicle.. it's possible, but yeah, it looks like there was A LOT of damage done for a 32km/h crash.
Yeah... but how many people are actually only doing 5kms over the limit when they're speeding... other issues at play like the absence of a seatbelt or any number of other factors could contribute to the death of a passenger or a driver for that matter. We all know the facts, speeding kills, so dont try to justify even travelling 5km more than the speed limit... you do that and you can easily justify 10, think about how fast the car would still be travelling then...
First of all, in a real world, a reasonable reaction time is .75s. My reaction time is .52s.
Yet in all those commercials the reaction time is 1.5s (almost three times slower than normal)
Then the FC (friction coefficient) they use in their advertising calculations is 0.35, (very worn tires and/or wet pavement) whereas a normal FC is 0.72 (good tires on dry pavement).
@ 60km/h with a FC 0.35, the stopping distance is about 104m
@ 60 Km/h with a FC . 0.72 the stopping distance is about 50m
kudos to you. however scientific you want to be about it, there are far more drivers out there that cant decide what to do with a whole 2 min. just slow your ass down you might get to work 3-5 min later but you didnt die and hopefully didnt kill anyone.
By they way, these calculations are usually based on driver reaction times of 1.5 seconds (real world tests show this is typical for 85th percentile). But yet, the model used to determine amber intervals used by Austroads assumes a reaction time of 1 second. (talk to a transportation engineer if you question this fact)
Please write to the road safety minister of your respective Australian state and inform them of this apparent contradiction!
Even how good you are at driving you cant predict situations..... thats why there are speeding limits etc, theres a limit because SOME people actually are aware of the situations on the roads. The dont put up a sign just to fuck around with ya, even if your a f1 racer you can still hit a kid. My point is... everything can happen, signs are there to prevent accidents.
this is a load of shit. speed isnt the only factor. what about the mass of the vehicle, type of braking system: abs, brembo, drum, disc? or and reaction time? and then road surface.. should i go on? bullshit ads to justify new laws and high fines for revenue. -- see my illegal burnouts video. **
considered the fact that they used the same brakes, cars, models and reaction times in their equations? ** what are you talking about even 2 exactly the same model cars would brake differently. different pads, tire brands, fuel and cargo loads, persons response, and we are even bringing outside conditions into this.
it's called a fucking control. they keep everything the same except the speed.
this video isn't the identical results, it's depicting what their results have come up with. and yes there are other things to consider but for THIS THERE IS WHAT YOU SEE.
"speed isnt the only factor"
bravo on spotting that one. ITS BEEN DONE BY FUCKING SCIENTISTS AND THEY DONT GO "OH LETS GRAB THIS 90S MODEL COROLLA AND THIS NEW COMMODORE!
OMG THE COMMODORE WAS DOING 5 KMS LESS AND LOST TONS OF SPEED WE R SO SMART
do you want a tissue baby!? this is a propaganda ad, its has no relevance in the real word. its just made to reinforce the excuse for revenue raising and catching people for only 3km over. i can do an ad to: 2 fat kids holding their breath but one hold it for 5seconds less and lives the other dies, then state: "if you don't breathe you will die" OHH DER!
not really. emergency braking will lock the rear wheels causing your rear end to swing forward. becoming more dangerous. you brake and steer out of the way if you have ABS. If you dont have ABS you pump the brakes and steer. E-brakes are pretty much only for parking your standard on a hill or anywhere you may roll.
3. It doesn't actually matter if the driver hits the petal a little later (which I couldn't see in the ad anyway) or how hard the ad shows the car crumbles. central message is 5 Km/h diffenrence at start makes 27 Km/h difference at the end.
All this message is telling me is that if you want to speed, dont buy a Ford Falcon AU. Their brakes were notoriously shocking. I bet that if it were a BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, Nissan and even a Holden in that instance, they wouldn't have hit at all. Funny how they chose one of the worst braking Australian vehicles for this commercial....
Actually, some times hiting with the engine first can be worse, specially for the legs. My aunt has lots, lots, lots of metal in her legs due to a car accident when she was 21.
If her engine was behind, like the old VW beetle, her legs probably would not have been damaged so much.
In modern cars with crumple zones, the engine is actually mounted in such a way that during a front end collision, it collapses completely under the car and out of harms way...
I love how they crash the one guy into the corner of the trailer with nothing to slow it down before the window plows into it, where as the other guy hits with his bumper off a couple of even bars nicely placed in the centre.
I was t-boned by a car that was going about 35km/h and we were both perfectly alright. her car had less damage than mine even though mine was bigger...
They should make these ads target women lol. I work in a parking lot and believe me, I've seen some stupid shit.
Not to mention the fact that the guy only had to get like one metre to the right and he would have been fine, which would be extremely easy to do and he had plenty of time.
Are you trying to condone speeding? Or are you agaisnt woman drivers? I'm not sure what kind of "point" your trying to make here but either way you are obviously an idiot who wont actually learn anything from this ad.
I'm an idiot for pointing out that there are obvious flaws in this commercial? Am I supposed to be scared that I might, by chance, be stupid enough to be given what appears to be 100 metres to react to a hazard and yet manage to hit it square on the corner?
No, I'll just be the other guy, who hits in a place where his bumper takes the shock.
Driving into a wall at 35 km/h would suck for sure, but it wouldn't kill the guy like this commercial implies by ramming him headfirst into the corner.
It's just fear tactics that the government spends millions of dollars on and don't do any good. Just like drinking and driving. Of course I'm against it, but the commercials are so stupid.
They did this for the safety of the driver. I emailed the professor in the video about a year ago to ask how they filmed the advert and he wrote back with some very cool info. I don't have the mail now, sadly. But basically he was strapped in well, full racing gear, and the petrol tank only had the bear minimum of fuel in. Crashing him into the corner like that meant he wouldn't take any of the impact, and there was less chance of him being speared in the face by something :-)
How is there less of a chance of getting speared by sending the corner through some glass and the thin roof, as compared to having the engine block in front of you take some of the impact?
Sorry, my words came out a little fucked up. I meant that crashing in that position meant that they could hit at some amount of speed without something hitting the driver directly...
But, now that I read your post, I think you're absolutely right. Surely having the full crash cell of the car shield some of the impact would have been better. Maybe I'll email him back :)
That's why I think that a lot of it is for shock factor. In real life, yes crashing into the corner of the trailer at 35km/h would probably impale you, but it's unfair when the other guy hits his bumper off of the trailer.
Of course hitting a wall at 32km/h would probably write off your car, but it would be far less spectacular than seeing half of the car's corner disappear by having the corner slice through.
The commercial makes a good point, speed has consequences, I just hate the portrayal.
In the scenario involving the trailer bull bar, all of the energy from the impact is being focused into a smaller area of the car, hence resulting in greater damage. It is equivical to hitting a lemon with a rolling pin and another lemon with a knife... The rolling pin will deform it slightly, but the knife will tear in and do the most damage.
Well, yes and no. It all depends on how honest the producers of the commercial really are. One questionable aspect is the choice of car. The commercial would be of greater credibility if a majority of Australians drove AU Falcons (which have notoriously bad brakes). Further more, the experiment lacks data; that of the slower travelling car also hitting the bullbar. I could give you a full breakdown - PM me if you want to hear it because I cant be stuffed typing it into a youtube comment box.
ABS gives u a false sense of security by allowing the wheels to lock and unlock but if the sensors for the ABS aren't cleaned of the dirt that can cover it, it wont detect wheel slip and uv just got more weight to counter when braking. If ur on a gravel road ABS will increase ur breaking distance much more than a car widout ABS. Skidding and sliding is a part of driving and if u cant handle it u shouldn't be behind the wheel
if you notice the footage from 00:44 - 00:48 the driver of the black car is braking strangely, as if he were tapping the break on and off. If something like this did happen I would think the driver no matter who they were would firmly apply pressure on the brakes for the entire braking procedure, and not tap it on and off
Wow, ...I'm going to go to work a bit slower today...top ad, should have it in the UK where we still lose too many young lives on the roads. I know, I have to pick up the pieces as a Firefighter and E.M.T.
I'm a firefighter myself, and the cause of car crashes is poor road conditions. When you are taxed out of your arse for roads you wouldn't even drive a 4WD over, goes to show goverments are steling off the taxpayer instead of funding our services. Cars these days are designed for high speeds, problem is governments scare you into driving slow just as an excuse to fine your arse and use your money for their ext Christmas Party, instead of fixing roads.
What? - huh? - speeding?? He calls 60 to 65 km/hr SPEEDING??!? Well, OK, maybe, just maybe in a school crossing zone or right in front of a rest home maybe, but where do drivers spend the vast majority of their time? In town? I don't think so guys. AND I'm from the U.S. no less and I live in the eastern mountains (the Appalacian mountains) on roads that would scare you at 130 km/hr (my favorite driving speed on the highways here) and I've went up close to 180 km/hr, so 65? Olde folks
If you believe this ad, you'd believe the leftist propaganda going around called "global warming." This ad is a load of bullshit. What if your doing 65 in a 70 zone and a truck pulls out and you have the same stopping distance as if you were doing 65 in a 60 zone. Wether you do the limit or not, you can't expel the risk of dickheads jumping ut in front of you. Typical communist Victorian ad there as an excuse for more covert speed cameras to ping you for having a life.
"0.36. Those cars aren't braking. If you look at the trucks tyres, they have completely stopped and locked up. If you saw a fucking semi-trailer driving wouldn't you slam on the brakes? Not just roll to a stop? MAKE A REAL ADVERT RTA."
BIG LOL at you lasty123 :D You surely get 100% what the advert is all about :D
u would try not to lock up the brakes u would try to apply them at a certain rate so that u dont lock up, locking up is the worst thing that could happen. u slow faster when u apply the brake slowly rather than just slamming on the brakes
You know fuck all about cars mate. the reason the wheels dont lock up is because all ford falcon au serires models come with ABS brakes.. do your home work before you open your mouth
0.36. Those cars aren't braking. If you look at the trucks tyres, they have completely stopped and locked up. If you saw a fucking semi-trailer driving wouldn't you slam on the brakes? Not just roll to a stop? MAKE A REAL ADVERT RTA.
that commercial is quite an oldie now, but a goodie. however, one of many imminent speeding risks of today involving street racing could be just that.
Matye you're an idiot...section 92 states that "that trade, commerce and intercourse between the States shall be absolutely free." It says nothing about being able to speed and drive like a a fucktard...
Well where I live in VIC if you dial 911 it does that 3 chime beep thing. And if your going to call some one a dumbass spell it write. Why the fuck is this even being talked about??
sigh...why is there always flamewars when people get the shits when they get a reply that proves them wrong. first of all its short spelt. Msn wise..like skewl...I'm sure you've herd of lolz...if not...you lie XD.
And depends what cars breaks and shit no everyone have a warn down falcon..
POXXERR 2 months ago
Why didn't the drivers see the oncoming truck or swerve out of the way? Maybe they were distracted by the narrator walking in the middle of the road. Sheesh, some commenters are so literal-minded.
WOkitsu 4 months ago
so if you're going 5 miles faster then the driver next to you, you'll only slow down to half the speed of the other driver? yeah i'm calling bullshit. Any idiot would also swerve out of the way of the truck. Especially coming that close to the end of the truck. He wouldn't just drive straight into it. These commercials are so unrealistic but I do agree with safety. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go operate my 240sx at dangerous high speeds, hitting 30mph corners at 55mphs.
glazealotabrass420 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glazealotabrass420 It's 65km's not miles!
cameronmort125 4 months ago
And why didn't he turn right?
ShepperdW 7 months ago
@ShepperdW
It said it's an unexpected stop in front of you. What if turning right there's no where to go?
Making excuses means you don't get the message. If you're ok with the consequences of speeding go right ahead. NHTSA's figures are 31% of all FATAL crashes are due to speed. That's over 11,000 people in one year in the US alone. If that was a terrorist cause people would be up in arms.
leftcoaster67 1 month ago
just go faster like 120 or 160 and you would be able to make it before the truck blocks the road XD
FDBarrY 9 months ago
THIS IS FIFTH GEAR!!!
AwsomeFan2010 9 months ago
I work in the high schools and when students aren't physically driving in their driver's ed classes, they send them to other classes to just sit and be an "aide". How about showing kids some of these videos? That's what we did back in the 80s. There are too many distractions on the road....this commercial could have easily been about someone texting and driving or talking on the cell phone and driving. When you are distracted AND speeding, there literally is no time to react.
zpunk81 9 months ago
@zpunk81
And these commercials are also incredibly UNREALISTIC. Who would just drive straight into a truck when they can swerve out of the way? Who wouldn't be able to see a giant ass truck hurling down the road with no signs of deceleration or stopping? Also explain to me why there's an intersection at a highway? Last I checked 65 was a speed only for highways / express ways. This commercial is just trying to scare people. And fear is another form of control. Use common sense when driving.
glazealotabrass420 6 months ago
Comment removed
im1hecticwog 5 months ago
@glazealotabrass420 i dont mean to chime in, but you do realise this is an Australian TV Ad meaning the speed is measured in KM and not MPH.. 60km is roughly 37 miles and 65km is roughly 40 miles.. 60km is about 17 metres per second... ive done my own tests in my falcon, similar to those in the video and found i need 26m to stop (without reaction time. i was only testing brakes...)
im1hecticwog 5 months ago
@glazealotabrass420 It's 65km's not miles!
cameronmort125 4 months ago
@glazealotabrass420 The commercial is to show that IF something happens, AND IF nothing can be done other than decelerate than a measly 5 K more an hour, can make a difference of 20+ on the point of impact...
RyanHoulio 2 months ago
@glazealotabrass420 "Last I checked 65 was a speed only for highways / express ways." ...and of course people always travel the speed limit.....
zpunk81 1 month ago
great commercial!!!
9o9123 10 months ago
Hey come on, that's only 5km/h difference
CanberraUser 10 months ago
RTA snatched it from TAC.
moksheebs 1 year ago
@moksheebs TAC?
Bilama 9 months ago
@Bilama Yes.
moksheebs 9 months ago
Does nobody notice that this IS A DEMONSTRATION !
thats why they're wearing suits and a truck comes out of nowhere, markers on road etc....
JakeAndAngusMovies 1 year ago
Between speed and lack of concentration, the one bloke is lucky he didn't lose his life. Even if he was going faster, if he had been concentrating on his driving, he might have still been able to stop before totalling his car.
Seattlecarnut 1 year ago
Guys just slow down, Running late is by far more better than killing yourself and others
studionightbird0 1 year ago
@studionightbird0 tell that to my wife!
specialK1993 1 year ago
This is an ad for dumbass truck drivers who frequently stop in the middle of intersections right?
JJAkroyd 1 year ago
Why didn't old mate in the silver car avoid hitting the truck?? surely he could have turned a lil to the right so he wouldn't had hit or is a ford really that shit?? ahh well another year of your tax waisted to pay for the car for this crutty commercial....
dosh225 1 year ago
Before anybody moans that hitting the corner of the truck is not like a front-on impact, this was the only way they could film it so that the stunt driver wasn't injured. I've been in contact with the Professor in this advert and he was telling me how they made it.
wuzzlevideos 1 year ago
@wuzzlevideos I thought a 32 kph (20 mph) full front impact was light enough anyway as to not hurt the stunt driver.
whattheheck1000 1 year ago
On the flip side. if the reason that truck went by a stop sign, and the faster car would not get hit but the slower one would have. All on how it pans out. Pretty soon we will all have to move in cusioned blow up bubbles, to be completly safe. I just say thats life.
hhotshot39 1 year ago
how about just get a low ass civic from Fast and Furious and go under it?
UnwrittenEpitaph 1 year ago 3
Anyone know the song?
SaunjGirl 1 year ago
i'm not convinced, that had to be set up so that it was perfect for the other car to just hti slightly and the other to cause significant impact, not very realistic.
theboxmike 1 year ago
so don't buy cheap ass tires FOOL
35OzTV 1 year ago
how effective is this ad in getting its message across?
ipsgstatuz 1 year ago
The "point" of this video is that its not the speed that kills you its the unexpected stop at the end. More accurately its your 'ability' to stop unexpectedly. As the man says: "you lose half your speed in the last 5 meters of braking." The faster you go the longer it takes to stop.
KwasyWabbit 1 year ago
whats the specific point of this video?
jaggeyb94 1 year ago
And if both drivers had been paying full attention to the road, they would've seen the truck approaching from the side at a speed too fast to stop, and thus would have been able to begin braking a second or two earlier, avoiding a collisoin all together. It's not all about speed.
alextact 1 year ago 12
@alextact No, but speed can play a major factor in how well you come out of something that happens when you're least expecting it. The fact that people don't understand this simple physics fact annoys me, and they moan like babies because they're being "told what to do" by someone that might just know better.
wuzzlevideos 1 year ago
@wuzzlevideos No denying that, it's simple physics. I ignore the 50km/h limit on many residential streets for that reason... I stick to 30km/h. You cannot deny however that the sooner someone reacts, the better chance they'll have of avoiding the collision altogether. A driver paying proper attention to the task at hand whilst driving a little faster will have a second or two more to react than a person who is fiddling with the radio with cruise control engaged.
alextact 1 year ago
@alextact
Your an idiot. These drivers did exactly that. You have to take into account of the reaction times and distance travelled during!
If your doing everything else right, it's all about speed, sorry, your wrong.
MattSarge69 1 year ago
@MattSarge69 At the very instant of the crash, yes it is all about speed. The faster a vehicle is going, the more trauma is going to be suffered by all persons involved in the crash. However, if we continue to focus on reducing the severity of crashes, rather than preventing crashes all together, then the number of fatal incidents on our roads is not going to decline as much as it could... as can be seen by the relatively static road toll each year since the shift to focusing on vehicle speed.
alextact 11 months ago
@alextact
I think you're analysing this example a little too much.
Suppose the truck just spawned into existence in the middle of the road from a parallel universe........
What then!?!?!?
Bunyack 1 year ago
@alextact Or it's a kangaroo out of some bushes, or it's someone not stopping at a blind stop sign. It may not all be about speed, but the speed limits are there for a reason, and assuming you don't need to abide by them is both arrogant and dangerous.
Vitus17 11 months ago
@Vitus17 Speed limits have remained relatively similar since they were introduced decades ago. We've since learnt that at a speed of 50km/h, a pedestrian has less than 50% chance of survival in a crash. At 30km/h, the chance is 95%. Why are residential streets and roads still 50km/h and 60km/h? Why do these roads contain nowhere near as many speed cameras as freeways, where pedestrians are banned, and we're only allowed to travel 40-50km/h faster by default? Limits are out of date all round.
alextact 11 months ago
@alextact man you are dumb
Mastertj987 8 months ago
@alextact
Well aren't you smart.
engeladam409 7 months ago
and if he turned slightly to the right he would have gone past the truck at 32k's...
shozzy6996 2 years ago 2
why the hell did a truck stop in the middle of the road then, thats common sense not too! Thats how you cause accidents.. <.<
5blacksmith5 2 years ago
its a fucking test moron! jesus titie fucking christ stop being a wise-ass
Vladey14 1 year ago
just to let you all know...ALL 40 school zones and ALL 40/60/80 work zones are bouble points.......I got done doing 50 in a school zone,$136 and 4 points......
andrew1038 2 years ago
@andrew1038
In Florida school zones are 15.
ACEDcomputers 1 year ago
@ACEDcomputers Australia is metric like the rest of the world, not like you dumb ass americans still using imperial messurments(inch's). get with the times dude....
andrew1038 1 year ago
@andrew1038
" not like you dumb ass americans still using imperial messurments(inch's)"
-No need to be an arrogant prick. Using the imperial measurements requires more brain power and number crunching. One could argue that the rest of the world is stupid because they had to switch to an easier method made for herp derps.
"get with the times dude"
-I am with the times. In the United States we use imperial measurements. Thus metric is irrelevant to me, and imperial is relevant to me.
ACEDcomputers 1 year ago
@ACEDcomputers 15mph (24k's) is freaking slooooow, that must congest traffic like crazy
reivenne 1 year ago
@reivenne
Yes, but it only because 15 mph (24k) when the schools are getting out. So usually 2-3, or 3-4, and the school zones themselves are usually only a block around the entire school.
ACEDcomputers 1 year ago
@reivenne and also if it stops someone from coming around at 50 km and the same situation as shown in the add happens but this time its not a nice big truck its an 8 yr kid who just lost around 80yrs of his life cause someone in the government thought 24kmph is a little bit to slow....
typhoon355 1 year ago
I think everyone is missing the point. They purposely crashed the faster car into the corner of the trailer so it wouldn't do the driver as much damage! All of the impact was taken by the passenger side, so the driver was probably unharmed. If they had crashed the faster one into the underrun bars on the trailer too it probably would have fucked the driver up.
ngkful 2 years ago
@ngkful EXACTLY! THAT IS WHAT I SAY TOO :|
motioncityx 2 years ago
@ngkful no, it was 32k's. that's pretty slow.
whattheheck1000 1 year ago
lol lucky that the steering wheel was on the other side!
nissanrb30 2 years ago
can anyone please give me some informations about this campaign ? like : who requested it , who made it , how much it costed , who was the target audience , when was it launched how much it stayed on air , at which hours etc etc . it's for a school project . thank you.
FLOYDROCKSSS 2 years ago
it was made by Monash university and they showed it on tv and in cinemas
ngkful 2 years ago
really its was a TAC commercial first, see the victorian numberplates
RAFFIZUMZ 2 years ago
yeah it is.
the TAC have it on their yt channel
b3nniiiiii 2 years ago
notice the "speeding" car bypasses its crumple zone. thus making the impact that much stronger...if he had run into the tyres the impact would have destroyed more of the car but the driver wouldnt be as harmed. stupid test is bias and therefore invalid
ChrisSheaffe 2 years ago
yeah thats why usually the passenger is killed and not the driver, how come i never saw this add on tv?
matthewjones2000 2 years ago
Black one sorry.
HungryKFC 2 years ago
this could work for a brake pads ad as well.
snipedsniper18 2 years ago
Are you sure the piano theme for this ad was made specially for this video? it really sounds like something out of American beauty.
Mikesmelancholy 2 years ago
TIsk Wont Work For Me my car is in mph not KM :(
147ckjak 2 years ago 2
loltroll
fratboyfrat 2 years ago
The faster car can't have a full frontal hit because the stunt driver would've suffered even more injuries. See the amount of damage done to the passenger compartment?
CY68 2 years ago
No, less, the passenger compartment would be intact in a 32K full front. Look at Euro NCAP/ANCAP/IIHS crash test results; those are OFFSET, more damage than full front, and the occupant compartments in modern cars are usually undamaged or slightly damaged. And this is at 64K.
whattheheck1000 2 years ago
well technically speaking, the truck cleared the front of the car and the impact was all taken at the windshield. sedan went under and the truck did all the damage to the top of the vehicle.. it's possible, but yeah, it looks like there was A LOT of damage done for a 32km/h crash.
mywJOE 2 years ago
@mywJOE
Perhaps the car's windshield isn't made for crashing into trucks (which are inherently higher) but rather into other cars?
forumito 2 years ago
Deceiving - should have both hit full frontal. 32 k's wouldn't kill a passenger if it was a full front hit, or driver for that matter.
whattheheck1000 2 years ago
Yeah... but how many people are actually only doing 5kms over the limit when they're speeding... other issues at play like the absence of a seatbelt or any number of other factors could contribute to the death of a passenger or a driver for that matter. We all know the facts, speeding kills, so dont try to justify even travelling 5km more than the speed limit... you do that and you can easily justify 10, think about how fast the car would still be travelling then...
alisharose28 2 years ago
Bloke in the silver car should have swerved...
whattheheck1000 2 years ago
And the bloke in the white one should have locked up side ways!
HungryKFC 2 years ago
does anyone what the piano song on the background is?
Kanguro22 2 years ago
it was made specially for this ad.
Aragon159 2 years ago
called driving fast enough that you go under the truck and end up on the other side.. simple as that
mattchuzeezee 2 years ago
wow i havent seen that add in 6 years
valery619 2 years ago
First of all, in a real world, a reasonable reaction time is .75s. My reaction time is .52s.
Yet in all those commercials the reaction time is 1.5s (almost three times slower than normal)
Then the FC (friction coefficient) they use in their advertising calculations is 0.35, (very worn tires and/or wet pavement) whereas a normal FC is 0.72 (good tires on dry pavement).
@ 60km/h with a FC 0.35, the stopping distance is about 104m
@ 60 Km/h with a FC . 0.72 the stopping distance is about 50m
FxStuntDriver 2 years ago
kudos to you. however scientific you want to be about it, there are far more drivers out there that cant decide what to do with a whole 2 min. just slow your ass down you might get to work 3-5 min later but you didnt die and hopefully didnt kill anyone.
Macysdad2 2 years ago 11
You're a bloody idiot.
Bambings 2 years ago
By they way, these calculations are usually based on driver reaction times of 1.5 seconds (real world tests show this is typical for 85th percentile). But yet, the model used to determine amber intervals used by Austroads assumes a reaction time of 1 second. (talk to a transportation engineer if you question this fact)
Please write to the road safety minister of your respective Australian state and inform them of this apparent contradiction!
Architectonic01 2 years ago
why not urge people to learn to pin around and drift off in such situation? rather than telling them how break will work?
devilninjas 2 years ago
3km/h... most speedo's are out more...
Compared to rest of world Aus speeding tolerances are pure nazi iron fist revenue before safety.
elit34 2 years ago
Speed is NOT bad. Some roads the speed limits are too high, some are too low. The speed sign is not always right...
140km/h on a good, empty freeway is verrrrry badddd.... but if the sign allowed it... its fine/safe even though the same physical thing is happening.
You seem like one of those mushrooms that will sit a meter from the car in front in the wet just so you can do 60km/h because the sign says so.
elit34 2 years ago
Your point is? F1 is proof, speed on its own is not as bad as not paying attention... they travel at high speeds and are reasonably safe.
Speed will worsen the damage of course... but proper care will avoid an accident.
Drive to the conditions...
elit34 2 years ago
Being an aware driver is what really matters...
Playing with radio / not being aware, aka 1 second reaction time, means the car traveled 16.66 meters during the second before braking...
Means car hit truck at pretty much full speed...
elit34 2 years ago
lets do the maths..
"last 5 meters of braking you wipe off half your speed"
So 5 meters before:
Car hit at 32km/h was doing 64kmh
Car hit at 5km/h was doing 10km/h
NRMA tests list car shown to stop from 60-0km/h in 16.8 meters...
SO one car only managed to slow down 1km/h in 11.8 meters... the other slowed 50km/h
Add is complete and utter BS.
elit34 2 years ago
Even how good you are at driving you cant predict situations..... thats why there are speeding limits etc, theres a limit because SOME people actually are aware of the situations on the roads. The dont put up a sign just to fuck around with ya, even if your a f1 racer you can still hit a kid. My point is... everything can happen, signs are there to prevent accidents.
hagelharry 2 years ago
Sheep. Speeding is not bad, poor drivers are bad.
elit34 2 years ago
clap clap, well i see some people do have their own brains to think with.
mafiouso 2 years ago
Why did the truck stop? nah jokes! =)
pmhvideo85 2 years ago
ok, there are a lot of arguments, but everyones missing the point....... that THE CAR CRASH IN SLOW MO WAS PLAIN BADASS >:D!!!!!
youtubz192 2 years ago
this is a load of shit. speed isnt the only factor. what about the mass of the vehicle, type of braking system: abs, brembo, drum, disc? or and reaction time? and then road surface.. should i go on? bullshit ads to justify new laws and high fines for revenue. -- see my illegal burnouts video. **
mafiouso 2 years ago 2
considered the fact that they used the same brakes, cars, models and reaction times in their equations?
DescribeAjRz 2 years ago
what equations?? you mean bullshit.
considered the fact that they used the same brakes, cars, models and reaction times in their equations? ** what are you talking about even 2 exactly the same model cars would brake differently. different pads, tire brands, fuel and cargo loads, persons response, and we are even bringing outside conditions into this.
mafiouso 2 years ago
it's called a fucking control. they keep everything the same except the speed.
this video isn't the identical results, it's depicting what their results have come up with. and yes there are other things to consider but for THIS THERE IS WHAT YOU SEE.
"speed isnt the only factor"
bravo on spotting that one. ITS BEEN DONE BY FUCKING SCIENTISTS AND THEY DONT GO "OH LETS GRAB THIS 90S MODEL COROLLA AND THIS NEW COMMODORE!
OMG THE COMMODORE WAS DOING 5 KMS LESS AND LOST TONS OF SPEED WE R SO SMART
DescribeAjRz 2 years ago
do you want a tissue baby!? this is a propaganda ad, its has no relevance in the real word. its just made to reinforce the excuse for revenue raising and catching people for only 3km over. i can do an ad to: 2 fat kids holding their breath but one hold it for 5seconds less and lives the other dies, then state: "if you don't breathe you will die" OHH DER!
mafiouso 2 years ago
Comment removed
hagelharry 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Compares two identical cars going at different speed "
Your right, but not in this case,
This is two identical cars, going at a different speed, This shows how much different just 5 is.
hagelharry 2 years ago
Braking that hard cant be very good for the cars brake pads
xXshamm3rsXx 2 years ago
oh ofcourse! lets all listen to this douche bag and not break hard wen thers a child crossing the road and kill him!
THATS WHAT EMERGENCY BREAKING IS FOR DUMBASS....for some reason they dont teach u how to emergency break in australia...onli in england
tankedline 2 years ago
not really. emergency braking will lock the rear wheels causing your rear end to swing forward. becoming more dangerous. you brake and steer out of the way if you have ABS. If you dont have ABS you pump the brakes and steer. E-brakes are pretty much only for parking your standard on a hill or anywhere you may roll.
craigandrews88 2 years ago
unless they heat up (which they wont unless you do it over and over for an hour) then it does no damage to the brakes.
gloucesterharry 2 years ago
Can we please see a comparison between twhat happens between he driver who watches the road and the driver who watches his speedo?
vpinnone 2 years ago 2
What is this song?
v8supercarstv 3 years ago
3. It doesn't actually matter if the driver hits the petal a little later (which I couldn't see in the ad anyway) or how hard the ad shows the car crumbles. central message is 5 Km/h diffenrence at start makes 27 Km/h difference at the end.
bioworm 3 years ago
make the cars go faster
rocky28lewis 3 years ago
the best...
Mafioz 3 years ago
great commercial. Much better than the crappy ones we have over here.
alexmaccoll 3 years ago
All this message is telling me is that if you want to speed, dont buy a Ford Falcon AU. Their brakes were notoriously shocking. I bet that if it were a BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, Nissan and even a Holden in that instance, they wouldn't have hit at all. Funny how they chose one of the worst braking Australian vehicles for this commercial....
scrfce123 3 years ago
Why is the truck using it's brakes? He'll just be in the way for a longer term of time. :P *teasing*
FraggoSWE 3 years ago
not if u drive a SLR even at the same speed u will brake faster than other cars lol
bdyan1 3 years ago
Actually, some times hiting with the engine first can be worse, specially for the legs. My aunt has lots, lots, lots of metal in her legs due to a car accident when she was 21.
If her engine was behind, like the old VW beetle, her legs probably would not have been damaged so much.
MaryPotterBr 3 years ago
In modern cars with crumple zones, the engine is actually mounted in such a way that during a front end collision, it collapses completely under the car and out of harms way...
scrfce123 3 years ago
I love how they crash the one guy into the corner of the trailer with nothing to slow it down before the window plows into it, where as the other guy hits with his bumper off a couple of even bars nicely placed in the centre.
I was t-boned by a car that was going about 35km/h and we were both perfectly alright. her car had less damage than mine even though mine was bigger...
They should make these ads target women lol. I work in a parking lot and believe me, I've seen some stupid shit.
Finger2212 3 years ago 2
Not to mention the fact that the guy only had to get like one metre to the right and he would have been fine, which would be extremely easy to do and he had plenty of time.
Finger2212 3 years ago 3
Are you trying to condone speeding? Or are you agaisnt woman drivers? I'm not sure what kind of "point" your trying to make here but either way you are obviously an idiot who wont actually learn anything from this ad.
NaturedOne 3 years ago
I'm an idiot for pointing out that there are obvious flaws in this commercial? Am I supposed to be scared that I might, by chance, be stupid enough to be given what appears to be 100 metres to react to a hazard and yet manage to hit it square on the corner?
No, I'll just be the other guy, who hits in a place where his bumper takes the shock.
Driving into a wall at 35 km/h would suck for sure, but it wouldn't kill the guy like this commercial implies by ramming him headfirst into the corner.
Finger2212 3 years ago 3
It's just fear tactics that the government spends millions of dollars on and don't do any good. Just like drinking and driving. Of course I'm against it, but the commercials are so stupid.
You need to chill out.
Finger2212 3 years ago
They did this for the safety of the driver. I emailed the professor in the video about a year ago to ask how they filmed the advert and he wrote back with some very cool info. I don't have the mail now, sadly. But basically he was strapped in well, full racing gear, and the petrol tank only had the bear minimum of fuel in. Crashing him into the corner like that meant he wouldn't take any of the impact, and there was less chance of him being speared in the face by something :-)
wuzzlevideos 3 years ago
How is there less of a chance of getting speared by sending the corner through some glass and the thin roof, as compared to having the engine block in front of you take some of the impact?
Finger2212 3 years ago
Sorry, my words came out a little fucked up. I meant that crashing in that position meant that they could hit at some amount of speed without something hitting the driver directly...
But, now that I read your post, I think you're absolutely right. Surely having the full crash cell of the car shield some of the impact would have been better. Maybe I'll email him back :)
wuzzlevideos 3 years ago
That's why I think that a lot of it is for shock factor. In real life, yes crashing into the corner of the trailer at 35km/h would probably impale you, but it's unfair when the other guy hits his bumper off of the trailer.
Of course hitting a wall at 32km/h would probably write off your car, but it would be far less spectacular than seeing half of the car's corner disappear by having the corner slice through.
The commercial makes a good point, speed has consequences, I just hate the portrayal.
Finger2212 3 years ago 2
In the scenario involving the trailer bull bar, all of the energy from the impact is being focused into a smaller area of the car, hence resulting in greater damage. It is equivical to hitting a lemon with a rolling pin and another lemon with a knife... The rolling pin will deform it slightly, but the knife will tear in and do the most damage.
scrfce123 3 years ago 3
Yeah, so it's shock value aimed at misleading people.
I guess it wouldn't be as sexy to throw the car into the same spot that the first one hit.
Finger2212 3 years ago 2
Well, yes and no. It all depends on how honest the producers of the commercial really are. One questionable aspect is the choice of car. The commercial would be of greater credibility if a majority of Australians drove AU Falcons (which have notoriously bad brakes). Further more, the experiment lacks data; that of the slower travelling car also hitting the bullbar. I could give you a full breakdown - PM me if you want to hear it because I cant be stuffed typing it into a youtube comment box.
scrfce123 3 years ago
seriously id like to see this test agian if they had brembo's. bet you both the cars will stop meters away from the truck
Alpin3SS 3 years ago
Does anyone know the name of the song they use in the background?
Kanguro22 3 years ago
this is a real greta advertisement with great info...im doing an assignmenton it at school...
stoofcake13 3 years ago
ABS (Anti-lock Braking system) it stops the brakes from just cling metal to metal, which would cause the car to skid the brakes just tap on and off.
FordFalconAu 3 years ago
ABS gives u a false sense of security by allowing the wheels to lock and unlock but if the sensors for the ABS aren't cleaned of the dirt that can cover it, it wont detect wheel slip and uv just got more weight to counter when braking. If ur on a gravel road ABS will increase ur breaking distance much more than a car widout ABS. Skidding and sliding is a part of driving and if u cant handle it u shouldn't be behind the wheel
Taxistudd 3 years ago
It has `ABS
FordFalconAu 3 years ago
if you notice the footage from 00:44 - 00:48 the driver of the black car is braking strangely, as if he were tapping the break on and off. If something like this did happen I would think the driver no matter who they were would firmly apply pressure on the brakes for the entire braking procedure, and not tap it on and off
Taxistudd 3 years ago
Wow, ...I'm going to go to work a bit slower today...top ad, should have it in the UK where we still lose too many young lives on the roads. I know, I have to pick up the pieces as a Firefighter and E.M.T.
domgeth 3 years ago
I'm a firefighter myself, and the cause of car crashes is poor road conditions. When you are taxed out of your arse for roads you wouldn't even drive a 4WD over, goes to show goverments are steling off the taxpayer instead of funding our services. Cars these days are designed for high speeds, problem is governments scare you into driving slow just as an excuse to fine your arse and use your money for their ext Christmas Party, instead of fixing roads.
GodBotherer1 3 years ago 4
well they both hit the truck at dif places if they swopped faster guy wud not b so bad off
Futuramaaddict11 3 years ago 2
What? - huh? - speeding?? He calls 60 to 65 km/hr SPEEDING??!? Well, OK, maybe, just maybe in a school crossing zone or right in front of a rest home maybe, but where do drivers spend the vast majority of their time? In town? I don't think so guys. AND I'm from the U.S. no less and I live in the eastern mountains (the Appalacian mountains) on roads that would scare you at 130 km/hr (my favorite driving speed on the highways here) and I've went up close to 180 km/hr, so 65? Olde folks
tharonmiller 3 years ago
If you believe this ad, you'd believe the leftist propaganda going around called "global warming." This ad is a load of bullshit. What if your doing 65 in a 70 zone and a truck pulls out and you have the same stopping distance as if you were doing 65 in a 60 zone. Wether you do the limit or not, you can't expel the risk of dickheads jumping ut in front of you. Typical communist Victorian ad there as an excuse for more covert speed cameras to ping you for having a life.
GodBotherer1 3 years ago
How does that guy walking at 65Ks?
shadoom1 3 years ago
"0.36. Those cars aren't braking. If you look at the trucks tyres, they have completely stopped and locked up. If you saw a fucking semi-trailer driving wouldn't you slam on the brakes? Not just roll to a stop? MAKE A REAL ADVERT RTA."
BIG LOL at you lasty123 :D You surely get 100% what the advert is all about :D
Lupusik 4 years ago 2
Thats not the point. The point of the truck is that there is an obsticle.
engeladam409 4 years ago
u would try not to lock up the brakes u would try to apply them at a certain rate so that u dont lock up, locking up is the worst thing that could happen. u slow faster when u apply the brake slowly rather than just slamming on the brakes
roflcopter35 4 years ago
its called ABS - der
kizza231188 3 years ago
You know fuck all about cars mate. the reason the wheels dont lock up is because all ford falcon au serires models come with ABS brakes.. do your home work before you open your mouth
gameratwork 3 years ago
Anti-Lock Brakes (ABS) Dumbass
Aragon159 3 years ago
0.36. Those cars aren't braking. If you look at the trucks tyres, they have completely stopped and locked up. If you saw a fucking semi-trailer driving wouldn't you slam on the brakes? Not just roll to a stop? MAKE A REAL ADVERT RTA.
lasty123 4 years ago
Are you serious?? They do have their brakes slammed on, ABS stops it from locking up
redhsv143 3 years ago
that commercial is quite an oldie now, but a goodie. however, one of many imminent speeding risks of today involving street racing could be just that.
retrojawa81 4 years ago
hmm i hope that was sarcastic..noone could be that stupid?
trendog88 4 years ago
i heard they had to use falcons because the crapodores couldnt make it up to 65 km
caliberracer 4 years ago
Nah, cuz they didnt want to smash up the commodores ;-)
MK5B 4 years ago
This ad contravenes section 92 of our fundamental constitutional rights to travel freely on our roads.
RTA, PLEASE STOP ILLEGALLY WASTING TAX PAYERS MONEY AND PISS OFF!
infamousx10 4 years ago
Matye you're an idiot...section 92 states that "that trade, commerce and intercourse between the States shall be absolutely free." It says nothing about being able to speed and drive like a a fucktard...
ALPHAFIVETWOFIVE 3 years ago
Don't Speed...Save Lives.
kopes5713 4 years ago
And if your on the way to a hospital with somebody dieing in the back?
SGde3a 4 years ago 3
Then Speed or call 911.
kopes5713 4 years ago
umm, its in Australia, 000, or better for everyone in the world, 112
capagotks 4 years ago
Hmmmm try calling 911 in Australia in an emergency and see what happens
redhsv143 3 years ago
im from the us.... what happens????
Hummer482 3 years ago
Nothing will happen...our emergency number is 000 :)
redhsv143 3 years ago
WOW.... lmao
Hummer482 3 years ago
well no...dail 911 and you get the same results for me in QLD Australia dumass
studionightbird7 3 years ago
Well where I live in VIC if you dial 911 it does that 3 chime beep thing. And if your going to call some one a dumbass spell it write. Why the fuck is this even being talked about??
redhsv143 3 years ago
sigh...why is there always flamewars when people get the shits when they get a reply that proves them wrong. first of all its short spelt. Msn wise..like skewl...I'm sure you've herd of lolz...if not...you lie XD.
studionightbird7 3 years ago
turn on your hazard lights and drive on the shoulder. Also shaking you fist at other drivers seems to help a bit.
SmartBurro 4 years ago 2
*you're
*dying
n00bkilla66 4 years ago
I think this one is better than the pinky one....... people like seeing proof
iraqfootball 4 years ago
pinky one has nothing to do with speeding
OriginalAtomicSheep 4 years ago
yea during the add it doesn't but at the end
"Speeding, no one thinks big of you"
iraqfootball 4 years ago
Well... if you're advertising rexona and at the end all of a sudden someone says... BUY COCA COLA! see? doesn't make sense does it.
OriginalAtomicSheep 4 years ago
yea.
rta is weird man
iraqfootball 4 years ago