Remember this tac ad?

[flappist]

As I stated in my earlier post. The problem is that each solution is not perfect and disadvantages some people. This is why the pollies always take the easy way out and do something that looks like it is solving the problem but does not.

You have the right to do what ever you want. I am not saying that the 10 year car rule was a great idea or a perfect solution, just that it was a possible solution.

You have shown exactly why it could and should never be implemented.

There are many other things that could be done.

Limit all cars to 60km/h, ban all sports cars, ban all 4WDs in urban areas.......

Each has at least one good point and many bad points.

Do we do something, do we do nothing, do we think a bit more, I don't know.

I just get very annoyed at the glib "wipe off 5" dogmatic rhetoric........

You have taken umbrige to my statement about people who would rather smoke, poke, drink and plasma than spend on other needs. After re-reading it I can see see you could easily misunderstand what I actually meant.
I did not mean that all of the financially disadvantaged "poor" actually do this rather those who do spend all their mony on this stuff usually scream that they are the "poor" irrespective of their financial situation.
I hope this clarifies that statement.

[EA2BA]

Why do these ALWAYS seem to use Ford's in these ads? anyone know.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by EA2BA

Why do these ALWAYS seem to use Ford's in these ads? anyone know.

Maybe they want to use the most Australian car possible......

[AnthonyQLD]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

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

My thoughts exactly

[EDManual]

They should have a big b double truck doing 50 come through and clean the crashed car and the truck right up!! What a joke.

oh! why didnt one of those falcons try turning! TURNING! whats that!?

[pandaman]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

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

Forget gullible, they also seem to think we're all mathematically incompetent. That scenario MAY be true for those two cars with exactly the same controlled rate braking system, same weight, same reaction time at those exact speeds with that exact distance to stop under exactly the same road conditions. Change even one of those variables and the result changes. My main problem is with the statement "5k's up there means 27k's down here" BULLИИИИ! Take a look at some basic physics, it just does not work (unless you are in a situation adhering to all the conditions above. Added to the other inconsistencies already mentioned, the conclusion is inescapable, this ad is a piece of garbage designed to scare the sheep into doing as they're told and it doesn't even do that very well. Utter garbage.

The placement of the car that hits faster is also crap. Like full noise said, it was placed where maximum damage would occur. It's a con job on the part of the nanny state.

[PHoeNiX]

Ai YA!!

are you serious?? you're thinking that there should be a ban on old classics?? how bout an excel?? try and walk away from a nasty bingle in that piece of ****.

the ad campaign and the laws are no there to inhibit those who do the right thing, they are there to command the lowest common denominator. they are there for all of those ******* in their fully *** VL bro who do stupid ****.

honestly, if you're going to be doing what you should be doing anyway, the laws should just support what you do....should go slow at schools, slower at higher risk intersections etc, to say that safety depends on each make and model of car is a load of ******....it depends on the condition of the car and the condition of the driver, this 'propoganda' is there to get a message out to all of those morons who can't think for themselves, who are the sheep, and will speed and whatnot ecause they are told to by a mate or because they saw it in a movie....

thats my 2 cents!
brenton

[Full Noise]

Jeebus, this thread’s over a year old. Do you work for BHP?

[LUXO_8]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

Jeebus, this thread’s over a year old. Do you work for BHP?

gold !!!! :

[Dezza]

I am so sick of this whole "Wipe off 5" mentality. I don't speed, but I know that most accidents are caused by people not paying attention. Speed is only a minor factor, but it's convenient for the government that it's one of the easiest ways to make money from motorists. I have been involved in a couple of accidents, and in both cases, it was because I let my mind wander for a couple of seconds. I accepted full responsibility for both of them. The simple fact is, you need to focus completely, not take stupid risks, and expect the unexpected.

Also, that ad is not completely accurate. Sure the second car hit at a higher speed, but the main reason why the damage was so much more severe was that it hit on the corner of the trailer. The same (or slightly higher) force was exerted over a smaller area, meaning more damage to that area of the car. It's all part of the laws of physics. If they wanted it to be more accurate, BOTH cars should have hit the flat side of the trailer. The front of the second car might have been caved in a bit more, but I seriously doubt it would have penetrated the cabin of the car.

Oops. Didn't realise the age of this thread.

[Blue Oval Mopar Man]

Originally Posted by Gammaboy

What if it had been on a treadmill?

ohhhh yeah , now theres an old relic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mechan1k]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With a teapot.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by ea_silver_ghia

I am so sick of this whole "Wipe off 5" mentality.

Same, it's braionwashing to make money.

Originally Posted by ea_silver_ghia

I don't speed, but I know that most accidents are caused by people not paying attention.

I do, when it's safe. It is true, speed is only minor contribution to motor accidents.

Originally Posted by ea_silver_ghia

Speed is only a minor factor, but it's convenient for the government that it's one of the easiest ways to make money from motorists. I have been involved in a couple of accidents, and in both cases, it was because I let my mind wander for a couple of seconds. I accepted full responsibility for both of them. The simple fact is, you need to focus completely, not take stupid risks, and expect the unexpected.

I gree with ya Dezza!

Also, that ad is not completely accurate. Sure the second car hit at a higher speed, but the main reason why the damage was so much more severe was that it hit on the corner of the trailer. The same (or slightly higher) force was exerted over a smaller area, meaning more damage to that area of the car. It's all part of the laws of physics. If they wanted it to be more accurate, BOTH cars should have hit the flat side of the trailer. The front of the second car might have been caved in a bit more, but I seriously doubt it would have penetrated the cabin of the car.

Oops. Didn't realise the age of this thread.[/QUOTE]

[Walkinshaw]

teapot. classic