Advertising standard

[ailbhe]

OK, I just saw a creepy as fuck road safety ad. At least, I saw a tiny bit of it, and then yelled for Rob to change the channel while I sat with my head in my hands doing the mental equivalent of "lalalalalalala".

Small dead girl, with blood trickling out of her ear, leaning against a tree. Blood trickles back into her ear, hands come out, pushes herself up, drags back onto the road - obviously the end of an accident in rewind. The gist of the voiceover was that 40mph is much, much more lethal than 30mph.

Do these ads have any effect on drivers? Am I right in thinking that the kind of driver who thinks "Oh, I was only 5mph over the speed limit" is basically immune to shock tactics like this? Or will it actually be news to some people that doing 40 through a residential area is a bad idea?

Comments

[wingedkami.livejournal.com]

That one freaks me out and I don't even like children...

I've no idea if it works. I tend to keep to speed limits because...well, they're speed limits. That's what they're for.

[shimgray.livejournal.com]

I think trying to emphasise that "a little extra is a lot worse" is a relatively recent thing; I don't remember it being the focus of advertising campaigns until recently, but then I rarely paid attention to the detailed message.

I can sort of see the logic - rather than just saying "SPEEDING IS BAD AND IT KILLS", a message people are prone to ignore, a message pointing out why the limit is set where it is, rather than just "it's a safer level because you're slower", might get through to some people - compare the way anti-tobacco advertising tends to get more and more descriptive of exactly why it's bad for you, not just vague dire threats.

(It also perhaps helps to differentiate between residential speeding (mostly bad for pedestrians) and motorway/carriageway speeding (mostly bad for you)? Dunno, but that's one area they could do with emphasising a lot more - people seem to react differently to the two circumstances)

The one I found quite weird, about six months back, was a campaign directed at teenage boys; it quoted the fatality statistics of teenage couples in cars, with an underlying message of DANGEROUS DRIVING WILL BE MORE LIKELY TO KILL YOUR GIRLFRIEND.

[biascut.livejournal.com]

Yes, I can see the logic too - I think the 70mph limit on motorways is set too low, and so do enormous numbers of people. Unless the weather is really bloody awful, you can't do 70mph in the righthand lane of a motorway: you end up going slower than the people in the middle lane. Focussing on the vast difference between speeding in a residential area and speeding on a motorway, and pointing out the incredible danger to kids is a good way of differentiating so that the message doesn't become blanded out: like drug awareness that acknowledges that there's a difference between ecstasy and crack cocaine.

As a driver, I really don't think it's just idiot drivers who do 40mph in residential areas. I know a couple of roads near my parents' house which have been straightened out and widened and made as smooth as possible during the 70s and 80s, and it is actually really, really difficult to stay down at 30mph on them because all the cues are telling you that it's a 40mph, and 30mph feels incredibly slow. If you stayed down at 30, you had to spend half your time looking down at the speedometer, and you got idiots trying to overtake - it actually felt safer driving at 40mph, despite the fact that it was a 30 zone.

They've finally cottoned on to the fact that that's a stupid way to treat a road that does, after all, go through a residential area, and put in electronic displays now that tell you how fast you're going and to slow down. If focussing on slowing people down in residential areas is a new policy, I think it's a really good one - and I do think the shock tactics adverts work.

[haggis.livejournal.com]

I hate that advert so much. I have to change the channel every time it comes on. I imagine it must be much worse when you have children yourself.

[flybabydizzy.livejournal.com]

I know the advert you mean. I am a driver, and I do have children. I think it is an excellent advert. It is shocking, but it gets over the message that a few more miles an hour makes a huge difference. My daughter is a newly qualified driver, and has commented on how memorable the advert is. It is shocking, but not as bad as being told 'mum, I've been in a crash' count so far is 2 each for my son, daughter and husband; only 2 hospitalised - dh 8 years ago, passenger of ds 4 years ago.

[whirligigwitch.livejournal.com]

That one is seriously creepy, I agree. i find it very disturbing, I either switch the TV or my mind off when it comes on.

I'm not sure how much of an impact those kinds of ads really do have. I think the initial shock value does make people think, but then they go out in their cars, and they are running late, so they just speed up a little, or they drive at the same speed as the car in front and the speed creeps up...

It seems to me that often drivers don't differentiate betwen speeding in a built-up residential/school/town centre area and speeding on a motorway.

[the-warwick.livejournal.com]

I'll differ there.

I do *not* exceed the speed limit on anything less than a motorway (where I'll go with the flow sometimes and maybe get to 85). In a built up area the speed limit is there for a reason. I even travel below the speed limit where the conditions seem to dictate.

This was the case even when I drove a car with 200 Horsepower under the bonnet.

Once, on a narrow country lane, I drove that car at speed around a corner with Ailbhe as the rear passenger behind me as the driver. A car came the other way cutting the corner and also travelling at speed. I had traction and control enough to dive into the corner harder and avoid a collision. I had to take to the grass a little, but the car was able to do this happily.

Ailbhe had no way of knowing this and didn't know how a 120mph closing speed crash had been avoided. She was, understandably, *very* rattled. My current car couldn't do that so I wouldn't be going that fast around that particular corner.

I'm currently working under a written warning at work about my attendance (I got beaten up heavily a while back) and HR chose to add timekeeping to the rules (yes, I'll probably change jobs soon and maybe go for a tribunal). I can be sacked for being late to work. That *will* not affect how fast I go on a speed restricted road.

Tailgate me and flash your lights and I'll back off a little since I'd like my car to survive the rear end collision when you hit me if I have to pull an emergency stop.

[whirligigwitch.livejournal.com]

My comment was in no way meant to be encompssing of all or even most drivers - I don't fit into the category of not differentiating myself. I really, genuinely, almost never speed in residential/school/town areas.

I hear a lot of people talking, though, and frequently they are bemoaning being caught speeding - and it's mainly in built-up areas. I'm not sure if people just feel more aggrieved at being fined for doing 34 in a 30 mile area than they would at doing 90 on a motorway and so talk more about it. Very many of them, though, seem to lack awareness of the dangers of speeding.

When I was learning to drive my grandfather used to always comment that it was better to arrive safely than to cut corners or speed and hurt yourself or others - it seems to have sunk in thoroughly when I'm concerned.

[alison.hemuk.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

That one's certainly not pleasant, but I can cope with it. I actually think it's a good ad, a very powerful image showing exactly how much more dangerous those extra few mph are.

There is one, that I haven't seen for a good while thankfully, that made me switch channels every time. Won't try and describe it.

[ailbhe]

Perhaps having no confidence that my eldest child can walk down a footpath on her own yet, let alone cross a road, affects how disturbing it is?

[artela.livejournal.com]

I don't watch commercial stations, so I haven't seen the ad you'[re refering to, but in general those sorts of ads are about as effective as anti-smoking ones - ie. they don't work.

[submarine-bells.livejournal.com]

Shock-value ads do make a difference, at least in some situations. There's a very well-known one here in Australia that is seen as being the Gold Standard of effective shock-tactic ads. It came out in the 80s, during the period when AIDS/HIV was starting to trickle into the public consciousness, and featured a Grim Reaper character, with the message that safe sex matters coz you're not just sleeping with your partner, but you're in effect sleeping with everyone they've ever slept with, and everyone they've ever slept with, and so on ad infinitum. It was a very disturbing ad, and it had a very marked, very clear effect on attitudes in the areas it was shown. The Grim Reaper ad is often referred to these days in discussions of ad effectiveness. I've seen it show up in academic papers talking about road safety and attitude modification, as being a model for effective public attitude and behaviour change tools.

As a road safety researcher, I'll also add that it's utterly indisputable that a small amount of additional speed adds hugely to the negative outcomes of accidents, and that a very large proportion of road accidents have "excess speed" as a contributing factor. So to my road-safety-researcher eye, shocking ads like this may be unpleasant to watch, but yes they CAN work.

[the-warwick.livejournal.com]

For me... They're a confirmation that I'm 'doing the right thing'. In a heavily residential area, I drive as if that child is going to run out from every tree.

Defensive driving is important. At all times I am planning what to do and where to go if something goes wrong with eiher my car, another car in a given stream or an outside factor.

That advert had me run through the usual stuff. I assume that the child ran into the street and was utterly unexpected by the driver. A tree lined residential street has me thinking 'unexpected child possibility' so I'd be down to just below 30mph.

I constantly plan for such an eventuality so would probably have hit the tree 20 yards back from the one she was lying dead against. The car's insured and chucking it into a tree at whatever MPH by the time I'd reacted and braked would probably cost me nothing.

I've actually been there.

About 7 years ago I was on a 50mph road and registered 'Football' as it flew over the road. I backed off a little and had time to react to 'small child' and didn't hit him hard when he ran onto the road. I was doing less than 10mph and he rolled onto my bonnet. He wasn't injured and I drove him along the *very* long driveway to his home.

His parents weren't impressed that I'd failed to kill their offspring.

[random-c.livejournal.com]

I failed my driving test largely because I was dying for a pee and in no way ready - the instructor had bullied me into taking the test, I have no idea why. The main thing the instructor had to say was that I was 'too slow and cautious'. Well, yes, he took me past a school at chucking out time, and I was blind on that corner for reasons of 4x4 parked on the yellow lines. Also, near the start of the test someone (whose legs I had seen under a lorry) stepped out in front of me.
I have no particular interest in driving. Too many stupid people.

[d-h.livejournal.com]

While we used to have graphic ads across the board (youtube search for New Zealand road safety would find a compilation), at the moment the graphic ones are being more targeted at younger drink drivers. For an example of the current speed ones here, they are available online at:

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/advertising/speed.html

In particular, the video of the 'high rise' ad.

[ailbhe]

I think I'll skip those.

[batswing.livejournal.com]

Yes you're right, the kind of fuckwit who'd do 40-50 in a 30 zone will carry on doing so. Probably will a mobile attached to one ear.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Quite a while back we had horrible ads like this, and I understand they did work with the feckless.

Some people just don't think, they need graphic consequences illustrated, eh?

Horrible for the rest of us, though :-(

[emily-and-john.livejournal.com]

Excuse a post from a relative stranger - I just linked to your blog from plan-survive.

I also find that road safety advertisement upsetting and I look away, but I must admit I often think of that 80% statistic.

As for motorways, I haven't gone over 70mph at any time, no matter how good the conditions, since I had the experience of having to do an emergency stop from around that speed. Controlling the car is much more difficult than you'd think, and the stopping distance is very very very large. Personally, I haven't got the driving ability to cope with an emergency at higher speeds, so I pootle along in the slow lane and annoy my passengers.

E xx

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

I hate those adverts, and I hate that this country's culture of irresponsible speeding and driver entitlement to endanger life means that I have to be subjected to nightmare-inducing mini horror movies on a regular basis. I hope it works, but I am SO FUCKING ANGRY that people need that kind of input to stop using their cars in a way that could kill people.

[thereyougothen.livejournal.com]

Or will it actually be news to some people that doing 40 through a residential area is a bad idea?

I think that everyone know it's bad, but not everyone knows how bad, or in this context, just how much worse it is than the speed limit.

I think those ads are powerful, and effective. And now everyone here at least knows the statistics.

I annoy people all the time in residentail areas becasue I drive at about 20, I think that all residential areas should have a 20mph speed limit so I treat them as though they do.

However, I also drive to my car's and my own abilities on motorways and open roads though. I do like speed. Especially when I'm alone in the car. Driving the kids changes me.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

That one is creepy, but I do think it's likely to be effective. The ones I hate are the NSPCC ones, especially if my kids are in the room. They show a child actor, in black and white accompanied by tear-jerking music, with a solemn voiceover detailing the abuse that is supposedly going to happen to the character. Then they ask you to donate £2/month to make it stop. I really don't think those should be shown before the watershed, and I resent the implication that I should pay more attention to manipulative tactics of that sort than to the research I did before I decided where to send the amount I've budgeted for charity. I also think the entire "full stop" campaign is false advertising, because they can't deliver and they ought to blooming well know it, sad though that is.

The road traffic one is also manipulative, of course, but manipulating people into not doing something which is illegal anyway bothers me less than manipulating them into doing one among very many things which are arguably equally good (and therefore potentially not doing the others, since few of us have the sort of income where money ceases to be an object).

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

Some people can be reached by a shocking message, while other people will find the message far too disturbing for them. Does that warrant delivering it to everyone without consent?

When our daughter was in grade 6, in the time leading up to Remembrance Day (Armistice Day, Nov 11th), the (male) teacher wanted to make the children realize something about the horribleness of war, so he played a recording of shell fire and other sounds of the trenches all day while they worked. Our daughter felt trapped and upset and wordlessly angry. The teacher said afterwards to P that he was struggling to reach some of the tougher boys in that class and thought he'd succeeded; she pointed out that it was at the cost of a sensitive girl trusting him.

That could almost be one of ours

[(Anonymous)]

Our local road safety adverts have been using extreme shock tactics like this for years. And the whole accident-in-reverse thing has been screening for the last year or so. Very similar message, right down to the fact that it's about a small speed increment. For us, they talk about 5km/h making all the difference.

It seems the concept has now been exported. Supposedly, they are *very* effective, when you examine the statistics.

Though I must say, little girl with blood trickling out the ear is not one they've used on us (though I don't see much tv at the moment). Bloody bodies in hospital casualty departments, yes. Mangled people in re-hab, yes. But not the little girl.

We have one which is a toddler running onto the road for a ball, but I don't think it gets that explicit. The end of the advert is a "re-play" at the speed limit where the car stops in time and the ball bounces harmlessly off it.

Re: That could almost be one of ours

[squishsplash.livejournal.com]

Sorry - that was me. How did I get logged out?

[nicolechan.livejournal.com]

Gah that's just disgusting. There are other ways to tell the same story without the gore. I mean there are kids that watch TV... what if one of them saw that commercial? Nightmares would surely be induced!

[ailbhe]

It was a full hour after the watershed.

Actually, statistics show that the gore has a definite effect on accident statistics, but it was still horrible. It's bad enough if one has kids; I imagine watching it when one has a car must be ick indeed.

Road Safety Ads

[(Anonymous)]

Hi. I'm a road safety officer and I've been reading some of the comments with interest. I'm not sure shock tactics always work and in my team we're now moving towards reinforcing the positive behaviour of drivers - sort of like the blood donors advert 'because of this man my son had a safer journey to school'!

I do agrre though that one format of RS advertising will not reach all of the inconsiderate, reckless drivers we need to. If anyone's got any bright ideas I'd love to hear them!

Re: Road Safety Ads

[(Anonymous)]

I try to make sure I\'m doing at least 40-50 mph when driving past schools as this way it gets me out of the danger zone quicker.

Perhaps you could promote this technique?

[lenfant-de-jeu.livejournal.com]

In NZ we have recently had an ad talking about the difference in speed. It shows a car dangling from a height (1 storey, 2 storey, 4 storey ect). Each car has a different kind of driver (Boy Racer, Young professional). The highest car (representing 120km) has a family with the typical little girl in the backseat - and it hovers up there and you see it start to drop suddenly (then the screen goes to black and the message comes up).

I personally find it far more effective than the blood and gore style we had a few years back.