Slow Down! Your Family is Waiting for You!!

Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity snip>
>
> What the Claybrookian morons who made that commercial are incapable of
> understanding is that SPEED HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAN'S DEATH!
> The primary cause of this dramatized death is because a driver ran a
> red light and struck another vehicle, not because he was speeding.
> -----
Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good represention of why people
shouldn't speed. From a production standpoint though, it's really
expensive to duplicate and shoot a highway crash. A "don't run
red-lights 'cause you could get hurt" message would be kinda
ridiculous... and probably equally ignored.

It's somewhat likely, if you saw the spot on broadcast tv, that it was
produced as a PSA resume builder; production/duplication/distribution
costs absorbed by an aspiring producer, broadcast for free.

****y nitpicking over "speed had *something* to do with it" omitted...
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity snip>
> >
> > What the Claybrookian morons who made that commercial are incapable of
> > understanding is that SPEED HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAN'S DEATH!
> > The primary cause of this dramatized death is because a driver ran a
> > red light and struck another vehicle, not because he was speeding.
> > -----
> Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good represention of why people
> shouldn't speed. From a production standpoint though, it's really
> expensive to duplicate and shoot a highway crash. A "don't run
> red-lights 'cause you could get hurt" message would be kinda
> ridiculous... and probably equally ignored.
>
> It's somewhat likely, if you saw the spot on broadcast tv, that it was
> produced as a PSA resume builder; production/duplication/distribution
> costs absorbed by an aspiring producer, broadcast for free.
>
> ****y nitpicking over "speed had *something* to do with it" omitted...
>

It's a shame that PSAs are generally so useless, though; rather than
"blood on the highway" type crap like this, couldn't the time be as
easily filled by "this is the correct way to merge," "keep right except
to pass," "here's the correct order of right of way for a four way
stop," "this is how you deal with a nonfuctional traffic signal" etc.
etc. etc. and actually provide a real benefit to the general public?

I'm thinking spots like that would be even EASIER to shoot, as there
wouldn't be any need to crash a vehicle...

nate

N8N wrote:

> It's a shame that PSAs are generally so useless, though; rather than
> "blood on the highway" type crap like this, couldn't the time be as
> easily filled by "this is the correct way to merge," "keep right except
> to pass," "here's the correct order of right of way for a four way
> stop," "this is how you deal with a nonfuctional traffic signal" etc.
> etc. etc. and actually provide a real benefit to the general public?
>
> I'm thinking spots like that would be even EASIER to shoot, as there
> wouldn't be any need to crash a vehicle...
> -----
The first requirement for effectiveness is to have the spot *watched*.
People won't watch that "here's how to drive" stuff unless they're
forced to at traffic school. Take my typical POV here in r.a.d. for
example. Few here think safety should be of any concern. My
perspective that it's more important to drive safely than to save a
little time is overwhelmingly met with derision.

A PSA showing how you can spend a large portion of your time for
*years* dealing with lawyers and the courts should give the average
driver pause, but it won't. It's the "it won't happen to me" syndrome.
(It's funny how the "it could happen to me" syndrome affects buyers of
lottery tickets.)

People generally think their insurance company handles everything and
they generally do... until a suit is filed. Attending depositions and
answering interrogatories is the responsibility of the insured and, no
matter the outcome, a lawsuit is a very trying and exasperating
experience from either side.

Driving PSA's are useless because *everybody* thinks *they're* the good
driver, the problems lie with everyone else.
-----

- gpsman

> Few here think safety should be of any concern. My
> perspective that it's more important to drive safely than to save a
> little time is overwhelmingly met with derision.

No, the derision is because you think that arbitrarily set speed limits
created to generate government revenue is equal to safety. Most of us
do not.

> The first requirement for effectiveness is to have the spot *watched*.
> People won't watch that "here's how to drive" stuff unless they're
> forced to at traffic school. Take my typical POV here in r.a.d. for
> example. Few here think safety should be of any concern. My
> perspective that it's more important to drive safely than to save a
> little time is overwhelmingly met with derision.
>


You think people at traffic school watch "here's how to drive" stuff? No,
they are most likely napping or sending text messages to their girlfriends,
etc. Even if there is a test at the end, most people in traffic school
would likely pass the test if it was given to them as soon as they first
walked in the door. Driving is not difficult. Driving SAFELY is not
difficult. Just about everybody knows the rules, and the general defensive
driving guidelines. Just about nobody follows the rules OR the defensive
driving guidelines. "Here's how to drive" stuff is therefore worthless.
The "here's how to drive" stuff would only be effective if the problem was a
lack of knowledge. The real problem is a lack of respect for the law and
fellow human beings. Improperly set speed limits and enforcement that
focuses ONLY on speeders is a HUGE contributor to the general ****-poor
attitude behind the wheel of most drivers. And this ****-poor attitude is
often what causes people to be sent (or volunteer to go, to reduce points)
to traffic school. So it's a never-ending cycle, as seeing the same inane
bull**** over and over just ****es people off, to put it bluntly. Slow
down, save a life. Yadda yadda yadda. And every damn person who hears that
message knows goddamned well that EVERY ****ING PERSON ON THE ROAD IS GOING
TO BE SHATTERING THE SPEED LIMIT, including every person IN the traffic
class, on their way home from traffic class. (!)

I wholeheartedly agree that it's more important to drive safely than to save
a little time. I don't believe that you necessarily have to obey the way
under-posted speed limits to accomplish EITHER goal. -Dave

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
> > It's a shame that PSAs are generally so useless, though; rather than
> > "blood on the highway" type crap like this, couldn't the time be as
> > easily filled by "this is the correct way to merge," "keep right except
> > to pass," "here's the correct order of right of way for a four way
> > stop," "this is how you deal with a nonfuctional traffic signal" etc.
> > etc. etc. and actually provide a real benefit to the general public?
> >
> > I'm thinking spots like that would be even EASIER to shoot, as there
> > wouldn't be any need to crash a vehicle...
> > -----
> The first requirement for effectiveness is to have the spot *watched*.
> People won't watch that "here's how to drive" stuff unless they're
> forced to at traffic school.

I'm not talking about a half hour program, simply a 30 or 60 second PSA
spot, like the OP was discussing. TV stations are *required* to run
them, so it's not like they will whine and moan about it (well they
might, but that's not anything I have any control over.) The point
was, the current PSAs are crap. Since you are *required* to run them,
why not have some good content?

> Take my typical POV here in r.a.d. for
> example. Few here think safety should be of any concern.

Where do you get this impression?

> My
> perspective that it's more important to drive safely than to save a
> little time is overwhelmingly met with derision.
>

Where do you get this impression? What I see is that the vast majority
of people here are extremely concerned with safety, they just reject
the Claybrookian argument that slower is always safer. I have rarely
seen anyone advocating higher speeds when there is a significantly
increased risk - and when they do, they're almost always chided for it.

> A PSA showing how you can spend a large portion of your time for
> *years* dealing with lawyers and the courts should give the average
> driver pause, but it won't. It's the "it won't happen to me" syndrome.
> (It's funny how the "it could happen to me" syndrome affects buyers of
> lottery tickets.)
>
> People generally think their insurance company handles everything and
> they generally do... until a suit is filed. Attending depositions and
> answering interrogatories is the responsibility of the insured and, no
> matter the outcome, a lawsuit is a very trying and exasperating
> experience from either side.
>
> Driving PSA's are useless because *everybody* thinks *they're* the good
> driver, the problems lie with everyone else.

That's why I suggest PSAs that don't point fingers, merely educate as
to the proper way of doing things. Those have a far greater
possibility of actually being useful, as instead of accusing drivers of
being poor drivers, they reinforce the right way to do things, which
most drivers probably don't even know.

Simply telling people to slow down doesn't work, as most drivers see
for themselves every day that the whole "slow = safe" premise is
flawed. However, those same drivers engage in dangerous behavior at
the same time, simply because they were never taught or have forgotten
the basic rules of the road.

nate

> Simply telling people to slow down doesn't work, as most drivers see
> for themselves every day that the whole "slow = safe" premise is
> flawed. However, those same drivers engage in dangerous behavior at
> the same time, simply because they were never taught or have forgotten
> the basic rules of the road.
>
> nate
>

No, people know the basic rules of the road. Most people deliberately
ignore them, though. Like our resident troll who advocates breaking one
particular law to try to enforce another one. And unfortunately, that
attitude is one that is shared by many drivers, not just the resident troll.
If people didn't KNOW the rules, they wouldn't drive ****ing PERFECT when
marked police cruisers were around. Yet 99.9% of drivers will not break any
law or even defensive driving guideline within site of a marked cruiser.
The problem is not a lack of knowledge. -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
> > The first requirement for effectiveness is to have the spot *watched*.
> > People won't watch that "here's how to drive" stuff unless they're
> > forced to at traffic school. Take my typical POV here in r.a.d. for
> > example. Few here think safety should be of any concern. My
> > perspective that it's more important to drive safely than to save a
> > little time is overwhelmingly met with derision.
> >
>
>
> You think people at traffic school watch "here's how to drive" stuff? No,
> they are most likely napping or sending text messages to their girlfriends,
> etc. Even if there is a test at the end, most people in traffic school
> would likely pass the test if it was given to them as soon as they first
> walked in the door. Driving is not difficult. Driving SAFELY is not
> difficult. Just about everybody knows the rules, and the general defensive
> driving guidelines. Just about nobody follows the rules OR the defensive
> driving guidelines. "Here's how to drive" stuff is therefore worthless.
> The "here's how to drive" stuff would only be effective if the problem was a
> lack of knowledge.

But it IS a lack of knowledge. Ask the guy in the cube next to you
about KRETP, or precession of ROW at a four way stop. I will bet you
$20 that he misses at least one of them. Outside of this newsgroup or
other car nuts, I try to avoid discussions regarding driving, because
the ignorance of the average person makes me want to push blunt pencils
through my ears, and trying to correct their misconceptions is usually
pointless.

Heck, the constant whining about "the mean drivers in the right lane
won't let me in" should be a clue that most driver's haven't the
foggiest idea of the actual rules of the road.

nate

>
> But it IS a lack of knowledge. Ask the guy in the cube next to you
> about KRETP, or precession of ROW at a four way stop. I will bet you
> $20 that he misses at least one of them. Outside of this newsgroup or
> other car nuts, I try to avoid discussions regarding driving, because
> the ignorance of the average person makes me want to push blunt pencils
> through my ears, and trying to correct their misconceptions is usually
> pointless.
>
> Heck, the constant whining about "the mean drivers in the right lane
> won't let me in" should be a clue that most driver's haven't the
> foggiest idea of the actual rules of the road.
>
> nate
>

Then explain this, Nate . . .

Why is it that when a marked police cruiser is in plain site, everybody
drives perfectly, obeying all rules AND defensive driving guidelines? NO
EXCEPTIONS. Well, hardly any exceptions. For the most part, people do know
the rules, and that is clearly demonstrated when the cops are around. If it
was a lack of knowledge problem, people would still drive like idiots when
cops are around, as they simply don't know any better. It is an ATTITUDE
problem. -Dave

In article . com>, gpsman wrote:
> Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good represention of why people
> shouldn't speed. From a production standpoint though, it's really
> expensive to duplicate and shoot a highway crash.

The company that made CHiPs did it every week for 10 or so seasons of TV.