welcome to my space

Think Road Safety Ad?

Posted in enart.xn--gmq282eogn.com on the March 12, 2010
  • Has anyone from the uk seen the road safety ad where the women says "It wasn't his body hitting the dash that killed him", "it was his organs hitting his rib cage causing it to break and pierce his lung and main artery that killed him". Now thinking about it if you were wearing a seat belt you'd decelerate faster cause there is more resistance and therefore your organs would still break your rib cage... So when he plunged into the airbag surely he would decelerate slower therefore he'd be less likely to die. I think the people that make road safety ads really need to look at the real world physics of things. Just wondering, has anyone else noticed that the road safety ad's are always incorrect in some way.


  • Safety ads with cute little slogans like 'Don't drink and drive' or ' Click it or ticket' or 'Drive safely' get kind of dull and old after a while. There is so much involved in driving that only a passing glance is given to the problems faced on road. The biggest problem on the road is the driver. The roads can be fixed, the cars can be fixed, but the drivers are largely ignored or addressed with cute little slogans. We all know how to drive because we have licenses that say we do.

    In your ad, it is said that - 'It wasn't the his body hitting the dash...', etc. So what caused his body to hit the dash? Collision with another object. And what caused a collision with another object? You could pick any number of causes. The whats and whys can be asked ad nauseum and in over 90 pct of the cases, the finger will still point to a driver.

    Crash tests in the US to determine vehicle 'safety' are a farce. They are conducted in lab conditions at speeds under 40 mph involving an opposing force of the same mass as the test vehicle. All data is based on statistical analysis. Meaning in a vehicle with a 5-star crash test rating, a driver can expect a 1 to 10 pct chance of life threatening injury. And that is only if the collision takes place within all the factors of the the test. So, in any crash that takes place above the test parameters, all bets are off.

    To put things in context, a 3000 lb vehicle traveling at 55 mph has over 300,000 ft lbs of kinetic energy and a 150 human inside this vehicle is carrying over 15,000 ft lbs of kinetic energy. Upon impact, that energy has to be dissipated somewhere. As drivers, we are totally ignorant of the threats and dangers we face every time we get behind the wheel. Until this ignorance is addressed, the carnage will continue.


  • No but what you are saying does makes perfectly good since....


  • i remember one from a few years ago...

    they were trying to demonstrate stopping distances i think.

    they drove a car into a false wall (boxes or foam?) at 70mph.

    the slogan was something like "if the car in front stops, can you?"

    but if you were driving behind a car, you would be doing a similar speed...

    not one car at 70 and a wall at zero!







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about Think Road Safety Ad? , Please add it free.
    WorldCom Drops Layoff Bomb
    9/11 Effects on the Net