New seltbelt ad - will it work?

[WhipLash]

I'm sure most of you have seen the new ad on either RTE or ITV from the National Safety Council on seltbelt usage. Its a very well done ad IMHO, one of the best ones I’ve seen yet. It’s certainly very graphical with good usage of slow motion, depicting the harrowing results of someone not wearing a seatbelt, both on themselves an on other occupants.

So do you think the ad gets its message across? Does it make you uneasy with the thought that it could be you? Will it change your mind on seltbelt usage at all?

I have to admit myself that I rarely wear one when sitting in the rear of a car. It just doesn’t ‘appear’ to be as important as when one’s sitting in the front. However, I now think I’ll be doing my best to change that in the future.

[BrianS]

Its only in the past year that I have been wearing the seatbelt in the back. This was after a campaign of harassment and nagging by my beloved and hey, it worked! Its not a bother to me and I find its easier to have a snooze on long trips with it on.

It certainly is a hard-impact ad and well pieced together. If it saves even one life, it was worth it. Don't you think the music score on it is good as well? Something that would stick in the younger generation's minds? I found myself humming "Do that to me one more time" (even with the sampling).

Hopefully, it will have a direct effect on viewers. Its not fiction - this is what happens in a collision. Or even if it has an indirect effect, (such as my girlfriend making me wear the belt for her own safety) then that's an added bonus. I would only have praise for the ad and I just wish there was something to make parents buckle their kids in the back seat! I hate seeing little ones climbing around the back of a moving car and I see too much of it.

Me wearing a seatbelt is a result of the ad which had the Elephant ramming the back of the drivers seat. Remember that one? I haven't been in a crash but it got through to me one way or another.

Buckle Up. Arrive Alive.

Brian.

[Blind Boy Grunt]

Does anybody else think this ad shouldn't be shown? I personally think this ad has lost the plot.

For starters, since when does the end justify the means? This ad is particularily graphic, and although personally it doesn't bother me, I can imagine what goes through the mind of people who have been involved in a car accident in one way or another when they see this ad, not to mention people who object to violent television.

If we assume that the government is also acting in the general public interest, its a bit hypocritical to try and compete with exploitive advertising at its own level, i.e. having to stand out among adds for Coke, Daz, etc. by using shock advertising. It undermines the message.

Secondly, trying to instill a sense of road safety via television advertising is a bit pointless. When, for example, you have television programs which specifically promote the ability of cars to drive at dangerous speeds etc. (not pointing the finger at Top Gear in particular, honest) there's no point in spending taxes on competing when you possess the power and mandate to address the issue more effectively.

This ad seems to me to be a clever way of seeming proactive while avoiding addressing very difficult issues ...

[Phil]

Well Mr Grunt, or can I call you can I call you BOY!!!

I take you point on board, but I have to agree with BrianS. If this saves one life, well then its worth it. The so called ads that we've had in the past are too tame. After all this is not a ad for selling washing up powder, this is a ad to save lifes.

They have used ads like this in Australia, and have been proven to work. Reducing road death's soon after the ads going out on air. I'm all in favour for more ads like this in the future, to help save lifes. After all it could be you NEXT!!

As you point out about TV programes promoting cars that can do 150mph, just remember one thing!!!! You can be killed in a car doing speeds of 35mph ( especially if a woman is driving!!;) )

At the end of the day, I take your point, but lifes are at stake. Until the point system comes in, the speed that cars are drvin at is dangerously high.

[Blind Boy Grunt]

Well Fillup - you can you can call me whatever you like.

To be honest - that post was as much a question as an answer, but your reply has got me thinking I may just have struck the nail on the head.

They have used ads like this in Australia, and have been proven to work. Reducing road death's soon after the ads going out on air. I'm all in favour for more ads like this in the future, to help save lifes. After all it could be you NEXT!!

i.e. you are saying that if it saves lives it is justified. Nice sentiments I agree, but if we were going to let that way of looking at things dictate policy we would be as well off banning unnecessary car use altogether as this would definitely reduce road deaths.

My view is that if only one person gets killed thats one too many, so we deserve a concerted effort to address this issue, one that takes into account everybody's interests, and that doesn't give anyone the right to partake in insensitive or confrontational advertisement. At least we agree on the points system, which I think - and I saw a documentary on this once ;) - is an intelligent approach to the issue. Less politically convenient than a high profile ad campaign, but if its implemented properly ultimately much better.

[BrianS]

Seatbelts are provided for a very solemn reason. They help to save your life in the event that your car is involved in a collision. The purpose of the ad is to point out that not wearing a seatbelt is a frequent cause of wasted potential and fatal regret. In other words, it can f*ck up your life and your death. I’m sure most car crash victims would endorse this but I haven’t brought it up with any so I could be mistaken. But balance it up – do you really think the ad will do more harm than good?

Talking about banning unnecessary driving is a bit irrational as the ad is trying to make a point about the effects of not wearing seat-belts. Its not pointing a finger at the driver who caused the accident. Its not saying anything about dangerous bends, speed limits, talking on mobile phones, incorrect tyre pressure, alcohol consumption or anything else. Its aimed at the people who also travel in cars. The passengers. And its pointing out that they have responsibility for their own safety and relying on drivers not to crash is naïve and perhaps stupid. We can always accuse the govt. of being hypocritical, but we are having an issue placed in our (the general public’s) hands and to shirk this responsibility is much too easy. It takes all of us to make a concerted effort, Blind Boy. We can’t always rely on others to look after our better interests.

Having said that, I know you were talking about the medium and not the message, but personally speaking, I read less politics into it than you – maybe I’m less cynical that way. I do know that everyday there are so many car crashes in this country that I’m losing my faith in the human nature of self-preservation. This makes me cynical of people around me and I don’t want to be that way. We should accept this ad as a positive action and if you are being politically swayed by it, then maybe you should take a look at your own resistance levels. I haven’t changed my political views since seeing this ad and you shouldn’t change yours unless you fully understand why.



(Just on another note, while I’m here. Did any of you folks receive an Email with a Virus? I use a free email account, but I’ve only published it on this site. Anyway, if you receive any emails referring to the Leaving Cert with two attachments, delete it immediately!! Especially watch out for Internat.exe.)


Take Care Out There,

BrianS

[Phil]

Has anyone noticed that the ad on UTV is slightly different to RTE.

The Garda or should I say "policeman" at the end of the ad has a nothern accent and the reg plates on the cars have all been changed to northern regs aswell.

[Junior]

The one thing I object to in this ad is the way it is portrayed as the young people dying, and the blame on the young kid in the car. Kinda like saying young people they are at fault for ever thing. Regardless of the rest of the accident.....they don't show what happens to the fsucking idiot on the wrong side of the road or the other hapless gorm speeding , considering they are in older larger cars which would have bad safety records.

[Toad]

whay are these ads always filmed with young people.
I've seen plenty of older driver's going around with no belt's on,
No idicator's speeding etc .
Yet every ad protray's young people, You can't blame us all the time.

[PG]

To date, 01st July 2001, 185 people DEAD on Irish roads,
105 of which were aged between16 and 35 years old. That's why, boys, young people are being targetted with these ads.

[Anders]

I'd say if you look at demographics, young people by your definition are probably under represented in those statistics.

Most of these ads are faulty in one way or another. I think this one is better than most but I can agree that the age of the actors is of little relevance. I have met very few Irish people of any age who wear seatbelts in the back.

The worst ad of all time is the one where the car flies through a wall and kills a child. Mindboggingly stupid ad. Perhaps it would make more sense to depict an accident that could happen instead of insulting the viewers intelligence.

Speaking of intelligence, did you folks read about the new mobile speed camera campaign? Mobile speed cameras will be put in locations where drivers are likely to speed. What a total crock of ****. Put them where speed is likely to cause accidents and make them visible. It sounds like the authorities are hellbent on the Australian system where you get 50 years for speeding or something.