Safety video

[Face]

Forum Sponsor

Best post of the year.
I guess even we are conditioned to think the way of this video.

Didn't even strike me as wrong.
But it is indeed wrong on so many levels.

Thanks, I've had too many cynical experiences with governments to actually take what they say literally. I always look for the underlying motives. Like the Federal Government Action Plan ads, thinly veiled ads for the Conservative party at a very hefty tax payer expense!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/11/pol-cp-government-ad-spending.html

As far as best post of the year, I've got to vote for Peggy's anouncing and cancelling a ride in the same post, and in the wrong section!

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...de-Is-Snuffed-By-Rain&highlight=pegassus+ride

I guess we need categories if the forum is going to have awards, Lol.

 

[Ugur Dinch]

I was going 80 in a 60 today (right lane was going about 70) and still got tail gated by some ******-canoe in a Mercedes. So I slowed down to 50 and watched them rage trying to merge into the right lane to pass, once they merged I sped back up to 80 as they disappeared behind me stuck in the slow lane.

What was the motivation on doing this ?

 

[Macs]

I like to call those people pig slop. I let them get a decent distance ahead and then match their speed. That way, if a speedtrap is passed I'll have time to see the cop pull out and put on his lights, and be able to slow down. They feed the cops or take an exit off, and I just look for the next fastest thing to follow.
Works best if the roads are almost empty.

Using this foolproof method I did about 160-170 all the way to Ottawa, genius got busted on the 417 on ramp and I dropped to 110. Foolproof.

Wow, 2 pages of comments and hardly anything about the video in the OP, which is wrong on so many levels.


The video shows 2 infractions, speeding 8 km over the limit and making an unsafe right turn across oncoming traffic causing serious bodily harm (broken neck) and possibly death. But the video completely ignores the more serious infraction and focusses solely on the speeding. It says that a none-speeding motorcyclist would be more visible to the driver (seriously), and would have been able to react to avoid the collision (regardless of where he was on the road when the driver pulled out in front of him). No blame against the driver is even hinted at, but they more than imply that the responsibility lies with the rider to avoid an accident.


Every rider knows that we need to watch out for all the other idiots out there if we want to stay alive. We learn it in rider training courses and we see it every day on the road. So what's the point of a government agency (I'm making an assumption here) putting this ad out to a predominantly driving public ? It seems like a very short-sighted way to publicly justify the "0-tollerance speeding - police budget fundraising program".


And what are the implications of an ad like this? It helps the driver's insurance company argue that the rider was in part responsible for the accident if it can't be proven that he was not speeding. It helps the defence when the rider's family sues the driver for wrongful death. And by shifting the blame to the rider, it essentially gives even less incentive to an already oblivious driving public, to watch out for motorcycles. Considering that unsafe left turns into oncoming traffic (right turns in Aus & NZ) are statistically the most common and most distructive form of 2-vehicle accident involving motorcycles, it is unconscionable that a government would look to shift the responsibility from the driver to the rider simply to support it's own political and financial agenda.


If this ad were put out by a government here, I'd have my MP/MPP on the phone so fast, his head would be spinning.

Because Speeding and Alcohol are the 2 hot button topics. If you don't drive drunk and don't speed you're a GREAT driver and you have done no wrong! Have a COOKIE!! Now remember, dial 911 or *OPP if you see any pesky motorcyclists

 

[Emefef]

Wow, 2 pages of comments and hardly anything about the video in the OP, which is wrong on so many levels.

The video shows 2 infractions, speeding 8 km over the limit and making an unsafe right turn across oncoming traffic causing serious bodily harm (broken neck) and possibly death. But the video completely ignores the more serious infraction and focusses solely on the speeding. It says that a none-speeding motorcyclist would be more visible to the driver (seriously), and would have been able to react to avoid the collision (regardless of where he was on the road when the driver pulled out in front of him). No blame against the driver is even hinted at, but they more than imply that the responsibility lies with the rider to avoid an accident.

Every rider knows that we need to watch out for all the other idiots out there if we want to stay alive. We learn it in rider training courses and we see it every day on the road. So what's the point of a government agency (I'm making an assumption here) putting this ad out to a predominantly driving public ? It seems like a very short-sighted way to publicly justify the "0-tollerance speeding - police budget fundraising program".

And what are the implications of an ad like this? It helps the driver's insurance company argue that the rider was in part responsible for the accident if it can't be proven that he was not speeding. It helps the defence when the rider's family sues the driver for wrongful death. And by shifting the blame to the rider, it essentially gives even less incentive to an already oblivious driving public, to watch out for motorcycles. Considering that unsafe left turns into oncoming traffic (right turns in Aus & NZ) are statistically the most common and most distructive form of 2-vehicle accident involving motorcycles, it is unconscionable that a government would look to shift the responsibility from the driver to the rider simply to support it's own political and financial agenda.

If this ad were put out by a government here, I'd have my MP/MPP on the phone so fast, his head would be spinning.

I took it as a message to make choices about what you can control. We accept the fact that a motorist that turns in front of us is wrong. There's no debate, and we have no control over it. At a lower speed, we have more time to react. That's the message. It's your choice. Hit and fly over the car, break your neck, and the motorist gets charged and the pieces scraped up. Everyone else will move on with their lives.
Slow down, miss the car, and you can too.

 

[Face]

I took it as a message to make choices about what you can control. We accept the fact that a motorist that turns in front of us is wrong. There's no debate, and we have no control over it. At a lower speed, we have more time to react. That's the message. It's your choice. Hit and fly over the car, break your neck, and the motorist gets charged and the pieces scraped up. Everyone else will move on with their lives.
Slow down, miss the car, and you can too.

I would agree with you if this was a video made for motorcycle training courses, but it was made by the Tansport Accident Commission (a government owned agency) as part of a broad public campaign to reduce accidents. There are around 12,700,000 registered cars in Aus, & 710,000 registered motorcycles. Assuming all the bike owners also own cars, 94.5% of the audience for this video who have a license, only drive a car. So what's the message they get? Motorcyclists should slow down, otherwise they are going to get themselves killed. It's the motorcyclist's responsibility to avoid an accident when a car pulls out in front of them. Personally, I think that is the wrong message to be telling 12 million people!

 

[DownUnder]

They do have a bunch of these speeding safety vids with cars as well. The whole idea is to make the general public think that speeding is the devil hence why fines and policing of it are so high.

 

[OMGSelenaGomez]

If the motorcycle were doing 200, it would have made it past the car before it even started to turn.

Forum Sponsor