Anyone notice how the car doing 60 keeps a _perfect straight line going into
the back of the truck_ with the left side of his car only? What is that dude
smoking? There's more at issue there than just speed!

So how about a safety driving course? Level 1 at Murcott kinda tought the
basics of that stuff. If ya gonna hit ****, steer to avoid it!!

I see the point of the ad, but feel insulted they think we're like lemmings
on our way to slaughter. Most every modern car worth getting has ABS brakes,
maybe the real point of the ad is - learn how to *føkking use it*?

Frustrated,
j
[crossposted to aus.motorcycles, aus.cars]

*sigh*
that whole commercial is rooted.
Braking times etc the type of vehicle abs etc etc
there are so many issues at hand and those ****ers simplify it to wipe
off 5






Jorgen Smith wrote:
>
> Anyone notice how the car doing 60 keeps a _perfect straight line going into
> the back of the truck_ with the left side of his car only? What is that dude
> smoking? There's more at issue there than just speed!
>
> So how about a safety driving course? Level 1 at Murcott kinda tought the
> basics of that stuff. If ya gonna hit ****, steer to avoid it!!
>
> I see the point of the ad, but feel insulted they think we're like lemmings
> on our way to slaughter. Most every modern car worth getting has ABS brakes,
> maybe the real point of the ad is - learn how to *føkking use it*?
>
> Frustrated,
> j
> [crossposted to aus.motorcycles, aus.cars]

--
Look beyond the window, don't just focus on your own reflection.
(E-Mail Removed)
for all spam.

"Smee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> *sigh*
> that whole commercial is rooted.
> Braking times etc the type of vehicle abs etc etc
> there are so many issues at hand and those ****ers simplify it to
wipe
> off 5
>
>

this is my theory on it

if both cars left the same spot, "A" travelling at 60kmh and "B" at
65kmh for 5 minutes and then the truck pulls out in front of "A" ,
which brakes hard, flats spots its tyres and damages its bonnet and
bumper, which the 2nd car is 4.6km up the road enjoying its journey.

see speed saves

fuzzy logic I know, but that's the kind of logic they are using
against us


--
MH
I ralph and I vote

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Jorgen Smith wrote:

> Anyone notice how the car doing 60 keeps a _perfect straight line going into
> the back of the truck_ with the left side of his car only? What is that dude
> smoking? There's more at issue there than just speed!
>
> So how about a safety driving course? Level 1 at Murcott kinda tought the
> basics of that stuff. If ya gonna hit ****, steer to avoid it!!
>
> I see the point of the ad, but feel insulted they think we're like lemmings
> on our way to slaughter. Most every modern car worth getting has ABS brakes,
> maybe the real point of the ad is - learn how to *føkking use it*?
>
> Frustrated,
> j
> [crossposted to aus.motorcycles, aus.cars]


You've missed the point of the ad.. It is to make the masses think that
"speeding" or even driving at the stated limit, is automatically bad and
will result in lethal accidents. It then becomes easier to justify the
used of speed cameras and to disguise their real purpose as revenue
raising devices.

Its too bad that they don't have campaigns to encourage safe driving
practices. But it would not be desireable because if everyone drove
safely because there would be no speeding fine revenue and they'd have to
invent new "offences" which were amenable to automated detection and fine
issuance.

David

>
> this is my theory on it
>
>see speed saves
>
> fuzzy logic I know, but that's the kind of logic they are using
> against us

Or how about if the truck was 5 metres closer then both cars would crash
regardless.
Or if you were in a WRX instead of a Falcon, your brakes would be a whole
lot more effective
Or if you rode a bike, you could drop it and slide under the truck
Or ...

"Uncle Bully" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > this is my theory on it
> >
> >see speed saves
> >
> > fuzzy logic I know, but that's the kind of logic they are using
> > against us
>
> Or how about if the truck was 5 metres closer then both cars would crash
> regardless.
> Or if you were in a WRX instead of a Falcon, your brakes would be a whole
> lot more effective
> Or if you rode a bike, you could drop it and slide under the truck
> Or ...

....if you were Vin Diesel, and you were on a mx bike you could just
bunny-hop the ****er...

> ...if you were Vin Diesel, and you were on a mx bike you could just bunny-hop the ****er...

You mean that was fake?

"Marty H" wrote...
>
> "Smee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
> > *sigh*
> > that whole commercial is rooted.
> > Braking times etc the type of vehicle abs etc etc
> > there are so many issues at hand and those ****ers simplify it to
> wipe
> > off 5
> >
> >
>
> this is my theory on it
>
> if both cars left the same spot, "A" travelling at 60kmh and "B" at
> 65kmh for 5 minutes and then the truck pulls out in front of "A" ,
> which brakes hard, flats spots its tyres and damages its bonnet and
> bumper, which the 2nd car is 4.6km up the road enjoying its journey.
>
> see speed saves
>
> fuzzy logic I know, but that's the kind of logic they are using
> against us

OK. I can't help myself. Gotta correct this mathematical error - the logic
is sound though

Car A and Car B leave at exactly the same time and, for the sake of
simplicity, accelerate to 60km/h and 65km/h instantly.

5 minutes later the distances from the starting point will be:

Car A:
5min @ 60km/h = 300sec @ 16.667m/sec
= 5000m (ok, so 1km/m for 5mins is easier - shoot me)

Car B:
5min @ 65km/h = 300sec @ 18.055m/sec
= 5417m

So Car B is 417m further down the road watching Car A make a mess of their
bumper bar and flat-spotting their tyres.

However, if Car B was in fact a ZX9R (stuck in 1st gear), he could very well
have been called "Bike B" and would have had to be doing 115.2km/h to be
4.6km away, but I digress....

Cheers,

James
ZZR250==>ZX9R
_______________________________________
A random quote of nothing:
Help fight continental drift.

ChrisR1 wrote:
> Or how about if you were using your eyes and saw the truck by the side of
> the road a few hundred metres back (before it had pulled out in front of
> you), anticipated that it might pull out and then in response you 'set-up'
> the brakes on approach thus removing your reaction time and saving 17 metres
> in your total braking distance at 60km/h and resulting in you stopping way
> before the truck when it then did pull out.
>
> This basic defensive tactic is taught to pre-learner motorcycle riders in
> NSW and is standard course content in defensive driving courses for car
> drivers from Learner on for any reputable driving school.....
>
> But rather than invest in this type of training for ALL road users our
> ****weak state governments continue their fascination with speed despite
> everyone from Deputy PM John Anderson to Peter Brock telling them that this
> focus is blinding them to other possible causes of crashes and doing nothing
> to reduce road trauma. Dickheads.
>
> Chris
>


When I saw the ad, that's one of the first things I thought. Along with
the bloke in the silver falcon actually moving the steering wheel,
that's what it's there for.

Jorgen Smith wrote:
> Anyone notice how the car doing 60 keeps a _perfect straight line going into
> the back of the truck_ with the left side of his car only? What is that dude
> smoking? There's more at issue there than just speed!
>
> So how about a safety driving course? Level 1 at Murcott kinda tought the
> basics of that stuff. If ya gonna hit ****, steer to avoid it!!
>
> I see the point of the ad, but feel insulted they think we're like lemmings
> on our way to slaughter. Most every modern car worth getting has ABS brakes,
> maybe the real point of the ad is - learn how to *føkking use it*?
>
> Frustrated,
> j
> [crossposted to aus.motorcycles, aus.cars]

The following is a quote from the RTA webpage in regards to the ad:

"Even when braking hard, starting from five kilometres over the speed
limit makes 27km/h difference on impact. The advertisement illustrates
dramatically that the speed limit is set at the maximum speed at which
bad crashes may be avoided when the unexpected happens."

I'm guessing that means in any situation, as long as I'm travelling at
58k's an hour, i'll never have a bad accident again??

How dumb do they think we are??