Almost three million views

January 10th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

This ad by the NZ Transport Agency has gone viral with almost three million views. An excellent ad, and much better use of resources than their billboard campaign to remind people that they share the road with others.

It’s had 2.9 million views online in less than a week, so has obviously struck a chord.

Tags: , ,

29 Responses to “Almost three million views”

  1. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    Incoming!
    Here come all the rants and raves about ‘revenue gathering’…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. labrator (1,691 comments) says:

    Very pleased that they’re moving away from “you’re going to die” ads. Great stuff. I’d like to see more educational ads about road rules and why we have them. I think NZ’ers would be receptive to driving hints if they explained some of them better eg Why you don’t enter an intersection unless the exit is clear.

    Fantastic ad, well written, brilliantly acted.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Mobile Michael (363 comments) says:

    I also love the life jacket one thats on now, with the 70s style cop show drug bust.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dime (8,746 comments) says:

    these ads are just awesome! tons of money spent “educating” the masses.

    they are a pain in the ass.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. youami (45 comments) says:

    I hate these ads with a passion! What is the message? That if someone pulls out in front of you, you’ll kill their kid just because your speedo shows that you are doing the speed limit (median 10% margin of error for most speedos according to Wikipedia)?

    The 12 million dollar annual spend on road safety advertising would pay for 60000 AA defensive driving courses. Coincidentally, this is roughly the number of 15-24 year olds in New Zealand. This would be a far better way of spending the money, though I’d rather just have my portion of the tax back to be honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (6,685 comments) says:

    White guy going too fast!

    What diiference would it make if he was doing 100 when the guy on the stop sign pulled out in front of him.

    The message here is even though the idiot pulled out in front of clearly visible oncoming traffic it’s your fault for going too fast….

    More bollocks from Nanny.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. cha (3,524 comments) says:

    White guy going too fast!

    Yup, it’s actually code for anti white.
    //

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    What diiference would it make if he was doing 100 when the guy on the stop sign pulled out in front of him.

    Might have made all the difference, if he’d been an intelligent driver looking well ahead and anticipating risks, rather than a mindless compliant drone with one eye on the speedo, which is what Andy Knackersinasack seems to want us to aspire to being.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Good advert, and makes a point that a lot of “Why worry – I’m an excellent driver” type people I know struggle to comprehend.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    If I miss the first few seconds, I don’t who is who in the ad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    if he’d been an intelligent driver looking well ahead and anticipating risks

    Sure, the ‘intelligent’ driver can pick the 1 in 5000 who’s gonna suddenly pull out in front of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. doggone7 (487 comments) says:

    kowtow
    “…More bollocks from Nanny.”

    Yeah, yeah Nanny state shouldn’t get involved by advertising about such stuff, or drinking and driving, or etc., etc?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. srylands (301 comments) says:

    I am one of the target group. I maintain that 100 km/h on an uncongested motorway in fine weather or an empty undivided highway is too low. With modern cars 100 km/h is nuts on good open roads. I would advocate using technology to post variable speed limits. e.g. 130 kmh on empty motorways, and 110 km/h on uncongested open highways. But with zero tolerance for exceeding the limits. The limits can be wound back in rain/congestion. With emerging technology this is quite feasible.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Sure, the ‘intelligent’ driver can pick the 1 in 5000 who’s gonna suddenly pull out in front of you.

    Actually, yeah really.

    Any time I see someone come up along a side road, I think about what I would do if he doesn’t stop. Especially in 100km/h areas…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. lolitasbrother (337 comments) says:

    New Zealand drivers are often aggressive idiots

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (6,685 comments) says:

    Yep James Stephenson intelligent drivers anticapting someone stopped at a stop sign,will drive infront of your clearly visible vehicle ,should slow down to what speed on the open road in order to avoid a collision…..

    recipe for chaos….and getting slammed from behind etc etc

    doggy

    How much more money would you like Nanny to spend “educating” licensed drivers that Stop means just that.

    The more one considers this piece of rubbish anti exceeding the limit bullshit the more I think that the check shirt guy is guilty of reckless driving….he did stop ,but having clearly observed an oncoming vehicle decided to deliberatley drive into its path……

    we can litigate this as much as one likes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. 2boyz (230 comments) says:

    I just cannot get into these ads, in fact they switch me off. Radio ad this morning, Kia ora I’m constable such and such, this summer I’ll…. station change happens immediately.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Actually, yeah really.

    So you pick everyone. Good for you.

    Point is, if you’re going say 110kmh and someone unexpectedly pulls out leaving you less than 0.3 seconds the average human takes to react then all the vigilance in the world isn’t gonna help much. Going at 95kmh might.

    And lets face it, most mistakes on the road go unpunished. To die, the timing has to be exquisite.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Colinxy (4 comments) says:

    So what is the NZ Transport Agency proposing someone on the open road should travel at? What if the “bad man” was driving at 99kmph and the “stupid mistake man” pulled out from the stop sign even later than in that ad? Does the NZ Transport Agency propose 10kmph just in case someone pulls out from a stop sign in front of you who has a small child in the rear seat?

    After all, the following study (PDF) shows that fatal accidents can and do happen at less that 20mph. 30mph is 47% likely to kill an elderly pedestrian for example. What if an elderly woman, holding hands with her infant granddaughter, crossed the road just in front of you doing 70kmph on the open road? Will the NZ Transport agency be doing a bunch of ads denigrating people driving considerably under the speed limit as well?

    http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-roadsafety-research-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf

    What is a “safe speed”?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dubya (200 comments) says:

    Could any lawyer/police officer/general laws geek tell us, does the crime of speeding automatically trump the crime of failing to give way? Because This ad seems to imply the guy in the Subaru Forester has done nothing wrong, despite doing what looked to me to be a fairly dangerous manoeuvre?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bullitt (135 comments) says:

    I’ve had a number of discussions on this ad already as I consider that although the concept of “be careful, other drivers are useless” has merit it is badly lacking in execution for three main reasons:

    1) Driving defensively and paying attention to whether a driver might pull out of a side road is entirely independent of whether a person is doing 100ks or 108ks. Sure the 100k driver has a fraction of a second longer to react but so does a driver doing 92, theres no magical reason 100 is the correct speed. If anything a driver paying so much attention to their speedo to make sure they’re doing 100 instead of 101 is probably more distracted and less likely to notice the other driver’s actions

    2) The Subaru driver is totally in the wrong in the ad yet the ad appears to minimise the blame attributable to them. On an economies of scale approach the 1,000th don’t speed ad would have far less impact than the first don’t pull into oncoming traffic ad yet this ad if anything goes the other way and says don’t worry about pulling out in front of traffic, they’ll manage to avoid you and even if they don’t it’s their fault.

    3) Even if you consider the first two points incorrect and that this ad should have been made they should have chosen an example where a person doing 100 would have avoided or at least significantly minimised the crash. In the example they chose the driver doesn’t even brake so if they’d have been going 100ks they still would have hit the other car without braking at all and slammed into the car at 100ks which would still kill both occupants of the Subaru.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Left Right and Centre (2,388 comments) says:

    You can share a feed of fish and chips – can you really ‘share’ the road ?

    If someone is sharing your bit of road – haven’t you got two lumps of metal giving each other a big kiss on the lips ? And internal organs playing a quick game of musical chairs ?

    I’ve got no idea what this ad is about – haven’t seen it – don’t know what it’s about comments aside – couldn’t give a toss and I’m loving it.

    No ads policy is really working – fuck yeah !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ISeeRed (244 comments) says:

    Meh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. labrator (1,691 comments) says:

    theres no magical reason 100 is the correct speed.

    Actually that would be the one complaint I have about this ad. The fixation with the magical number 100. If they’d left the speedo part out, this ad would be perfect. Drive to the conditions. If he’d been doing 99 km/hr but it had been raining and cows had recently crossed the road leaving muddy residue he’d hit the car pulling out faster and thus harder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Steve (North Shore) (4,313 comments) says:

    Get those voices out of my head, it is Nanny State programming

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wf (312 comments) says:

    Interesting, all the responses. I think it’s a darned good commercial – it makes you think doesn’t it?

    Both men are feeling guilty for their actions in that nanosecond before impact. Too late to feel sorry, or plead for safety.

    Bad luck, eh.

    I watch those people who are hovering on side roads like a hawk. They aren’t to be trusted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Manolo (12,612 comments) says:

    Nanny state never sleeps: it keeps the brainwashing 24×7.

    The NZ populace should be grateful Big Brother and its faceless bureaucrats are looking after us all the time. No need to think, ponder or mull over any issue. The state will tell us.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sidey (227 comments) says:

    Yes that’s right, someone in “the government” thought to themselves “I’m bored, let’s make a TV ad that looks like it’s about road safety, but really it’s about controlling the masses.” Pass the tinfoil hat when you’re done with it. Why live here if you assume everything is done to target you?

    And then one day someone very close you will get hurt, and clowns like you will spend the rest of your lives campaigning the local council to increase the Give Way sign by 1 cm.

    Don’t like it, don’t watch it. Quite simple. But no, let’s watch it so we can jump online and blame “the gummint.” I often wonder if DPF thinks to himself “why the feck do I bother, bunch of miserable pricks.”

    It’s all a conspiracy I tells ya!

    Right, I’m ok now. What do you think of those ads for supermarket specials? What’s the gummint trying to pull there eh? Won’t fool those eagle-eyed KB folk. Waaaaay to sharp for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tedbear (119 comments) says:

    Hey Sidey, how do I program my telly to automatically blank the screen and kill the sound every time an ad appears?

    Like many, I think this ad is yet anther mindless waste of space. All prangs are caused by inattention and failing to stop within half the clear roadway in front of you.
    Anyone not adhering to this rule should instantly lose their licence – like that stupid woman who drove at 100kph on a country road, in the dark, rounded a corner and hit some cows.
    I hope at the very least the farmer sues her for damaged stock and her insurance company gives her a warning for negligent driving.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.