Old UK "Kill Your Speed, Not A Child" adverts.

darth sidious

New Member
Have any of you good people seen any of the old (by that I mean the mid-late 90's) UK "Kill Your Speed, Not A Child" campaign adverts hosted on YouTube, Dailymotion, MyVideo, LiveLeak, etc? Scans of newspaper/magazine adverts of the campaign from the same era would also be of help.
 
Pilkie said:
One of the reasons I quit my job,was the attitude of the employer,wanting the job done quicker,so they could pile more deliveries on me!

Our drivers are told NOT to rush about under any circumstances. If they are held up and are going to be late, or unable to deliver they phone in and we phone the customer to let them know. There is NO excuse for dangerous driving and we will NOT tolerate it at all.

Pilkie said:
But remember its not always the driver to blame!

Sadly it's not always the drivers fault, but the driver is always to blame.

http://news.sky.com/story/1069762/girl- ... in-croydon

I haven't heard any more about this one, but the child was left on a pavement on a windy day and blew out into the road. The van driver was arrested.
 
Just curious (well OK, nosey :)) as to why you are interested in these ad's Darth? Are things from the 90s old already? I'm still trying to get my head round the 21st century thing :) .
 
I definitely accept that it's not morally/actually ALWAYS the driver's fault (which I think is what Pilkie meant), even if it is legally (which is what Quattro said).

I've seen children run into roads near my house, even once told one off for being so bleeding careless (to which I was told to "MYOB" and "Francis Owen" :!: :roll: )

In answer to JVY: if I find any of the 90's literature/adverts, I'll show (all of) you what my reason/point is.
 
darth sidious said:
I definitely accept that it's not morally/actually ALWAYS the driver's fault (which I think is what Pilkie meant), even if it is legally (which is what Quattro said).

I've seen children run into roads near my house, even once told one off for being so bleeding careless (to which I was told to "MYOB" and "Francis Owen" :!: :roll: )

In answer to JVY: if I find any of the 90's literature/adverts, I'll show (all of) you what my reason/point is.

I found some!

These are statistics that were bandied around when I was learning to drive in the early-mid 1990's.

Can anybody spot the apparent inconsistency of this to what is being bandied about currently?

speed-kills.gif
 
Darth, here is what I found.....
http://think.direct.gov.uk/speed.html
•The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph
This seems to be consistent with your old ad. So, that's not it.

I found this DoT 2010 report http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf

Which has lots of data about pedestrian fatalities at various speeds (even formulae you can use to calculate probability of death :shock: ).

Chances of surving an impact if you are a pedestrian seems to depend largely on age. Children and adults fare quite well at 30mph but the eldery fatality rates are way higher:
At an impact speed of 30 mph, the risk of fatality for elderly pedestrians is 47%, compared with 5% for adults and 4% for children.
So, if people are give the impression from information films on TV that roughly 50% of kids hit by a car at 30mph are likely to be killed, that's not what this report seems to say. More like you have a 50/50 chance of surving if you are 60 years old or more?

Mind you, I suppose a lot of changes have been made to cars over the years - not just to protect drivers but to protect pedestrians. Also, car brake technolgy will have made a huge difference. Although, roads are busier and cars are faster, I get the impression that pedestrian fatalities when compared to number of vehicles on the road has probably decreased over the years?

What are your thoughts?

These are the public safety ad's I remember watching as a kid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HB0HcINjWs
 
JVY said:
Darth, here is what I found.....
http://think.direct.gov.uk/speed.html
•The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph
This seems to be consistent with your old ad. So, that's not it.

I found this DoT 2010 report http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publicatio...-rsrr-theme5-researchreport16-pdf/rswp116.pdf

Which has lots of data about pedestrian fatalities at various speeds (even formulae you can use to calculate probability of death :shock: ).

Chances of surving an impact if you are a pedestrian seems to depend largely on age. Children and adults fare quite well at 30mph but the eldery fatality rates are way higher:
At an impact speed of 30 mph, the risk of fatality for elderly pedestrians is 47%, compared with 5% for adults and 4% for children.
So, if people are give the impression from information films on TV that roughly 50% of kids hit by a car at 30mph are likely to be killed, that's not what this report seems to say. More like you have a 50/50 chance of surving if you are 60 years old or more?

Mind you, I suppose a lot of changes have been made to cars over the years - not just to protect drivers but to protect pedestrians. Also, car brake technolgy will have made a huge difference. Although, roads are busier and cars are faster, I get the impression that pedestrian fatalities when compared to number of vehicles on the road has probably decreased over the years?

What are your thoughts?

These are the public safety ad's I remember watching as a kid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HB0HcINjWs

Well you have actually picked up on the point I had, and in fact explained it.

My point was/is:-

In the old ads, it states hit at 30mph means a 50/50 chance. (50% survival rate) [and, though not explicitly stated but obviously implied, a message to get people to drive at 20mph in built-up areas. Though this was being bandied about when I was learning to drive, weirdly my driving instructor actually told me not to do and drive at 30mph... in a built-up area and kids about!]

In the newer ads, it states hit at 30mph means an 80% survival rate. I was curious as to the (possible) reason(ing) the survival rate is [apparently] higher now than was claimed before.

You're right, I think, about the advances in modern car technology with pedestrian protection features, but I tend to disagree with the "brakes" reasoning in this context; it states if you HIT at a certain speed which I interpret as the car travelling at that certain speed at the moment contact is made. i.e. "If you hit at 30mph" - the car is travelling at 30mph at the moment contact is made, be it a new car or a classic car (like a P6 Rover).

A good analysis and reasoning though, JVY! :) Kudos to you, sir! :)
 
If I was to get hit by a car at 30 MPH I think I would prefer it to be a modern,plastic bumpers, sloping bonnet etc than a P6, solid chrome metal bumpers, pointed edge on the bonnet etc.
 
happy days said:
If I was to get hit by a car at 30 MPH I think I would prefer it to be a modern,plastic bumpers, sloping bonnet etc than a P6, solid chrome metal bumpers, pointed edge on the bonnet etc.

Good point.

I was, in a nutshell, wondering if they were moving the "goalposts" as the powers-that-be do sometimes albeit *cough cough cough* very rarely *cough cough cough* A bad cough there! :wink:
 
Back
Top