TAC campaign urges bikers to slow down

I am glad they are showing it from a bike speeding point of view to get the same point across. Good job!

As a motorcyclist and a marketer, I consider this to be a very effective piece of communication. I would suggest that the agency also has some motorcyclists in its creative department to be so attuned to the things that we fear on the road (as well as a switched on client), yet so many of us ignore (car drivers too Katrina Higham as it would appear that the car driver was also in the wrong).

Good to see agency and client both switched on to what works and what doesn’t for the target audience – think all the cringe-worthy TVCs we have to suffer for different reasons – ie; so much lame advertising!

The tradie’s ute – hitched to an overloaded trailer, no less – is conveniently placed to avoid the viewer’s otherwise inescapable conclusion that the accident is the fault of the car pulling out into the rider’s path. Count the car lengths. The car is at fault irrespective of the bike’s speed.

I ride. I’m in advertising. I speed. I’m a little shaky.

@paul the freelance writer there is no “who’s at fault” when you’re dead mate

Its time to build a better road safety advert

Ah, so it’s the motorcyclist’s fault that the car didn’t bother to give way at a T-intersection? Typical TAC stuff.

I’m with @ Shivers. I’ll be riding home a little slower tonight. It is always on your mind… but that really brings it home.

So a car pulls out in front of a bike, kills a rider and it’s the rider’s fault?
Seriously sick and misleading advertising giving drivers carte blanche reasons to attack motorcyclists and thinking they can get away with it, the whole smidsy (sorry mate I didn’t see you) excuse becomes legitimised.

What a load of rubbish this ad is. The car driver was 100% at fault. No ifs or buts.

Nice SFX in the ad. Poor message though. “Speed causes every accident” and SMIDSY appears to now be endorsed by TAC as a get out gaol free if a driver kills a rider. As a rider I never trust my safety to the assumption that someone else will do the right thing. Because idiots will pull out on me. Would have thought you marketing guru’s would know that pissing poff your target audience is a good way to get them to ignore your message (if you have one that is…)

Taking the blame off drivers as usual, I forgot its ok to kill people as long as their speeding.
If this was an 80km/h road the results would have been the same, speed is irrelevant, inattention kills. There is no excuse the driver should of had a proper look, they would have easily seen the rider regardless the petty 8km (extra 2.2m/s) over the limit.

Time to sit down and think of a serious ad campaign or stop wasting the money and put it towards driver education.

Technically the ads good. Factually and effective: absolute garbage.
This is taking an absolute hammering on motorbike discussions, as once again demonising the motorcyclist and absolving the driver of any wrongdoing. Motorbikes don’t lock up their back wheels and skid straight ahead, they have linked brakes and ABS to stop. They don’t need 46 metres to stop from 60kph. The TAC have based their campaign of death/serious injury on 47 year old data set from the USA of non helmet wearing riders.
The campaign will alienate riders for it’s very basic errors which could easily have been negated by the use of consultant motorcycle groups.

Nice work. @Jacob, methinks you’re missing the message a bit. It’s about staying alive, even when…

It’s a bit alright, innit? Well done.

It’s a piece of offensive deceitful slick movie making trash. The physics and the suggested numbers and time line don’t hang together, but more devastatingly, the take home message is that the rider got his just desserts and that it’s ok to mow motorcyclists down. “So is Jacob”, if it’s about staying alive, why wasn’t the add about roadcraft and motorcycle skills? The ad is almost universally deplored by riders because no rider relates to it, it thumbed it’s nose at what all capable riders instantly realised and what any braking distance calculator shows: that even at the higher speed, the available distance was more than sufficient to stop within. There are a host of other issues that riders can see, so if success is measured by delivering a message, the ad is a total fail. If success is measured by recall, then yes, it will be a success, but just remember that every recall will have a bucket rather than a bouquet attached. If there was a golden raspberry for ads, this would earn it hands down.

I can prove how flawed this production really is. I am a very experienced rider with over 1 million mms experience. This ad is technically good, yet accurately 100% flawed.

In 1976, I had a truck turn in front of me as I was riding home on the Hume Hwy one sunny day in December. The truck had pulled over to the side of the road to let my mate, who was riding ahead of me past him. As I approached I remember that he had his left indicator on. So I naturally thought he was going to let me overtake as well. So I accelerated and I estimate that my speed was around 100 kph (possibly higher).

Then as a got nearer, he started to turn right and was blocking my way. I braked heavily – he was about 100m away by now. Maybe less. I was so close that i can clearly remember the shocked look on his face. I hit his side door at what I estimate would have been at least 30 kph. And my injuries? Two cracked ribs. I bounced off the door and went end over end about 20 metres and landed on the other side of the road.

See the difference here – I didn’t die. The ad is wrong! The TAC and Grey are guilty of deception, because this ad is just not right.

Yamaha should sue TAC for misrepresenting thier product, an R1 could pull up in that distance no problem at all.

I used to ride everywhere all the time, here in Sydney but also Melbourne, Adelaide, London, Milan, as well as long trips… But three things made me stop
1: Mobile phones used in cars (worse effect than being drunk: use not policed)
2: 4WDs on urban roads: these bullying hulks change the dynamics of traffic
3: Playstation-trained drivers: that’s where people learn to drive now, and they don’t unlearn once they get into cars. And there’s no magic post-impact pixel-reformation in real life, alas (tho this commercial comes close).
Two wheels are much better than four, but no matter what the makes of this ad intended to say, what I take out is simply that it’s much to scary out there now on two wheels. BUGGER!

I think most of you are missing the message here – if you ride at the speed limit you could avoid accidents and, potentially, death.
Whether the car is at fault in this particular COMMERCIAL is irrelevant!
I don’t believe majority of viewers will have the time to pin-point the irregularities in this ad when it plays for the quick minute on TV. Most of them will cringe at the sight & sound of the motorcyclist not breaking his neck. (I did!)
The whole point of this advertisement is showing that if this particular motorcyclist was doing the speed limit (60kph), he would have had the time to react and avoid the car.
And I hope it hits home to motorcyclists (and even other road users to be more wary of speeding motorbikes!) The number of motorcyclists I see everyday blatantly putting their lives at risk by having no regard for speed limits and road rules is ridiculous.

As someone who used to work for a police media and saw firsthand on far, far too many occasions the results of speeding cars and motorcycles – speeding kills. It’s not about what the biggest vehicle is or who pulls out in front of whom, or braking distances, it’s simply that, speeding kills. If you are riding slower, you have more time to react, more time to avoid collisions and essentially more time with your loved ones. Ending up on the side of a road somewhere in bits and pieces under a paramedics towel is no way to end your life. These advertisements use collision investigators to ensure accuracy so to the motorcyclists who think they know better, you don’t. You’re wrong. To everyone out there – just stop speeding on the roads! It’s that simple.

@Stop Speeding. Yes we know speed kills, but its just a motherhood statement that they are ramming down our throats. Please understand that riders understand and don’t need to be reminded of that fact as often as Police Media demands that we must be. Ever wonder why speed is reported as the contributing factor so often? There is only one square to tick for that factor on the reporting officers form. Yes, one box to cover such a complex subject – one that involves choice of baking point, correct line for a corner, correct speed for the condition. How about considering road conditions and how the rider perceives various hazards on the road when they choose their speed. You have no idea how important speed is to a motorcycle. Without it my bike would fall over. In a strong cross wind the bike is more stable at certain higher speeds. But, you don’t ride a motorcycle do you? You don’t understand what riding a motorcycle safely is all about do you? Just slowing down is not necessarily going to make my life safer as a motorcycle rider. I don’t need a non-motorcycle cop or TAC to tell me how to ride safely. Now, if the TAC employed riders to communicate the message then I would be more open to listen to them. This is a HUGE FAIL by TAC and VicPol!!!!!

Fact is, the authorities could drastically cut the road toll even further by:

reducing the speed limit to 30kph nationwide, and 60kph on freeways.

making helmets mandatory for all drivers and passengers in cars.

installing 5-point harnesses in all cars.

having mandatory driver re-training every 5 years.

This would be expensive, inconvenient and slow us down. But it would save hundreds of lives. Even adopting one of the points above would save lives.

The fact that they don’t do this, tells me that the authorities are perfectly willing to trade off lives for efficiency.

Which is fine. That’s the way the world works. It just annoys me when they get all moralistic and preachy about me doing exactly the same thing by doing 66 in a 60 zone… turning it into a moral issue, when the fact remains that they do the sums and trade human lives for efficiency outcomes every day.

All makes sense, but in my experience as a daily rider, a moron is just as likely to pull out on you just as your passing, while travelling well under the speed limit, with no time to react at all.

I’d like to see some ads educating motorists how bike riders are always going to come off second best, after impact with your car.

@ John – please check out these stats for collisions if you think that speeding kills is a “motherhood” statement rammed down your throat:
• Between Jan 2009 and Dec 2010, 47.4% of the fatal crashes occurred at speeds over 100km/h (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, 2011).
There’s more here if you’re interested:
http://www.anzpaa.org.au/curre.....statistics
What I know from formerly working in police media is that when media stories/adverts on fatals and warnings go up the death toll on roads goes down. There is data around that too. And FYI – there is no way police reports are as simplistic as checking a box for speed.

Speed does not kill. It never has and it never will. Grow up!

@Speeding Kills it is the way the TAC went about producing the ad without any motorcycle rider involvement that is the real issue. I don’t need to check those stats. I know all that. Stop telling me to suck eggs – I get enough of that from the TAC. That’s why riders are so upset. Its the TAC culture, its their secrecy, hidden agenda etc. If they just opened up and invited riders to get involved we could have tweaked the ad a little and made it more palatable for riders – used language that riders relate to – and still communicate exactly the same message. Can you see the the difference here. Police Media are not an organisation that has particularly impressed me in the past. You are demonstrating considerable blindness to reality and an inflexible approach to change. Get outside the square and do some lateral thinking and you might understand where I am coming from and what my intention really is.

currently Vicroads registration, which funds the TAC is less for motorbikes than for cars; given the disparity between the costs from injuries and fatalities compared with other vehicles, mid-large motorbikes should perhaps be paying in the order of 7-8 times the amount being charged for car registration, in line with their greater risk. that kind of measure would ensure far fewer motorcycle deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

@krzystoff Don’t you think its fair that a vulnerable user group, which takes up less road space, which is most often not at fault should be made to pay less? 30 years ago Victoria had a risk based system. You don’t understand the history involved, in fact I doubt that you understand it. Bicycles have a greater risk on our roads – yet they pay nothing to the TAC, who cover all their bills. costs of injuries should be born by those who cause them. In this ad the car was at fault. You are asserting that the motorcycle, who is not at fault to as greater degree, should be further penalised because someone else killed them. have a long hard think about this fact. Your attitude, which TAC use to justify their actions is yet another issue that upsets motorcycle riders.

The TAC component of my bike rego is $407: the TAC component of my car is $317. I also have to pay a ‘safety levy’ on my motorbike of $64.

Speeding kills: 97.8473% of all statistics can be used in any way you want. If 47.4% of fatal crashes were >100kph, that means that statistically the 52.6% <100kph mean it is more dangerous to drive at less than 100kph.

The ad, whilst technically well produced, is alarmist and based on flawed data. As such it has alienated the target audience and therefore failed as a campaign leader. No doubt the TAC drove the storyline, but proper market research and technical input would have won over the motorcycling fraternity, not demonised them.

The gross braking errors made by the rider negate the whole speed thing. Message should be that without proper training you are likely to die.

looks like there’s also a steering error in that he turned back into the car. another beginners blunder.

@Speeding Kills,

The major problem with this ad is that if the message is ‘Speed Kills’, then why does the 8Kph make a difference in this case? And, why, if speed kills, is the ad clearly showing an inattentive driver SMIDSYing someone? The aural message doesn’t match the visual one. The result is much like a tacit approval for some more selfish drivers to SMIDSY someone and say that the bike was speeding – if you brake right there will be no skid marks for the investigators to investigate and it will be he said vs. he said. Hell, if the rider dies, we’ll probably never know if the rider was ‘speeding’ or not.

So – you may be right. Speed may be a factor in many accidents and many people are not sensible when it comes to their speed – cars and riders alike. This is a problem. But the ad doesn’t show this. It shows a SMIDSY, and a highly dubious one at that. SMIDSYs kill riders whether they are speeding, or not. That is why the ad will not work – to use a SMIDSY in this fashion is an insult.

The ad would have you believe that about 0.3 seconds is the difference between life and death.

The rider sees the car from about 48m away. It would take the 60km/h rider about 0.3 seconds longer to reach the car than the 68km/h rider. The ad says that the driver failed to see the bike partly due to the rider’s higher speed. Really?? The TAC and authorities are so trapped by their speed kills paradigm that they have to spin the inconsequential to support their case.

@Rob I’m with you. TAC have a speed fixation. TAC said on 3AW last week that speed is the one and only thing that motorcycle riders can control. As a VERY experienced rider, I have to inform him that there are many other things other than speed that I can control. Speed is a minor factor – there are many, many more important things other than speed that I pay attention to in order to keep myself alive. Unfortunately, TAC rely on the biased views of the Police – for whom speed enforcement is the only thing in their tool bag.

What everyone here needs to recognise is that TAC don’t have any motorcycle riders working with them. They may claim otherwise because some of their staff hold a licence – but just holding a motorcycle licence does not make one a motorcycle rider. Further to what I have just said – TAC don’t have any fully qualified rider trainers advising them (as far as I am aware).

TAC has a credibility problem in the eyes of motorcycle riders. Their leadership is constantly challenged by riders – that is by experienced riders, who are shut out of helping the TAC to reduce the number of motorcycle riders being injured and killed. That is where this is all going pear shaped.

Hey, here is an idea. Why don’t we make 60 zones 40 zones, and 100 zones 70 zones. Then there is bound bo be no fatalities, or even no injuries if we are really lucky! Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this? Based on the way road safety is heading this must be the answer. Imagine how much money the govt would make in policing this, they could keep making B_ll S_it video’s for ever……….

What about driver education, tail gating, cutting corners (crossing white lines) and not using indicators? It seems these can’t be the cause of accidents, it must be those extra 8km – WTF!

Anyone who thinks this ad will make them slow down by 8ks, or thinks this ad saves lives is victim of pathetic fear marketing.

Yours,

Disillusioned driver and motorcyclist living in Victoria.

I love the way these TACadvertisements bring out the really, really dumb comments. Could there be a correlation between the people who believe the world is flat, the gravity deniers and people who use the reductio ad absurdum argument and actually think they are being erudite. Or the ‘it happened , or didn’t happen, to me’ and I’m so important my experience applies to the rest of the population. I used to think that it should be compulsory to sell a coffin with each motorbike. Now I realise all that’s needed is an IQ test.

A tad unfair, Groucho.

The correlation between speed and accidents is strong because stationary objects can’t hit each other.

The points raised by the motor-cyclists here are broader ones about Road Safety and Driver education in general. Poor lane discipline, driving too slowly, distracted driving from phone, text, or headphones can be done under the speed limit, yet are far more dangerous. However they are never highlighted, policed or prosecuted.

This leads to the dangerous mentality that anything is safe if done under the speed limit – makeup, reading email, calling, texting, arguing with spouse, eating dinner, drinking beer, reading a book, failing to indicate, receiving fellatio, taking a photo. I’ve witnessed a driver doing every single one of those in Australia.

So, TAC (and your brethren in other states) – stop being so lazy. Police – stop being lazy. Understand what makes driving complicated, difficult and dangerous, instead of hiding in a bush.

Make a difference, Officer. Not a quota.

As an example, have look at this for a great expression of a non-speed message exquisitely demonstrated: http://youtu.be/HbjSWDwJILs

@AdGrunt No argument with your points. No argument either that if your bike collides with one of those fuckwit motorists and you are going slowly you have somewhat less chance of getting killed.
By the way, you missed out masturbation.

From the comments of the motorcycle haters like Groucho here it appears the ad is successful in an undeclared subtext. To portray motorcycles as dangerous.

As usual, any positive messages that may exist are negated by the way it alienates it’s intended market. Of course it will be seen as a resounding sucess – it will have a 100% recall rate in six months time. It won’t have saved one person but people will remember it.

I’ll quote here from someone who teaches in the field of policing and road trauma. He’s a very experienced former cop and motorcyclist.
…………………………………………..

…I’ll show this to my students as another great example of the fine work that our esteemed road authorities are doing in keeping us all safe from ourselves. Keeping my emotional intelligence in check for the moment, I would suggest that TAC needs to take a reality check and to stop promulgating their agenda-driven propaganda masked as road user safety messages. The video could be remade over and over at incrementally slower speeds and with the distance comensurately decreased, a similar outcome would eventuate (until we started getting down to some very slow speeds which just simply then would no longer be valid).

Tony, my response to TAC would be that we are not interested in lowering ourselves to support blatant agenda-driven (speed) and biased video productions that ignore the need for driver care, concentration and hazard perception all whilst portraying the motorcyclist as some kind of speed demon. Why did this crash happen? It didn’t happen as a result of any speed the motorcyclist was doing. It happened because of the poor decision of the car driver. Whilst speed is always a factor in terms of OUTCOME, it is rarely ever a CAUSAL factor and their video demonstrates this perfectly

……………………………………………………………….

In effect, this advertisement has just given a “get out of jail free” card to anyone who pulls out in front of a motorcycle.

Tony Ellis
Member Australian Government Motorcycle Safety Consultative Committee
Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Group

@Tony Ellis I’m not a motorbike hater, but if I was it would be fucking morons like you that would make me one. Your idiotic conclusion underneath your dots completely negates anything you have to say. Why any body such as the that you claim to represent lets you speak on their behalf I don’t know. Who appointed you, is there someone on this committee with some sense to balance your nonsense?

Sorry for not seeing driver onanism, Groucho.
I clearly haven’t driven past you.
Mwah.

@Tony Ellis, I fear the motorcycle-riding community are poorly represented if you’re representative of the full committee.

When it comes to saving the lives of motorcyclists, it doesn’t matter the cause, only the outcome.

@Groucho now that you have shown your colours, we know that your comments aren’t worth anything. As a cage driver, little that we riders say will make any sense to you. Why? Because you have no idea what riding a motorcycle is all about. You think you know – but you don’t. You need to come out with me as a passenger on the back of my bike for an hour – so that I can demonstrate things to you. I have done it with several hundred people to date (I operate a motorcycle joyrides business where I take out people like you all the time). You know what? After an hour with me people go away with a completely different point of view. Care to take me up? I doubt it. Just like the TAC – I have offered them the same thing – not likely to happen, because they are just so certain they are right and I am wrong. Well, I’ve got 1 million kms and 40 years of riding experience to prove otherwise. And I know how motorcycle riders think – they don’t and neither do you. As for Tony, I couldn’t think of anyone better to represent riders : )

I’ve been a daily motorcyclist for 25 years and I work in marketing

This ad will make me slow down. I will be more likely to return home alive to my wife and children

Not because speed kills. Not because car drivers will pay more attention to bikes

But because the one risk factor well within my control will be better managed by me, having been so effectively reminded of the need to slow down

And I agree with Groucho, but I suppose Mr Ellis has no choice to espouse this view if he is to retain his position because many motorcyclists seem to be so irrational as evident in this thread

Groucho,

Based on your dribble I can only assume you are a TAC puppet, or equivalent .

Either way you are the dickhead and you bore me.

Hey Groucho, what do you drive? You’ve pegged yourself as a unique special class of fuckwit that I think all riders (and probably all drivers for what it’s worth) would do well to keep a wary out for on the road.

Here is what the TAC could have done. This is what happens when they actually use an experienced motorcycle rider in the design phase of the ad. Check this out – same footage – slightly different words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_0Xs3mVUME&feature . If the words are counted in language that a rider will relate to (as is the case here) then the ad will have greater impact. TAC failed to pay attention to detail in their haste to make this ad, they have proven that they don’t trust experienced riders – that is the problem.

@Groucho – would you like me to give some examples of how the world works. people are already getting away with this as a defence.

How about the cop who pulled a u-turn over double white lines in fog and killed a rider (who was NOT speeding). And got away with it. I can give you many other examples. This is the most common multi-vehicle crash involving motorcycles (And recent figures from Queensland put the driver to blame in 70% of these cases).

And if you’re going to come on to a blog discussing motorcycle safety and make a statement like ” I used to think that it should be compulsory to sell a coffin with each motorbike.” – that classifies you as a motorcycle hater in my book. (As well as an anonymous idiot)

Archie and Stop Making Sense,

Both of you seem to have no idea of how a motorcyclist feels about this topic, I can only assume you have other agenda’s. Based on your comments you come across with no credibility.

For many riders and non riders alike, it seems clear that the TAC propaganda is designed to stop people riding bikes, not to protect people who do currently ride.

How many mothers, girlfriends, sisters and children are freaked out by the gruesome campaigns and beg their loved ones not to become a motorcycle rider?

The growing nanny state enviroment is very very sad.

Hmmm. Not sure what is hard to grasp here.

The riders in this thread seem to be extremely rational.

They seem to understand defensive riding, road-craft, driving to prevailing conditions and the dangers of fuckwit drivers.

The TAC ad doesn’t promote or highlight any of that. It promotes the false security of an arbitrary speed limit – that is the greater danger here, disseminated by TAC. Stay below 60 and nothing else matters.

Utterly misleading tripe.

The speed is a minor factor in the outcome. A rider could still stack and die at 50 kph – even 30.

The re-voiced TVC makes far more sense and so will connect to the audience.

When will TAC and their like actually start making ads highlighting road-craft and poor discipline?

This has stirred the irrational, the stupid, and the prejudiced out of their slumber hasn’t it.

It is simply inarguable that if you are going slowly and you hit something you will probably be hurt less than if you are going fast. The TAC spot sets out to demonstrate this and does so effectively.

@John I first got on a motorbike as a kid, sharing it with two sheep dogs, both of which mounted better arguments than you do. I rode a BSA Tiger to school, my yellow Ducati was my all time favourite, I’ve felt the throb of a Harley, and the nearer-my-god to-theeness of a big Kawasaki at 200kph.. And my 50 years of riding is longer than your 40 years. But I’m not silly enough to think that length of experience counts for much. We are both still alive because we rode with our eyes open and our brains as well as our bikes in gear. To deny the TAC the right to talk to those riders not as smart as us is patently stupid. Yes, I’m a ‘cage driver’ now, I don’t have the nuts for two wheels any more. I look twice at intersections, and when I change lanes. Once for cars, once for bikes. I hope never to cause a bike rider to have one of those ‘holy fuck’ moments. In over 50 years of driving I’ve driven many different types of vehicles and I do know this: there are fuckwits in control of every sort of vehicle. It’s not about rights, it’s not about petty puerile bikers vs car driver arguments, its about mutual respect, sensible conduct and satying alive with a full quota of limbs. What really shits me are jumped up self appointed pompous twats like Tony Ellis who think they know better and use their time and very modest ability to undermine organisations like the TAC. And people like @Smiles and @Robwho have nothing useful to say but can’t help themselves anyway.

@Groucho – you really don’t get it do you. It’s not the speed bit that is so objectionable. Go to the TAC’s “spokes” website where they actually say that failure to see a motorcycle is a reasonable defence.

It’s a defence that’s been used numerous times over the past few years – and used against riders who were not speeding or breaking any laws. In the case of the aforementioned police rider there was a claim that the dead rider’s bike was “over maintained” (whatever that might be).

The TAC could have achieved a result by acknowledging that the car was at fault but urging riders to slow down to avoid these sorts of incidents – but basically they have absolved the driver from any fault at all.

As for being a self-appointed pompous twat, you appear to have a far greater experience in that area.than I do. And the TAC doen’t need any help from me to undermine them, they are doing an excellent job all on their own.

If you are going to call names, at least have the graciousness to say who you are.

@Groucho I’m not arguing with what you are saying. You are 100% correct. My problem is not with the message the TAC is making, but in the way they are saying and presenting it. They must be relatable. Have you looked at the Alternate TAC ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_0Xs3mVUME&amp;? Can you see the difference and the subtlety in the message – using different words – but in such a manner that they will illicit the same result. The alternate ad is being universally applauded by riders, the original is not. Yet, both are almost similar – but the words are slightly different. yes, you are a cage driver now, and it shows. Sounds like you have had maybe one years experience – spread over 50 years? Mate I ride my bike every day, and have done continuously for the last 14 years. I caver a lot of distance and its not uncommon for me to be down the Great Ocean Road one, then all over the inner city the next. You see, motorcycle joyrides is what I do. Which means that I often go places where the average commuter doesn’t get to. This is not a petty purile argument as you put it. This is about communication, leadership and education. All factors where TAC is badly lacking.

Groucho,

I really feel sorry for you my friend……. Pathetic comes to mind.

Still dont buy that you actually ride bikes either. Do you work for an agency thats contracted to TAC. From what i read you really must have an agenda, you dont come through with any cred at all. The “coffin comment” was the sealer for me. Oh, and the throb of a harley that you once felt…..

Come on, fess up Groucho.

“It is simply inarguable that if you are going slowly and you hit something you will probably be hurt less than if you are going fast. The TAC spot sets out to demonstrate this and does so effectively.”

It is also simply unarguable that not hitting something in the first place is going to hurt even less.

Perhaps a campaign around driver and rider training, attentiveness, the importance of driving well rather than just slowly might assist with this – rather than just telling people that as long as you are under a certain number you are safe.

Unfortunately the TAC have somewhat of a fixation on speed – which was the low hanging fruit in the past in terms of road safety, just as drink driving and seat belts were in their day, and its blinding them to other possible methods of injury reduction.

The TAC are an insurance company. They exist to make a profit for their shareholders. Ultimately, like all insurance companies, the TAC want to reduce their payouts, and they want to minimise the spend on doing so. Its unfortunate they feel that increasing the level of driver/rider skills and awareness isn’t the most cost effective mechanism to achieve this.

Thanks @Smiles – your comment ” Do you work for an agency thats contracted to TAC” would explain his aberrant behaviour. Since that agency got it totally wrong last time

see:
https://mumbrella.com.au/safety-ad-treats-bikers-like-drinkers-and-drug-users-10745

If this is the case then t doesn’t surprise me that he is getting defensive about his advert.

@Smiles, if you were paying attention you would see that I said I don’t ride now. You are so bound up in your own tiny web of self importance you can’t read a paragraph and understand it. Why don’t you make a contribution to the debate?
I don’t , by the way, give a flying fuck what you believe and I doubt anybody else does either.

I don’t work for the TAC, I don’t live in Victoria either. Which puts me safely away from you and your sad disillusionment.

The facts of this ad and its explanation on the spokes website:

The physics to not match the graphical representation – what is graphically represented is not backed up by the physics.

The research, such as the 1975 study is flawed (no helmets, old technology) – and a secondary study sent by a TAC representative to back it up didn’t even support the data, nevermind the fact that the second study was also from a region with a low use of helmets

The ad and the explanation attempts to use case law to justify why the rider is in the wrong. Legally it was misapplied out of context and has at best, a questionable legal basis in this commercial. i.e. The car driver is legally at fault and ‘not seeing’ is not a legal defence. This was not addressed and yet the ad does place blame on the rider.

The assumptions for the braking distance and perception reaction time are questionable and at odds against multiple studies.

The advertisement refers to changing just one variable – yet graphically the rider also changes braking methodology, hazard perception and hazard avoidance skills – not just speed which was likely the least influential factor in him missing.

The timing of the cars movement is wrong, and due to the amount of time it would take for the rider to reach the car when braking is applied – would mean the car would be through the intersection well and truly. CGI not matching reality again.

These are just some of the facts, and as for @Groucho, you seem to be commenting from a vested party and it is highly doubtful you have ridden from what you have said. Unless you can prove your supposed experience, don’t raise it. Either way, you admit you are a ‘cager’ now because you either bought into the fear campaign, or never really rode much anyway. Or both.

If going slower all the time was the answer, then quite simply we should ban all motorised transport as that is the logical conclusion. Yet going slow in the advertisement would have far less of an effect than any of the other rider skills would have. Simply saying ‘go slower’ is not effective driver/rider education and training and simply detracts from what should be an efficient, well trained and safe road system.

Yet the authorities’ refusal to acknowledge this is why we are not seeing an improvement in road safety – their non-solution is the primitive and ineffective ‘lets get people off the roads and bikes’ mentality.

Interesting debate, being wrenched away from the topic into generalities by small thinking axe grinders.

Surely it is not aimed at long term experienced riders who are fit and well because they are good at it, but rather the younger, less experienced and less responsible ones?

If they heed the message they might live to be old and wise riders too.

@groucho “I don’t work for the TAC, I don’t live in Victoria either. ” – but do you work for any other agency that may have an interest in this commercial?

Hey Groucho,

Getting a bit testy hey….. 🙂

You sound like a pretty tough guy, but my guess is you are a bit of a sad little weed.

I think it’s obvious to all that you know a lot about self importance! If you dont ride, dont live in Vic and dont have an agenda, I wonder what motivates you……..

Still time to fess up you tough talking hero. You’re really getting overtime for this arent you?

Enjoy your weekend, I will think of you while I’m out riding.

“On a bike you can live more in 10 seconds than some do in a lifetime”

@ Pitch Doctor The ad may not be aimed at experienced riders. But, if we the experienced can see its glaring faults, then is it going to save the inexperienced? Don’t see your logic there in questioning our views (I assume you don’t ride or have very little experience). Do you have a vested interest too?

The ad could have been better done. The message made more effective. As it is – a lot of impact has been missed – not because we hate it – but because of the things that were omitted. See the alternate ad – that incorporates the sorts of lessons that should have been included from the start. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_0Xs3mVUME&feature

Just slowing down is a weak message. It is a motherhood statement. Staying alive on a motorcycle is far more complex that just slowing down. I have many experiences when speed has been my saviour. But, hey I’m experienced……. We experienced riders want to teach the inexperienced how to stay alive. TAC won’t allow us to participate – THAT is the problem. Capish?

Pitch Doctor,

Have you every thought that the TAC ads are designed to stop people becoming riders more than assist any new riders?

This would seem to reach their objective of reducing risk, by not having as many bikes on the road in the first place.

Its amazing how many people I talk to that tell me that they would love to ride bikes but they have promised loved ones that they would not.

Smiles, love your conspiracy theory. Probably the TAC got the same people who bogied up the moon landing.

John, my only vested interest is in common sense. Every advertisement can be improved, especially by amateurs.Every advertisement has ommissions, it helps keep the communication simple and therefore effective.

@Smiles, do speak up, we can’t quite hear you when you’re sitting down.

Pitch Dr,

I guess it’s up to the individual to decide how much of a stretch of the imagination the concept is.

Based on what I see and others I talk to its pretty easy to comprehend. I understand that not everyone would consider this, but just have a bit of a think about it for a minute.

Yet all this controversy has confirmed one thing in that the TAC has become political. This is unacceptable. The board and senior management must be removed.

Furthermore the ad may be unlawful in that the car driver must be able to judge vehicle speeds of up to at least 110 kph and in this instance he could not know what the speed limit was on the road the motorcycle was using.

The motorcycles speed of 68 kph was well within the speed range a licensed road user is expected to judge.

It would be a very naïve or silly person attempting to use case law in this situation.

Let’s take the second half of the ad, where the rider is travelling at 60km/h, and keep all other things equal except delay the car’s movement by just one second.

If the rider is as pathetically switched on as the advert portrays and takes a pathetic 1.5 seconds before he brakes to the same level as the supporting material purports… then our poor rider just smashed into the car at ***48km/h***. I’m sure that rider would like to thank the likes of the thesaurus abusing Groucho for the simplistically sage advice “slow down”. Hey Groucho, is that impact speed higher or lower than the impact speed shown on the ad?

Interestingly, if the rider had remained at 68km/h, not enough of the car would have entered the main road by the time the rider is level pegging with it, and the rider need only swerve to the right to create a reasonable buffer thus avoiding a painful grOUCHo. 🙂

LMAO! This has been fun. 🙂

Gee Rob do you get as much pleasure from playing with yourself as you do with numbers? Do you like being Smiles as much as you like being Rob?

Gee, guys, have you stopped to think that this is actually about the production company being party to a poorly composed ad that alienates the target audience?

If those responsible for this stop and listen, they might realise that they have failed miserably with something which is technically great, but functionally abysmal and deserves all the criticism that has ensued.

Next time (if there is a next time) use better market research, engage government approved motorcycle advisory groups and produce something that will work: not something that will be remembered in 3 or 6 months simply because it imparted the wrong message and demonised the target.

Groucho Groucho Groucho! Pleas do tell me what you drive!

It’s good to see that my post made sense to you, otherwise the sting of reality wouldn’t have caused you to fall out of that shaky high moral ivory tower you built for yourself. My work is done.

If it pleases you to think of me as smiles, so be it. The reality of this discussion about the short sighted and simple message that almost entirely misses the point, will still remain the same. The reality that you myopically defended it when the truth is much more complex, is your burden.

Cheers. 🙂

Hey Groucho,

I think you need to “up” your medication, is it true that you now you think I am Rob as well as Smiles…….

Also, you never confirmed your actual motivation for your brainless rant. I am sure a few of us would like to know.

BTW, I had great ride on the weekend!

Smiles you are starting to sound like a deadset parapoid bogan muppet. Please read other people’s posts before shooting off on a reactive tangent. I AM A MOTORCYCLIST. But one who can read, and comprehend, where you apparently are not so fortunate. Please go back to The Punch with your nanny state bleatings.

Hi Archie,

Thanks for the tips and enlightenment. Funny though, it seems that you may have the reading / comprehension issue.

Did you miss Groucho’s post, or didnt you undertand it (see below).

You seem quite angry too, maybe Groucho could lend you some of his meds……..

Groucho
4 May 12
6:20 pm

Gee Rob do you get as much pleasure from playing with yourself as you do with numbers? Do you like being Smiles as much as you like being Rob?

Smiles, I’m with Archie.

Glad you had a good ride on the weekend but you might want want to spend some quality time learning some thinking and debating skills too. I can recommend ‘Straight & Crooked Thinking’ by Thouless which you might find at your local library. That’s the place with books in it. You will need to take off your helmet though. And engage your brain.

And Rob what I drive is totally irrelevant to the discussion, but if you drive as badly as you and Smiles express yourselves I’m ordering a Saracen.

Groucho,

Still no explanation of your motivation…… I suggest you just keep up the diversions, this seems to make you feel very intelligent and important.

@Smiles if you read the book I recommended it will tell you that questioning a persons motivation in a discussion is one of the most common 38 dishonest tricks and is a clear indication you can’t counter the central argument. So, in the interests of a decent debate, get those lips moving and read the book. It’s 219 pages so you can get back to me in, oh, maybe 10 days? Do take longer if you need it.

do you always have to have the last say, Smiles?

Drivers will fail to give way to riders – it is the most common accident scenario – and when a collision results the speed of the rider will determine the extent of his injuries.

How is it that the TAC failed so miserably in delivering that simple message?

Because it failed to acknowledge the primary cause of the collision and placed all of the blame on the victim.

How hard would it have been to have the Policeman say “In this collision a driver failed to give way to an approaching rider” ? Would have done the trick, I think.

Archie and Groucho – Do you really understand what is going on here? Its not actually about the ad or its failings (be it that there are many) but the lies being spread by TAC about decisions they made to consciously not involve Expert Motorcycle riders in the design phase. I draw you attention to the Netrider Internet forum which is raging over this matter http://www.netrider.net.au/for.....ost2339175

In particular I draw you attention to the following which was posted on Netrider today:

Quote
Apparently the TAC has been saying that VMAG was briefed on the advert.

this is a straightout lie

To quote from Peter Baulch – VMC chair and VMAG member.

At the last VMAG meeting Jessica Truong (proxy rep) from TAC advised that a new “campaign” was under development. I personally queried when and by what process we (VMAG) would get to provide input, consultation, etc. I was very promptly informed that no such consultation would take place as the process they preferred was to use Focus Groups via a Marketing Company that thet retain for this purpose. I expressed my concern at the use of Focus Groups as they have long been discredited as too easily manipulated by the facilitator. This was met with a sharp rebuke.

I can absolutely agree that apart from the vague statement from the TAC that an advert was under development – we were not told when it would be released or anything of the nature of the advert.

Most of us assumed (correctly) that it meant that it would be something we wouldn’t like/approve of.”
UNQUOTE

What anyone involved in the production of this ad needs to realise is that their reputation is being questioned by riders. Why? Because TAC chose to exclude Rider Experts from the process. Had those Rider Experts been involved from the start – we would not be here arguing the merits of this Ad.

TAC have a problem, and the evidence is clear. I feel very sorry for anyone who is associated with the making of this ad and the marketers involved. Your reputation has been tarnished.

What the TAC should have done is won the confidence and support of the Riders Experts from Day One. In the end the design of the ad may have remained intact and the same message made – all be it even more persuasively, through the addition of additional qualified input by Expert Riders. You only have to look at the Alternate Ad that is now on You Tube to see what would have resulted had TAC chosen the right path in the first place.

John, do you really understand that you are spewing your bile on a marketing blog and frankly even those of us who are motorcyclists are really not that interested in the political machinations behind the making of the ad, just whether it’s an effective piece of communication?

you guys are lost on the interwebs and need to head back over to NetRider and elsewhere and stop picking fights on Mumbrella

you’re giving the impression that motorcyclists are aggressive which does your cause no good at all

Archie,

You are a true genious, you and your friend Groucho seem to post the most agressive comments and dont seem to be interested in any specialist feedback. You are right, we do seem to be wasting our energy on many of you marketing guru’s. Obviously you know best.

I have read some passionate informative and common sense comments by people that know a lot more than you on the topic of motorcycles and road safety.

Funny thing though, I also work in marketing and from what I can see, its pieces of work like you who give marketing a questionable reputation.

Happy days!

Archie says: “…those of us who are motorcyclists are really not that interested in the political machinations behind the making of the ad, just whether it’s an effective piece of communication?”

Who is the intended audience for this ad, and what is the message that it is supposed to communicate?

If riders are the intended audience, and the ad’s message is to persuade them that they will be much safer if they keep below the speed limit, the ad has failed. That’s because the assertions made in the ad are unpersuasive, and because the failure to pass any comment on the driver’s conduct makes the ad seem unfair.

But there’s a larger audience of course – people who’ve never ridden a bike, many of whom will be in a position to influence other people who ride or who are considering riding a motorcycle. If they are the intended audience, then the ad is likely to be a great success.

This audience isn’t in a position to dispute the assertions made in the ad, because they have no relevant experience of their own and haven’t been trained to ride a bike.

For these people, the message communicated by the ad is: “if you ride a bike and speed by only a small amount, you’re very likely to die”. The subtext of which is: “motorcycles are appallingly dangerous things, and people who ride them are foolish”. No responsible parent or spouse who accepts the ad at face value would be comfortable knowing that their child or partner rode a bike. They would probably try to dissuade them.

Observing that promulgating this message is in the financial interest of the organisation on whose behalf the ad was produced (TAC) isn’t buying into any kind of silly conspiracy theory. It’s simply a fact.

@Smiles given your rather rudimentary communication skills, and your clear lack of critical thinking ability I can only assume you are well down the food chain in marketing and not in danger of making any decisions. The use of focus groups is a much more reliable and useful tool than self appointed experts, always has been always will be.

To say all focus group moderators manipulate the process as hysterical John does is like saying all bikies are dumb fuckwits, and despite your best efforts we know this is not universally true.

John seems to think that the world conspires against him. As I remember from my post grad Psych studies the common name for this is paranoia. Its markers are as John behaves. There is another name for the belief that people actually give a shit what you say once you become an hysterical twat.

Happy days indeed. Such wit, such wisdom.

Very dubious deduction there Gromit, tinged by paranoia, with a touch of stupidity. If the spot fails to convince bikers to slow down then it will fail to convince non bikers of the need as well. You seem to be another self appointed expert, further proof that unqualified experts are useless, or worse. Being a bike rider no more makes you an expert on road safety than eating makes you a chef.

Then there is the question of danger. If bikes are so safe how come you never see them in the Doctors car park at the A & E depts at hospitals. Or in the staff parking at undertakers?

LMAO! Groucho, is derision truly all you have left? Surely you can work out the not-so-subtle reason why you were asked what you drive? No?

Pitch, so let’s slow the rider down to 60km/h and “change just one thing” – let’s make the car leave one second later… the resulting impact speed would be 48km/h. Delay that car by just over half a second instead and the impact speed is exactly the same as the ad. But hang on, the rider followed the advice?! How can there have been a prang? Seems that the advice is flawed then… and the rider is thanking you, grOUCHo and the TAC for their injuries. Good one.

@Pitch Doctor – Gromit is right on the money and I can prove it. I operate a motorcycle joyrides business, and from the comments that people make to me I can assure you that what they say is a mirror of what appears in the TAC Shock Ads. I have lost count of the number of people who have got on the back of my bike on a joy ride and had one point of view – only to have that view completely reversed after an hour in which I have been able to demonstrate how incorrect the TAC actually are in their ads.

I have even had many doctors on my bike – its been interesting to change their views too. There are many doctors who ride BTW. You and grOUCHo are really just trying to protect your turf. Let’s face it, you can do wonderful things with CGI – that make things look far worse then they actually are.

I am an expert – I have collected the knowledge – I speak to a lot of people (99% not motorcycle riders) and I can assure you that TAC and your industry is destroying my market…… I wish I was able to sue TAC and your industry to recover the business I am losing right now. And BTW before you accuse me – I have a 100% clean safety record as does every other rider operator in our industry. We are far safer than taxis and most car drivers. I wonder why? Could it be because we understand how to ride a motorcycle safely?

@ John : Congratulations on your 100% clean safety record. If all bike riders had your superior skills the TAC wouldn’t need a campaign. Unfortunately it seems they do.

I have a 100% safety record driving bikes, cars , small trucks, and tractors. Please advise where I apply to become an expert. Or do I just appoint myself?

@Pitch Doctor – If the TAC turned to me for advice, then perhaps they would be able to construct a better, more effective ad. But, TAC don’t turn to motorcycle riders like me. Even when I have taken ideas to them, they have ignored my input. Same thing goes for many other qualified riders like myself.

TAC prefer to rely on Focus Groups – rather than use both Expert Riders and Focus Groups. Read what I am saying – its not the message – its how they went about arriving at the product. In this case the product is sub-standard. Why? Because it could have said much more.

I’m not the only rider complaining about the TAC culture – I am one of many and it upsets me – a TAC Customer – that TAC are wasting the money I pay them on waste – when had they been more co-operative a better result would have been achieved.

If you are really a motorcycle rider, then I doubt that you would be expressing the views you are here. Just because you hold a motorcycle licence doesn’t qualify you. I meet many people who haven’t sat on a motorcycle for many years – or who ride their bikes rarely – they are not qualified, and I get the impression you are one of those people. You think you know – but you don’t : (

AJohn.

I, I, I, I, me, me, me, I, I, I, my, my, I, I, and here we all were thinking the earth revolves aroud the sun.

Pitch Doctor wrote: “Very dubious deduction there Gromit, tinged by paranoia, with a touch of stupidity”.

Thank you for your kind welcome to the forum.

Are you like this all the time, or only when you can get away with insulting someone without having to look them in the eye?

@Pitch Doctor Maybe I should have said, us,us,us,we, we,we. I did point out that my compliant is not made in isolation. At this very point in time the complaints I am posting here are being submitted to our politicians. Not by just me – but my many other riders, and groups that represent them. Looks like your Cash Cow might be about to die – because I know that is what it represents to the group responsible for the recent TAC ad : ) lol

I’m not the paranoid one Pitch Doctor. I’m just pointing out what others are saying and the critical mistakes that TAC have made : )

This video comes to mind 🙂 sticking to the speed limit won’t save your life!!
but don’t speed like an idiot either

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vfs5-TO5ro

Good article in the Age today. Says it all : ) http://www.theage.com.au/opini.....1yczr.html

A very interesting response to TAC here http://twowheelthrive.blogspot.....union.html

This is being read widely. I encourage mUmBRELLA to read it and take in the history that is outlined in the submission made to TAC.

“if you ride a bike and speed by only a small amount, you’re very likely to die”. The subtext of which is: “motorcycles are appallingly dangerous things, and people who ride them are foolish”.

er Gromit, i hate to tell you this buddy, but if you don’t understand that motorcycling is an inherently dangerous pursuit you are probably a moron

in the near-30 years i’ve been riding, from since when my daddy put me on a 50cc minibike, every time i get on my bike, which is everyday, i remind myself of just how vulnerable i am to the 1.5 tonnes of glass and steel whizzing around me, not to mention the telegpraph poles etc

the sense i have from you lost Netrider muppets is that you view the TAC ads as some sort of assault on your small and shrunken manhood.

Archie, you don’t get around much if you think this is a netrider issue.

Well, seems like you have the market cornered on riding prowess and riding intelligence, the muppets need your guidance. In your view, what is the key fundamental **roadcraft** message of and in the advert?

Seams to me this add says it don’t matter who’s fault it is , the FASTER you ride or drive the less time you have to REACT to any thing. The road is not a race track there are vehicles coming the other way . When I ride I’m always anticipating that there’s gonna be some fool doing some thing wrong and getting in my way, pulling out on me ,not looking and changing lines into me . Teaching my mates kids to drive they ask me how did you know that car was going to do that . I tell them I just expect them to do it so I’m ready when they do . That’s how I ride my bike, they do not look for, so they don’t see you . So you have to be on the look out for them and be ready to get out the way. You want to act like a fool on the road , just remember there’s always some one like you coming the other way .!!

PITCH Dr , I work in a hospital ,the OT , and I can tell you that many DOCTORS and SURGENS do ride bike as do I and many many other hospital workers at many hospitals . Don,t blame the bike for the accidents it’sthe idiots riding them or the idiots who crash in to them that are at fault .

As a critical care and aeromedical rescue doctor I have a strong interest in road safety promotion. As a doctor and a motorcyclist I was appalled by the TAC ‘Reconstruction’ ad. I lodged complaints with both the TAC and ASB and have been following the various responses online. I ended up here because I was interested to see how it was viewed from an advertising perspective but unfortunately most comments here seem to be ‘us vs them’.

I would have thought that there would have been more discussion here about the fact that the ad fails spectacularly in engaging it’s supposed target audience, has zero credibility among riders due to the glaringly contrived scenario and neglects to include even the most basic recognition of the fault of the driver.

While I do strongly disagree with the obsessive focus on speed as the CAUSE of crashes I don’t think that is the problem here. It is that the ad could be produced, reviewed and aired in a form that is so misguided. Could they really be so stupid or might there be another agenda here? I actually think Gromit’s thought has a lot of merit- that from a commercial point of view, it is in the TACs interests to discourage participation in motorcycling. When viewed from this perspective the ad is likely to be much more succesful. It is disturbing to think that motorcyclists are being forced to pay a levy which may be used to advertise in such a way!

For the marketers / advertisers here do you really think the TAC could miss the mark so badly if they really were intending this ad as a PSA for motorcyclists?

BTW- Pitch Doctor, it has been my experience that about 10% of critical care doctors (ED, ICU, Anaesthesia, Surgery) ride motorcycles compared with about 4% of the population. It may be that we are good at making complex risk/benefit decisions (and therefore aren’t so easily scared off) or maybe it’sjust that we see that life really is short, you can die from plenty of other things and that advanced old age is pretty unappealing…

Real Doc,

There are two “John’s” here: my post No 30 was along similar lines to yours and I agree with you. As an ex-HEMS helicopter pilot I also associate with your comment about decision making!

If this ad was genuinely intended to make motorcyclists safer on our roads, it has largely failed. This is most easily demonstrated by playing out the exact scenario as depicted in the ad, but set the speed limit at 70 instead of 60. The ad then depicts a motorcyclist travelling under the speed limit being killed when a car didn’t see them and pulled out, and offers no advice or information on how the accident could have been avoided, since the rider is not going above the speed limit.

If the ad is targeted at motorcyclists at all, it is clear that the writers and creators of the ad hold motorcyclists in contempt as being too stupid to establish a safe speed for the conditions.

It seems much more plausible then – to me at least – that the ad is targeted at the families and loved ones of motorcyclists, aiming to scare them enough that they will nag the rider in their family to stop riding altogether. I note that while the TAC claims to be trying to encourage riders to wear protective gear, this ad portrays a rider in full leathers being killed in a 30km/h collision.

Seems to me we have only two conclusions we can draw: either the ad is aimed at riders and has been incompetently and irresponsibly executed, or the ad is a rather clever and well executed dog-whistle campaign to instill fear into the families of riders in a backhanded play to recruit the husbands, wives, mums, dads, boyfriends and girlfriends of riders to the cause of discouraging riding altogether.

“Real Doc” has it right.
This ad sickens me as a rider. Riding with thought and skill far outweighs 8kph either way. I ride an R1 and have put around 45,000ks on it in and around Melbourne and I have seen some shockingly dangerous behaviour from a wide range of motorists, other bike riders, scooters, truck cars ect….
I give no care for a number on my dash, I ride to the conditions, aggressively at times to ensure I stay alive. This ideology that riding below the limit will somehow keep you alive is rubbish. Merely shows the average driver IQ of people on the roads out there. The hundred of variables are encountered on the road are only magnified on two wheels. TAC: Don’t dumb down your ads for morons. Keep that for those who disobey the simplest of rules: GIVE WAY.

A quote from a BBC piece on roadracers sums up how TAC missed the mark by so much

Sports psychologist Craig Mahoney, who has worked with competitors in a host of UK sports, considers that some of the traits that make an elite rider are innate and therefore self-selecting.

“People won’t enter the sport in the first place if they have a fear of hurting themselves or a fear of dying,” he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/n.....d/18074816

If you have a fear of hurting yourself or dying, you drive a car or catch the train.

@ David “Seams to me this add says it don’t matter who’s fault it is , the FASTER you ride or drive the less time you have to REACT to any thing.” Well that is true, in motherhood terms, but it’s hardly relevant to the advert. The truth is that over the quoted 49m, the difference would be 0.3seconds between the two speeds. Your message about dealing with numpties on the road is far more relevant.

I’ll say it again since the message doesn’t seem to be sinking in, if the rider was at 60km/h in the first place, and the car left just a half second later, a rider responding as poorly as shown in the advert would impact at the same speed, presumably with the same outcome. So how did the slow down message in the ad intrinsically help save motorcyclists or make them safer? Archie seems to have declined the invitation to share his knowledge on the matter.

Well said real Doc.

It seems to me that most people are missing the most important points here, which are:
1 – How effective has the ad been? Considering they claim to want to reach motorcyclists, it has been a failure. It is universally ridiculed by their target audience.
2 – Are the messages sound? Absolutely, slowing down will reduce injury levels and when you are dead, it matters not whether you are right or not.

So what went wrong? Quite simply, they did not communicate the message to their target audience effectively.

How did they stuff it up? They did not involve their target audience, or use opinion leaders that their target audience would listen to! People on this site have waffled on about marketing and here are 2 of the most basic principles in marketing that have been completely ignored.

the worst thing about this is that it is such a wasted opportunity. The graphics are great and would have cost a bundle. So much could have been achieved with this ad and they managed to totally stuff it up. That is why the TAC are held in such contempt and they deserve it!

You can argue conspiracy theories and faulty physics and appaling behaviour as much as you like. The bottom line is that the TAC failed in their objective and wasted our money and for this they need to be held accountable!

@Real Doc did you miss Psych 101 – the advt has not failed to engage at all. Anything but. In real life though all advertisements are somehow contrived. Real life fatal crashes are quite difficult to get talent to volunteer for, though there may be some potentials amongst the people who have posted on this topic. There does seem to be a feeling evident in the posts from bikers that they are somehow a special breed, somehow imbued with a rare and special wisdom that makes them smarter than the rest of the population. Get a life guys, you eat, sleep, travel and crap like the rest of the population. We are all road users who should respect each other, and expect each other to do stupid things. And real doc remember the old joke: the difference between God and a doctor is God doesn’t think he is a doctor.

“Real doc remember the old joke: the difference between God and a doctor is God doesn’t think he is a doctor”

Until he/she graduates from medical school, rightly so! 😉

Groucho, I can’t work out what you are trying to say about the TAC ad. When it is treated with complete disdain by motorcyclists (and is actually being used as a glaring example of the flaws in the speedcentric view of crash prevention!) how can it be seen to engage motorcyclists? If the target audience is, as others have suggested, non motorcyclists and those contemplating taking up riding then it sounds like it has hit the mark.

@Real Doc if you take the time to read the posts above you will find many posts from bike riders that support the advertisement and many that don’t. If you remove the conspiracy theorists, and the really batty ones that can’t possibly be serious, you get a reasonable balance between pro & con. I’d put my money on the reasonable supporters myself; thay seem less hysterical, more reasoned. In any event there has been considerable debate and interest.

For you to say that ‘they didn’t engage their target audience or consult opinion leaders…………… ‘ is really dumb. Where is your evidence of that? The people doing the TAC work have more experience and a better knowledge of the topic and of consumer communication than the self appointed experts here. Most of the ‘I’m a bike rider so I’m an expert’ argument is akin to I eat so I’m a chef, or as good as one. As for a Doctor’s opinion on advertising I welcome you to consult me when you need a diagnosis. My Masters and 30 years experience qualify me for medicine like your medical degree and experience qualifies you for advertising.

@Groucho Here is the true impact of the Ad. this comes from a post made today by a rider on an internet forum:

“Last night when watching Moto3 with my nine year old sitting next to me that ad came on . After the ad she asked me was I going to die. Well done TAC you frightened the life out of my nine year old and it took me 20 minutes of reassuring her that daddy wasn’t going to die just because he rides a motorbike. Maybe the ad needs a warning before it’s shown. Cant think of any other ad on TV that shows someone getting killed that would be allowed to be shown and all well before the 9pm watershed.”

Clearly Groucho – you and your advertising cronies have reached their target audience – not motorcycle riders – but children, parents, non-riders and people who don’t understand what it is really like to ride a motorcycle.

You and the cronies which you are trying to defend are guilty of brain washing those who don’t ride to believe something which is so flawed as to be laughable. The Ad will be “outed” this week by Australian Motorcycle News who have gone to the effort to prove that the physics asserted in the Ad are actually wrong.

Have a look at this youtube clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVJxmArWAA&feature=g-upl

This following is being circulated on Facebook with the link to this clip:

“I don’t condone speeding, but I don’t condone lying either.

TAC Maths:
A hazard appears 49 metres in front of you. At 70km/h you will still be doing 37km/h at the end of that 49 metres, slamming into the hazard.

My Experience Maths:
I am travelling at 89km/h, and an obstacle appears in front of me. I stop in 3.1 seconds, covering 39 metres, stopping 10 metres short of TAC’s hazard.

If you watch the video, please note the emphasis on being able to do a quick take-off even if you’re not in first gear (after the second stop). in 2011, 11% of the motorcycle fatalities were hit from behind by another vehicle. So once you’ve avoided the hazard in front of you, be ready to evade the hazard behind you if need be.”

@Groucho, I appreciate the attention you are paying to our complaints. It doesn’t end here – we here are but several of the thousands outraged by what TAC has done.

Wooot! Groucho is back! He took time out to rebuild the ivory tower and is right back to spout derision from it’s lofty heights while somehow remaining immune from the generalisations lavished upon all others. But we still have no answer to the question, “What do you drive?”. Groucho, have you worked out why we want to know yet?

Just on the point about the contrived nature of the ad, I note that the pic used on the billboard has the bike and rider in the centre of the frame. But hangon a minute, the bike catapaulted to the left and ended up near the gutter… how do the laws of physics explain the bike ending up in the centre of the picture? I guess the TAC and production changed just one thing… the laws of physics. lol

Yes, indeed, the ad was contrived from start to finish. It’s a spectacular failure and a colossal waste of money.

Wow Groucho, that’s some insightful criticism you make there. I like the ‘is really dumb’ line particularly. Punchy, and professional… you should work in advertising.

Where’s the evidence that the ad hasn’t engaged the target audience or consulted with riding representatives? Every motorcycling forum I’m a member of for one. The petitions and facebook pages set up to try and get the TAC talking to representatives of the motorcycling community for two. Consultation with riders would have revealed the errors in the physics (3) and identified the fact that presenting these errors as fact and defending them would cause riders to turn off to the message of the ad (4). Scripting the ad as a SMIDSY yet exonerating the driver of any responsibility in the accompanying information on the spokes site is guaranteed to alienate riders (5), and placing the emphasis on the financial cost of motorcyclists to the TAC rather than on the tragic loss of life of motorcyclists is (6).

Using an outdated study in scripting the ad is (7) and then vehemently defending this position when publicly challenged in the Herald Sun is (8).

In fact, short of decapitating a few kittens, it’s hard to think of what could be changed in the ad to make it worse from the perspective of effectively communicating with riders.

So how did they manage to put out an ad which any rider could have told them would be received so extremely poorly? Either they didn’t ask (failure to consult) or they did ask and didn’t care – which either goes to failure to engage with the riders as the target audience, or highlights that riders themselves were not the target audience of this ad.

So Groucho, what’s your evidence that they did consult with the appropriate representatives of the riding community, and that they did engage with their target audience?

I wasn’t going to bother posting here again but I’ll merely repeat part of the previous TAC comments from 2009 that Chris Lowe made.

I’ll also remind you of the comment from George Santayana :
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” And that’s just what’s been happening.

And by the way Groucho, there are a lot of motorcyclists around who have Masters Degrees as well. A meeting I was at yesterday had five of them – and two of them even in media and communications – none of them (even the most conservative) thought the TAC ad was either effective or useful.

Chis Lowe wrote in https://mumbrella.com.au/safety-ad-treats-bikers-like-drinkers-and-drug-users-10745
It looks like the TAC doesn’t care for motorcyclists: it doesn’t feel like an ad from an organisation with riders’ interests at heart. It puts motorcyclists in the same bucket as drink-drivers and drug abusers. And because it doesn’t engage its audience in a positive way, it’s already failed.

Motorcyclists, instead of being receptive to critical safety messages, are ostracised. And car drivers, whose attitudes towards two-wheelers of any description are notoriously negative, are now given official sanction to believe that all motorcyclists are hoons or speed freaks.

It’s not clear whether this strategy came from the TAC, or was developed in conjunction with Grey. But whoever created it has made an expensive miscalculation.

I don’t know how much the ad cost to make, but it looks like $250,000 down the drain to me.

•Chris Hunter is the Direct Creative Director at Lowe Sydney

Oh yes groucho, “self-appointed”?

Please tell that to the Minister for Transport who appointed me to the Motorcycle Advisory Group and you are not “self-appointed” to the Commonwealth Dept of Infrastructure’s Motorcycle Safety Consultative Committee.

Or even the most recent work of the Belgian organisation “Transport & Mobility – Leuven”s work on Motorcycle Commuting where I’m cited. I could probably persuade my friend Professor Marcus Wigan to post here – if he could be bothered – since he’s in complete agreement. But then he only happens to have 50n years otorcycling experience and is a highly regarded international expert on motorcycles (and bicycles). Or for that matter Peter Ivanoff, the expert I cited earlier who is Academic Director at the Goulburn Police Academy of Charles Sturt University and is an expert in road trauma.

But they aren’t marketing people – only real experts.

Groucho,

Your “I have an MA and your opinion is rubbish” attitude does you no good whatsoever, and is indicative of the TAC mantra of denigrating motorcyclists and refusing to engage with their target. My flying for the advertising media has spanned some 28 years, including TAC ads, and I’m well aware of the issues involved.

But the end result of this advert is that is has ostracised the motorcycle community and (if they are truly the target) totally failed to engage them/us. Any attempt to claim otherwise shows tunnel vision and an unprofessional regard for your industry.

Good luck in your future endeavours.

@Tony Ellis if you actually paid attention to a post instead of bursting into print you might be a more useful and credible advocate. My comment about my Masters was in relation to Real Doctor using his title of Doctor of Medicine to support expertise on advertising. It has absolutely fuck all to do with the education of motor bike riders. Their education was never mentioned, inferred, and nor is it relevant. And I’m sorry to disappoint you but not every member of every consultative commitee is there because they are useful. Since you want to quote Santayana let me quote Tsun Tzu;’ Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer’ A philosophy wisely followed by many a Ministers advisor. Which are you, friend or enemy?

(edited under Mumbrella’s content moderation policy)

Nice to see you back too @Rob. You are yet to make a useful or valid point, but at least you’re here.

Not sure why anyone is bothering to reply to this groucho character. His arguments are pathetic and when he thinks he is losing resorts to personal insults. He hasn’t the balls to show his real name and there is no way to verify his claims of having riden for 40 years. Probably a 12 year old, talking absolute rubish and enjoying the responses. Don’t waste your time.

There you go, he is the only one to have his content edited under the content moderation policy. If he drives like he speaks, god only help us.

So I might just be feeding the trolls here but, since Groucho singled me out for attention, I’ll reply.

Groucho, you criticise me for presuming to have credibility in discussing advertising based on my medical qualifications when I think I was quite clear in my original post that I was specifically seeking the opinions, in relation to this TAC campaign, of those who were actually qualified to discuss advertising. All I bring to this discussion is the motivation of someone who has been soaked in the blood of young men and women dying because of road trauma and (like John the EMS pilot will also be familiar with) put my own life on the line to get to and look after people horribly injured in car and bike crashes. I don’t claim any knowledge about the creative process or decision making in an ad like this but I do think I can recognise when it has totally missed the mark and do despair for how the money that went into this ad could have been more constructively spent.

I came to this site hoping to get an insight into how this ad was seen by the community of it’s creators. I think I knew the EFFECT of the ad (derision, disdain and ridicule from the ‘target’ audience) but I asked questions about the CAUSE (from people, suitably qualified to address such concerns) as in why such a seemingly misguided ad would have been created and aired.

I hope you are not representative of the advertising community but if others are as defensive, adversarial, insightless and lacking in basic comprehension skills as you seem to be then, presumably, I have the answer I came looking for.

Thanks for the mention grOUCHo. I have no doubt that only those that shared your tunnel vision, have in your estimation, made useful contributions. Those of use out in the sunlight shouldn’t have held any optimistic hopes that you’d see the light… oh well, sucks to be you. 🙂

By the way, have you worked out why I’ve been asking what you drive? Come on mate, it’s becoming conspicuous that you’re ignoring the question.

I guess a marketing degree and advertising experience would absolutely ensure that the likes of marketing gurus like grOUCHo, always know best and have the right methods to get a message across… oh wait… can anyone say, Sony BetaMax… or IBM PCjr… or New coke… or KFC free chicken… or Edsel… or iSnack 2.0. Yep, that ivory tower is soooo high and the cognitive dissonance soooo strong, grOUCHo thinks he flatulates in pastel colours.

Woot, this is fun 🙂

It is just possible that in the shrieking hysteria of the orchestrated campaign against the TAC by people looking for their 15 minutes of fame, or pushing their self indulgent amateur blogs there are some grains of wisdom. Unfortunately, as often happens, the few spoil it for the many. Many riders on this thread have disagreed with the posts of those who dishonestly purport to represent them and they are ignored. The response of the self appointed experts is either abuse, or an attempt to drown the discussion in statistics, the posting equivalent of shouting over the people talking. Even tragedies are brushed aside such is the determination of some to push their own agenda. It would be nice to see the everyday bike riders of Victoria rise up against these thieves of their opinions, these pretenders to authority but they probably think they are not really worth bothering about. Perhaps the TAC agrees with them. A well reasoned argument will get attention and respect. Hysteria never will. Ever.

@Rob, if you read my earlier posts you would have seen that I now drive a car. Many of the posts on this thread have been written by people so eager to hear their own voice they don’t even read what they are responding to………………………. That would be why I haven’t responded to your question wouldn’t it? The other reason would be that what I drive is a matter of stunning indifference to everybody except, apparently, you.

And why a car and not a bike? You might find the reason in para 2 of Real Docs last post above.His vivid description of being soaked in the blood of young men and women at the roadside might give you a clue. The TAC should use him in their commercials then you would disown him too and accuse them of trying to stop people riding bikes wouldn’t you?

Groucho- comprehension fail (again). I wrote about “young men and women dying from road trauma” not specifically motorcycle related.

I see far more people killed and injured in CAR crashes.

I give up. Posting here was a stunning waste of time since everyone seems to want to play the man not the ball.

@Real Doc here is a cut & paste of what you wrote above: ‘ look after people horribly injured in car and bike crashes. ‘ The comprehension fail, it would seem is yours. Giving up is probably wise.

Try again Groucho:
…”soaked in the blood of young men and women dying because of road trauma”

If the subject matter wasn’t so tragic that would just be too funny…

@ Real Doc don’t be a complete twat you wrote both lines.

Groucho,

The audience is speaking.

Welcome to 2012.

Someone please tell me that Groucho is NOT involved in the decision making/production of the TAC ads.

Please?

@John, hopefully attention to detail is not a requirement for a good helicopter driver because I made it quite clear earlier in this thread that I had no association with TAC.

@archie wrote:

“er Gromit, i hate to tell you this buddy, but if you don’t understand that motorcycling is an inherently dangerous pursuit you are probably a moron…”

and:

“the sense i have from you lost Netrider muppets is that you view the TAC ads as some sort of assault on your small and shrunken manhood.”

Motorcycling is more dangerous than travelling by car, or taking public transport. Your safety as a rider requires you to constantly manage risk, and be particularly alert to road conditions and the behaviour of other road users.

Not being a moron, I do my utmost to ensure my own safety when I ride. I manage the risk to the best of my ability, in other words. This is an active and rewarding process.

I don’t post on Netrider, nor do the TAC ads have anything to do with my manhood, shrunken or otherwise.

Now…feel free to address the substance of my earlier post if you have anything constructive to say. But keep your insults to yourself.

@Groucho – John’s question was around the production of the TAC ads. A simple yes or no would suffice.

Another spectacular failure of comprehension from grOUCHo. I asked WHAT you drive. It’s a pretty simple question. pwned! 🙂 Also the question was whether you were involved with the advert, and your answer was you have no association with the TAC. Not quite a direct answer is it. Comprehension failure?? So if we have to draw the bow, we can say that you are in advertising, maybe had something to do with the ad, but no direct relationship with the TAC? So you were the coffee boy for the director then?

Interesting how grOUCHo focussed on the point about the car and not the point about the spectacular failures that litter the history of well healed marketing gurus with expert qualifications on their walls. I’ll assume that silence on the latter establishes agreement that marketing folks can sometimes get it wrong. This ad is one of those examples, reinforced by the physics failures and the handful of continuation errors when you look closely. Can we draw a line in the sand about this point at least then?

Pitch Doctor, the “shriek” is required. Even those that think the ad has a good message are taking away a message OTHER than the one the TAC and the guru’s intended. Haven’t you picked that up yet? The advert has reinforced to those riders that liked the spot, that they need to watch out for idiots on the roads and that they need to maintain better braking skills. Were those the key take home messages?? How does the physics punch line relate to those take home messages? Pitch doctor, I look forward to your response. But I think we have well established that the ad has failed even to deliver it’s key message.

Can we finally draw the line in the sand then, that this ad was a failure on all counts except the count of creating bad press?

@Pitch Doctor and @Groucho I just picked up this months copy of Australian Motorcycle News. I suggest that you both go out and pick up a copy and read it for yourselves. They have shredded the TAC ad, and demonstrated where TAC got almost everything wrong. To quote AMCN, “This was the product of a misinformed ad agency, and hasn’t resulted in anything that could help riders avoid crashing. The underlying “if you ride bikes, you will die” tone didn’t help either.”

If you two can’t accept that this ad is a total failure, and that it is doing more damage that good, then you are defending the indefensible…….

Also, there is a separate article – where a rider had a SMIDSY – at 50 kph. How did that happen? He was riding slowly – yet a car driver still took him out. You both need to read that too!!!!!!!

@Tony Ellis don’t be silly, John’s question was intended to cast doubt on the validity of my argument by suggesting I had a role in the campaign in some way. You are either remarkably naive, or you are being disingenuous too.

@ Rob you also try to discredit my argument by inferring I have some relationship with some aspect of the campaign. I don’t in any way. My interest is in minimising the harm that self appointed quasi experts like you do in undermining campaigns like this. You either try to drown the audience in statistics, or undermine arguments by challenging peoples associations rather than their arguments. This is always done by people whose argument itself is insufficient even in their own view.

Just because you, and a few of the hysterical bikers you have rounded up don’t like the campaign does not make it a failure. There is plenty of support for it on this post including that from bike riders. It has been well supported on other blogs as well.

In situations like this vociferous critics always make more noise than supporters as you should know as one of their organisers. Most bike riders just accept the need for care and ride on . They don’t care what you think and they certainly have not asked or authorised you to speak on their behalf.

It is easy to campaign against accepted wisdom, to ridicule broad messages like this. It is easy to stand on a metaphorical corner and wave your arms around. Much harder to do something useful though.

“He never did anything, but he stopped lots of people who tried” is not the epitaph most people would want.

I do though like this quote from your post above :” The advert has reinforced to those riders that liked the spot, that they need to watch out for idiots on the roads and that they need to maintain better braking skills.” Seems to me that even you are acknowledging it has done some good…………………..

@ John (the one who posted first) Australian Motor Cycle News has a penetration of less than 5% of bike riders in Australia so it might just not be representative of their opinion don’t you think? One writer for the magazine, possibly one of the shrieking hysterics here, carries no more weight than any of the others who have posted here.

As far as straws go this may not be a good one to grasp.

Groucho said: “@Tony Ellis don’t be silly, John’s question was intended to cast doubt on the validity of my argument by suggesting I had a role in the campaign ”

@Groucho – one straight question with a yes or no answer – did you have any sort of connection, direct or indirect, with this campaign, whether with the writing, producing or anything else?

That’s what you’ve been asked several times and you keep dodging the answer.

@Groucho you know at the heart of it all, you are right.

What we here are most upset about is not ‘the message” but the way the TAC went about putting the ad together. Get a copy of AMCN and read it to see what I mean.

What TAC did was to exclude a group of experts, whose knowledge would have improved the production and impact of the ad. Also, they would have picked up the critical mistakes and corrected them before the ad was released.

The TAC have made enemies of a group of experts who should be their allies and supporters. By excluding these experts the motorcycle media is now encouraging riders to ignore the TAC altogether. What is the value in that? TAC should have involved everyone from day one. United everyone, so that everyone was singing off the same sheet of music. But they did not. That is why we are such big critics. We have grouped you in with them…….because you support them….. Get it now?????

@ John (the one who doesn’t try to impress us with his occupation) At the heart of it you are right too. If the TAC didn’t consult with the stakeholders they made a tactical error. They may not have done it differently, who knows, but they might at least have cpped less flak. The problem is often getting the experts to agree, and I suspect this might be the case here.

@Tony Ellis the answer is NO. Just as it has been every time I have answered this question. I have no connection with the TAC, no connection with any organisation that does in any way shape or form. My only connection is with reality and common sense. There lies a difference between us doesn’t it? Not taking no for an answer is a bad bad characteristic. I have never dodged the question. You on the other hand are letting your suspicion get in the way of logical thought. And in the way of actually putting a sensible argument.

At 140 comments, I haven’t digested the main themes here…!

…but has anyone noticed the SupaCheap auto ads now running that show a car driver “thinking once, thinking twice, thinking bike” before he pulls out into the path of a motorcyclist?

As a biker it made me think pretty favorably about the company. Nice timing.

@141
that is probably in response to the hosing they received from bike riders for this doozie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7_0_rQjujU
have boycotted the brand since it went to air, I may change my mind based on this.

Another spectacular comprehension failure from grOUCHo.

The stats and numbers are applicable because the advert is a fail. All your finger in your ears, nanananananaaa won’t change that. I would support an advert that’s consistent with riding reality and giving a message that riders can engage with. I’m interested in rider safety too, but not at the expense of telling the world, “If you’re a rider and you speed, you deserved to die, even if someone else is at fault.”. No mate, you can take that message and shove it right up your tunnel vision.

The vociferousness relates to the level of and extent of the flaws in the advert – that’s a pretty simple relationship that even you should be able to fathom.

The take home message that some riders got out of the ad was not the one that was intended by the ad’s makers. Savvy? That by definition implies a total failure of the intent of the advert. The message was “slow down”, the one received was “watchout for the f’ckwit drivers”. The fact that you’re happy to claim any crumb of positiveness as a success speaks volumes about you finally accepting the spectacular failure that this advert truly is.

Well done for finally coming around. 🙂

@Rob , Einstein famously said that doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is insanity. Since the beginning of this debate you have trotted out the same crap argument, just rephrased. Your case hasn’t moved forward, you havent responded to any argument, just waved your arms about. Well mostly one arm. not sure what the other one is doing.The stats and numbers you quote in your analysis of speeds and whether or not the scenario in the spot is mathematically precise are just a waste of good letters and numbers. You completely fail to understand the big picture and continue to be immersed in some stupid vendetta against the TAC. You have not countered a single point made by any of the posts supporting the spot. By all means exercise your modest ability, but your estimation of your own adequacy is delusional.

In the end you do a disservice to the bikers you are trying to support by using up any good arguments so the TAC write you off as a nutter. Your heart might be in the right place, you might look like a fighter for the cause to some of the less eloquent of your peers but really you don’t and won’t cut it with the people that count.

Each time you post I look forward to unwrapping the present , but each time it turns out to be another hankie from Grandma.

You have been amongst some worthy opponents here whose arguments might be useful to the TAC. Being amongst them doesn’t make you worthy though, just there. Kind of like a commercial break really. Time to have a piss while it is on.

Keep trying, keep trying, don’t be too discouraged, you might come right.

Oi Groucho, stop nicking my patronising ripostes.

Bwaahahahahahahahaaaa 🙂 That’s awesome! You don’t understand the numbers so you have to undermine them by making sound bites. You are a marketing person through and through. It’s almost like you are a marketing characterture. That is GOLD! And the swipes at me – half hearted smoke screens that underline your own failed attempts to make a case. Love it.

Say what you like about the numbers bud, or question my expertise to use them (dangerous tactic given your own appeal to your own authority throughout the disussion), but bland derisions emphasise that you don’t have a clue what they mean and that just exposes a rather significant glass jaw. …and to top it off, we STILL don’t know what you drive. lol.

It’s fascinating that you made reference to the big picture… because the ad fails spectacularly to address the big picture. The majority of metro motorcycle injury crashes are the fault of the other vehicle. Yet the punch line of the ad is very tiny and flawed. Even the riders taking away a glimmer of a positive message are taking away one that’s unrelated to the final punch line. I note you conveniently ignored that reality.

So here’s a serious question for you grOUCHo. What in your view is the big picture message? You have the stage – try not to lead with the glass jaw. 🙂

@Rob – Easy tiger …

I’m pretty sure there are serious marketing people who would be offended by being lumped in with groucho. 😉

@Ross Daws ……………and there are serious bike riders that are offended by being lumped in with @Rob.

And perhaps by being told how to ride their bikes on a blog by someone with only 3 years experience.

@Rob don’t be so bloody lazy, look back over the posts and you can see what I think what the big picture message is. You even staed it in one of your earlier posts. Do you really oppose it or do you just not have anything better to do?

@Groucho – oh mate you’ve made my morning 🙂

I’m fortunate that the riders who read my blog actually _read_ it. They recognise that I’m sharing my opinions and experience, not telling anyone else how to ride. They’re also mature enough that when they disagree with me, they make their arguments cogently and coherently, and we discuss the facts of the matter like adults. And you know what? Sometimes I’m wrong, and people change my mind about things. Soemtimes I change theirs. Most times we agree that we value different things, and that the question at hand is one we are unlikely to ever agree on.

I suspect that is the conclusion I’ll come to about your position groucho. I value intelligent debate and discussion; I’m open to wrestling with facts, even uncomfortable ones; I’m willing to have someone change my mind about an issue if they can convince me I’m wrong, or even just show me a different way of looking at the issue. So I’m pretty sure we value completely different things.

@Marketing / Advertising people:

There’s certainly been a strong, negative reaction to this ad by a number of motorcyclists; whether that number is the majority, minority or the lunatic fringe I don’t think has been qualified yet.

My question is though, does that impact whether the ad is seen as being good or bad, successful or unsuccessful, from a marketing / advertising perspective? This sort of ad that is aimed at delivering a public safety message – what are the metrics that you evaluate it by? Is open outrage more “successful” than quiet consent, for example?

Ross,

“There’s certainly been a strong, negative reaction to this ad by a number of motorcyclists; whether that number is the majority, minority or the lunatic fringe I don’t think has been qualified yet.”

Well put, but when the VMAG (Government appointed advisory body), VMC, MRA (Vic), Ulysses, BMWMCCV and a significant online majority are all of the same opinion that the advert failed to connect with the target audience, I would put it at a majority. The apparent refusal by the TAC and by contributors to this discussion will not change that unless and until there is proper and comprehensive consultation with that target.

that was the purpose of the VMAG, which has been ostracised by the TAC and by the advertising agency.

@ John,

thanks, that is helpful. The only hard number I have available to me are the number of signatories on the petition I set up to get the TAC to engage with the real issues of motorcycle safety:

https://www.change.org/petitions/tac-victoria-get-real-about-rider-safety

That number stands at 1040 today, which is not insignificant, yet is at most 1% of the license and permit holders in the state. Based on that I have to leave room for the possibility that I am, in fact, part of the lunatic fringe 😀 But I don’t think that is the case 😉

GrOUCHo, what would your touted book say about your arguing style on here?? Hmmm… let’s have a look at the chaff, see whether we can find some wheat.

Derision,
Derision,
Name calling, personal attack
A comment about the ad’s message, derision, personal attack
Derision, apathy
Derision
Derision
Derision
Personal attack
Derision, personal attack
Self delusion, accepts the ad is contrived, derision
Delusion, delusion, ignorant, Self-Aggrandising appeal to qualifications
Unacceptable personal attack censored by mumbrella, personal attack
Derision
“helpful” advice…
Name calling, personal attack
Personal attack
Personal attack, derision, Self-Aggrandisement
A possible genuine argument
Finally acceptance of TAC’s tactical error, derision, Self-Aggrandisement
Derision, personal attack
Derison.

Hmmmm… how many common errors does that laundry list tick? LMAO! Quite a bit of playing the man there too… what’s the number of that common error? By your own word then, “…dishonest tricks and is a clear indication you can’t counter the central argument.” Pot / Kettle. lol

You’ve thrown many stones about comprehension failures, but not only do you have a glass jaw, you live in a glass house.

From your point of view, the big picture message is if you ride more slowly and hit something, you’re more likely to survive. On the surface of it, there’s truth in that, but unfortunately it was my mistake to use numbers you can’t comprehend to respond and highlight the critical flaw in that message, while Dave on the other hand, made a cogent argument about this “message” which you roundly ignored or failed to comprehend… so I think that pretty well spells out the measure of the kind of man you are. It’s been fun. 🙂

There’s one positive in all of this, apparently grOUCHo doesn’t live in Victoria – which means that there is one less f’ckwit to look out for on our roads. 🙂

@Ross – I’m sorry, I did sully some good marketing people. As punishment I’ll watch some ads tonight.

@Ross Dawes you are being too hard on yourself and others by suggesting you are part of a lunatic fringe. In my view I think most of the critics are too hard on the advertisement and see prejudice against bikers that just isn’ there.You won’t ever get the statistical proof you seek because the right original measurements aren’t made, and the petition is not likely to get critical mass because petitions rarely do.

I am in The Hunter Valley in NSW doing some focus groups and on the drive up I stopped at a tiny valley hamlet where about 20 bikers had stopped for a break. I had a most enjoyable chat, got a tour of their well turned out bikes, admired their riding gear and wished I was riding with them. They were in their 50′ & 60’s and despite the cold , damp weather, were as happy a bunch of blokes you would ever see. I hope they stay safe by being cautious, and never being the victims of fuckwits in cars.

I enjoy the debate here, but never let it be seen as a lack of repect for the bikers, or of concern for their welfare.

@Groucho As others have said, there’s a fair bit of history leading up to the outbursts against this ad. If the current outrage were the result of only this one campaign, then I could understand how it might appear that we’re all tinfoil hat wearing loonies.

Anyway, I wouldn’t have ordinarily posted, but wanted to thank you in particular for your last post. It warmed my heart to read that despite having a difference of opinions with some of the riders here, you might actually care.