Hinch Labels Latest TAC Ad Deceptive!! - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars

928GTS · 07-21-2003, 03:27

Here is an email account NMAA's Michael Lane interview with Derryn Hinch 3AW Melbourne this afternoon during the Melbourne peak hour!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NMAA/
Re: [NMAA] TAC speed advert a tragic lie - NMAA media release

"Did an interview with Derryn Hinch just after 5. (At MJB's request - ie he dobbed me in! Seriously I don't mind as I am probably one of the few who will not be at work or driving home at the time) It was very short but DH was strong on the deceptiveness of the ad. He did say that the girl had been advised by the TAC not to go on the program withdrawing at the last minute.

I was able to emphasise the deceptiveness pushing the real circumstances and that the conditions, very wet after a dry, were not only extremely different to the ad but would fit the very descriptive German comment of "Summer Ice". We talked about it being like black ice and with bald tyres the level of control was similar. Talked about the over-emphsis on speed and that speed was the cause of less than 10% of crashes. Also by putting emphasis on speed and neglecting the other causes we have a plateau in the road toll. Gave TAC a serve for being deceptive and that this means the (real) message is lost and they fall into disrepute.

The above is the best of my memory - I should have a tape recorder.

MFL"

I can assure you all that Hinch had a number of emails over the weekend regarding this Ad. The issue is far from over as a number of media outlets, politicians have been contacted.

Steve · 07-21-2003, 06:33

Hooray at last. Let's all keep the pressure on and notify the media of any bulls**t on the TAC's part every chance we get. Good work 928GTS.

JC-XR8 · 07-21-2003, 06:42

And we should all thank fte22 for bringing this to our attention.

928GTS · 07-21-2003, 14:27

It is very apparent that the TAC has major crediblity issues.
It is understandable that Rachel Roberts was not available to be interviewed by Hinch. Ms Roberts has more than suffered enough, however the TAC could simply publish her accident report, omit the boyfriends name or that of the witnesses. The TAC would then restore credibility in this particular ad. The likelyhood of this occuring is more remote than finding WMDs in Iraq!

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E2862,00.html

TAC defends speed ad
By PETER MICKELBUROUGH, state politics reporter
22jul03

THE latest Traffic Accident Commission commercial urging motorists to slow down has been branded a tragic lie.

National Motorists' Association Australia secretary Jim Wright claims speed was not the key cause of an accident that injured a woman in the advertisement.
Mr Wright has called for the ad, which features crash victim Rachel Roberts, to be withdrawn immediately.
Mr Wright said the commercial glossed over the real cause of Ms Roberts' accident to claim it was caused by the driver going 5km/h over the speed limit.
The TAC yesterday rejected Mr Wright's claim, saying police and witnesses had identified speed as a major contributing factor.
Mr Wright said Ms Roberts' own words, on the State Government-sponsored Teenagers' Road Accident Group website, revealed that driver inexperience and bald tyres in t conditions were the "real cause" of the accident.
Ms Roberts was 28 at the time of the 1998 crash.
"It was around 1pm and a very hot day and then it started to pour with rain," Ms Roberts says on the website.
"My boyfriend was still on his P plates, so he was inexperienced, and he had bald tyres on the car. My dad and my future brother-in-law had been telling him to get new tyres on his car."
TAC road safety general manager David Healy said that while it had been spitting earlier in the day, a police accident report said it was not raining at the time of the crash.
Mr Healy said photographs of the crash did not suggest the tyres were bald and this was not mentioned in the police report.
Although Ms Roberts does not mention speed on the website, Mr Healy said the police accident investigation report said it was a key contributor.
Witnesses believed the car was travelling at 5-6km/h above the 70km/h speed limit.
Mr Healy said the ad was part of a long-term campaign and would not be withdrawn.
"We have no doubt that speed was a major contributing factor," he said.
But Mr Wright, who has not seen the police report or spoken to Ms Roberts, said the ad was a disgrace.
He said the NMAA believed excessive focus on speed was taking attention from other more important factors, such as the need for better driver education.
Ms Roberts was injured after her boyfriend's car slammed into a tree after failing to take a bend on the Warrandyte-Ringwood Rd.

Casper · 07-21-2003, 19:26

So Mr Healy is calling her a liar? That her comments about the rain and bald tyres are false? And the fact that the police report (which has not been made avaliable) said it was speed, so it must be speed, is his best excuse?

What a dropkick... way to boost up credability Mr Healy.

Cheers,

VH-PBC · 07-21-2003, 19:51

A bunch of scape-goating people they are, all in the name for an extra buck or $400 million.

fte22 · 07-21-2003, 22:58

Well, you're welcome JC, you really are, because none of you have the balls to say anything about this away from your precious computers and it's quite funny watching some of you carry on. Just shows that you're narrow mind wouldn't have even listened to anything that was on the commercial, you'd just dismiss it and fuse yourself to your bigotted views. They need to make a 'whinge about speeding' lounge so you can all whinge like a bunch of wankers about why people that speed shouldn't be fined for breaking the law. If you don't know what the words speeding and law mean then that says it all doesn't it.

Grunter · 07-21-2003, 23:48

I have few problems with the laws regarding speeding, more the way they are implemented and the reasons given why they are implemented. If I'm doing 75 in a 70 zone, as it stands now, if I get pinged fair enough, I should know better.

The two things I disagree with most, are firstly the 3km over and your out law, and secondly the way the money from the fines are used.

The 3k's over, purely because it doesn't seem to match up with Aussie standard differences on Speedos. If the manufacturers had to make their speedos more tolerant, and all cars doing 70kph were doing a true 70kph, then fair enough.

If government were really concerned about reducing lives lost on the roads, why not inject all moneys from the fines into paying for advanced driver education? Teach drivers the concequences of travelling on a road at 75 kph in the rain just after a hot day, with bald tyres. Not just that you'll get fined for doing 5kph over the speed limit.

Speeding is not the primary reason for the road deaths, it's drivers inexperience to drive within their abilities, and the law, within any given situation. Understanding why doing 75kph, hell even 70kph, on a wet road is the wrong thing, makes more sense to me than nailing a driver for doing 73kph in the dry.

Hope that made sense to someone, because I just confused the hell out of me.

fordfan351 · 07-22-2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by fte22

Well, you're welcome JC, you really are, because none of you have the balls to say anything about this away from your precious computers and it's quite funny watching some of you carry on. Just shows that you're narrow mind wouldn't have even listened to anything that was on the commercial, you'd just dismiss it and fuse yourself to your bigotted views. They need to make a 'whinge about speeding' lounge so you can all whinge like a bunch of wankers about why people that speed shouldn't be fined for breaking the law. If you don't know what the words speeding and law mean then that says it all doesn't it.

How can you condescend to know what we say away from our computers?

I think it could be you who has the narrow mind, what makes you so right and the rest of us so wrong, what gives you the right to refer to any of us as whinging wankers simply because we do not share your beliefs. It only demonstrates your inability to construct an intelligent rebuttle and also your intolerence and contempt towards the oppinion of other members of this forum, which are just as entitled to there opinion as you are.

Maybe you should accept that not everyone agrees with your views, and if so avoid replying in threads of that nature, rather than making sweeping genralisations regarding who we are.

And FYI a friend of mine died in a motor accident when I was 19, he, from the report of the surviving party, fell asleep at the wheel, yet the news played out a tragic tale of a speed related multiple fatality.

At the time this upset me greatly, but it angered me at the same time because Jarrod had been depicted as a hoon who was driving recklessly not as a victim of a tragic accident.

Many of us have been there and done that , so please don't act like you are the only one with knowledge of the subject.

fordfan351 · 07-22-2003, 00:55

Here is a quote from one of your earlier reponses to a thread you started about speeding.

"But yeah, people can have a go at me personally or whatever and that tells you a lot about people"

Yet in your last response you called the respondents to this thread a bunch of whinging wankers.

And at the same time, in the same very thread, in the very opening post, you dare to refer to us as hypocrites.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me, or are you just one of "those" people