HERE WE GO AGAIN !!!

robbie_998

Just heard an advert from the RSA on phantom 105.2

Women talking about men drivers as per fucking usual.

"we women suffer because of male driving!"

"women die because of men"

"he drives, she dies"

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/He-drives-she-dies/

This is the biggest sexist crap i've heard AGAIN !

a load of bull shit is what it is !

OldmanMondeo

Hmmm change the station!

smash

i don't think I know 1 woman that pays a high insurance premium....

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

bryaner

It should be, he buys she drives.

That add is running for ages. If ladies refused to give head while chaps were driving that would prevent an accident or two

phasers

They should run an ad saying "He wouldn't have to drive if you fcuking offered for once"

metzengerstein

have to agree

ive come accross alot of extremely bad women drivers in my time.some who even when coming out of a turn think they only have to look one way,and alot of girl racers out there too ,just as bad as any boyracer ,i would say its some people in general are bad drivers but its typical of irish people to discriminate once they hear of one person of a certain job or gender doing something wrong they all must be like that ..wake up



yes one taxi driver may have cut you off ,how does that mean they are all p***ks ,one male driver may have had an accident and drive like a tool ,still doesnt mean all male drivers are like that, when will ireland wake up and stop being such a stupid country.

keithclancy

I did a quick google and found this article ....


http://car-insurance-news.com/auto-insurance-women-drivers-auto-insurance-for-women.html


WTF :eek::pac:

BeardyGit

I switched over from Phantom to another station yesterday because I heard that advert being played. It makes my blood boil.

metzengerstein

maybe we shoud turn this around on the rsa and government for haveing a disgracefull motoring education and system ,blame the road death tolls on them ,im sick of being put in a class of something that im not

Onearmedbandit

This was out a while ago and I complained to the RSA about the sexist undertone throughout the advertisement. I just got a standard PFO letter saying that their statistics back up the advertisement. Pisses me right off hearing it and I am sure only gives insurance companies more leeway to hike up male premiums.

Gophur

robbie_998 wrote: »

Just heard an advert from the RSA on phantom 105.2

Women talking about men drivers as per fucking usual.

"we women suffer because of male driving!"

"women die because of men"

"he drives, she dies"

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/He-drives-she-dies/

This is the biggest sexist crap i've heard AGAIN !

a load of bull shit is what it is !

What, exactly, is incorrect about what is being said in the advertisement?

Nothing incorrect, she drives he dies is correct too in many cases, why not run that in an add ?

smash

I'd really like to see more stats about these cases they're mentioning where women passengers were killed.

• In how many of the accidents did the women wear their seatbelt?
• In how many of these accidents did the woman have a license so she could have driven instead?
• Who owned the car that was crashed? - You'll find that even when it's the woman's car, she'll always ask the male to drive.

But most importantly:

What were the causes of the accidents?

Stevie Dakota

Why is everyone getting worked up? Most of the time when I have been overtaken in a crazy place, or tailgated, or put in any kind of danger, it was a man at the wheel. I often drove like an idiot when I was young, and I bet most of you lads did too.

While I am often amazed at how inattentive women drivers can be, I don't think I've ever been put in danger by one.

I find the concept quite believable, never mind that they say they have statistics to back it up.

Eric Cartman

i just dont get in a car with a woman driver anymore, far too dangerous , and i know a lot of my mates are the same, that campaign is there because HE drives all the time , why let a woman drive if you have a man there

I've seen plenty of bad "multitask" women drivers where's the ad for them :rolleyes:

stevenmu

I would suggest a small change to campaign:



or perhaps even:

robbie_998

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Why is everyone getting worked up? Most of the time when I have been overtaken in a crazy place, or tailgated, or put in any kind of danger, it was a man at the wheel. I often drove like an idiot when I was young, and I bet most of you lads did too.

While I am often amazed at how inattentive women drivers can be, I don't think I've ever been put in danger by one.

I find the concept quite believable, never mind that they say they have statistics to back it up.

NO we don't nor did we and thats the fecking point we're trying to get across !

i'm 18 with a full license and rarely drive and when i do i obey all speed limits and drive under them. I never do anything wrong.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I don't really respect the RSA because they talk down to me.

I'm a guy in his late 20's that is above average intelligent and would like them to be a bit more frank and mature than they are. I believe (particularly from this forum) that a lot of other guys get annoyed by this approach and completely ignore the RSA and their messages which obviously isn't good.

Yes RSA, I'm a male in my 20's therefore I am as thick as sh*t.

The Floyd p

Absolutely stupid ad.

stevenmu

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Why is everyone getting worked up? Most of the time when I have been overtaken in a crazy place, or tailgated, or put in any kind of danger, it was a man at the wheel. I often drove like an idiot when I was young, and I bet most of you lads did too.

Because instead of tackling dangerous and idiotic driving directly, they are wasting resources by generalising and scapegoating.

steve06

steve06 wrote: »

I'd really like to see more stats about these cases they're mentioning where women passengers were killed.

What were the causes of the accidents?

Did the woman passenger cause the accident, ie. fighting with the driver, I've seen plenty of couples rowing in the car while driving.

-Corkie-

If it was the other way around being sexist towards women there would be fcukin war.:mad:

biko

Been discussed to fecking death already but sure that was months ago.

Anan1

The statistics on that page are either completely incorrect or pretty damning for young males.

robbie_998

biko wrote: »

Been discussed to fecking death already but sure that was months ago.

The ad campaign started up again the other day after being finished last year.

and its still a fecking disgrace.

a think a few letter of complaints are in order.

Yakult

I just couldnt care anymore about those childish ads, once I drive safely they can say wtf they want and then stick it up their hole.

Rsa really needs a good kicking tbh.

SilverBell

Does anyone notice any group way out in front in this graph? No, they all seem about the same..... oh..... wait a minute, it seems to be the....... oh let me see, why yes its the male 17-24 category.



Buy you guys have no need to be so angry. It is clear from the RSA page that they are just targetting the bad drivers who take girls as passengers. You guys, who are good drivers, above average intelligent (sic) and who "never do anything wrong" have nothing to be getting worked up about.:pac:

Absurdum

SilverBell wrote: »

Does anyone notice any group way out in front in this graph? No, they all seem about the same..... oh..... wait a minute, it seems to be the....... oh let me see, why yes its the male 17-24 category.



Buy you guys have no need to be so angry. It is clear from the RSA page that they are just targetting the bad drivers who take girls as passengers. You guys, who are good drivers, above average intelligent (sic) and who "never do anything wrong" have nothing to be getting worked up about.:pac:

get back in the kitchen :rolleyes:

um7y1h83ge06nx

SilverBell wrote: »

above average intelligent (sic)

Crap, should really use Firefox with it's built-in spell checker!

I think the main point is why is it considered acceptable to target one demograph and sex?

I should we could all find stats (motoring related stats or otherwise) that may show non-nationals, blacks, Jews, people of protestant faith etc. in a bad light. Even though the statistics may be true, there would probably be uproar if these groups were targeted and an ad campaign aired.

For example, according to the following US government backed website I could have a similiar ad campaign in the US for HIV/AIDS awareness targeting people of Black/African American origin.

http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm

VinnyTGM

Why is a senile old man being allowed to have a say in this countries traffic laws and road safety campaigns , what qualifications did/does he have about road safety, apart from presenting the late late show for a few years which obviously has so much to do with road safety.

SilverBell

Charleigh Faithful Ringworm wrote: »

Crap, should really use Firefox with it's built-in spell checker!

----bit harsh of me!;)
[/QUOTE]
I think the main point is why is it considered acceptable to target one demograph and sex?
[/QUOTE]

---

Like why target the 19year old guy? Well, why target 50 year old women? They are not the ones causing the trouble. Always aim for the biggest area where there is trouble. That goes for any situation, not just car accidents.

[/QUOTE]I should we could all find stats (motoring related stats or otherwise) that may show non-nationals, blacks, Jews, people of protestant faith etc. in a bad light. Even though the statistics may be true, there would probably be uproar if these groups were targeted and an ad campaign aired.[/QUOTE]

You have a point there, but in this case.....when so many of the target group are dying, and these advertisements are an attempt to prevent deaths. If black Jewish non-nationals (:D) were causing road deaths, then I'm sure the RSA would target them too.

daveharnett

SilverBell wrote: »

Does anyone notice any group way out in front in this graph? No, they all seem about the same..... oh..... wait a minute, it seems to be the....... oh let me see, why yes its the male 17-24 category.

I don't doubt that the trend that graph suggests is real. I would like to raise a point of order though - the graph is bullsh1t.

Just for example, an average 65+ year old woman is going to cover a fraction of the mileage of an average 17-24 year old man. To assume that the two can be expected to cause the same number of fatal collisions (which this graph does) is nonsensical.

To get a real picture of driver behavior, we'd need the number of fatal collisions caused per mile driven. That could take some actual work to figure out though.

tobsey

daveharnett wrote: »

I don't doubt that the trend that graph suggests is real. I would like to raise a point of order though - the graph is bullsh1t.

Just for example, an average 65+ year old woman is going to cover a fraction of the mileage of an average 17-24 year old man. To assume that the two can be expected to cause the same number of fatal collisions (which this graph does) is nonsensical.

To get a real picture of driver behavior, we'd need the number of fatal collisions caused per mile driven. That could take some actual work to figure out though.

Point of order - The graph is relative to the population of each age level. The percentage of 17-24 year olds who drive would be much lower than the older groups. This further shows how that age group are most likely to cause a serious accident.

Drivers in every demographic will have accidents, the problem is that in the 17-24 year old male group have a much greater number of catastrophic accidents than any other group. That is a fact and people need to accept it and stop getting offended by the truth.

EDIT: Just realised it says Driver Population, but nevertheless it's pretty conclusive.

SilverBell

daveharnett wrote: »

I don't doubt that the trend that graph suggests is real. I would like to raise a point of order though - the graph is bullsh1t.

Just for example, an average 65+ year old woman is going to cover a fraction of the mileage of an average 17-24 year old man. To assume that the two can be expected to cause the same number of fatal collisions (which this graph does) is nonsensical.

To get a real picture of driver behavior, we'd need the number of fatal collisions caused per mile driven. That could take some actual work to figure out though.

You are right to an extent in what you say. Maybe they cause the same number of deaths per mile?? But a death is still a death here. I think the graph is not wrong. Sure...granny does a lot less mileage than your typical young lad.
But the more time you are in a car, the more chance of being in an accident. If you drive fast, then your chances go up again. If you drive like a lunatic...the chances of an accident increase again.

So whether its more time in the car, miles driven, or if its speed, or if its drugs or drink....whatever. It looks like the 17-24 bracket is way out in front when it comes to killing people.

Thats why the RSA are taking action.

Raskolnikov

tobsey wrote: »

That is a fact and people need to accept it and stop getting offended by the truth.

I don't like it, but I have to accept it.

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/list.html

daveharnett

VinnyTGM wrote: »

Why is a senile old man being allowed to have a say in this countries traffic laws and road safety campaigns , what qualifications did/does he have about road safety, apart from presenting the late late show for a few years which obviously has so much to do with road safety.

I think/hope you are overestimating Mr Byrne's influence on decision making. The public side of the rsa is really just a marketing campaign. They do what admen everywhere do - make stuff up, and take credit whenever sales go up/ deaths go down.

To be fair, since the RSA's inception, there has been a positive change in public attitudes to drink driving, and I think the RSA's massive ad spend ("Could you live with the shame?") is partly responsible. The introduction of ADIs is also a significant step forward.

I really think they have taken a bad approach with the young driver problem though. Scolding them on rte (which they never watch) just isn't going to do the job. That ad money could be put to better use in their community/school programs, which seem to have a real impact.

Typewriter

Are the women in that ad supposed to sound drunk?

To me they sound really inebriated.

SilverBell

VinnyTGM wrote: »

Why is a senile old man being allowed to have a say in this countries traffic laws and road safety campaigns , what qualifications did/does he have about road safety, apart from presenting the late late show for a few years which obviously has so much to do with road safety.

Its a figure head position to help create awareness, exposure, press. Much like Roger Moore was for Unicef, and Lady Di was for Land mines. Roger Moore did not go around personally curing sick kids, and Lady Di did not go around defusing land mines.
Elton John does a lot of work for AIDS too, but unlike the other two, he may well have it himself.:pac:

It shows that the ploy works, a lot of people know of the RSA, and about Gay Byrne at the "head" of it.

daveharnett

tobsey wrote: »

Drivers in every demographic will have accidents, the problem is that in the 17-24 year old male group have a much greater number of catastrophic accidents than any other group. That is a fact and people need to accept it and stop getting offended by the truth.

No argument (or offence) here, I just hate to see the RSA cooking the books like this.

As to the OP, I think the premise of this particular ad is quite clever: driving like a spanner actually isn't a massive turn on for the ladies. The execution is terrible though: nobody likes to be scolded, patronized, or stereotyped, and nobody thinks of themselves as a bad driver. It alienates the responsible young drivers, while doing nothing to influence the lunatics.

These ads are targeted at the most marketed-to and media savvy generation yet. I don't think the RSA have the smarts to really influence them with broadcast campaigns.

Voodoomelon

The girls on that ad sound like they've have lobotomys. Either that or some lad has just driven them into a tree.

Ridiculous ad, its like saying the majority of plane crashes are caused my male pilots. Hold on a second, are there more male pilots than female? Nah, who cares, just publish the stats anyway.

When that ad comes on I turn it down, when George Hook comes on the Sky ad I turn it up. Now thats a real laugh.

conneem-TT

Firstly I would like to see weighted statistics, taking into account the different amount of time males vs females/young vs old spend behind the wheel. How often do you see a wife/girlfriend drive a car with their husband/partner as a passenger. In the vast majority of cases the man will drive the car, this alone skews the statistics.

This graph that was posted before is very misleading, it shows the breakdown by age of drivers that were responsible in fatal accidents where excessive speed was a contributing factor.



However, excessive speed is only a contributing factor in a minority of accidents. I can only find the statistics for Scotland but they should be somewhat analogous. Does anyone have a link to some substantive stats for Ireland.

The Contributory Factors most often reported for fatal accidents were:

* loss of control - 40 per cent of all fatal accidents for which Contributory Factors were recorded
* travelling too fast for the conditions - 18 per cent
* driver/rider failed to look properly - 18 per cent
* driver/rider careless / reckless / in a hurry - 15 per cent
* poor turn or manoeuvre - 12 per cent
* exceeding speed limit - 11 per cent

and that is only when looking at driver errors, factor in other causes and the speed factor diminishes further.



So it seems to be evident that the RSA is deliberately picking out a statistic to back up their campaign and enforcing a sensationalist view that the majority of accidents on our roads are caused by young males breaking the speed limit, rather than showing a real breakdown.

Now, young males may very well be over represented in accident statistics but I do not think it is by a sensational amount as we would be led to believe.

daveharnett

conneem-TT wrote: »

This graph that was posted before is very misleading, it shows the breakdown by age of drivers that were responsible in fatal accidents where excessive speed was a contributing factor.

I guess you haven't seen the RSA graph that proves 100% of collisions are caused by excessive speed

Gran Hermano

RSA is ignoring accident rates relative to miles driven, young males tend to drive more than young females.

It'd be similar to a campaign stating "She cooks, he pukes" and blaming all food poisoning on females unless we considered that women tend to do more cooking than men.

Way to go RSA with distorting facts and alienating half the population.

SilverBell

conneem-TT wrote: »

This graph that was posted before is very misleading, it shows the breakdown by age of drivers that were responsible in fatal accidents where excessive speed was a contributing factor.
.

I know there are "lies, lies and damn statistics", but that graph seems fairly clear. The Male 17-24 group are more likely to speed and get killed.
I know we can jiggle graphs and statistics around, but that is still a fairly clear trend. If we find it hard to believe, then we'll have to carry out our own surveys to prove the RSA wrong.

As for those other contributory factors,
1 losing control.......speed could be involved there, not in all cases I know
2 being in a hurry.........speed could be involved there too
3 travelling too fast...........well thats definitely speed
4 exceeding the speed limit.......speed

That means it may not be in the "minority of accidents" at all.

SilverBell

Gran Hermano wrote: »

RSA is ignoring accident rates relative to miles driven, young males tend to drive more than young females.

It'd be similar to a campaign stating "She cooks, he pukes" and blaming all food poisoning on females unless we considered that women tend to do more cooking than men.

Way to go RSA with distorting facts and alienating half the population.

The RSA are concentrating on deaths. Dont lose sight of that fact.
To repeat my earlier post, it doesnt matter if we crunch the figures out as you suggest, and find that grannies cause more "deaths per mile" than their grandsons.
I know little about "distorting facts", but I do see a hidden reluctance to accept them.

The Big Red Button

robbie_998 wrote: »

i'm 18 with a full license and rarely drive and when i do i obey all speed limits and drive under them. I never do anything wrong.

None of us "never do anything wrong". In your case, as an inexperienced 18 year old driver who by his own admittance rarely drives, it is very likely that you are simply unaware of your own mistakes. Not a good way to be. (Having a full licence does not make you a perfect driver, by the way. At all.)

On topic, it's an absolutely ridiculous ad.

robbie_998

chatterpillar wrote: »

None of us "never do anything wrong". In your case, as an inexperienced 18 year old driver who by his own admittance rarely drives, it is very likely that you are simply unaware of your own mistakes. Not a good way to be. (Having a full licence does not make you a perfect driver, by the way. At all.)

On topic, it's an absolutely ridiculous ad.

i passed my test like everybody else when i was 17. I will have my license 1 year know in september.

I'm not a boy racer by any means because very simply when im driving theres always a relative with me and if i do drive on my own its only down the road to work or something similar.

by no means is anybody in the world a perfect driver but at the same time i do my best to obey all rules and it usually always turns out well.

but back to the ad.

I've known all the other rsa ad's to be quite alright (get it on, motor cycles, motorways, child seats, speeding etc.) but this one is the only one to actually irritate me in anyway.

like what another poster said a bit back, we might as well have a food safety campaign for "she cookes, he pukes" based on the RSA methods of finding things.

conneem-TT

SilverBell wrote: »

I know there are "lies, lies and damn statistics", but that graph seems fairly clear. The Male 17-24 group are more likely to speed and get killed.
I know we can jiggle graphs and statistics around, but that is still a fairly clear trend. If we find it hard to believe, then we'll have to carry out our own surveys to prove the RSA wrong.

As for those other contributory factors,
1 losing control.......speed could be involved there, not in all cases I know
2 being in a hurry.........speed could be involved there too
3 travelling too fast...........well thats definitely speed
4 exceeding the speed limit.......speed

That means it may not be in the "minority of accidents" at all.

SilverBell wrote: »

The RSA are concentrating on deaths. Dont lose sight of that fact.
To repeat my earlier post, it doesnt matter if we crunch the figures out as you suggest, and find that grannies cause more "deaths per mile" than their grandsons.
I know little about "distorting facts", but I do see a hidden reluctance to accept them.

You know little about distorting facts, yet you are actually skewing the facts in your post above.

The percentages given in the UK figures are contributory factors reported for fatal accidents. This means that for a single accident a number of factors could be listed.

These factors could have overlaps, for example in one accident two factors could be judged to have contributed and either could have promted the incident. However you can not flippantly say the 40% of cases involving losing control could have involved excessive speed in a way incinuating the percentage for excessive speed could be higher. If excessive speed was reported to have been involved in an accident where losing control was also, it would have already been included in the percentage for excessive speed. So as I said before these statistics show excessive speed is a contributory factor in a minority of cases (in the Uk anyway).

Your post just seems a stark example of how speed is ingrained so much into us by these sensationalist campaigns that you try cast some of the blame onto nearly all of the factors listed to speed.

I would like it if the RSA are concentrating on deaths but they are clearly instead creating prejudices, just look at the graph you highlighted. Even if they want to stick to the speed line why would they not show that for example that if you are travelling on a winding back road and cannot stop in the distance you can see clearly ahead you are travelling too fast (not refering to speeding). I meet people daily coming around corners who clearly would not have a hope of stopping if for example just moments before them a person had to stop due to an animal being on the road ahead.