The YooToob thread

GvidoR

Chris_Heilong

GvidoR wrote: »

once you have seen one of these guy sketches you have practically seen them all.

Hal1

Wha dhaaaa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icXLgCRFAOU

mb1725

Hal1 wrote: »

Wha dhaaaa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icXLgCRFAOU

Good camera work there.

hoodie6029

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L88bVgVdZJY

Hal1

Dangerous feckers. It would have been easier to grab an extra guy and lift it down. That or invest in a decent pair of ramps.

hoodie6029

Could have just put his foot on the brake and someone else could have driven the jeep forward once it was half off.

GvidoR

Dartz

Another view of the Polo.

This one actually makes it funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp1lF0bmBCw

GvidoR

Here's another one

Dartz

That makes it make a lot more sense actually. It seems like everyone assumes it to be a marshalls or organisers car or something like that - something that's supposed to be there because nobody sane would ever drive a roadcar onto a racetrack.

Oh... a Volkswagen Polo. It's probably supposed to be there.

The conversation doesn't mention it at the start - it sounds like they're talking about a sealing jacket all over the place or something - followed by a warning to 'wait! wait! wait!'. Nobody actually passes comment about it being a Polo.

GvidoR

BMJD

:eek:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10153792544045276

Iwannahurl

BMJD wrote: »

:eek:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10153792544045276

Very impressive fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMCOXa3DNMw

GvidoR

Doesn't look realistic at all, but not a bad effort I guess.

Dartz

DOE..... so rediculous it's almost funny.

Drive a basic saloon perfectly safely and it'll randomly spin out and splatter a group of kids. Either that, or check your rear brakes in case they lock on... it's definitely not a speeding car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD8BkIgp9Fo

CianRyan

Hahaha, the lot of them. Bloody hell.

D'Agger

It worries me that somebody came up with that as an idea and somebody else approved it

Iwannahurl

Dartz wrote: »

DOE..... so rediculous it's almost funny.

Drive a basic saloon perfectly safely and it'll randomly spin out and splatter a group of kids. Either that, or check your rear brakes in case they lock on... it's definitely not a speeding car.

It's a road safety awareness ad, not a documentary. The point -- illustrated clearly in the video -- is that the car was not being driven "perfectly safely" and the clear implication was that the driver was speeding. We know that because the ad is scripted accordingly.

They didn't film a random car that happened to be passing and then pretended that it was speeding. In other words it's a one-minute awareness-raising effort, not a description of an event that is to be taken literally.

CianRyan wrote: »

Hahaha, the lot of them. Bloody hell.

The intention, as I understand it, is to show figuratively that a "classroom of our children" have been killed on the roads since the year 2000. I don't know when the video was made, but as far as I can see the idea is to engage our emotions by showing what that would be like if it happened all at once. Again, it's not meant to be absolutely literal, though I guess it's to be expected that some people will view it that way.

Iwannahurl

All the best ads, whether they are selling deodorant or promoting road safety, try to engage our emotions in a powerful way.

Why would anyone want to look at these ads in a purely literal sense?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-8PBx7isoM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw2aevh6oZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TADO4LG29bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvLaTupw-hk

Dartz

Unfortunately, when the emotion it engages is laughter, the ad has very much failed.

Or, te Pub Loo one... "What if he'd gotten glass in his eye?". The ad seemed more dangerous to me than the consequence even if it was probably controlled, or CGI.

Iwannahurl

Dartz wrote: »

Or, te Pub Loo one... "What if he'd gotten glass in his eye?". The ad seemed more dangerous to me than the consequence even if it was probably controlled, or CGI.

I doubt any ad reaches 100% of its target audience, and some people will put their own (unique?) interpretations on what they see.

coolisin

I just think the "metaphorical" road safety adverts don't work.
Poor Cgi or over the top fake just disengage the audience and the advert is no longer shocking to work! These ad's always have a car rolling through a hedge.

Back on the ad though love the way all the adults get out of the way!

also in other news:
http://www.newstalk.ie/Man-charged-after-driving-girlfriends-car-onto-track-during-VW-Beetle-race

Chris_Heilong

Dartz wrote: »

DOE..... so rediculous it's almost funny.

Drive a basic saloon perfectly safely and it'll randomly spin out and splatter a group of kids. Either that, or check your rear brakes in case they lock on... it's definitely not a speeding car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD8BkIgp9Fo

lol.....sorry but I did laugh when the car came over the hedge.

Kenny Logins

Dartz wrote: »

DOE..... so rediculous it's almost funny.

Drive a basic saloon perfectly safely and it'll randomly spin out and splatter a group of kids. Either that, or check your rear brakes in case they lock on... it's definitely not a speeding car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD8BkIgp9Fo

My God that's awful. I much prefer the G'N'R version.

dougie-lampkin

Dartz wrote: »

DOE..... so rediculous it's almost funny.

Drive a basic saloon perfectly safely and it'll randomly spin out and splatter a group of kids. Either that, or check your rear brakes in case they lock on... it's definitely not a speeding car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD8BkIgp9Fo

That tagline "shame on you" is just downright offensive. I haven't killed a classroom of children, why should I be ashamed? Shame on you, DOE, for having such a cheap ad.

The faked video with the two lads in Chile posted above has better CGI.

Iwannahurl

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

That tagline "shame on you" is just downright offensive. I haven't killed a classroom of children, why should I be ashamed? Shame on you, DOE, for having such a cheap ad.

There's that literal thing again. The ad doesn't say dougie-lampkin killed a classroom of children, it says speeding has killed a classroom of children since the year 2000. The shame is on the speeding motorists involved in the fatal collisions, and presumably the DoE's hope is that the fully justified shaming might have an effect on those motorists who continue to speed but who haven't killed any children (yet).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8bYkFJXzpw

ARGINITE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrkFYA52cwc

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's that literal thing again. The ad doesn't say dougie-lampkin killed a classroom of children, it says speeding has killed a classroom of children since the year 2000. The shame is on the speeding motorists involved in the fatal collisions, and presumably the DoE's hope is that the fully justified shaming might have an effect on those motorists who continue to speed but who haven't killed any children (yet).

I wonder how they make that assertion.
Have they looked at every accident where a child was killed and analysed if speed was a factor.
Since the forward motion of a car is it's speed, one can say that speed is a factor in ALL accidents.
How is "speed was a factor" ascertained?
Would the car have to break the posted limit or would a car that traveled within the limit but maybe inappropriately so also be counted?
What where the exact circumstances of each accident?
Did they just count the number of kids that got killed on the road, regardless of the circumstances and then said "X amount of kids got killed due to speed!"?
If that is the case it's just pointless hysteria along the lines of Babies Will Die!
They might as well do an ad that says:

Have you ever gotten into a car? Did you know that children get killed on the road?
That means that you are a potential baby murderer!
How dare you drive a car, you should feel guilty about it!

You will now argue that the above sentence is hyperbole.
Yes. And so is the ad. So you cannot argue that the hyperbole in the ad is OK and mine isn't, simply because one suits your single minded, unblinking anti-car agenda and mine doesn't.
I'm simply using the same argument to illustrate how silly those ads are.
But then you are an extremist and have proven time and time again that you will simply reel off your propaganda without listening to anyone's argument, so I will simply reel off my reply without listening to yours.
So you have what you want, you shouting down at people and not paying a blind bit of notice to them. You know it achieves the opposite, i.e. people in general will dismiss your argument, get entrenched against you and people who would otherwise be won over by reasoned argument, also turning against you.
You are doing more damage against road safety than any nutter speeding at 200 km/h through Eastern European cities.

biko

Moar of the yootoobs, less of the serious