From: John Tserkezis 
Reply-To: Fidonet AVtech Echo 

Bob Lawrence wrote:

>  I've been watching that commercial more closely. Did you see that
> they've nailed wooden slats under the semi to stop the "safe" car
> going underneath?

  I havn't seen that ad.  Lately, the only TV I watch is time delayed, I pause 
it when it starts,  start watching 10 minutes later and skip through the ads, 
by the time I get to the end, I'm just in time to change channels, pause it, 
and piss off again for 10 minutes.

>  I don'tthink that one convinced anyone. This new one is *really*
> clever. Of course, most people won't fire up the old Newton's Laws to
> discover that the numbers they quote are actually correct.

  Most?!  Bob, you're overestmating the demographic's intelligence again. 
They're aimed at those who can't tell the stain-remover ads are high school 
chemistry dressed in dirty clothing.

>  I always though the Macdonalds one would have had more impact (sorry
> abotu the pun) if the dork had swerved to avoid the car coming out and
> then hit a little old lady in a Volvo, head-on. If they needed the
> psychological impact of "I just killed me little bruvver" they could
> have put his muvver in the Volvo. Then he coudl stagger out of the
> wreck look in the Volvo and scream "Mum!". For extra emotion, he could
> disembowel himself on the spot and run screamign down the street with
> his intestines dragging...

>  Gee! I ought to write these RTA commercials. It sounds like fun.

  You wouldn't degrade yourself like that.  When I called to complain, (way 
back when I had the enthuiasm, and thought it would actually achieve 
something), the guy in charge of those ads said it was before his time (so it 
isn't his fault) and he's changing roles next week, (so it isn't his problem 
either).

>  How on earth can they discriminate against a person when the risk
> per person is less? I'm waitign for a rich old bastard to take this to
> the High Court and really screw the RTA and insurance companies.

  Ah, I understand.  I didn't figure the risk factor in.  But then again, I'm 
no suprised, the RTA has a habit of aiming for those with no teeth so they 
can't bite back.  Excuse the pun.

> JT> But again, it's all statistics and bullshit. You go in however
> JT> every often for the test, and prove that you're still within
> JT> their definintion of "good enough".
> 
>  I object to this, too. The greatest risk is 18-25. Why not test
> this age group every year, the same as wrinklies? How can we tolerate
> different laaws for different people? Can you imagine the scream if we
> tested Abos every year because someone made up false stats on Abos?

  But that's all bullshit too.

  You KNOW this is a factor in that age group, so you just cater for it, 
everyone is invincible until they grow out of it at 25 or so.  If they live to 
that age that is.

  What I object to are the bastards who are fully licenced and STILL CAN'T 
FUCKING PARK THEIR CARS.
  The more you drive, the better you get at it.  That's why all the wankers 
come out on the weekends.  They're the only ones who are game enough to take 
their cars out for that half hour in the week, because they're too stupid to 
realise that a half hour in a week isn't practice.

  

> ....mothers driving kids to school, shopping. Like the young hoons, the
 > oldie-K's are high-risk.

  Mothers driving kids to school?   Are they more of a risk to themselves or to 
everyone else?  They're the ones who drive landcruisers and never take them 
offroad remember?

-- 
       -o)
       /\\    Message void if penguin violated
      _\_V    Don't mess with the penguin

Linux Registered User # 302622                         http://counter.li.org>
Fido: 3:712/610  BBS/FAX: +61-2-9716-8310  Internet: jt{at}techniciansyndrome.org

--- ifmail v.2.15