What about 'More Than'? Their adverts clearly demostrate a lack of understanding of the law and so should be the next target for Transport 2000. Allow me to go through each ad.

The newspaper collecting/car rolls to his house

The car rolls down a hill, first thing, if you are parked on a hill, handbrake should be firmly applied, the front wheels turned slightly into the kerb and a gear selected. But then it rolls and the person in charge of the vehicle is his dog, is the dog insured to drive the car? Does he have a full license? Probably not. Also the way it stops and steers suggests the engine is running, it would not stop so smoothly nor turn so well on a newer car if engine is off, leaving your car unattended with the engine running is illegal.

The bricks falling just in front of car

Only problem I can spot is the driveway seems to be big enough for just one car to move up, ie no turning around spot at top. This means to get out of his driveway he will have to reverse out, oops, can't do that!

The old guy going on about 40 years

If he has 40 years no claims then the chances are he will be in his 60's minimum. At that age the eyesight does start to fail and is quite clearly happening here as he slammed head on into a quite large post which should be visible from quite a distance. Failing to be able to see a set distance means a licence should be taken away and bus pass issued instead, however he is still driving which makes him driving without insurance and licence. Also the MPV's washer jets should not be pointed at anything but the windscreen and were quite clearly pointed away from the windscreen in order to cause upset to other road users.

The Banger Racing one

Does the driver have full track cover? Does the vehicle meet all requirements for the race, which otherwise would invalid his insurance? Hmm, he may have track cover but he doesn't have a full rollcage, and I'll bet any amount that the fuel tank hasn't been relocated, also he still has all the glass in and headlights too. This means he is breaking the rules of the race which would invalidate his insurance.

This was meant to be slightly mickey take by the way :P

very good!! I like your points

This means to get out of his driveway he will have to reverse out, oops, can't do that!

That's not strictly true as it depends upon the type of road you're reversing onto as to whether it's illegal or not.

I would agree that the More Than adverts do send out a rather mixed message though, as it's apparently for good drivers, and yet is designed to protect their NCB no matter how many accidents they have? :confused:

And the guy in the advert is an absolute cretin who shouldn't even be allowed a driving licence, let alone discounted insurance.

Rob.

LOL - like it, well done

I never realised it was a mickey take until the last sentence ... :P

Thanks guys, it took me all night to think that up too.

And while were on the subject of dodgy car insurance adverts....

Michael Winner, insured by Esure?

I don't think so! They won't insure anyone who works in television or the media. Or at least that was their excuse when they told me to get stuffed! :thumbdwn:

And while were on the subject of dodgy car insurance adverts....

Michael Winner' date=' insured by Esure?

I don't think so! They won't insure anyone who works in television or the media. Or at least that was their excuse when they told me to get stuffed! :thumbdwn:[/quote']

Whilst on the subject of dodgy motoring adverts full stop.

What about the advert where the car skids all the way down the road and hits the kid. All very well, but disabling the cars rear brakes just to make a point seems a little silly IMHO.

Why don't they just show a kid run straight out in the road in front of a car where the driver has absolutely no chance of stopping and then moan about impact speeds above 30mph + resultant damage?

What about the advert where the car skids all the way down the road and hits the kid. All very well, but disabling the cars rear brakes just to make a point seems a little silly IMHO.

Rumour also has it that the car was travelling quite a bit faster than 35mph to get it to do that too...but, as I say, just a rumour...

Why don't they just show a kid run straight out in the road in front of a car where the driver has absolutely no chance of stopping and then moan about impact speeds above 30mph + resultant damage?

The other problem with saying "if this car had been travelling at 30mph it would've stopped here", is that if the car had been doing 60mph it would've already been passed the kid before he'd run in front of the car. Flippant I know, but if they actually want people to avoid accidents then actually pointing out the important factors of keeping brakes maintained, looking for kids by the side of the road kicking a football, and that cars can actually swerve round objects might prove more useful than just people to have slower speed accidents...

Rob.

Rumour also has it that the car was travelling quite a bit faster than 35mph to get it to do that too...but' date=' as I say, just a rumour...

The other problem with saying "if this car had been travelling at 30mph it would've stopped here", is that if the car had been doing 60mph it would've already been passed the kid before he'd run in front of the car. Flippant I know, but if they actually want people to avoid accidents then actually pointing out the important factors of keeping brakes maintained, looking for kids by the side of the road kicking a football, and that cars can actually swerve round objects might prove more useful than just people to have slower speed accidents...

Rob.[/quote']

Yeah - I didn't comment on that particularly well - but at least you knew what I was ranting about

As for travelling faster than 30mph - wouldn't surprise me in the slightest! :(

I am with you on that one - speed is only a problem if you actually hit something. Proper control, perfectly serviceable vehicle and reading the road correctly (and far enough ahead, which includes being aware of surroundings/pedestrians) are the more important factors TBH.

May i add that the advert brings up the question of what the hell the kid was doing on the road in the first place! My brother had a nasty accident involving a pedestrian sedveral years ago. all the witnesses claimed that he was speeding even tho' he was turning out of a junction and was proved by the police to be doing less than 20mph at impact! my point is that if a car hits a pedestrian it always seems to be the drivers fault and speed is the first accusation to fly around. if i was to drive on the pavement i would expect to kill someone so if pedestrians keep off the road there is less accidents! hope that makes sense.......... :confused:

May i add that the advert brings up the question of what the hell the kid was doing on the road in the first place!

But pedestrians have a right to use the road - you're only there by licence and have a duty of care to more vulnerable road users (peds, horse-riders, cyclists).

But pedestrians have a right[/b'] to use the road - you're only there by licence and have a duty of care to more vulnerable road users (peds, horse-riders, cyclists).

Don't think there was any disputing the fact that drivers have a duty of care in any of the posts. The point that was being made was that if a driver hits a pedestrian, more likely than not the driver will be hauled over the coals, when in actual fact most vehicle/pedestrian incidents occur with the pedestrian completely in the wrong and often with little the poor driver can do about it (other than hope nobody from the anti-car lobby saw what happens and decides to give their own account - with accusations of speeding, as per the other post). Drivers can be as careful as they like, but there will always be a pedestrian that will manage to kill themselves. AIUI many pedestrians that are killed/injured seem to have had a few drinks.

TBH, the amount of pedesrian death on our roads would be reduced greatly if they stopped walking/running into the paths of road vehicles. So instead of junping on the 'speeding' bandwagon - how about a little education for pedestrians?

p.s. I'm a pedestrian/cyclist and driver and to be honest the drivers always seem to get fingered over this (still not disputing duty of care).

Don't think there was any disputing the fact that drivers have a duty of care in any of the posts. The point that was being made was that if a driver hits a pedestrian' date=' more likely than not the driver will be hauled over the coals, when in actual fact most vehicle/pedestrian incidents occur with the pedestrian completely in the wrong and often with little the poor driver can do about it (other than hope nobody from the anti-car lobby saw what happens and decides to give their own account - with accusations of speeding, as per the other post). Drivers can be as careful as they like, but there will always be a pedestrian that will manage to kill themselves. AIUI many pedestrians that are killed/injured seem to have had a few drinks.

TBH, the amount of pedesrian death on our roads would be reduced greatly if they stopped walking/running into the paths of road vehicles. So instead of junping on the 'speeding' bandwagon - how about a little education for pedestrians?

p.s. I'm a pedestrian/cyclist and driver and to be honest the drivers always seem to get fingered over this (still not disputing duty of care).[/quote']

I must say I have to agree with the above, pedestrians are becoming way more complacent these days, why because they have the attitude that it'll always be the drivers fault and it's the driver who has the responsibility to prevent the accident. I'm sure its the same in the UK as here.

Before Xmas I drove into Dublin and twice I had people run across the road when the lights were green for me, and what annoyed me more was the fact that one ran from in front of a truck as it was pulling away from lights into my path, he ran half way across the road and walked the rest, the other just walked the whole way across (even with a car coming straight for him :eek: ) why ? cos they knew that the driver would be held responsible if anything happened. A few days later I seen an article about operation freeflow in the newspaper about motorists watching this and motorists watching that. This spured me into writing an email about the article focusing on the issue of pedestrians actions, and the lack of mentioning pedestrians actions. I sent it into a number of places , incl. the Gardai. To my amazment I got an email from the Garda commisioners secretary

"I am directed by the Commissioner to thank you for your e-mail in relation to Operation Freeflow.

Your comments are interesting and will be brought to the attention of the Assistant Commissioner in charge of traffic."

Now I don't know if any further action was taken but it was nice to see they listened to what I said and responded.

PS I held onto that reply as I didn't think anyone would believe me, to be honest I didn't so I asked a Garda friend who the person named at the end of the email was and it was indeed the commissioner.

The whole ped thing is why I miss my red car, doesn't matter how many people and small animals you hit then, no need to clean the blood off!

I think there is a distinction between drivers who are (or should be) compos mentis enough to take account of pedestrians likely to step into the road ahead, and children and elderly who might not be aware, or be capable of, estimating the speed of an oncoming vehicle.

Or, on my local high street, to be aware that pedestrians have to step into the road just to circumvent the number of road-sign posts for drivers which take up so much of the pavement.

Forgive me for saying this, but pedestrians probably do not walk into a road saying that "If a driver hits me, it's his fault." There is a presumption that one is driving at an appropriate speed, even though even that speed can be too great when an OAP waves his stick and steps out without warning. Proper observation of the road ahead would have highlighted this potential event IMO.

Re-training pedestrians? Re-training drivers methinks. Right of way is irrelevant - road sense is what counts IMO

Mo

Mo

Dear Richard

In the same vein, most Top Gear trials are on empty (or closed) roads, and I fail to see how Jeremy can be an icon for youthful yobbish behaviour ???

Perhaps they should ban ALL car advertisements since most are shown with the car going at speed on an unrepresentative road in the middle of nowhere.

Insurance ads are in a world of their own, like the guy who bumped into his friend (ostensibly for lunch) and relied on his insurance company for the damage he's done. I mean, jokes sell adverts, but car driving? Considering how much the client must be paying the advertising execs to come up with these things and the client agrees? even more confused.

Sorry, another rant.

Mo

I think there is a distinction between drivers who are (or should be) compos mentis enough to take account of pedestrians likely to step into the road ahead' date=' and children and elderly who might not be aware, or be capable of, estimating the speed of an oncoming vehicle.

Or, on my local high street, to be aware that pedestrians have to step into the road just to circumvent the number of road-sign posts for drivers which take up so much of the pavement.

Forgive me for saying this, but pedestrians probably do not walk into a road saying that "If a driver hits me, it's his fault." There is a presumption that one is driving at an appropriate speed, even though even that speed can be too great when an OAP waves his stick and steps out without warning. Proper observation of the road ahead would have highlighted this potential event IMO.

Re-training pedestrians? Re-training drivers methinks. Right of way is irrelevant - road sense is what counts IMO

Mo

Mo[/quote']

Oh I beg to differ! We have a school near here and it is so obvious that some of the little scrotes walk out deliberately in front of traffic (most often occurs when mates are present) and then walk as slowly as possible across the road (sometimes even staring at oncoming traffic).

Also happens in the evening in some areas (take Brum for example) where ppl will walk off the kerb and 'take on traffic'. Of course the drivers see this is about to happen and adjust their speed/direction as necessary - but it really does happen - I have seen it myself! And - forgive me for saying - if you have never seen pedestrians acting in this manner - then you have been extremely fortunate.

That's it - lets have a go at the drivers again - after all - they are the usual target.

Have you ever had a kid run out from behind parked cars? Even being very careful down roads where this is a problem, it is sometimes only just possible to avoid this little 'hazard'. We could all go back to the good old days of a guy with a red flag walking in front of cars (keeping - shall we say - below 5-10mph - it's the ony way to be sure)......

Oh - and who was talking about right of way? Quite right - it is totally irrelevant.

p.s. road sense works both ways.......

Oh I beg to differ! We have a school near here and it is so obvious that some of the little scrotes walk out deliberately in front of traffic (most often occurs when mates are present) and then walk as slowly as possible across the road (sometimes even staring at oncoming traffic).

Also happens in the evening in some areas (take Brum for example) where ppl will walk off the kerb and 'take on traffic'. Of course the drivers see this is about to happen and adjust their speed/direction as necessary - but it really does happen - I have seen it myself! And - forgive me for saying - if you have never seen pedestrians acting in this manner - then you have been extremely fortunate.

That's it - lets have a go at the drivers again - after all - they are the usual target.

Have you ever had a kid run out from behind parked cars? Even being very careful down roads where this is a problem' date=' it is sometimes only just possible to avoid this little 'hazard'. We could all go back to the good old days of a guy with a red flag walking in front of cars (keeping - shall we say - below 5-10mph - it's the ony way to be sure)......

Oh - and who was talking about right of way? Quite right - it is totally irrelevant.

p.s. road sense works both ways.......[/quote']

(My bold)

Hi

That activity is par for the course for a local school near me also, and yes, it is willful, rather than un-awareness on their part.

Accidents can be unavoidable - my pet hate is people / cyclists wearing black at night, and cyclists often with no lights

I don't say that it is always the driver's fault, only that some drivers clearly don't give a hoot, well not around here anyway.

Regards

Mo

Because I don't drink I regularly drive out of the local niteclub carpark and through the village where people gather on the carpark entrance and walk/stagger across the road i the main street. On a number of occasions while leaving the carpark people are gathered across it and while trying to negotiate my way out of it, people don't want to get out of the way and have said to me comon knock me down I'll claim off your insurance, why ? cos they known they'll get a bloody payout if I do run them down. Fair enough some people don't know what there at and you have to be cautious of them, but that doesn't forgive that type of behaviour.

Look at Germany, people wouldn't step out onto the road unless the lights are red, even if the road was clear. There are rules for pedestrians to obey and they don't because they know if anything happens the driver usually gets the blame $$$$$$$.

Over here we were having hugh issues with the LUAS and accidents, from what I see if someone steps out if front of it, its the persons fault. If there was the same senario with a car then its the motorists fault :confused: .