PDBTL #1 - seatbelts.

First in a series of (UK) government sponsored advertising, suggesting that perhaps the subjects citizens shouldn't break the law, and wasting tax-payer's money in the process.

This is the "gory" version of this particular advert (the pre 9pm watershed version only omits the allegedly 'graphical' stuff that happens inside Richard's body.)

Richard didn't want to die, [Richard is driving along] but he couldn't stop himself.[1]

The collision [two cars head-on-collide[2] in a residential area[3]] with the car didn't kill him, but he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, so he continued on his journey. [Airbag deploys and Richard hits it full on.][4]

When he hit the inside of the car[5] [his head breaks the windscreen[4]], that didn't kill him either.

But his internal organs carried on travelling until they hit his ribcage[5] [graphic of Richard's ribs], and his lungs were punctured [his ribs break and enter lungs[6]], and the main artery from his heart was torn.[shift to front view, and slowly leaking blood from his 'heart' is shown[7]]

And that's what killed Richard.

[Fade]

[Think! Always wear a seatbelt]

[1] Perhaps Richard should have had his brakes checked last time they felt spongy then. Or perhaps he should have been paying attention to the road ahead of him. Or perhaps he shouldn't have been speeding.[8]

[2] Such a perfect head on collision. To pick an easily found link at random, in 2005 in the US, only 2% of collisions were head on, (though were the cause of 10% of fatal crashes.) Most other 'head on collisions' don't involve the car going straight ahead as shown and stopping in such a short distance - which is what causes the injuries stated. If there isn't an air-bag[4]

[3] Typical speed limit in a residential area in the UK? (Section 24) 30mph. Are we expected to believe that there is a substantial number of fatal, perfect, head on collisions at 30mph in built up areas where at least one of the drivers dies?

[4] Hang on... Air bag? Those are supposed to protect you are they not? :


WTF is his head doing hitting the windscreen with such force (at 30mph[3]) that it breaks? That is one seriously mis-designed air-bag. Maybe it's the car company that killed him?

[5] The only part of Richard shown hitting the car at any speed is his head. The rest of his torso should have been less affected due to the air-bag[4]

[6] Not necessarily fatal.

[7] Given the speed of the blood coming out of that heart, the pathologist in me suspects that Richard was long dead before the crash, and *that's* what caused the crash.

[8] I have no doubt that one of those adverts will make an appearance here.


Anyway - as pointed out in a previous post, the fact the advert exists is a load of bollocks. While being in a moving car without wearing a seat-belt (with certain exceptions) is against the law, punishable by a fine, the government's own statistics show that the adverts do fuck all:

This publication presents estimates of seatbelt wearing rates [...] by drivers in England. Estimates of seatbelt wearing rates for Scotland are also included. Surveys were carried out in October and November 2009.

The main results from the seatbelt survey for England are:

* The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.

PDBTL and SWMFM!

I intend to start a series or two.

Please Don't Break The Law (PDBTL)  and Stop Wasting My Fucking Money (SWMFM) - government spending wasting money on advertising suggesting (or telling) you to or not to do something.

This post started off as the first one in the series for PDBTL, but the background to the opening paragraphs started getting a bit verbose, so thought it needed a post in its own right.

Naturally this post is UK-centric, but I've seen other nations' governments' attempting to cajole their subjects/citizens.

---

Since the 'majority'[1] of the UK population that could be bothered to turn out and vote[2] at the last (May 2010) election removed the Labour party, who seemed to be such spendthrifts[3] - especially when it came to spending the tax-payer's money on advertising (£253M 2009/10[4],) I thought at least the coalition would have at least reduced it.

Down to nothing.

Especially since we're they're we're[5] supposed to be saving money in these straightened economic times.

No such luck. Though I have noticed a reduction in the number of government sponsored adverts, they are still there.

The previous Labour government spending on advertising spanned a few areas:

• Health (^178% 2009 ->2010[4])
• get your flu jabs
• stop fucking around
• if you must fuck around get yourself tested for chlamydia
• Education (^50% 2009 -> 2010[4])
• lern 2 spel
• Learn to count
• Learn the other stuff you should have learnt in school but didn't because they didn't teach you nothing.
• HMRC
• Tax needn't be taxing
• Pay your fucking tax
• Pension bollocks (NEST, GMP, S2P, SERPS)[6]
• DWP
• Get a job yer lazy twats
• Among others.

But the ones that really annoy me are the ones that suggest/tell you not to do things that are against the law.

The government thinks they need to tell us what's against the law through the medium of  dance using adverts. Using our tax.

For example in a few clicks of a mouse you can have access to the Highway Code. Or, alternatively, for the Luddites among you, you could pop down to your local WH Smiths and purchase a dead tree version for under £2.00.

In it, it has words of wisdom such as things that are actually against the law, and if you (don't) do them, you leave yourself liable to a fine, points on your licence, or even accommodation at Her Majesty's Pleasure. (The online version lists the relevant laws - not sure about the book.)

Things such as

• Not wearing a seatbelt (Section 99)
• Not using a hand-held mobile phone while in control of a vehicle (Section 149)
• Speeding (Section 124)

All three of the above have copious adverts telling you not to do them.

Why? It tends to change nothing, and some of the statistics show it. The DFT (presumably by wasting more money) collated some results in their report entitled: Seatbelt and mobile phone use surveys: 2009 results. Some 'interesting' results:

• The proportion of car drivers observed wearing seat belts has not changed since the 2008 survey, remaining at 95 per cent in 2009.
• The proportion of car front seat passengers observed wearing seat belts or child restraints has decreased slightly from 96 per cent in 2008 to 95 per cent in 2009.
• The proportion of car rear seat passengers observed wearing seat belts or child restraints has risen to 89 per cent in 2009 from 88 per cent in 2008.
  

• Since the last survey in September 2008 the proportion of drivers observed using hand-held mobile phones whilst driving increased (from 1.1 per cent to 1.4 per cent for car drivers and from 2.2 per cent to 2.6 per cent for van and lorry drivers).
• An increase in the number of drivers who appear to be using hands free mobile phones (from 0.5 per cent to 1.4 per cent for car drivers and from 1.1 per cent to 2.4 per cent for van and lorry drivers) was observed in the same period.

Now that first section has changes of at most 1%. Taking front seat passengers with seatbelts, if 2008 was 95.5% and 2009 was 95.4%, and we round to 2s.f. we now have our 1% difference, generated from a 0.1% difference. Well within the bounds of error. (Granted other valid values could be 96.4% and 94.5% (1.9%) but I'm sure that this would have been pointed out had it been the case.)

Likewise, the differences for phone use differ by at most 0.4% - suspected statistical error again.

Hardly encouraging, or justification for spending on adverts, given that we've had these adverts on UK media for years.


The cynic in me is waiting for the first advert telling you not to steal.

Or don't go around murdering people.



[1] Since (roughly) two thirds of eligible voters[2] actually bothered to turn up and vote, and of those only 60%[2] voted for either of the parties eventually involved with the coalition, I hardly think 40% of the electorate constitutes a majority.

[2] http://www.ukpolitical.info/2010.htm

[3] Spendthrifts, contrary to what some/most seem to believe (me too, until I saw that first link when it was first published,) derives from "spending the money that [previous] thrifts saved," and thus indicates someone who spends a lot, rather than someone who is thrifty by not spending.

[4] In Labour's last year of government, they managed to increase their spending on advertising from around £180,000,000 to £253,000,000. (The article says 40% up to £253M)

[5] It's my tax you're spending damn-it!

[6] Win 2 internets if you actually know what all those stand for without hovering over the links, visiting the linked sites, or work in the pension industry.