If the Govenrment was for real they would routinely release some particularly gruesome crime scene/motor accident photos and show some mugshots of people in gaol for vehicular manslaughter, subject to other legal issues.

Perhaps they could fund advertisements comparing the number of speeding fines with the number of accidents while they’re at it. Hey, I’m easy-going – they don’t even have to be speed-related accidents. You know, the ones where they tick the box marked “speed” when they have no idea what caused them. After all, if all cars were stationary accidents wouldn’t happen!

This is supposed to be a means to an end: it invokes the psychosexual drama of contemporary masculinity in order to redirect libidinal energy away from certain behaviours. For what it’s worth, I think it is a flawed approach, but I think it is more complex than simply a victimisation narrative.

I don’t think you are thinking about the same level of graphic content I am. The problem is, the State Government would be breaking State and Federal censorship laws.

I mean disseminating real accident photos. Not your BS ads where an accident is staged and you see some actor in hospital with stage make up on. These ads are not confronting enough.

I know I need a small vacation, but the RTA more recruits won’t train
And when the ad is shown the intertubes won’t ever stand the strain

The only message from the RTA advertisement is that it is appropriate to demean young men based upon the size of their penis. None of you would put up with it if women were demeaned in a similar way based on something to do with their body shape, like their breasts.

Re: Adam Gall

It attempts to say that is okay to demean men based on the size of their penis. It does not encourage anyone to change their attitude, just to show young men looking embarassed by the use of the sign.

I bet that won’t appeal to the creative muppets at the RTA. Not “hip” enough with the “youth”. Hey, it would be ridiculously cheap compared to TV time. Instead we get some lame jokes about penis size. The last time you were late to work, did it shrink? Too many people speed rather than habitually drive recklessly for these ads to have a point.

No one gets vilified either in my awful but useful idea.

I love that chicken ad – I’m still not sure what it’s for. I actually think it might be a Chaser stunt.

It’s function is two-fold (as I see it):

1) It attempts to draw the attention of young men to what other people who are affected by their behaviour think of them, particularly women, by use of a simple visual metaphor – and I think it is correct to assume that the particular pseudo-Freudian judgement is prevalent in the community, so the metaphor ‘rings true’ for many viewers – in the hope that this will reduce reckless and dangerous driving practices, themselves associated with a higher number of accidents involving young drivers

2) It also encourages those attitudes, and gives them a universal ‘vocabulary’ in the form of a gesture in order to suggest a more effective community campaign, so that the effectiveness of 1) is increased

So the reasons for the ad are sound – communicating a judgement in order to reduce the road toll – and the idea of how it is supposed to work – through an appeal to shame, as defined by ‘interest’ in what people think of you – is also reasoned to a point. I happen to believe it is a silly campaign which will amuse people, but won’t successfully interpellate young men or deal with substantive problems associated with automobility. I also think it deliberately blurs the offensive with the dangerous, and thus misses another target. But you can’t fault the “purpose of the ad”, only the execution of it.

Searching Technorati for another argumenttodirectthetoneof.

Paranoid much?

Can you see no difference between the two ads you so chastise Laura for having different reactions to? I’ll spell it out:

1) Males are made fun of for behaving irresponsibly. Women make the unfounded but frequently postulated inference that such behaviour is cock-compensatory in nature. The message is that people aren’t impressed by dangerous or rude driving.

2) Woman shoves private parts into the faces of men for a living, while addicted to a particular brand of chicken sauce. The message is that said chicken and sauce are delicious.

Which of the two is more sexually exploitative?

In which of the two is the message further removed from the imagery (i.e. the sex more gratuitous)?

I don’t think this is an unfair assumption, based on my own experience.

My friends certainly behaved better on the road as they got older, and one friend in particular certainly drove with much higher risk when he had passengers, until his mid-20s. Now, in his late 20s, he drives much more safely.

I would have thought the aim of the ad is to suggest to these drivers that people (perhaps even your own friends) think less of you for driving unsafely, and to reinforce the same society values to the general public.

Intellectualise all you like. These idiots kill & injure…& make alot of freakin’ noise outside our house in the middle of the night. They terrorise.

Coming from someone who despises cars, period.

Imho, some of the worst killing machines in Human history.

Lotta rich people & Dynasties created out of them & their ancillary products.

We need more, safer alternatives.

Then you get the idiots who drive across just because the light has turned green, without checking for drivers going the other way, through the red light.

Let me guess: your brother might be coming the other way.

Then you get the idiots who drive across just because the light has turned green, without checking for drivers going the other way, through the red light. Let’s face it, if you’re going really fast, it’s hard to stop for the red light. People who get hit in such situations bring it on themselves.

And don’t get me started about pedestrians. Don’t they know how hard it is to stop at crossings. Several times I’ve nearly hit some idiot who started walking even though they could see me coming. Unlike those unemployed bludgers, I’ve got appointments to get to.

(BTW, craig mc is right about this ad actually being anti-feminist by reinscribing the dominant symbolic order. silly bourgies…)

Just kidding – noone could be precious enough to officially complain about an ad, not even Yet Another Patronising Safety Nazi Bullshit You Do Realise You’re Paying For It Sucker advertisement like this one.