Auckland Transport have launched their newest safety video and it’s aimed at the stupidly high number of people that still use a phone when driving – something you notice even more when walking or on a bike. The ad has fairly typical ending for a road safety video but what stands out to me in this video is the reaction of the people using the phones when strangers call them out. How realistic is it that after yelling Oi that the person will be all cheerful and just put their phone down. Seems far more likely that you’ll get back at the least a hand gesture and possibly some verbal abuse.
Here’s the press release
The friendly message is “Oi! Mind on the road, not the phone” – the reason drivers on phones cause accidents.
Auckland Transport has launched a new campaign highlighting the high numbers driving while using their phones. In Auckland between 2009 and 2013, there were 5 fatalities as a result of drivers being distracted.
Karen Hay, Manager Community and Road Safety says, “The numbers are probably under-reported, this could be a much bigger problem.”
She says 60% of the crashes are rear-end collisions, “This is obviously drivers taking their eyes off the road.”
The “Oi! Mind on the road, not the phone” campaign targets 16 to 39 year olds and includes a cinema ad plus radio and digital advertising.
Rob Pitney, Auckland Transport’s Manager Campaigns and Customer Insights, says people of all ages are using their phones behind the wheel and a third of all distraction-related crashes involve drivers in their twenties.
“We’ve discovered two-thirds of people in this group are texting, using apps and social media, doing emails and making calls while driving. They’re the target of the ‘Oi!’ campaign; we want to raise awareness of the very real dangers of using mobile phones while driving and to introduce a gentle ‘nudge’ that will enable passengers to encourage drivers to leave their phone alone.”
Research by Auckland Transport shows 30% of those who make calls have their phone up to their ear and 70% of those who make calls do it when the car is actually moving. It was also found that 70% use apps for travel information while driving.
Mr Pitney says, “Our focus is on driving smartly, sensibly – focussing on the driving and not the smart phone.”
Senior Sergeant Mark Chivers of Counties Manukau Road Policing Unit says it’s an offence to use a mobile phone while driving. The penalty is $80 and 20 demerit points.
“Driver distractions come under high risk driving in our “Fatal Five” – the five things that contribute to crashes and trauma on our roads. We have a continued focus on these things in our on-going effort to reduce road trauma.”
He says the campaign with Auckland Transport is an opportunity for Police to demonstrate that any dangerous activity on our roads will not be tolerated.
Processing...
Considering the insults and verbal abused I’ve received when asking someone not to smoke or not to take their dogs onto beaches where they’re not allowed, not to mention the literally insane hatred some drivers hurl at you on a bike when pointing out they completely ignored you and almost drove you over — I’m sitting this one out. If they want people to stop then the police need a motorbike campaign like in Brisbane with police on motorbikes filming and actively ticketing people.
Not a core function of a Council. Stick to the basics FFS!
Yeah, I can’t help but agree there. Isn’t this NZTA/Police role for this sort of thing. It’s usually coordinated on a national level, not council. This is money they could be spending on their priority; public transport and/or road upkeep.
BBC you told someone not to smoke outside. What are you on ?
He probably means in situations where there’s a signposted ban on smoking in a given area. Sometimes this is outside, such as on school premises. This said, he didn’t say outside…
@Bert, perhaps you haven’t noticed but many sites have outdoor bans, such as hospitals, schools, universities, kindergartens and many bus stops. Furthermore, many cities in countries like the US have bans in public parks, and this is something actively being discussed by Auckland Council. I also understand AT are considering banning smoking at all bus stops across Auckland not just a select few like the ones at Auckland Hospital.
My point is merely the fact that almost without exception when I have asked someone to not smoke at one of these places I have received a torrent of insults, people don’t take kindly to being asked to not to do something especially when they know full well they shouldn’t be.
Some people just don’t respect the law, or appreciate the importance of staying safe on the roads. You see the same result when you honk at a cyclist that runs a red, rather than make them think about their actions, they’ll just hurl abuse or give you the finger.
Right, unlike when you drive round honking at other car drivers. They immediately stop, think about their actions, then write you a politely worded formal apology while graciously thanking you for showing them the error of their ways.
Do you also honk at motorists when they do something wrong, or do you only feel the need to correct cyclists.
The problem is the definition of “doing something wrong”. For a lot of people, that means “being on the road on your bike”. I also think many people don’t realize you’re not allowed to ride your bike on the footpath.
Second thing, when you’re on a bike and if you want to stay safe, one thing you would never, ever, do in a lot of places is waiting for the green light [for cars] to cross an intersection. It’s quite common to merge from 2 lanes to 1 just after a light. And the last moment you want to be at a point like that is when a lot of cars are coming when the light just turned green. If there’s a Barnes dance you always cross during the pedestrian phase (carefully), which technically means running a red light. Otherwise in a lot of places you would have to go on the foot path. Often when there’s not a lot of traffic on the side road the safest (!) option is to run the red light (I guess that’s called jayriding?).
If you’re on a bike you can follow the road code or stay alive, but not both. There is just no viable road code for bicyclists.
I don’t accept excuses for running red lights. All road users should obey them, or keep off the roads. In all my years riding bikes, I never encountered any issue with stopping at red lights.
I also have been able to avoid it as well, mainly by avoiding crossings which are too dangerous. I usually just go on the sidewalk (which is also not allowed as far as I know) if it’s too dangerous to stay on the road.
On one hand, obviously we should expect bicyclists to obey the road code, like everyone else.
But on the other hand keep in mind that the streets and road code are designed for a situation where the only legit uses for the streets are (1) driving, and (2) walking a few meters from where you parked to your destination. If you do something else, like walking to the shops, or commuting on a bicycle, then you’ll find that obeying the road code is something between very cumbersome and sheer suicide.
Banning smoking from bus stops is pretty short sighted.
As every smoker and ex-smoker can attest; the best way to ensure your bus arrives within the next 60 seconds, is to light a cigarette.
Works every time.
Can 100% guarantee if you did that while on a bike you’d be told to get lost in less than polite terms. I’m not trying to downplay those five deaths but seriously, only five deaths in five years? That’s not really a seriously high stat, particularly when you consider people are distracted by many things *other* than cellphones. I’m all in favour of people being more focused on the task while driving but perhaps it would have been better in the release to talk about the injuries caused as well, not just the deaths. To the average person, that press release confirms the common sentiment that the ban on using handheld phones is a revenue-gathering exercise.
“common sentiment”
Based on?
ONLY 5 deaths??? Just shows the common societal blindness to the gravity of road accidents vis-a-vis rail, air, maritime or industrial accidents. If ANY death occurs on rail, the system comes down on the company like a ton of bricks.
And as you state, that’s just considering deaths which happen to be the extreme end-of-the-spectrum of a much larger range of accidents, a substantial number of which result in serious injury, impairment or incapacity. Many of the safety gains in rail and other industries over time have been achieved by identifying and dealing with hazards BEFORE they cause an accident.
But the reality of society’s lackadaisical attitude to road accidents, exemplified by the “Only x deaths” view, is that a massive disparity exists in the way hazards are viewed and handled, compared to just about all other fields of activity where a high risk to outside parties exists. If the roads were subject to the same safety-regime as rail the whole system would likely be shut down until it can get its act together.
As it has always been, the most important safety feature in a car is the nut behind the wheel.
But can we really compare road accidents to others modes of transport like rail and air?
Driving one tonne plus of metal around at 50km/h and above is an inherently dangerous activity, particularly when you consider you don’t have to undertake specialist training before you’re able to drive a car. Sure, you need to pass the tests in order to receive a licence but this system (in NZ at least) doesn’t come close to the rigours of say, obtaining an aeroplane pilot’s licence. Add to this the fact that so much of driving is reliant on user decisions and inputs; you can literally steer you car in any direction you want, quite unlike a train. All this — combined with a road network that’s built to a budget and often designed in a way that focuses on moving vehicles, not necessarily minimising the possibility or instances of user error — and some deaths are unavoidable.
Sure, there have been many advancements in motor vehicle technology that ameliorates user errors: ABS brakes, air bags, electronic stability control and so on. But this doesn’t change the fact that, until self-driving cars are introduced, user error can, and will, continue to happen and unfortunately when it does it can lead to serious injuries and death.
I see where you’re coming from when you describe this as “societal blindness” and for many people this is true — people generally underplay the risks in getting behind the wheel — but for the policy makers I’m not so sure we can accuse them of blindness. They’ve made decisions and decided certain risks and outcomes justify the overall benefits. I know this sounds macabre but there’s always a balance to be struck which reasonable people will probably disagree on.
While I agree with the general sentiment of this post if we take this attempt at a road safety campaign by Auckland Transport at face value. ie. just a ‘box ticking’ exercise. In terms of making a real difference, this kind of campaign could be viewed as a ‘soft option’ and low level initiative. However, if it was the beginning of a serious, strategic effort to improve road safety then it could be acknowledged and applauded as a first step to those improvements; an attempt at building social capital and directing opinion around how the public perceive and react to road safety. I expect it is the former but I would like to see AT take this low level start to it’s full conclusion. https://wheeledpedestrian.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/driven-to-distraction/
Don’t understand this. My rates are high enough without AT now doing adverts. Does this now duplicate the central government road safety messaging ? Are these adverts shown only in the Auckland area? Is this campaign coordinated with the national messaging or does AT think there should be multiple disperate campaigns?
This isn’t council’s role to be doing these and spending ratepayer’s money, when there is already a central government role in doing these on the national level and paid out of taxation.
Would make sense if the adverts are to be about the dangers of train overhead power lines maybe, but a general car based safety campaign ?
Clearly AT is doing this because police doesn’t give a flying excrement about it.
Well, at least in New Zealand it is illegal. Talking or texting whilst driving is, believe it or not, still legal here in Sweden. A study conducted by the traffic authority said that there was “no requirement to ban talking or texting at the wheel for safety”. To me this “study” is nothing short of madness…
Auckland Council/Transport as owner of all local roads is responsible for the safety of all people using those roads. So yes, it is AT’s job to reduce road deaths by whatever means, including adverts like this. One death is one too many. My guess is that of those fatalities some of them are not the person who was texting or whatever, just innocent bystanders.
5 Fatalities probably means 50 serious-minor injuries, 150 incidents of property damage and thousands of near misses. Just remember that tax payers pay a lot of accident costs through ACC so it is in everyone’s best interests to reduce these accidents.
Having said that I’m not sure how effective these adverts may be overall, even if they are memorable I don’t know if it is enough to make people change their dangerous behaviour.
One thing that iritates me about the phone thing is it has nothing to do with phones, its smart function of a phone or sometimes devices without phone capability at all, like why is it alright for someone to use their car stereos remote but not change song on their phone plugged into the stereo etc. I think the law should apply to all distractions, not simply “phones”.
The only time ive used my phone while driving was to take a call, cant say it distracted me, i held it up to my ear with my shoulder, eyes on the road, no different to a hands free kit (which i now have due to this new rule).
But yeah typing a text or IM will driving is beyond ridiculous. Anyone who does such stupidity shouldnt be behind the wheel, clearly no sense of responsibility.
Also another thing that gets me is when you are using your phone purely for GPS are they going to charge you for holding that but not a traditional GPS device?
As usual traffic rules have so many holes in them for police to exploit based on their “digression”.
It is not illegal to use your phone as a GPS navigator provided it is mounted somehow on the car (much like a standalone GPS device usually is).
> It is not illegal to use your phone as a GPS navigator provided it is mounted somehow on the car (much like a standalone GPS device usually is).
It is not illegal to use your phone as a phone provided it is mounted somehow on the car, or if you use voice activation. (It’s still illegal to text, email etc.)
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM2510830.html
Dear AT
Before you consider spending millions of our rate payers dollars on dubious advertising campaigns that are better suited to NZTA, how about attending to the basics first.
Perhaps you could consider making the actual roads safer? I have a couple of ideas of where you could start.
Just a thought.
Regards, your long suffering rate payer
Tony.
Millions Tony? Where did you get that from? Putting it up on youtube,facebook,twitter,tumblr is FREE. Using it as an advert on youtube would cost a lot though and I’m not sure if it would reach the right demographics, but they said only cinema ads and radio. I’m not sure how costly cinema ads and radio ads are, but I doubt AT’s budget is even in tens of thousands. Anyway, education is part of making the roads safer given than 80% of accidents are caused by human error.
This isn’t their only safety campaign, but you knew that right?
On the plus side these sorts of thing have a value in making the organisation lean. You just have to find the person who did this and sack them, then find the person who signed off on it and sack them too. Then find the person who wasn’t able to compromise over the Western Springs trees sooner and sack them. As I see it when Auckland Transport gets into the media it should be seen as a target on a staff members back.
Instead of all the blah blah blah, they should just look at this.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/car-crash-videos-highlight-risk-of-multitasking-with-phones/?ref=automobiles&_r=0
Saying Oi and having the risk of getting a verbal or physical reaction…no way! I’ll miss this one out thanks
How about a seriously enforced and heavily penalised “when moving, both hands on top of the steering wheel except when changing gear” rule?
Are you one of those that doesn’t use the indicator?
Window wipers? Hand break? Air con? Headlights? would be pretty dangerous if you cant adjust some of those.
How am I supposed to give cyclist the finger with both hands on the wheel?!
Changing gear with your hands, oldschool as bro.
Personally I don’t bother saying anything anymore, due to the amount of abuse received, so now I just take note of the time, the position, the rego number, make and colour of the car and dob them in on roadwatch. Hopefully the police actually send them a letter telling them the error of their ways. If everyone did this, I’m sure the idiots would soon get the message that we are watching them. As for the cyclists that have jumped on this bandwagon yet again, you all need to learn basic road courtesy and safety before you start slagging off at motorists. I drive a large truck for a living, and see cyclists doing stupid things every day. If you want to share the roads paid for by motorists then share the responsibility for your own safety as well.
Sure, just as long as motorists learn basic road courtesy and safety before slagging of anyone too!
Local roads are paid for mostly by rates, hence cyclists pay way more then they get back. Trucks, on the other hand are heavily subsidized
Trucks , on the other hand are heavily subsidized ……I don’t think so, trucks pay Road User Charges , with heavy trucks it cost $$ per kilometer just to be on the road ,( trucks pay more than cars for road upkeep etc so shouldn’t they have more right to the road than cars 🙂 ) …….most people who ride bikes own cars so pay for roads even when commuting by bike .People who own more than one home pay more rates so they pay more into roading etc ……We all pay for the roads no matter what we drive/ ride .
Actually Marty, trucks are heavily subsidised by everyone else in terms of the damage they do to the roads. The force exerted on the road is to the fourth power of the axle weight of the vehicle.
A 100kg bike/rider exerts 0.0001 units of force onto the road, a 1 tonne vehicle exerts 1 unit of force onto the road, a 2 tonne vehicle exerts 16 units of force onto the road and a 32 tonne vehicle exerts 1,000,000 units of force onto the road. Those stupid 54 tonne “high productivity vehicles” exert 8.5 million units of force on the road. Assuming the weight of the average car is 2 tonne, then a single HPV does the same damage to road as 500,000 average cars or a few billion cyclists. Do HPVs pay 500,000 times in tax as the average driver. I don’t think so.
Yes this is a simplified example but it is roughly accurate. RUC for heavy vehicles arent even close to covering the damage costs done to the roads. It is all the car drivers like me that are subsidising all the trucks on the road and it pisses me off. The trucking industry is one of the last great subsidised dinosaurs that needs to end, but it wont. It’s no wonder the railways cannot compete against such massive subsidies.
You can’t get away from trucks,trains or light rail won’t get goods to the supermarket only trucks will do that .Ask the government why they ran the rail network into the ground, because of that we need trucks of all sizes sorry you can’t get away from trucks ,Our rego comes nowhere near covering the cost of roads .Just remember all cost come to the end user ….say we charge trucks $100 a km ruc, trucks take food to the shops, you go to the shop to get some milk the price of the milk is $20 for a liter its not the shop thats making the money,The cost is in transporting the milk .Ari the ball is in your court now, what can we do to the truck industry to make them pay for the damage to the road without driving prices of EVERYTHING through the roof ………