Feb 05
Posted: under General, News, Policy.
Tags: 'Embrace Life', 'Three Strikes', Road safety, seat belts, THINK
Last month has seen two adverts highlighting the importance of wearing a seat belt. The Department for Transport re-released a THINK campaign on the fatal consequences of not wearing a seat belt and the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership (SSRP) has created ‘Embrace Life’. Both take different approaches – it’s interesting to compare them.
Since its [...] [...more]
Last month has seen two adverts highlighting the importance of wearing a seat belt. The Department for Transport re-released a THINK campaign on the fatal consequences of not wearing a seat belt and the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership (SSRP) has created ‘Embrace Life’. Both take different approaches – it’s interesting to compare them.
Since its launch, ‘Embrace Life’ has been seen in 101 counties. The film was directed by Daniel Cox, a BAFTA award winning film maker (60 Seconds of Fame Category) who contacted SSRP about making a road safety film. Filmed during the summer and launched on 20 January, costing £47,000, it was initially picked up by the local media in Sussex, but once it was put onto the internet the viral campaign exploded. Ten days after it was launched the ad had 480,000 hits on YouTube and once other sites such as Ad gabber, Adland.tv, Osocio.org and Media Blips showed it, the ad went truly global. The ad has been invited to appear on French national TV and at the TED.com ‘ideas worth spreading’ Conference in California. One impressed viewer even set up a Face book fan group for people to show their support. So far it has 1180 members. – A real example of how the internet can spread a message quickly and cheaply.
‘Embrace Life’ tackles the issue of the use/non-use of seat belts in a very different way as a key feature over the years has been powerful, graphic TV advertising showing the effects of not wearing a seat belt in a crash. It is provoking an emotional response in all viewers and can be watched by everyone as it will not make people switch over if they believe they will be watching blood and gore. This approach means that it fits firmly in the family domain and the fact that there is no dialogue means that it can be understood around the world.
The decision to wear a seatbelt is the most important single action that can be taken by a vehicle occupant to minimize the risk of personal injury in a road accident. Even now around 300 lives a year could be saved if drivers and passengers remembered to belt up. THINK! is continuing to work on reinforcing the message to new generations of drivers and passengers and the ‘Three Strikes’ ad illustrates that if you don’t wear a seat belt you will suffer fatal injuries, even at low speeds. The ad shows a car crash involving ‘Richard’ who is travelling within the speed limit. The crash depicted whaT would occur in one hundredth of a second in real time, but much of the action is slowed down in order for viewers to take it in. When he hits another car he is thrown forward and his unbelted body experiences three crashes as follows: his vehicle hits another car; his body hits the steering wheel and the windscreen; and his internal organs smash against his frame and rupture.
Unlike ‘Embrace Life’ the THINK campaign had to make two versions of its ad, one for pre-watershed viewing and one for post-watershed viewing, which shows what actually happens to internal organs in a collision instead of describing the consequence.
Both ads are hard-hitting. ‘Embrace Life’ aims to persuade people to wear their seat belts by playing on their emotions by showing a family setting, while ‘Three Strikes’ visually demonstrates the consequences of not wearing a seat belt. It is interesting to see what effect each approach has. Different people react to different messages in order to influence behaviour and to build compliance. However ‘Embrace life’ and ‘Three Strikes’ both perform a crucial function in highlighting the relative simplicity of the task required.
To watch the ads go to:
‘Embrace Life’ http://www.embracethis.co.uk/
‘Three Strikes’ http://think.dft.gov.uk/think/mediacentre/237144/seatbelts
Sep 01
Posted: under General, Parliament, Policy.
Tags: credit crunch, enforcement, Road safety, uninsured drivers
Mark Hunter is the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheadle. Mark is also the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Liberal Democrat Leader, and is the Liberal Democrat deputy spokesman on Transport issues.
The effects of the credit crunch haven’t stopped at the banks, our wallets or the high street. The repercussions of people feeling the pinch are [...] [...more]
Mark Hunter MP
Mark Hunter is the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheadle. Mark is also the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Liberal Democrat Leader, and is the Liberal Democrat deputy spokesman on Transport issues.
The effects of the credit crunch haven’t stopped at the banks, our wallets or the high street. The repercussions of people feeling the pinch are widespread – we’re all trying to save money in small ways hoping to make a big difference. The problem is that some people will choose illegal ‘shortcuts’ to save them money – like avoiding paying their car insurance.
It’s clear that the numbers of uninsured drivers are rising. Although calculating exact numbers is impossible, we do know that while fatalities from road accidents are in decline those involving uninsured drivers have increased dramatically. In fact estimates place the number of uninsured drivers at around 6.5% of all drivers or about 2 million motorists.
Uninsured drivers cost law abiding drivers money. The Motor Insurance Bureau calculates that uninsured drivers add £30 to the cost of every driver’s insurance policy, amounting to more than £500m a year in additional premiums – a cost that many of us can ill afford in the current economic climate.
What is even more worrying is that uninsured drivers are more likely to be dangerous drivers. According to the RAC Foundation, uninsured drivers are six times more likely to drive a non road-worthy vehicle, up to nine times more likely to be involved in an accident and ten times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving. In fact the most recent estimates by the DfT show that uninsured drivers kill 160 people and injure 23,000 each year.
It’s clear that the Government is failing to tackle the growing menace of uninsured drivers. In fact, the average fine for driving without insurance has fallen by 13.4% between 1997 (£224) and 2007 (£194). Meanwhile, the average premium for comprehensive insurance is over £700 (2009) – much more than the average fine. By allowing insurance costs to increase far above the fine, the Government are not sending a clear message that driving without insurance does not pay. Unless the Government works with insurance companies to make premiums more affordable and ensures that fines reflect the seriousness of the crime, there will continue to be little incentive for people to pay for their insurance. Instead these drivers will continue to prefer to chance that they will not get caught.
Lack of enforcement is the other problem. Technological advances such as roadside insurance checks and automatic number plate recognition are effective, but only if there are enough officers to use them. We need the Government to make enforcement of this problem a higher priority and try some new ideas to improve compliance. One such proposal is based on the system in France whereby all drivers have to display proof of their insurance and MOT certification in their windscreen, thereby ensuring that officials can quickly and easily see which cars are not insured.
With uninsured drivers taking three lives per week on our roads, this problem is not a small one; the Government needs to recognise this and take action now to prevent this problem growing.
