AAA's Horribly Offensive Seatbelt Commercial

I don't find the commercial offensive. However, I do find it
offensive that every five days in Minesota a teenager dies in a
traffic related crash. Many of these lives would have been saved if
everyone in the vehicle had been buckled up. Teenagers are the least
likely of all age groups to buckle up. It is a valuable lesson that
sometimes an unbuckled individual in the back seat can cause injury or
fatalities to others in the car (even if the crash is someone else's
fault). I show this commercial to all of my driver's education
students. Not one has commented that is offensive.

I would disagree... while the ad is certainly "reaching" quite a bit..
it does make a valid point. You may argue that the unbelted occupant
didn't intend to harm his friends.. but the point is made... if you
don't wear your belt, you endanger others. Therefore the conscious
decision to NOT wear a seatbelt means putting those around you at
risk.

I am a 30+ year pilot, and we can't even take the SIMULATOR onto
motion, unless *everyone* including the instructor in the back, is
belted in. I guarantee you, if you have a 150 body unbelted behind
you,and you are involved in an accident, you are going to be injured
by that person.

I think that the commercial probably could have made this point a
little more politely... but then.. sometimes you need to shake people
up to get their attention.

I am surprised by the commercial's claim that the only one living
wasn't wearing a belt. Seems to me it just might be an endorsement
NOT to wear seatbelts. Instead of the position that perhaps this boy
caused the others' deaths, maybe he was still alive because he was not
trapped in the seat getting crushed.

A friend of mine's grandmother who was almost 100 at the time was in a
horrific car accident. She was sleeping in the back seat without a
belt. The only way she DID survive was because she was thrown to the
floor when the top of the vehicle was crushed by a fuel tanker. You
just never know...

I've seen this commercial and even though I was a little startled by
it, I think they should have it. If it gets teens to buckle up and
save lives then it's worth it.

This is not offensive, IMHO. Ineffective and somewhat misleading (if
he was tossed around the car with enough force to kill the three
seatbelted passengers, he wouldn't be alive either.)absolutely, but
it's not distasteful or gory enough that it should offend anyone. And
it misses the point that safe driving is just as important as seatbelt
use.

But the reality is that teen accidents ARE grusome and tragic and more
offensive than any commercial could ever portray.

The best way to curb this is to EDUCATE. Teach kids that a car is not
a toy. It's 2 tons of rolling steel that can end a life in a split
second if not treated responsibly.

Complaining about a bad commercial won't change the reality. Making
sure our kids are safe and that they understand the seriousness of
driving can.

If you truly want to see what's offensive, try Googling Nikki
Katsouras. It will make you NEVER want to give your kids the keys to
ANY car.

Before prom each year, our high school stages a reenactment of a
multiple car crash in the parking lot of the school. It's complete
with wrecked cars, bloody and mangled people, police, ambulance and
firemen. I think the seniors are required to watch, and I remember my
daughter being very upset by it. Every year when I see the pictures in
our local newspaper, I always think it's a real accident at first
glance, and then I realize it's the reenactment. I've never seen it
in person, but the pictures alone are enough to make the kids stop and
think before drinking and driving. It may be disturbing, and I'm sure
there are some parents who object to this approach, but I really think
it sends a clear message to the kids and leaves a lasting impression.
I'm in favor of it.

Has anyone noticed how graphic the smoking commercials are lately?
They're hard to watch, but unfortunately that's what it takes to make
people pay attention.

n/t

My view is this:

If this ad causes even ONE PERSON to always wear their seatbelt after
watching it, then its wonderful. If the horrible image saves a life,
then it has served its purpose.

The UK has a bunch of ads like these about seatbelts...one has a boy
who was'nt wearing one and flew to the front seat and broke his moms
neck by flying into her...she died he lived. Its really put the scare
into me to wear a belt.

When I was in high school, four seniors were killed in a car
accident. The school put the wreck at the entrance to their driveway,
and all the students had to look at it. If you went up close, you
could see that it had not been washed.
Weeks later, due to constant criticism by parents about the trauma
this was causing to their kids, the school's administration had it
removed.
There's a thin line between how much shock can do to protect kids,
and the nightmares it might produce. Graphic depictions of violent
death are questionable at best, even if put in public by well meaning
people.

I honestly believe that is a ridiculous commercial. Someone at work
mentioned that (I also am in Minnesota) and it just seemed to be a
stretch that just from the boy being tossed around, their injuries
were that serious. What about if he had been buckled in? Would they
still have died? I just think it's such an exaggeration, that it's an
ineffective commercial and therefore, a waste of money, especially tax
dollars. I support *effective* public education programs.

The fact is, to make kids safer when they're driving, we should do
what other states have done, like Wisconsin: Young (age 16 and 17)
drivers may have only ONE friend under a certain age (21? 25?) in the
vehicle with them at any time, no using of cell phones, no texting,
etc. Violators lose their license until age 18. It's working --
states with laws like this seem to be seeing a decline in the deaths
of young drivers.

KIDS ARE DYING FROM TEXTING WHILE DRIVING!!!

Holy crap, parents, you need to talk to your kids and get them to NOT
do this if at all possible. That's like knowingly letting a drunk
driver out on the road. Responsibe drivers deserve better than that.

I honestly believe that is a ridiculous commercial. Someone at work
mentioned that (I also am in Minnesota) and it just seemed to be a
stretch that just from the boy being tossed around, their injuries
were that serious. What about if he had been buckled in? Would they
still have died? I just think it's such an exaggeration, that it's an
ineffective commercial and therefore, a waste of money, especially tax
dollars. I support *effective* public education programs.

The fact is, to make kids safer when they're driving, we should do
what other states have done, like Wisconsin: Young (age 16 and 17)
drivers may have only ONE friend under a certain age (21? 25?) in the
vehicle with them at any time, no using of cell phones, no texting,
etc. Violators lose their license until age 18. It's working --
states with laws like this seem to be seeing a decline in the deaths
of young drivers.

KIDS ARE DYING FROM TEXTING WHILE DRIVING!!!

Holy crap, parents, you need to talk to your kids and get them to NOT
do this if at all possible. That's like knowingly letting a drunk
driver out on the road. Response drivers deserve better than that.

A friend of mine always refused to wear his seatbelt. He was in an
accident once, where--while not wearing a seatbelt--he was ejected
from the car, and suffered only minor injuries. He contends that had
he remained in the car, he would have died, as the driver did. He was
a great guy, but young and foolish. It was impossible to convince him
that, even if he did fare better in that one case, it was an
aberration. Every accident is different, but statistically, you're
much more likely to survive with a seatbelt.

Statistics didn't work on him, and they likely won't for others.
Teenagers have always been oblivious to risk and warnings, and filled
with a sense of invincibility. They've always been difficult to
reach.

It's key to reach them in a way that they can understand. If it takes
a graphic depiction of what can happen, to get the message across,
then so be it. I haven't seen the commercial, but I can't imagine it
being as offensive as a mangled body in "real life", which
may well be the alternative.

Because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should be censored or
changed. And the same hold true for any public service announcement.
Using pretty props won't give the same impact of the consquences to
this behavior. If you have a teen, let them see this no matter how you
feel, it could save one life despite how you may react to the reality
of it on a commercial.

That's one phone call that is any parent's worst nighmare. A little
horror now may spare having to deal with the real thing later.

So you're basically saying it's offensive because it's disgusting? I
find the Peta ads disgusting but I'm not offended by them trying to
save the lives of animals. You shouldn't be offended by AAA trying to
save the lives of people.

The world is not all warm, fuzzy and perfect. Bad, PREVENTABLE things
do happen. If AAA's graphic ad can prevent the stupidity of one
person, it's worth it.

I don't find this offensive at all. I'm going to show this video to
my husband. He refuses to wear his seatbelt because he says it is
uncomfortable. I'm going to let him know that he is putting not only
himself but also me (and our unborn baby) at danger. I think it will
get the point across.

You know what is offensive? People dying unneccessarily in automobile
accidents.

Anything to make our young "invincible" drivers think twice
when they get into a car I personally support. It only takes a few
seconds for life to come to an end.

A loose body becomes a very dangerous object when a car comes to an
abrupt halt. A lot of people don't realize that. I suppose they
could come up with other ways to get that point across, but none of
them is going to be pretty. Reality can be ugly.

The commercial referred to by the other poster is graphic, but I'm not
sure I would use offensive as the description. Assuming its the same
commercial here it is http://youtube.com/watch?v=PA0FRpbJt1s

I don't like in MN, so I haven't seen this. However, I did find it on
YouTube (PA0FRpbJt1s).

If you're going to complain, you really need to get it exactly right.

At the end of the piece, the exact quote (from someone on the rescue
team) is "Three dead in this vehicle... (something) critical...
They say the guy without the seatbelt did the damage."

This, in fact, if you watch the action, is the case. There is no
question that the bulk of the damage to the occupants was caused by
the boy without the seatbelt.

While this was a setup situation, it represents a plausible scenario
where everyone would have lived, had it not been for a 150 pound (+/-)
person flying around the car.

"Kill" means to "make dead." In the scenario
presented, the boy's body, being throw about the vehicle, caused the
deaths.

On other minor point. The boy dies. The only one to live was the
girlfriend, who ends up with "permanent brain damage."

You could argue that, had he been belted, the collision with the TWO
cars shown in the piece would still have killed people in the car.
However, watching the piece does suggest that at least some would have
fared better.

By the way, the piece was clearly shot in the UK. Besides the accent
of the rescue person and the narrator, the cars are driving on the
left side of the road.

The white car (the kids are in the blue car) is at fault for the
accident, as it crossed over to the wrong side of the road (at 35
seconds into the video).

The third car, a Ford, rear ends the vehicle. Despite being
rear-ended, the girlfriend appears conscious until she's hit by the BF
(51 seconds).

Anyway... despite being rather graphic (impressively so, given the
otherwise low budget feel to the spot), the point is a good one. When
you don't wear your seatbelt, you hurt not only yourself, but others.

Why would you be AGAINST giving that message?