Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Technology

New Zealand Creates Safety Billboard That Bleeds When It Rains 137

Posted by samzenpus from the when-it-rains-it-gores dept.
Officials in Papakura, New Zealand have come up with a billboard that bleeds when it rains. They hope it will encourage drivers to slow down when the weather makes conditions dangerous. Since the billboards have been erected, there hasn't been a fatal accident in the area.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Zealand Creates Safety Billboard That Bleeds When It Rains More

New Zealand Creates Safety Billboard That Bleeds When It Rains

Comments Filter:

  • Supernaturally effective (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bovius ( 1243040 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:42AM (#28609917)

    The power of advertising compels you! To drive safely!

  • In the U.S. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:43AM (#28609935)
    ...we ought to erect a similar billboard that shits when politicians do ANYTHING.
  • We need that ad here.
    • I liked what the woman said in the video. Something like, "Accidents are not accidental, they happen because people aren't careful."
      • The word 'accident' is a scapegoat term as to assume that there is no one (not even one's self) to blame. An accident is an avoidable incident, avoidable by being a little more careful.
        • That's true, but at the same time, nothing in this world is perfect. You have to distinguish between intent, culpability (where there was on intent but reasonable care was not taken, implying negligence), and accidental events, which occur through chance despite all reasonable care being taken. Sure, you could probably eliminate most accidents by increasing safety margins and being more careful, but an efficient system gravitates towards the point where the cost of increasing precautions begins to outweigh

  • How soon before... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:45AM (#28609955)
    someone sees Jesus in one of the billboards?

    • Nor the effigy of Mary.

      Now, it is MORE likely we'll instead first see tampons, condoms and depends raining when it's pouring... For that last one, one could ask, "What does it taste like when a billboard is in the rain?" Another could respond, "Umm, welll, ummmm, it... depends..."... DOH!

      • Hmm, blood, wet, erected, I can't possibly think of something else that might benefit from the technology for advertising.
    • Actually, Michael Jackson sightings are the new thing.

  • Zero of nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:45AM (#28609965)

    Since the billboards have been erected, there hasn't been a fatal accident in the area.

    Of course, being New Zealand, since the billboard was erected there have not been any cars there either.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kreyszig ( 1419293 )
      Actually, anyone wanting to go south of Auckland pretty much has to go through Papakura, so this is quite some achievment.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by dotgain ( 630123 )
        Mod parent informative. South Auckland is New Zealand's Johannesburg. Being fatally wounded in a car crash would be somewhat a relief.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Except during the same time frame last year that area had 14 deaths from car accidents.

      • Thats really a small number though that could depend on multiple variables. How do we know that the same amount of cars passed through it? For all we know there could have been a road that was under construction that people use now. Also did the road get any more improvements? What about weather? There would be a big difference if last year there were lots of storms. Etc. Plus, for all we know, most of those 14 deaths could have happened with one or two cars. Its really too small of an amount of deaths to s

        • Re:Zero of nothing (Score:4, Insightful)

          by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @12:37PM (#28610763) Homepage

          Thats really a small number though that could depend on multiple variables. How do we know that the same amount of cars passed through it? For all we know there could have been a road that was under construction that people use now. Also did the road get any more improvements? What about weather? There would be a big difference if last year there were lots of storms. Etc.

          "Small" is entirely relative. Granted that road improvements, construction, weather, etc. could have affected numbers. (Freakish weather is less "variable" than the presence of bleeding billboards.) You are correct that there aren't enough data to do a thorough statistical analysis, but you seem to be grasping at straws. From 14 to 0 could be very statistically significant depending on the standard deviation from year-to-year and the elimination of outside influence. Just because 14 is "small" compared to your local Interstate exit doesn't mean that it's negligible for this stretch of NZ highway.

          "TFA" is worthless, but speculating on potential spikes in common, relatively flat variables should not eliminate the speculation on effects of observable variation in very prominent and very uncommon variables. Put more simply, and in a car analogy, if you install a set of used tires and 2 blow out during your normal commute home, look first at your tires and then at potential anomalies in the road.

          Plus, for all we know, most of those 14 deaths could have happened with one or two cars.

          OK, if you're in NZ (or really pretty much anywhere but India) 14 people in "one or two" cars would be a lot. 14 people in my car (or most any car) would require opening the sun-roof and me meeting a bunch of midgets. If you're going to pedant statistics, refrain from speculating on obvious outliers. 14 deaths in a 1-car wreck on a NZ highway? *Scoff*

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by blueg3 ( 192743 )

            For rare occurrences, a good estimate of the standard deviation is sqrt(n) -- so, roughly +/- 4 deaths.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Eevee ( 535658 )

            OK, if you're in NZ (or really pretty much anywhere but India) 14 people in "one or two" cars would be a lot.

            Um, the statement was most of those 14 deaths. That means two cars with four people would meet the original requirement. Depending on how picky you are about "most", one mini-van (counts as a car in the US) with seven people would work--while two mini-vans would result in the total number of deaths.

            (Or, since it's NZ, it could be a truck with one driver and thirteen sheep...)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Macgrrl ( 762836 )

            I would even sugest the 14 fatailities in a single incident (regardless of the number of vehicles) would be extremely unlikely given the mortaility rate in a multi-vehicle accident is rarely 100%. Chances are an accident of that scale would have been visible in the world media as some outrageous freak event.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Mozk ( 844858 )

            aren't enough data

            Knock it off. Just use "data" as a singular noun like everybody else.

        • According to Wikipedia, the region in question [wikipedia.org] has about 48,300 people and is about 48 square miles. It's not clear what they mean by Easter Period, but I'd guess either Lent or Easter weekend. Especially if it's Easter weekend, a drop from 14 to 0 deaths over 3 days in an area the size of about 1.5 Massachusetts towns sounds rather significant.

          I know that "correlation is not causation" is a popular mantra, both here and on fark (heh), but correlation implies the existence of one of two things: either causa

          • ...But still, 14 deaths could be easily caused by one or two accidents. For example, a bus or van could have collided with a truck easily giving you 8 deaths or more. Now this may or may not be the case, but 14 of anything is too low to really say anything definite.

            • I couldn't find a document for 2008, but according to the first link on this page [transport.govt.nz] of the Ministry of Transport's site, in 2007 there were a total of 0 bus drivers and 1 bus passenger killed in all crashes through the year, out of a total of 422 vehicle-related deaths (Table 7). These numbers are 0 and 0 in both 2006 and 2005, as well. Furthermore, a Google search for "2008 new zealand bus accident" doesn't appear to turn up any accidents with a death count of 14 or lower, and the only two bus crashes in NZ

          • It's not clear what they mean by Easter Period, but I'd guess either Lent or Easter weekend. Especially if it's Easter weekend, a drop from 14 to 0 deaths over 3 days in an area the size of about 1.5 Massachusetts towns

            They mean the Easter weekend, which is traditionally the most lethal time of the year on NZ roads. The Easter road toll is counted from 4 pm on the Thursday to 6 am on the Tuesday (the Monday after Easter is a public holiday).

            However, as I've also pointed out in another post [slashdot.org] on this page, there is no way in hell that that or any other district in NZ had a road toll of 14 in the Easter weekend of 2008, as the road toll for the entire country that year was 8 (or 9; I've now found one report [tvnz.co.nz] that gives 9, but

        • Thats really a small number though that could depend on multiple variables. How do we know that the same amount of cars passed through it? For all we know there could have been a road that was under construction that people use now. Also did the road get any more improvements? What about weather? There would be a big difference if last year there were lots of storms. Etc. Plus, for all we know, most of those 14 deaths could have happened with one or two cars. Its really too small of an amount of deaths to say with any certainty if they are working.

          The 14 figure stated by the AC is wrong. The period that they are talking about was over Easter - 4.5 days approximately. According to this [stuff.co.nz] the Easter road toll for 2008 was 9 nationally so I have no idea where the 14 came from.

      • Except during the same time frame last year that area had 14 deaths from car accidents.

        I sure hope you have a source for this, given that the time frame stated at the end of the clip is the Easter weekend, and in the 2008 Easter weekend there were in fact eight deaths [newstalkzb.co.nz] from car accidents in the whole of New Zealand.

    • It's also quite effective at repelling elephants, as no elephants have been sighted in the vicinity since it was put up.

  • I'd be too busy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Theoboley ( 1226542 )
    Staring at the billboard/horror show to concentrate on driving, thus causing an accident. /fail

  • I could be wrong here... (Score:3, Funny)

    by thewils ( 463314 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:46AM (#28609981) Journal

    but I don't think it's really blood. Seems to be some kind of red liquid to simulate blood, I think.

    "Leaking" might be a better word to describe it, I wouldn't use "bleeding" myself.

    • You can use bleeding for mechanical/hydraulic systems too. And if it's looks like blood dripping across someone's face, bleeding seems a decent enough use of the word.

    • but I don't think it's really blood. Seems to be some kind of red liquid to simulate blood, I think.

      Nah, you don't think!

      Mod parent +1 Insightful.

    • A risky assumption. New Zealanders might be witnessing the shed blood of thousands. Snuff in it's purest form! And you're all "Oh, this would probably just be lemonade!"

    • We should better let them know then.
      They should immediately start cutting and stabbing actual living things on top of that billboard, or stop calling it "bleeding".

    • Seems to be some kind of red liquid

      It's probably rainwater collected at the top/back of the billboard and run through a dyed filter.

    • Re:I could be wrong here... (Score:5, Funny)

      by oldspewey ( 1303305 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @12:40PM (#28610807)

      but I don't think it's really blood.

      In related news, the New Zealand Health Bureau has stepped up calls for donors in the midst of what is being called "the greatest blood shortage crisis our nation has ever known."

    • You Are. (Score:3, Funny)

      by davegravy ( 1019182 )
      Obviously they collected the blood from past accident victims (who never noticed the fine print on their organ donation card authorizing the use of their blood in accident prevention advertising campaigns)

  • How Long? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:47AM (#28609995)

    Until someone crashes while gawking at the bleeding billboards?

    • Yeah.. it's like how nothing makes people pay more attention to the road than a flaming jack-knifed semi in the median. See, it reminds them what happens when you don't drive safely.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bigby ( 659157 )

        Is slowing down to 5 mph to look at that semi considered safe these days?

      • No, they aren't slowing down because they're reminded what happens in an accident, they're slowing down to see destruction and maybe some bodies. Just like people will gather around a burning building to watch it burn down.

        If they REALLY were feeling that they need to drive safer, they wouldn't be looking to the SIDE instead of the car IN FRONT of them.

    • Until someone crashes while gawking at the bleeding billboards?

      Almost happened the other day: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sideswipe/news/article.cfm?c_id=702&objectid=10583035 [nzherald.co.nz] (last paragraph in column).

  • ...No deaths, except for those ones... (Score:3, Funny)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:48AM (#28610009)

    Not reported are those deaths caused by folks either watching or cringing away from the image of a giant boy bleeding out his nostrils and eyebrows. ...followed by a sign that said...burma shave.

    Ryan Fenton

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Trogre ( 513942 )

      Burma Shave? Is that Myanmar's answer to a certain grooming fashion in south america?

  • they also got the billboard to shit bats

    making it the most goth/ emo billboard in the world

  • Awesome much? (Score:2, Funny)

    by S7urm ( 126547 )

    I think that is a pretty cool idea, what better way to get your average 16 year old chucklehead to pay attention and not drive head on into my mom on the road, then to remind him that getting in accidents cause signs to bleed at random in New Zealand...........and also forces people to kill cute puppies and kittens.........

    Damn kids! get off my lawn!

  • I just flipped someone off while passing them on my way to work. Since then No radio stations have reported any new accidents.

    ROAD RAGE WORKS!

    (but not really, I wouldn't do that)

  • eh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by poetmatt ( 793785 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:49AM (#28610041) Journal

    Did they really realize that they basically made a menstruating billboard? At least it doesn't yell at people or have emotional breakdowns.

  • thats a nice sign loOKOUT FOR THAT TRUCK , road side advertising never distracted anyone !
  • unless you know the accident rate and have enough data points over time, you can't tell if the billboard works. It may simply not been in place long enough for it to work. Even if yo see a reduction in accidents over time - was it the novelty of a bleedboard or did simply having something new in place cause people to slow down? Once they get used to it, accidents may revert to their old level.

  • If you want to get people to slow down in the rain (Score:5, Funny)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @11:53AM (#28610105) Homepage
    Put an electronic headline news billboard up. Then when it rains, put a fake headline like "Be on the look out for a nude 20 year old girl on Highway 3" I assure you, all the men will slow down and be on the look out for her.

    • You missed the point here... the problem is female drivers!
      We should put a baby face on the back of each car instead... this way they'll look the car in front of them, brake when needed (They doesn't want to hurt the baby face in front of them) and accelerate when the car in front of them accelerate.
      All will goes right... (assuming the first car is driven by a man)
      Problem solved... NEXT ;)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bigby ( 659157 )

      It'll backfire and all men will speed up to get to find her as quickly as possible. If they happen to find a nude woman on the highway, they'll completely stop causing massive traffic issues and accidents.

    • placed at intervals that they cannot be ignored. When speeds reduce the numbers should be in RED. They can be whatever convention is used for other traffic control signals depending on where in the world they are used.

      However, using my area as an example. Normal speeds display in white... suggested speeds in yellow (like they are hinting that a speed reduction is coming) and then finally reduced maximums based on weather or traffic. We already have entrance ramps controlled by lights so why not control

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by dzarn ( 760066 )
        They recently put those in along I-70 just west of Denver, and I have never seen them below 65. Even when thick fog makes it suicide to drive faster than about 30, they stay 65. So they don't do much good unless they actually get updated, which is still a manual process.

  • Wow, bloody roads in New Zealand indeed! Maybe they've been watching too much Lord of the Rings, one bloody set of films...

    Don't think of a pink ELEPHANT with bloody eyes. Oh, wait you just did think of it!

    Don't think of crashing your car while driving seeing bloody eyes on highway sigh... oh wait you just did... smack...

    Driving safe ads need to be carefully crafted so that you don't see a spike in accidents.

  • I'm surprised the billboard hasn't *caused* accidents as people take their eyes off the road to stare at the bleeding billboard and try to puzzle out what's going on. That's at least what I would have expected...

  • The appropriate name for this new material? (Score:3, Funny)

    by dmomo ( 256005 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @12:06PM (#28610273)

    Gore-Techs

  • Rain isn't causing those accidents (Score:5, Funny)

    by redshirt ( 95023 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @12:09PM (#28610297)

    After watching the video, the real cause of accidents is clear: they drive on the wrong side of the road!

    • Re:Rain isn't causing those accidents (Score:4, Interesting)

      by GreatDrok ( 684119 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @01:05PM (#28611189) Journal

      "After watching the video, the real cause of accidents is clear: they drive on the wrong side of the road!"

      Amusing although more than half (66%) of the world's population actually does drive on the left but that is besides the point.

      NZ has a real problem with bad drivers. People don't have any clue about stopping distances so tailgating is rampant so the number of related accidents is very high. The road surfaces aren't very good, cars aren't kept in good condition as the Warrant Of Fitness is cursory at best compared with say the MOT in the UK. I was appalled when I first moved here to find that the tyres on my recently bought car were OK as far as the WOF was concerned because they had tread on 80% of the surface (bald around the edges due to misaligned tracking) and passed just fine. The car would slide and aquaplane in the rain so I replaced the whole lot.

      Basically, bad road awareness and poorly maintained cars is the main problem. Oh, and no insurance is required, not even third party so if someone crashes into you and they are uninsured you are stuffed. I bought fully comp insurance because of this.

      The only real blessing is that the speed limit is so low (100 kph or 62 MPH max even on the few stretches of motorway) but even so, NZ drivers are scary!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 )

        Amusing although more than half (66%) of the world's population actually does drive on the left but that is besides the point.

        Population of people, or of cars?

        No fair counting India where the number of people greatly exceeds the number of cars -- vehicles per capita is 12 out of 1000 versus the US where it is 765 per 1000. [nationmaster.com]

      • I was appalled when I first moved here to find that the tyres on my recently bought car were OK as far as the WOF was concerned because they had tread on 80% of the surface (bald around the edges due to misaligned tracking) and passed just fine. The car would slide and aquaplane in the rain so I replaced the whole lot.

        Did that happen recently? My car failed it's WOF a couple of months ago for exactly this issue (and it wasn't so bad as to cause any loss of grip in any conditions I'd driven in).

    • We'll make sure to switch over when they finally build the bridge to ... wherever the nearest country is that drives on the other side of the road.

      Hmm ... I guess that would be New Caledonia. ... about 1400 km away.

      (But to switch sides there they'll have to switch sides in mainland France as well. That will be our foothold in Europe. Hahahahaha! Soon all of continental Europe will be driving on the left! With blackjack! and hookers!)

  • that's a great idea. also very cool. we need one over here for drunk driving or something to that extent. although, it may be a little distracting too...

  • . . . bleeding billboards? Yawn.

    . . . now if those billboards could project holograms of sharks with lasers and zombies screaming, "Braaaaiins" . . . it might work.

    • How about a billboard with Natalie Portman in hot grits, wearing a t-shirt? ...that gets wet when it rains!

  • "Who wants to get drunk, go out and replace the red dye with motor oil??"

  • Correlation is not causation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyler Durden ( 136036 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @12:49PM (#28610955)

    Why should we accept that the rain causes the billboard to bleed? Perhaps the bleeding of the billboard causes the rain...

  • This billboard only has an influence on those who have line-of-sight to it. They should just engineer things so that all rain in New Zealand is bloody.

  • I'm impressed. Whoever screwed up and forgot to order indelible dyes for the billboards is going to end up with a promotion instead.

  • Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
    Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
    Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
    Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
    Homer: I see.
    Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
    Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

  • Vista Pollution (Score:4, Funny)

    by Fieryphoenix ( 1161565 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @01:46PM (#28611911)
    It's getting impossible to enjoy the scenery there any more because of all the bloody signs!

  • "Slowing down" is not really what is needed in most cases...

    Which do you think is safer or more effective: slowing down 15% or increasing following distance 15%? I am betting following distance is FAR more critical to accident avoidance. Speed is rarely "the" problem, unless there is a great speed differential in the traffic on the road.

    Personally, I always try to leave more distance... and the worse the conditions, the more distance I add. That extra second (or more) can make a big difference.

    • Which do you think is safer or more effective: slowing down 15% or increasing following distance 15%?

      If you increase your speed 15%, you need to increase your stopping distance by something like 30%.

      Physics FAIL

      Personally, I always try to leave more distance... and the worse the conditions, the more distance I add. That extra second (or more) can make a big difference.

      Very true. Following too close is definitely dumb.

      It's simply true that at lower speeds it's easier to avoid a crash. You just have more time! Also, when one occurs, it is less serious.

      • Yeah, I thought about it after I posted and realized that speed vs. following distance was probably not directly related. But my point was still generally valid-

        With the proper following distance for your speed, you don't have to reduce speed to maintain reasonable safety.

        The old "2 second rule" might be OK for any speed, but only under "normal" weather and traffic conditions. When conditions deteriorate, you have to make it a 3 or 4 second rule, instead.

        • The old "2 second rule" might be OK for any speed, but only under "normal" weather and traffic conditions. When conditions deteriorate, you have to make it a 3 or 4 second rule, instead.

          There are considerations other than stopping distance, for example sight distance. In the rain, for example, it's harder to tell what the cars ahead of you are doing. Slow down, so that there is more time between when you realize someone is a dumbfuck, and when your reflexes have kicked in, if your sight distance is reduced. (Which is why I should probably slow down in the canyons...)

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close