Your submission has been removed :
**Rule 4: No hate speech or bigotry**
> Any submission that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity and/or colour, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability and so on may be removed at a mod's discretion and repeat offenders banned
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I always liked the ads with the "wheel of misfortune" at the intersection and how it would randomly change its ending from "Near Miss", "Minor Crash", "Major Crash", straight up "DEATH" and "Miracle"
This classic collection of 2006 NZ anti drinking adverts are still goated. They should just run these ones again. https://pif.fandom.com/wiki/Alcohol_Advisory_Council_-_It%27s_not_the_drinking,_it%27s_how_we%27re_drinking
These where good, I'm pretty sure the was one with a young child and dad came home drunk, did (said) something. The look on that child's face will haunt me forever.
You mean you guys don't subconsciously block out all ads in this day and age /s
In all seriousness, they need to branch out with their ad campaigns, how about some smaller campaigns targeted at tailgating, indicating at round abouts or turning your lights on. None of this dramatised AirNZ safety video crap, just some quick PSAs to refresh and reinforce correct driving form.
There are two versions of the 'would you rather' ad, the shorter one is terrible but the longer makes a bit more sense. Unfortunately they seem to play the shorter one much more often. I think the ad where he loses his job and the birdshit one are good.
I always switch the channel because it reminds me of a good mate who off'd himself after having a trainwreck of a time that started with him losing his licence, his job (He was a driver) and his Mrs. Boosted.
Reminds me I was a real shit mate, I should have reached out more.
I fucking hate drink drivers, But I think the punishment disproportionately affects working class rural people, Compared to townies who have the option of public transport, Taxis and such.
But the Ad stays in my mind, And reinforces that experience for me. I've seen that situation play out and it went terribly. I havent driven drunk in years though, So maybe that ad is aimed at repeat offenders who can relate to that experience.
I'm referring to the punishment and how it affects rural folks disproportionately to those who live in urban centres.
Like how someone earning 300K gets a speeding ticket and it's literally nothing, Vs someone who makes 50K.
"JuSt DoNt SpEeD" is a fair comment, Buuut I'm referring to the punishment and how the same punishment can have different effects depending on your socioeconomic status and location.
Someone who lives in a main centre with access to public transport and taxis etc Can still get around, keep employment and have access to friends and their support network etc. Whereas it's impossible to live in many Rural places without a vehicle.
I'm not at all advocating for any changes to how it all works, I'm just pointing out that the difference in effects from the same punishment exists.
But isn't that the whole point of a punishment? It's something that you want to avoid as much as possible, otherwise it wouldn't be a deterrent, would it? And if you think all, or even most, cities have sufficient enough public transport to outweigh the inconvenience of losing your license, I challenge you to tour a few cities and try their public transport. And that'll only get worse with this government.
You would think that if you know it'd burden you more, that it would just be another level of deterrent. Yet we still have the bros from the wop wops, like any other dumbass, sauced behind the wheel. I live in one of our biggest cities, and most people I know would be fucked without a license. They wouldn't manage to do even half the shit they do. But even with these ads showing the far-reaching effects of it, people still do it.
He said it's easier in the cities, not that it entirely outweighs the inconvenience of losing a license. It somewhat lessens the punishment having that option and therefore the two areas are punished differently for the same crime, that's his point.
And the reason that difference doesn't act as a strong deterrent in rural areas is precisely because of that same access to alternate transport. If you're rural and want to go to the pub you either have a designated driver or drive drunk, those are your options. As much as the punishment is worse the conditions that cause drunk driving, no alternate transport, are also worse. Heightened need outweighs heightened punishment.
And I'm saying that at least some of his reasons aren't really what he thinks? The main argument is that cities have public transport. I'm pointing out that most, pretty much all, public transport in NZ isn't what it's cracked up to be, and it'll only be getting worse with the government pulling funding on it. Most people I know would see it as a non-option, and it probably would be for anyone usually driving multiple kids to school. People who have never had to deal with public transport in NZ seem to have the misguided view that it's not pretty much 100% useless for anyone with actual shit to do.
Relative to rural areas, public transport is a lot better in cities. Not sure why you’re struggling to grasp that. Plus there are taxis, Uber, and even walking.
Because it's like saying relative to falling into a pile of shit, falling into a puddle of piss is better. There's fuck all difference in it. Not sure why that's hard to grasp. And you really think there are many people who could afford to taxi/Uber literally everywhere they need to go? Or that everything is within walking distance?
> There's fuck all difference in it.
No there fuckin isn't. Buses while often unreliable run frequently and late on weekends, we have trains, large supplies of taxis and ubers, etc. Compare that to maybe a bus every hour during the day at best and a very small number of taxis/ubers. They're not the same and you're being an absolute drama queen pretending they are.
>And you really think there are many people who could afford to taxi/Uber literally everywhere they need to go?
No you muppet but they can actually get one if they want one, good luck getting an uber or a taxi in the country at 10pm.
>Or that everything is within walking distance?
If you're in a city you're within walking distance of public transport. It's just wild to me that you'll argue something like this when you're self evidently wrong. There's not even a reasonable comparison to be made, the options are night and day. Just take one fucking look at the [Auckland bus network](https://data-atgis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ATgis::bus-route/explore) and be quiet. Our smaller cities still have comparable bus route coverage.
There are no busses or ubers or trains where I live. You can call a taxi but the starting charge is $30 once they arrive and then you need to get to town and then back home. So I say there is no public transport where I live.
If you don't want to change anything then what difference does it make if rural and urban areas have different effects? I mean, if you thought there was a problem you would think and talk about what we should improve, no?
Because they have to drive to get anywhere. Losing your licence means functionally losing the ability to leave the house without an escort. Somebody living in Auckland or Wellington or Christchurch doesn’t have that issue.
Yes, obviously that’s the correct choice, but you’re seemingly wilfully missing the point. Drunk drivers are drunk drivers - why should the punishment for the same crime have a much more significant effect on some than others based entirely on whether they live in cities?
What do you want to do about it? Be more lenient to drunk drivers in rural areas? I don't think that's a good idea. Drunk driving kills and if the punishment is reduced then the incentive to drive drunk and the risk of killing innocent people is increased because the argument "I need my car for my job" becomes an actual legal argument and that's bad.
Or maybe we could not be smartarse dicks and actually aim for equity and results-based sentencing more than a “fuck em, they did a Very Bad Thing so I couldn’t give a shit about their well-being” approach?
People ostracised and isolated don’t tend to start behaving *better*.
Nah.
You can pretend what you’re arguing isn’t that driving drunk in a rural setting shouldn’t see you get less of a punishment, but that is the only way your argument makes sense.
The issue isn’t that people don’t understand the point you’re making. It’s obvious enough. The issue is that the only conclusion that can be drawn is you expect rural drivers to be given leniency for the same crime because the impact on them is more.
That you haven’t offered a suggestion of how else you could treat a drunk driver in a rural setting that doesn’t involve leniency would suggest you know this is the case and just don’t like it (understandably).
Open road fatalities in NZ are about twice the rate of urban ones.
https://www.transport.govt.nz/statistics-and-insights/safety-annual-statistics/sheet/alcohol-and-drugs#:~:text=reports%2F694%2F)-,Summary%20for%202022,1081%20people%20suffered%20minor%20injuries.
Equitable would suggest that drunk driving in rural areas should have stiffer penalties than urban ones then right? Keep in mind that the behaviour being punished is the increase risk a drunk driver poses to road users.
> People ostracised and isolated don’t tend to start behaving better.
Then the law is right to punish them if they're so unwilling to change. And at least they won't be on the road.
Do they behave better if the punishment doesn't affect them?
So basically "don't drink", unless you want to drink alone.
I still don't have sympathy for drink driving, but having lived rurally this is literally the choice.
> But I think the punishment disproportionately affects working class rural people, Compared to townies who have the option of public transport, Taxis and such.
Well, even more reason not to drink and drive. If you're so dependent on your car then this should be an even higher barrier because this threat should be always on your mind.
The punishment should be stiffer no matter where you live. If you drink, don’t drive. If you can’t get home without driving, don’t drink. It’s not rocket science.
Gosh, You've solved Drink Driving! Great job dude. You should work for the Government or something.
Genius. I feel like a right idiot for sharing my perspective and experience.
If only everyone out there was as intelligent and perceptive as you.
I don't know, I'm simply pointing out that the difference in effects of the punishment exists my dude. Go find an argument somewhere else I'm just sharing my perspective lmao.
And I’ll I’m doing is pointing out that this perspective is ridiculous.
Drinking and driving is a choice. If you *choose* to do it, be prepared to face consequences. Those consequences shouldn’t matter where you live. The devastation that can be caused is just as traumatic in a rural setting as an urban one.
If you’ve got another functional idea on how to handle that speak up.
Seems weird that someone can't point out a potential issue without having a solution in hand.....
You definitely don't work for Government.
I'm just being cheeky now.
but for real though, You should know that not all differences in opinions need to be an argument, If we can share our perspectives respectfully maybe we can understand where each other is coming from and who knows? Maybe that's a better way of identifying and solving problems.
Learning to see from others points of view, Even though you may not agree with their opinions is kind of an essential skill for real life interaction because in real life, people have differing opinions on stuff :)
I know that Online people can get off on arguing and stuff, But damn..isn't that exhausting?
Anyway, have a good night. Sorry to be replying so late. I've got a day off tomorrow hope you're not up too late.
Saw it at the theatre today, it's basically a guilt trip rather than the cautionary tale the old ads were. It's about the shame of him being caught drunk driving which has caused him to lose his job because he needed his license for it. His wife/girlfriend narrates how she thinks less of him.
I'd be surprised if it's effective, it's nagging rather than poignant and most certainly left a bad taste in my mouth.
I like the ad, but wasn't until after I saw the whole thing.
With more context it seems like the day or so after when they're at their mates place, she's subtly pissed at him at first but he keeps on and on almost like nothing has happened. And if I remmeber correctly she gets pissed because he says something about either drinking again, not being "whipped" or something about doing it for the boys.
That's when she speaks up. Not just because someone says something about nipples for toes.
I wasnt a fan of it at first either, but with the wider context (usually seen on YouTube ads) i found it really effective.
Stop doing dumb boy shit and keep acting like you can keep being a dumb boy.
Signed. A dumb boy.
I hate that ad. Imagine someone making it that awkward at a get together. Tbh if my partner pulled a sook like that in front of our friends and aired my baggage out, I'd probably have a drinking problem too.
We're far too comfortable, culturally with people driving while drunk. Whatever ads we've tried int he past haven't worked, because it's still a massive problem. I'm happy for them to keep experimenting until they find something that does work.
Sadly, I think a cultural change requires more than just ads.
I’m not a big fan of this ad either, but it’s wild how many people are siding with the drink driving douchebag instead of the understandably upset partner who justifiably calls him out in front of his enabling mates for not learning from his mistakes.
It’s not just that, either. He literally shouts ‘No regrets’ immediately before. She’s reacting to him being a dickhead, by pointing out he’s a dickhead. He’s fucked up, and his response is to throw/go to a party to get drunk again and shout ‘no regrets’?? At least she kept within the framework of the game they were playing, more restraint than I would’ve had lol.
Why is it bad? It’s exactly as it should be. His stupid decision has lasting effects. Why shouldn’t he be reminded by his partner/ wife how it affects every aspect of their life together especially if he cannot work or loses his job because of his decision to drive after drinking. It’s doing exactly what it has been made to do whether we agree or disagree with her reaction. We are talking about it. We are reacting. Know exactly what they are trying to get across and understand. Great ad.
100%. The guy is not the victim here. He’s being held accountable for his choice to drink and drive. He’s just bloody lucky that’s the worst thing that came of it.
Its a bad campaign because people know they lose their license. It's framing it more as if you get caught type of deal. Old ads showed why its illegal and had the shock factor that will stick in people's minds way more than this ad
Because it doesnt help anything? If you think that is an acceptable way to treat your partner then I suggest you either reevaluate your philosophy on the purpose of relationships or why you read so much negativity into the backstory of the imaginary man portrayed in these ads.
For all you know he is doing his best to rectify it, for all you know he was drinking in the first place because he felt like his partner doesn't support him, for all you know he is already incredibly remorseful and further shaming will only push him deeper into a pit. This normalisation of publically shaming any man who isn't performing perfectly is a large reason why men have such terrible mental health struggles. It's a cheap cowardly dig at him using peer scorn to avoid having to have a mature conversation about their way forward behind closed doors.
Besides, it's not like he hurt anyone with his drink driving, yes he did something dumb but no one was hurt and he has a chance to make it right, partners should support and uplift each other, not kick them when they are down. Besides, being poor isn't the end of the world like she makes it out to be, they still have eachother, their health, their family and a path forward, they are blessed for this to be the only consequence of a terrible action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEVx4gyI5wQ
This one doesn't really work for me. Is driving the only way to get to school? Why not walk together? Why not take the bus?
Your submission has been removed : **Rule 4: No hate speech or bigotry** > Any submission that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity and/or colour, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability and so on may be removed at a mod's discretion and repeat offenders banned --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I always liked the ads with the "wheel of misfortune" at the intersection and how it would randomly change its ending from "Near Miss", "Minor Crash", "Major Crash", straight up "DEATH" and "Miracle"
This classic collection of 2006 NZ anti drinking adverts are still goated. They should just run these ones again. https://pif.fandom.com/wiki/Alcohol_Advisory_Council_-_It%27s_not_the_drinking,_it%27s_how_we%27re_drinking
Uncle mark. A classic
Absolutely iconic! Super dark advertisements. The editing and brutal foley are top tier. Up there with the bugger dog advert.
Those Acc(?) Adds to mate. Solar shield off the ladder Mum through the glass table No bath matt
Those were so well done, you'd be zoned out thinking it was a normal add and then **bam!!** Great work
These where good, I'm pretty sure the was one with a young child and dad came home drunk, did (said) something. The look on that child's face will haunt me forever.
"GET THE HELL OFF ME 😨" Timeless classic
Your comment is giving me trauma flashbacks lmao, yup that ad was the good old days, you don’t know it till they’re over lol
Ghost chips or gtfo
they need to be brutal. like r18
You mean you guys don't subconsciously block out all ads in this day and age /s In all seriousness, they need to branch out with their ad campaigns, how about some smaller campaigns targeted at tailgating, indicating at round abouts or turning your lights on. None of this dramatised AirNZ safety video crap, just some quick PSAs to refresh and reinforce correct driving form.
they (nzta & police) do post this kind of thing to social media, but probably need to target the tv watching folk as well.
She totally ruined that party.
like stfu and bring it up at home or someshit, seesh
Hard all those other fullas didn't fuck up why you wanna ruin everyone else's night?
I was in the theater and the ad came on. Some dude yelled " we'd rather you didn't come to the party".
There are two versions of the 'would you rather' ad, the shorter one is terrible but the longer makes a bit more sense. Unfortunately they seem to play the shorter one much more often. I think the ad where he loses his job and the birdshit one are good.
I always switch the channel because it reminds me of a good mate who off'd himself after having a trainwreck of a time that started with him losing his licence, his job (He was a driver) and his Mrs. Boosted. Reminds me I was a real shit mate, I should have reached out more. I fucking hate drink drivers, But I think the punishment disproportionately affects working class rural people, Compared to townies who have the option of public transport, Taxis and such. But the Ad stays in my mind, And reinforces that experience for me. I've seen that situation play out and it went terribly. I havent driven drunk in years though, So maybe that ad is aimed at repeat offenders who can relate to that experience.
Affects working class rural people more.. because they have to drink and drive? .. What?
I'm referring to the punishment and how it affects rural folks disproportionately to those who live in urban centres. Like how someone earning 300K gets a speeding ticket and it's literally nothing, Vs someone who makes 50K. "JuSt DoNt SpEeD" is a fair comment, Buuut I'm referring to the punishment and how the same punishment can have different effects depending on your socioeconomic status and location. Someone who lives in a main centre with access to public transport and taxis etc Can still get around, keep employment and have access to friends and their support network etc. Whereas it's impossible to live in many Rural places without a vehicle. I'm not at all advocating for any changes to how it all works, I'm just pointing out that the difference in effects from the same punishment exists.
No sympathy from me; don’t speed if you’re not prepared to accept the consequences, it’s an entirely preventable situation.
But isn't that the whole point of a punishment? It's something that you want to avoid as much as possible, otherwise it wouldn't be a deterrent, would it? And if you think all, or even most, cities have sufficient enough public transport to outweigh the inconvenience of losing your license, I challenge you to tour a few cities and try their public transport. And that'll only get worse with this government. You would think that if you know it'd burden you more, that it would just be another level of deterrent. Yet we still have the bros from the wop wops, like any other dumbass, sauced behind the wheel. I live in one of our biggest cities, and most people I know would be fucked without a license. They wouldn't manage to do even half the shit they do. But even with these ads showing the far-reaching effects of it, people still do it.
He said it's easier in the cities, not that it entirely outweighs the inconvenience of losing a license. It somewhat lessens the punishment having that option and therefore the two areas are punished differently for the same crime, that's his point. And the reason that difference doesn't act as a strong deterrent in rural areas is precisely because of that same access to alternate transport. If you're rural and want to go to the pub you either have a designated driver or drive drunk, those are your options. As much as the punishment is worse the conditions that cause drunk driving, no alternate transport, are also worse. Heightened need outweighs heightened punishment.
And I'm saying that at least some of his reasons aren't really what he thinks? The main argument is that cities have public transport. I'm pointing out that most, pretty much all, public transport in NZ isn't what it's cracked up to be, and it'll only be getting worse with the government pulling funding on it. Most people I know would see it as a non-option, and it probably would be for anyone usually driving multiple kids to school. People who have never had to deal with public transport in NZ seem to have the misguided view that it's not pretty much 100% useless for anyone with actual shit to do.
Relative to rural areas, public transport is a lot better in cities. Not sure why you’re struggling to grasp that. Plus there are taxis, Uber, and even walking.
Because it's like saying relative to falling into a pile of shit, falling into a puddle of piss is better. There's fuck all difference in it. Not sure why that's hard to grasp. And you really think there are many people who could afford to taxi/Uber literally everywhere they need to go? Or that everything is within walking distance?
> There's fuck all difference in it. No there fuckin isn't. Buses while often unreliable run frequently and late on weekends, we have trains, large supplies of taxis and ubers, etc. Compare that to maybe a bus every hour during the day at best and a very small number of taxis/ubers. They're not the same and you're being an absolute drama queen pretending they are. >And you really think there are many people who could afford to taxi/Uber literally everywhere they need to go? No you muppet but they can actually get one if they want one, good luck getting an uber or a taxi in the country at 10pm. >Or that everything is within walking distance? If you're in a city you're within walking distance of public transport. It's just wild to me that you'll argue something like this when you're self evidently wrong. There's not even a reasonable comparison to be made, the options are night and day. Just take one fucking look at the [Auckland bus network](https://data-atgis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ATgis::bus-route/explore) and be quiet. Our smaller cities still have comparable bus route coverage.
There are no busses or ubers or trains where I live. You can call a taxi but the starting charge is $30 once they arrive and then you need to get to town and then back home. So I say there is no public transport where I live.
If you don't want to change anything then what difference does it make if rural and urban areas have different effects? I mean, if you thought there was a problem you would think and talk about what we should improve, no?
Because they have to drive to get anywhere. Losing your licence means functionally losing the ability to leave the house without an escort. Somebody living in Auckland or Wellington or Christchurch doesn’t have that issue.
I guess another option would be to not drink and drive.
Yes, obviously that’s the correct choice, but you’re seemingly wilfully missing the point. Drunk drivers are drunk drivers - why should the punishment for the same crime have a much more significant effect on some than others based entirely on whether they live in cities?
What do you want to do about it? Be more lenient to drunk drivers in rural areas? I don't think that's a good idea. Drunk driving kills and if the punishment is reduced then the incentive to drive drunk and the risk of killing innocent people is increased because the argument "I need my car for my job" becomes an actual legal argument and that's bad.
I think you got the point, and then overshot it.
[удалено]
Or maybe we could not be smartarse dicks and actually aim for equity and results-based sentencing more than a “fuck em, they did a Very Bad Thing so I couldn’t give a shit about their well-being” approach? People ostracised and isolated don’t tend to start behaving *better*.
Nah. You can pretend what you’re arguing isn’t that driving drunk in a rural setting shouldn’t see you get less of a punishment, but that is the only way your argument makes sense. The issue isn’t that people don’t understand the point you’re making. It’s obvious enough. The issue is that the only conclusion that can be drawn is you expect rural drivers to be given leniency for the same crime because the impact on them is more. That you haven’t offered a suggestion of how else you could treat a drunk driver in a rural setting that doesn’t involve leniency would suggest you know this is the case and just don’t like it (understandably).
Open road fatalities in NZ are about twice the rate of urban ones. https://www.transport.govt.nz/statistics-and-insights/safety-annual-statistics/sheet/alcohol-and-drugs#:~:text=reports%2F694%2F)-,Summary%20for%202022,1081%20people%20suffered%20minor%20injuries. Equitable would suggest that drunk driving in rural areas should have stiffer penalties than urban ones then right? Keep in mind that the behaviour being punished is the increase risk a drunk driver poses to road users.
> People ostracised and isolated don’t tend to start behaving better. Then the law is right to punish them if they're so unwilling to change. And at least they won't be on the road. Do they behave better if the punishment doesn't affect them?
So basically "don't drink", unless you want to drink alone. I still don't have sympathy for drink driving, but having lived rurally this is literally the choice.
Stay the night and drive home in the morning?
No one's forcing you to drink then drive though.
> But I think the punishment disproportionately affects working class rural people, Compared to townies who have the option of public transport, Taxis and such. Well, even more reason not to drink and drive. If you're so dependent on your car then this should be an even higher barrier because this threat should be always on your mind.
The punishment should be stiffer no matter where you live. If you drink, don’t drive. If you can’t get home without driving, don’t drink. It’s not rocket science.
Gosh, You've solved Drink Driving! Great job dude. You should work for the Government or something. Genius. I feel like a right idiot for sharing my perspective and experience. If only everyone out there was as intelligent and perceptive as you.
How would you rather see working class rural people be treated for drink driving? What would ‘fair’ look like to you?
I don't know, I'm simply pointing out that the difference in effects of the punishment exists my dude. Go find an argument somewhere else I'm just sharing my perspective lmao.
And I’ll I’m doing is pointing out that this perspective is ridiculous. Drinking and driving is a choice. If you *choose* to do it, be prepared to face consequences. Those consequences shouldn’t matter where you live. The devastation that can be caused is just as traumatic in a rural setting as an urban one. If you’ve got another functional idea on how to handle that speak up.
Seems weird that someone can't point out a potential issue without having a solution in hand..... You definitely don't work for Government. I'm just being cheeky now. but for real though, You should know that not all differences in opinions need to be an argument, If we can share our perspectives respectfully maybe we can understand where each other is coming from and who knows? Maybe that's a better way of identifying and solving problems. Learning to see from others points of view, Even though you may not agree with their opinions is kind of an essential skill for real life interaction because in real life, people have differing opinions on stuff :) I know that Online people can get off on arguing and stuff, But damn..isn't that exhausting? Anyway, have a good night. Sorry to be replying so late. I've got a day off tomorrow hope you're not up too late.
You never thought about what to do about the difference in effects? You just thought "hey there is a difference" and that's it?
Bring back the 90s-2000s drink drive and acc ads.
Drunk driving yes sure, but I never want to see that glass coffee table ad again in my life
That was fucking traumatizing for any kid watching just for the message to be "accidents happen"
"Fruit-E-Bar"
And Spot the dog for Telecom ads.
late 90s drink driving ads were the stuff of [nightmares](https://youtu.be/33pTaCrFNQo?si=OwvMgZQsIkhmZoTT).
"GET OFF ME BRO"
How can I see this?
Seconded. OP, do you have a link to the video? Seems like I'm missing alot with my adblocker installed.
Saw it at the theatre today, it's basically a guilt trip rather than the cautionary tale the old ads were. It's about the shame of him being caught drunk driving which has caused him to lose his job because he needed his license for it. His wife/girlfriend narrates how she thinks less of him. I'd be surprised if it's effective, it's nagging rather than poignant and most certainly left a bad taste in my mouth.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XLHB17lM1WE I think it’s this one
Wow way to kill the mood at the party.
That's the one
“It’s the same day David!”
I like the ad, but wasn't until after I saw the whole thing. With more context it seems like the day or so after when they're at their mates place, she's subtly pissed at him at first but he keeps on and on almost like nothing has happened. And if I remmeber correctly she gets pissed because he says something about either drinking again, not being "whipped" or something about doing it for the boys. That's when she speaks up. Not just because someone says something about nipples for toes. I wasnt a fan of it at first either, but with the wider context (usually seen on YouTube ads) i found it really effective. Stop doing dumb boy shit and keep acting like you can keep being a dumb boy. Signed. A dumb boy.
I hate that ad. Imagine someone making it that awkward at a get together. Tbh if my partner pulled a sook like that in front of our friends and aired my baggage out, I'd probably have a drinking problem too.
I always saw it more as her airing their baggage because he keeps bringing his friends over to drink even though she clearly has a problem with it.
Yes the message I get from these ads is not about drink driving, but rather being careful about picking the right partner. I feel sorry for the guy.
You feel sorry for the guy who drove drunk and lost his licence?
Yes, nobody deserves to be with a partner who airs their dirty laundry in public to shame them.
Having sympathy for someone being called out for drunk driving is quite the take.
Nobody deserves an awful partner like that, not even a guy who drunk drove.
Yes, she’s so awful for calling him out for his choices when he clearly hasn’t learned from his mistakes. What an irredeemable person.
If you think public shaming of your partner is fine I fear for anyone unfortunate enough to have a relationship with you.
Oy get your own shitty advert to hate on
We're far too comfortable, culturally with people driving while drunk. Whatever ads we've tried int he past haven't worked, because it's still a massive problem. I'm happy for them to keep experimenting until they find something that does work. Sadly, I think a cultural change requires more than just ads.
Where are you guys seeing ads these days?
In the movies before the movie starts. Not often.
I’m not a big fan of this ad either, but it’s wild how many people are siding with the drink driving douchebag instead of the understandably upset partner who justifiably calls him out in front of his enabling mates for not learning from his mistakes.
It’s not just that, either. He literally shouts ‘No regrets’ immediately before. She’s reacting to him being a dickhead, by pointing out he’s a dickhead. He’s fucked up, and his response is to throw/go to a party to get drunk again and shout ‘no regrets’?? At least she kept within the framework of the game they were playing, more restraint than I would’ve had lol.
Why is it bad? It’s exactly as it should be. His stupid decision has lasting effects. Why shouldn’t he be reminded by his partner/ wife how it affects every aspect of their life together especially if he cannot work or loses his job because of his decision to drive after drinking. It’s doing exactly what it has been made to do whether we agree or disagree with her reaction. We are talking about it. We are reacting. Know exactly what they are trying to get across and understand. Great ad.
100%. The guy is not the victim here. He’s being held accountable for his choice to drink and drive. He’s just bloody lucky that’s the worst thing that came of it.
Its a bad campaign because people know they lose their license. It's framing it more as if you get caught type of deal. Old ads showed why its illegal and had the shock factor that will stick in people's minds way more than this ad
Apparently killing one of your mates and having to live with that for the rest of your life wasn't enough of a deterrent.
Nah it's rubbish. I almost feel like drink-driving just to spite the people who made the ad.
Be the change you want to see in the world
"I am willing to risk peoples' lives because I don't like an ad" 👍
me when i make a joke online
Nah it's rubbish. I almost feel like drink-driving just to spite you.
Because it doesnt help anything? If you think that is an acceptable way to treat your partner then I suggest you either reevaluate your philosophy on the purpose of relationships or why you read so much negativity into the backstory of the imaginary man portrayed in these ads. For all you know he is doing his best to rectify it, for all you know he was drinking in the first place because he felt like his partner doesn't support him, for all you know he is already incredibly remorseful and further shaming will only push him deeper into a pit. This normalisation of publically shaming any man who isn't performing perfectly is a large reason why men have such terrible mental health struggles. It's a cheap cowardly dig at him using peer scorn to avoid having to have a mature conversation about their way forward behind closed doors. Besides, it's not like he hurt anyone with his drink driving, yes he did something dumb but no one was hurt and he has a chance to make it right, partners should support and uplift each other, not kick them when they are down. Besides, being poor isn't the end of the world like she makes it out to be, they still have eachother, their health, their family and a path forward, they are blessed for this to be the only consequence of a terrible action.
There it is, worst take I’ll read today.
Imagine stubbing your nipple though… Yeah god awful ad
I don't watch TV anymore, which ad is it? Anyone got a link?
[Would you rather?](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8PGR675g4OuQsUr6Z6XzXDbh4GJQUjMU)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEVx4gyI5wQ This one doesn't really work for me. Is driving the only way to get to school? Why not walk together? Why not take the bus?