A Bloody Intense Ad Campaign

May 3 by Ty Dunitz | 9 comments

Warning: Don’t click ‘More’ if you’re unable to handle images a tad on the morbid side. Seriously. This is nothing if not controversial.

That aside, this is possibly the most eye-opening ‘don’t talk and drive’ anti-cellphone campaigns I’ve ever seen, and I’m sure you’ll agree. The idea of this campaign, by the Bangalore Traffic Police, is that if you dare call a friend or relative while he/she is driving, their peril is just as much your fault as it is theirs. Talk about a guilt trip.

Personally, I tend to disagree with the message this campaign is sending: If I order a hamburger at McDonald’s, I’m not responsible if the line cook burns himself on the grill.

I’d actually like to know if I’m alone, here – what do you think? Is this campaign effective? Is it correct in its accusations? Is it speaking to the soul of every man and every woman who’s ever been in love?

[Via Dyvantity]

WRITTEN BY TY DUNITZ

Ty is an illustrator who stays up too late, and has to wear glasses. You can follow him on Twitter if you want to (@glitchritual), but he's just gonna throw your stupid PR crap in the garbage, so don't email him.

COMMENTS
  • Simon

    I agree, how do you know if someone is driving or not. It’s the choice of the individual driving. If they answer the phone it’s there choice.

  • http://jeanniedesign.net Jeannie

    I think this is a great campaign idea. I don’t agree with the idea that the person on the other end of the phone is responsible. It might have been better if they communicated more clearly that this end of the line knew they were talking to someone driving.

  • http://webdesignerdaily.com Jeroen Marechal

    I think the campaign is effective, but in the wrong way. Ofcourse driving and phoning on the same time is something bad and shouldnt be happening, but the one who is actually calling can’t be responsable for any accident. It’s the same as when im calling a friend, hes picking up, but his brand new iphone drops out of his hands and breaks into 500 pieces, how can I be responsable for that?

    And ofcourse, use a carkit or headset instead.. Even better, turn off or mute your phone when driving.

  • http://www.sanchezysanchez.net angel

    muy intensa, pero nos hace refelxionar. por cierto FELICITACIONES POR EL NUEVO SITIO!, ESTA QUE QUEMA!

  • http://inspirationfeed.com inspirationfeed

    Great idea, but its taking it a little too far. Ive seen some safe drivers, and they use phones all the time. I do disagree with texting while driving, because that is really stupid.

    • http://www.webdesignerdaily.com/ Jeroen Marechal

      Over here in The Netherlands if you’re getting caught by the police while driving & phoning a hand-held phone device you need to pay a fine of 160 euro’s. Thats 210 US Dollars and I think it’s a good punishment since phoning drivers are a danger in traffic.

      Ofcourse, there will always be people who can drive safely while phoning… but laws are there to obey by every citizen (atleast thats the way it should go)

  • Chris Adams

    I think it’s a little off to imply responsibility. When I see these ads, I’m reminded of the inherent danger of talking on a phone while driving and the obvious guilt, hardships, etc that can be avoided by both parties involved in the conversation. I’m not instantly hit with the feeling that the ads are suggesting you are responsible for the accident of the person driving. It blatantly suggests you are affected by it, and I’d think we’d all agree on that one.

    • http://www.glitchritual.com tydunitz

      Good point, Chris. It’s definitely working on that level. Hell, horrifyingly so – the last thing I need to be reminded of, having hypothetically lost a loved one in a car accident, is their insides squelching through their out. That being said, the copy’s flat, imperative statement, ‘don’t talk while (s)he drives’, would seem to come across more as a command, rather than a plea – perhaps implying more than mere passive involvement on the part of the non-driver. I’m wondering if, were they trying to shock the viewer out of being a potential victimized family member rather than accusing him/her of being responsible, they might at least try to tone down the implicit violence a LITTLE. I mean, look at that blood! Total liquefaction! Where is this car accident taking place? Quake 3?

      …But, then again, shock and awe.

  • Phil Durnford

    What’s powerful about it is that, as a driver, I will be reminded of the image of the other person splattered with blood. When I am tempted to pick up the phone while driving, that becomes my blood and my loved one being splattered.
    The little tag line tells me everything I need to know, “helping” me articulate what I am seeing. This is about the impact on the other person of calling and driving. The impact created is cleverly on both parties in the conversion, although worded at the non-car person. It manipulates my theory of mind.
    So getting worked up about the implied responsibility misses the point. In the case of me as a potential phoning-while-driviing person, I have been impacted and it will affect my choices. Job done!