My god, this is amazing. They marketed their anti-litter campaign as a state-pride manly-man issue to great success. I love it. Very intelligent hack.
This is also a very interesting story about the importance of diversity on a team. While TXDOT wanted to go with "Please Keep Texas Beautiful", this guy knew the kind of guy he had to convince wouldn't listen to that stuff. Brilliant.
There's another one (less successful though still successful) which I remember just because it's so catchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_It_or_Ticket . When I had family visiting from elsewhere you could just say "Click It or Ticket" and they'd get it. Sure the real reason I want them to wear the seatbelt isn't because of the ticket, but the slogan combined with the fact that I can outsource the argument to the state is great.
I had a friend who had been in the Army. She really identified with "Be all that you can be", but thought the later "An Army of One" campaign sent the wrong message.
I'm not American and i've always thought it odd how many 'join the army' ads you guys have on your channels, watching cartoons as a kid on the american vs the Canadian channels we got, the american ones always had at least one join the army ad per day, while I think I could count the amount of canadian ones I remember seeing. But i'll agree I remember even then thinking the army of one ones were pretty dumb and made no sense...I also remember the be all you can be ones...that's really how great your guys state propaganda is honestly. I remember these things, still. That says something.
The 'Army of One' ads also had people with helmets with visors wherein you couldn't see they eyes of the person, they looked like storm troopers - it's the only military ad I've really taken umbrage with.
There were 'pre-movie' recruiting ads in Texas movie theatres with knights fighting dragons that turned into Marines that I though was really hilarious and pathetic, but it wasn't 'bad' just tacky.
There were some other ads something along the lines of 'They called me a loser High School, but now I'm doing this and this' or whatever - which is in some way ok (most people feel like 'outsiders' in HS and teens yearn for self improvement), but maybe a little sketchy.
The Army is really serious stuff, it's ok to hint at adventure, self-improvement, fraternity but at the core it must appeal to 'duty' and or kind of communitarian obligation/commitment or it's the wrong message.
The individual tactics used by some recruiters are kind of deplorable, I do think however recruiters should be allowed in schools legally, just like any other employer.
As I recall, the Army of One was sort of part of the zeitgeist of the moment and, yeah, it fell pretty flat in the context of suggesting military loners rather than teams.
I have no experience with the Army and even I knew that "Army of One" is a dumb as shit slogan. The entire military functions only because of chain of command and submitting to the organization rather than the individual. Otherwise how else would you get someone to risk their life for something as nebulous as a "mission"?
I've always hated this one because there is a significant contingent of people who disagree with seatbelt laws -- even if they themselves always wear their seatbelts -- because it's a central example of a law that shouldn't exist when the role of criminal law is to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves.
And then the campaign feels like a direct attack on the people who don't agree with the law, which encourages defiance, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect. With the further effect of making people angry while they're driving a car, which dangerous in itself.
The cynic may also notice that such laws are commonly passed in order to generate revenue, in which case stimulating defiance could be fully intentional because more defiance generates more revenue.
I'll try to help reframe it into a context were it is harder for you to disagree
> the role of criminal law is to save innocent people
e.g. Law abiding tax payers, companies that hired the people who didn't want to use seat belts, their families and anyome else who would suffer if they were injured
> from bad people
in this case careless drivers who'd drive without a seatbelt.
Not related to you but possibly mildly interesting and somewhat related to reckless driving and reckless behavior generally :
Around here I guess we are the spoiled brats of the world, so when quarantine laws went into effect employees in permanent positions who were quarantined still get full pay.
Then it turned out a number of people took advantage of even this, crossed the border into Sweden (who has a totally different approach, they still -last I heard - go for "herd immunity now" it seems)
After all, food is cheaper on the Swedish side and then you get a paid holiday, right?
So we recently changed the rules to make sure that wont work anymore ;-)
Seriously: some people amaze me in how little personal benefit they have to have see to put everyone at risk.
This was an interesting hypothesis. I enjoyed the idea so I wanted to see what probability I should assign the idea that the defiance-effect overrules the compliance-effect. Interestingly, there is one state which does not have a mandatory front seat adult passenger seat-belt law which gives us the ability to test what effect that has.
New Hampshire: No adult front-seat passenger seat-belt law. Beltedness: 67.6%
Lowest beltedness (any law): Massachusetts (73.7%), secondary enforcement (i.e. if you violated another driving law then you can be cited for the seatbelt thing too)
Regardless of the paternalism angle (which I'm sympathetic to because I would like drug use to be permitted, etc.) this would appear as evidence that the defiance-effect is overruled by the compliance-effect. Certainly, it is sufficient enough for me to not look further into the subject.
Standard HN disclaimer so we don't get into some Internet war: Not attempting to refute anything you're saying. Just sharing my conclusions. Your priors and your weights to evidence may yield different posteriors. I do not require you to convince me and I am not aiming to convince you. The hypothesis I wanted to test may slightly vary from yours due to my interests being different and to aim for easier falsification. The existence of this disclaimer is not intended to be evidence that I believe you will engage in an Internet argument.
> it's a central example of a law that shouldn't exist when the role of criminal law is to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves.
Seatbelts increase the chance of remaining in your seat - and thus in at least partial control of your vehicle - mid-accident. That protects more than just the idiots - it protects any passengers, and it protects the pedestrian wheeling a stroller on the sidewalk, when the idiot's car goes flying towards them during an accident, by giving the driver a chance to steer elsewhere.
> And then the campaign feels like a direct attack on the people who don't agree with the law, which encourages defiance, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect. With the further effect of making people angry while they're driving a car, which dangerous in itself.
This doesn't measure anger induced traffic accidents, but anyone that easily angered on a regular basis will probably find some excuse to be angry no matter what if you ask me. At least if they direct their anger at a billboard instead of a fellow driver, they might be slightly less likely to get our of their car and start a fistfight?
> The cynic may also notice that such laws are commonly passed in order to generate revenue
This resonates with me, though, especially when prosecutors are... lax with evidence requirements.
There are external costs when someone doesn't wear their seatbelt. First responders are kept busy tending to their needs when they are injured. Ambulances and hospital resources are kept busy when they otherwise wouldn't need to be.
Rear seat passengers not wearing seatbelts can directly injure front seat passengers who did not consent to the risk.
To argue that the seatbelt law impacts on personal freedom seems shortsighted to me.
You are implying that the consequence of not wearing a seat belt and having an accident hurts only the idiot? That's not the case. There's a cost to society (we have to clean up the mess) and to the family (if any). It's incredibly selfish and irresponsible to take such completely pointless risks.
> to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves.
But you are also saving the idiots fellow passenger from the idiot when the idiot becomes a human missile in an accident.
There are SO many scenarios we don't think about when we go about our daily lives that others happen so see on a daily basis.
I ended up going to a seatbelt class because I got such a ticket once. It was led by a nurse who got involved because she was sick and tired of having people come into the emergency room absolutely destroyed.
>it's a central example of a law that shouldn't exist when the role of criminal law is to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves.
Do these people also disagree with drinking/smoking age laws?
Dallasite here. While the marketing campaign was very catchy, it has fallen on hard times. Take a walk or drive through Dallas, and you’ll quickly become crestfallen with the amount of litter constantly flowing with the breeze. It’s a disgrace.
> They marketed their anti-litter campaign as a state-pride manly-man issue to great success.
I don't know why people don't do this with environmental issues at large. In my experience, conservatives care about the environment more than anyone. They live in the woods and hunt and fish and enjoy nature daily. But it's become a partisan issue so they don't listen.
Surely someone can come up with a clever slogan to get convince conservatives to conserve nature.
There's a lot of assuming there. As a conservative of course I care about the environment, and of course I love nature.
There is such a thing as over regulation though and the "green" issues get convoluted with political agendas on both sides.
I disagree with your assumption that conservatives need convincing to conserve nature. Texas is a great examples of green policies done in a practical way. Our wind energy will outpace coal soon.
The problem is people like to put people in a prison of two ideas. Either you believe in science/climate or you don't, which is ridiculously simplified, furthers no discussion, and usually results in insults.
In my experience, conservatives care about things that directly affect them, or things that they believe directly affect them. Their local environment is important to them. The global environment and climate are far away and someone else's concern.
Today is the 184th anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto, "the decisive battle of the Texas Revolution". Outnumbered Texians defeated the Mexican army in a lopsided slaughter and captured their general.
So a good day for a story with this headline even if it is about littering.
Sam Houston was an interesting man, Governor of two states, president of a young republic, a general (and talented one at that), a slaveholder yes, but he considered the civil war an effort in futility.
Indeed he was! He was also quite outspoken against the treatment of Native Americans (at least, relative to his time) having spent a significant amount of time living among the Cherokee. This won him quite a few enemies, as the "Indian problem" was a pretty significant issue in the nascent Republic of Texas.
He was strongly opposed to Texas secession and gave one of his most famous speeches in opposition to it.
For anyone interested, T. R. Fehrenbach's "Lone Star" is a great history of Texas and of Sam Houston (among many other colorful characters).
I have heard that phrase and seen the signs my entire life and never knew it originated with the litter campaign. I feel like it's lost a certain, "je ne sais quoi", learning that.
The really weird thing is that the sign that I remember the most in my hometown said, word for word, "Don't mess (litter) with Texas," but when I just went to look for an example of the sign, I can't find any other examples of this.
In a similar vein: In Norwegian since the fifties, we have used the word Texas to mean something crazy. Normally it's used as "helt texas" (completely texas), and describes a situation out of control.
Same, when I heard that before I always assumed it had something to do with their gun advocacy.
I thought that too, when I moved from the east coast to Texas for a few years.
Once I understood the real meaning, I felt my presumption was a reflection of my own biases, and quickly learned to judge Texas and Texans more fairly.
That's exactly why it works--it appeals to relatively young men who take great pride in being from Texas and the badassery around that. Those were the guys who littered, and were the problem. So they found a way to appeal to them.
In case this doesn’t translate outside of AU, a tosser (beyond someone throwing rubbish) is a “wanker”, a tool, an idiot.
There have been road safety signs along the same lines using w(anchor symbol) and a rooster (cock). Trying to market to punch through male bravado I guess.
Speaking as someone who's lived in Texas since late in the last millenium, that sounds awesome, and similarly well-calibrated to work on the target audience.
When I first moved to Seattle in the early 2000's I remember seeing signs on I-5 with a number to report people violating the HOV lanes. Call '764-HERO'. A local band started called '764-HERO' and I thought that was so clever given that only local people would get the joke.
When I first moved to New Mexico, I was puzzled by the billboards which featured a stern cop and the word "ENDWI". What the hell's an endwi? Eventually I realized it was just the (weird) slogan from the state anti-drunk driving (Driving While Intoxicated) campaign.
In Aus I liked the roadsigns with random trivia questions along the really straight part of the road from Bundaberg to Brisbane, trying to keep your mind occupied so that you stay awake.
Now there are slogans like "Drive. Text. Die." They still haven't found a slogan/campaing to get people to put their phones down that has been as effective as "Don't Mess With Texas". Sometimes, no matter how much you wish it so, a slogan just won't take off.
Readit News
This is also a very interesting story about the importance of diversity on a team. While TXDOT wanted to go with "Please Keep Texas Beautiful", this guy knew the kind of guy he had to convince wouldn't listen to that stuff. Brilliant.
There's another one (less successful though still successful) which I remember just because it's so catchy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_It_or_Ticket . When I had family visiting from elsewhere you could just say "Click It or Ticket" and they'd get it. Sure the real reason I want them to wear the seatbelt isn't because of the ticket, but the slogan combined with the fact that I can outsource the argument to the state is great.
(Looks like it was short-lived [1])
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogans_of_the_United_States_A...
There were 'pre-movie' recruiting ads in Texas movie theatres with knights fighting dragons that turned into Marines that I though was really hilarious and pathetic, but it wasn't 'bad' just tacky.
There were some other ads something along the lines of 'They called me a loser High School, but now I'm doing this and this' or whatever - which is in some way ok (most people feel like 'outsiders' in HS and teens yearn for self improvement), but maybe a little sketchy.
The Army is really serious stuff, it's ok to hint at adventure, self-improvement, fraternity but at the core it must appeal to 'duty' and or kind of communitarian obligation/commitment or it's the wrong message.
The individual tactics used by some recruiters are kind of deplorable, I do think however recruiters should be allowed in schools legally, just like any other employer.
I've always hated this one because there is a significant contingent of people who disagree with seatbelt laws -- even if they themselves always wear their seatbelts -- because it's a central example of a law that shouldn't exist when the role of criminal law is to save innocent people from bad people and not idiots from themselves.
And then the campaign feels like a direct attack on the people who don't agree with the law, which encourages defiance, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect. With the further effect of making people angry while they're driving a car, which dangerous in itself.
The cynic may also notice that such laws are commonly passed in order to generate revenue, in which case stimulating defiance could be fully intentional because more defiance generates more revenue.
> the role of criminal law is to save innocent people
e.g. Law abiding tax payers, companies that hired the people who didn't want to use seat belts, their families and anyome else who would suffer if they were injured
> from bad people
in this case careless drivers who'd drive without a seatbelt.
Not related to you but possibly mildly interesting and somewhat related to reckless driving and reckless behavior generally :
Around here I guess we are the spoiled brats of the world, so when quarantine laws went into effect employees in permanent positions who were quarantined still get full pay.
Then it turned out a number of people took advantage of even this, crossed the border into Sweden (who has a totally different approach, they still -last I heard - go for "herd immunity now" it seems)
After all, food is cheaper on the Swedish side and then you get a paid holiday, right?
So we recently changed the rules to make sure that wont work anymore ;-)
Seriously: some people amaze me in how little personal benefit they have to have see to put everyone at risk.
https://youtu.be/mKHY69AFstE
New Hampshire: No adult front-seat passenger seat-belt law. Beltedness: 67.6%
Lowest beltedness (any law): Massachusetts (73.7%), secondary enforcement (i.e. if you violated another driving law then you can be cited for the seatbelt thing too)
Lowest beltedness (primary enforcement): Mississippi (78.8%)
Regardless of the paternalism angle (which I'm sympathetic to because I would like drug use to be permitted, etc.) this would appear as evidence that the defiance-effect is overruled by the compliance-effect. Certainly, it is sufficient enough for me to not look further into the subject.
Standard HN disclaimer so we don't get into some Internet war: Not attempting to refute anything you're saying. Just sharing my conclusions. Your priors and your weights to evidence may yield different posteriors. I do not require you to convince me and I am not aiming to convince you. The hypothesis I wanted to test may slightly vary from yours due to my interests being different and to aim for easier falsification. The existence of this disclaimer is not intended to be evidence that I believe you will engage in an Internet argument.
Seatbelts increase the chance of remaining in your seat - and thus in at least partial control of your vehicle - mid-accident. That protects more than just the idiots - it protects any passengers, and it protects the pedestrian wheeling a stroller on the sidewalk, when the idiot's car goes flying towards them during an accident, by giving the driver a chance to steer elsewhere.
> And then the campaign feels like a direct attack on the people who don't agree with the law, which encourages defiance, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect. With the further effect of making people angry while they're driving a car, which dangerous in itself.
Wikipedia has references suggesting it's done more good than harm on at least seatbelt wearing rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_It_or_Ticket#Success
This doesn't measure anger induced traffic accidents, but anyone that easily angered on a regular basis will probably find some excuse to be angry no matter what if you ask me. At least if they direct their anger at a billboard instead of a fellow driver, they might be slightly less likely to get our of their car and start a fistfight?
> The cynic may also notice that such laws are commonly passed in order to generate revenue
This resonates with me, though, especially when prosecutors are... lax with evidence requirements.
Rear seat passengers not wearing seatbelts can directly injure front seat passengers who did not consent to the risk.
To argue that the seatbelt law impacts on personal freedom seems shortsighted to me.
But you are also saving the idiots fellow passenger from the idiot when the idiot becomes a human missile in an accident.
There are SO many scenarios we don't think about when we go about our daily lives that others happen so see on a daily basis. I ended up going to a seatbelt class because I got such a ticket once. It was led by a nurse who got involved because she was sick and tired of having people come into the emergency room absolutely destroyed.
Do these people also disagree with drinking/smoking age laws?
https://www.eater.com/2018/12/11/18133776/heb-texas-origin-c...
I don't know why people don't do this with environmental issues at large. In my experience, conservatives care about the environment more than anyone. They live in the woods and hunt and fish and enjoy nature daily. But it's become a partisan issue so they don't listen.
Surely someone can come up with a clever slogan to get convince conservatives to conserve nature.
There is such a thing as over regulation though and the "green" issues get convoluted with political agendas on both sides.
I disagree with your assumption that conservatives need convincing to conserve nature. Texas is a great examples of green policies done in a practical way. Our wind energy will outpace coal soon.
The problem is people like to put people in a prison of two ideas. Either you believe in science/climate or you don't, which is ridiculously simplified, furthers no discussion, and usually results in insults.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
"The campaign is credited with reducing litter on Texas highways roughly 72% between 1987 and 1990"
So it seems to have worked very well!
And I chuckled at how they used the "Don't mess with Texas" phrase despite having much lower littering fines than most other states.
Like with everything else in this country, it's all about the marketing.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resour...
So a good day for a story with this headline even if it is about littering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto
He was strongly opposed to Texas secession and gave one of his most famous speeches in opposition to it.
For anyone interested, T. R. Fehrenbach's "Lone Star" is a great history of Texas and of Sam Houston (among many other colorful characters).
Deleted Comment
“The name Texas derives from táyshaʔ, a word in the Caddoan language of the Hasinai, which means "friends" or "allies".”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird
Edit: a source/explanation https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34622478
I thought that too, when I moved from the east coast to Texas for a few years.
Once I understood the real meaning, I felt my presumption was a reflection of my own biases, and quickly learned to judge Texas and Texans more fairly.
(The pledge is one of those weird things that looks like it comes from a far more authoritarian-collectivist society than the US)
There have been road safety signs along the same lines using w(anchor symbol) and a rooster (cock). Trying to market to punch through male bravado I guess.
This one ends with a personal threat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2qIF3PL7lQ
And this one ends with another personal threat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb-LPbUeiWA
Basically, "if you litter, we'll fuck your shit up." I love it!
(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7879107, but no comments)
Got my attention.
I wonder how "Follow traffic rules and avoid blood pools" would fly in the US...
https://youtu.be/XlFD0Zyl_f0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...