Human vulnerability to trauma isn’t a new message. For decades, the TAC has shown the body bend and break in all types of graphic and impactful crashes on the roads. They’ve profiled hospital wards, ‘bloody idiots’ killing their friends, and drivers learning about how much ‘speed kills’. Yet this ‘crash, cry, die’ approach of communicating is now all too familiar for Victorians to the point of becoming desensitized. We knew we had to move away from shocking people with the same old scenario of ‘a bad driver doing the wrong thing’. Through research, we learnt that a pedestrian (unprotected human) has a tolerance of impact forces of up to 30km/hr (or 17m/hr). A pedestrian that’s struck by a car or truck at forces greater 30km/hr is when the likelihood of death or serious injury begins to climb. At 40km/hr, the likelihood of death is 60%. But we needed something simple and tangible to apply this fact to. And digging deeper, we found that it all came down to evolution. 30km/hr is a speed that running on our own feet can take us up to. Our muscular and skeletal system has evolved to adequately protect itself from any natural or environmental impact forces. 200,000 years ago, a human could fall from a tree or collide with a rock face and they would still be okay. Bruised, battered, but alive. Yet the speed of modern technology has far outstripped our ability to evolve with it. In the 100 years we’ve had cars, we’ve become faster, more mobile, and ultimately more at risk than ever. But our bodies haven’t changed to keep up with it. The unevolved human form simply isn’t designed to survive the forces we face in modern-day mobility. Armed with this insight, we believed we could provoke road users to reflect on their vulnerability in a new way. How would a human form have to be designed to be invincible? To withstand the forces we are regularly exposed to on the road? This could be a concept that every road user could identify with. One devoid of the same old guilt, blame or scare tactics. This thought would allow us to see ourselves for what we’re not, and start a conversation on what else needs change on the road. We asked ourselves: What would we need to look like to survive a crash on the roads?