Watch out for that kid oh, nevermind

[lisab]

Watch out for that kid!...oh, nevermind

We've seen this kind of illusion before...they're really cool...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/09/3d-illusion-in-street-tries-to-change-drivers-attitudes/?hpt=C2

But is this really such a good idea, to desensitize drivers to kids in the road?!? The intent is to "change people's attitudes to really change their behavior" but this may backfire.

 

[cronxeh]

Canadians have the right idea. But it should be a hot woman bending down, not some girl chasing a ball

 

[DaveC426913]

But is this really such a good idea, to desensitize drivers to kids in the road?!?

Before we decide whether it's a good idea, let's determine whether it is true.

How do you propose this desensitization would occur?

Do you suppose that drivers will behave like a victim in a slasher flick? "Oh haha I fell for that once, but not again!" vrooom!

 

[lisab]

Before we decide whether it's a good idea, let's determine whether it is true.

How do you propose this desensitization would occur?

Do you suppose that drivers will behave like a victim in a slasher flick? "Oh haha I fell for that once, but not again!" vrooom!

Lol, yes!

 

[Evo]

So people get used to running over pictures of kids and this is a good thing? What happens when it really turns out to be a kid and not an image?

 

[lisab]

Another possibility is a driver will veer out of the lane to avoid the "kid", and hit...who knows what. I'd aim for an oncoming truck to avoid a kid, if I had a split second to make such a horrible decision.

 

[cronxeh]

Thats why you use a hot woman! We as men are hard-wired (pun intended) to slow down for hot women, and if it was a woman driver she would slow down, stop, get out of the car walk around and thoroughly convinced that its an image, get back in and drive away.

With a kid.. yeah first few times you'll get me, then I'll just speed up

 

[JaredJames]

I have to agree, drivers will pass it a few times and become used to it.

Eventually, a real child or not, they would dismiss it as a drawing and simply continue. Especially if they aren't concentrating properly (phones, gps etc).

 

[DaveC426913]

So people get used to running over pictures of kids and this is a good thing? What happens when it really turns out to be a kid and not an image?

You're kidding right?

Another possibility is a driver will veer out of the lane to avoid the "kid", and hit...who knows what. I'd aim for an oncoming truck to avoid a kid, if I had a split second to make such a horrible decision.

Question:Why does your scenario assume the driver has only a split second? Is it possibly because they were on the phone, or popping a CD, or talking to their passenger?

The whole point of the installation is as a wake up call to highlight that perhaps in day-to-day driving they are not paying attention as much as they should be. It will hopefully provide food for thought.

The police know that you cannot make people drive safely. The best technique (though granted not the only technique) to safer roads is to educate drivers, make them more aware, and get them to willingly and consciously change their own bahaviour.

 

[lisab]

You're kidding right?



Question:Why does your scenario assume the driver has only a split second? Is it possibly because they were on the phone, or popping a CD, or talking to their passenger?

The whole point of the installation is as a wake up call to highlight that perhaps in day-to-day driving they are not paying attention as much as they should be. It will hopefully provide food for thought.

The police know that you cannot make people drive safely. The best technique (though granted not the only technique) to safer roads is to educate drivers, make them more aware, and get them to willingly and consciously change their own bahaviour.

Because it's my scenario. That's the way I made it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because it's my scenario. That's the way I made it.

And it is a good one. (Note my italics on the word 'why'. To be read as: "I grant that it is a valid scenario, but I ask you to scrutinize why it is reasonable (as in common) to assume that drivers are caught unawares. It is reasonable because drivers are often caught unawares.)


Hopefully, drivers will be thinking the same thing you are, and concluding that perhaps it is not so wise to let a mere split second of their attention be the only thing standing between life and death.

 

[BrandB]

No. Not a child or a hot woman - but a very large Canadian mounty.

 

[Hurkyl]

Question:Why does your scenario assume the driver has only a split second? Is it possibly because they were on the phone, or popping a CD, or talking to their passenger?

Or had just turned onto the street, or didn't see it until the car in front had finished rolling over it, or was busy avoiding some momentary hazard, or dismissed it until he got close and his danger sense triggered as he recognized the undistorted image, or ...

 

[DaveC426913]

Or had just turned onto the street, or didn't see it until the car in front had finished rolling over it, or was busy avoiding some momentary hazard, or dismissed it as just something painted on the road until your suddenly his danger sense triggers as he notices the undistorted image, or...

Yep. All of which are excellent ways a driver might be caught unawares.

And none of which are acceptable excuses for accidentally mowing down a child.

Moral? Pay more attention. Don't let it come down to a split second.

 

[BrandB]

I'll tell you this. I'm going to buy everyone ponies.

 

[talk2glenn]

You're kidding right?

You're being obtuse. Clearly, the first time one encounters one of these murals, one will respond dramatically. The second time, ones response will be more measured. Encounter them enough, and one will have a confident response plan prepared - the driver will be conditionally trained to respond to false images of children painted on roadways, not children on roadways. Clearly, the driver will not accelerate towards the false image, but the driver may reasonably be expected to take a moment to analyze the veracity of what he is seeing before making an emergency maneuver. This moment increases the risk of collision (however slightly) in the event that it is not a display. Ironically, it punishes all drivers with increased risk (cautious or reckless), but reckless drivers are disproportionately more punished, because they have less time to decide on a reaction.

If, on the other hand, you believe that repeated encounters with the mural will have no conditioning effect on driver behavior, then the mural is purposeless under its own standard. Apparently, you intend to defend the mural. Your chosen route is poor.

Question:Why does your scenario assume the driver has only a split second? Is it possibly because they were on the phone, or popping a CD, or talking to their passenger?

Even if we assume that it is true that the driver is only responding violently due to their own negligence, why is avoiding a silly street painting worth the risk of an accident, under any circumstances? We accept this risk when swerving to avoid live children because a potential collision is worth avoiding a certain one in the rational mind, but it would be silly to test our flight-or-fight system intentionally to prove some kind of point.

Needless to say, I think these murals are a terrible idea.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yep. All of which are excellent ways a driver might be caught unawares.

And all ways where they are unlikely to be caught unaware in the case of an actual child.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're being obtuse. Clearly, the first time one encounters one of these murals, one will respond dramatically. The second time, ones response will be more measured. Encounter them enough, and one will have a confident response plan prepared - the driver will be conditionally trained to respond to false images of children painted on roadways, not children on roadways. Clearly, the driver will not accelerate towards the false image, but the driver may reasonably be expected to take a moment to analyze the veracity of what he is seeing before making an emergency maneuver. This moment increases the risk of collision (however slightly) in the event that it is not a display. Ironically, it punishes all drivers with increased risk (cautious or reckless), but reckless drivers are disproportionately more punished, because they have less time to decide on a reaction.

If, on the other hand, you believe that repeated encounters with the mural will have no conditioning effect on driver behavior, then the mural is purposeless under its own standard. Apparently, you intend to defend the mural. Your chosen route is poor.



Even if we assume that it is true that the driver is only responding violently due to their own negligence, why is avoiding a silly street painting worth the risk of an accident, under any circumstances? We accept this risk when swerving to avoid live children because a potential collision is worth avoiding a certain one in the rational mind, but it would be silly to test our flight-or-fight system intentionally to prove some kind of point.

Needless to say, I think these murals are a terrible idea.

You are over-inflating the importance of what is really an edge condition.

By far, the biggest effect this campaign will have is making all drivers more aware of their attention span. This alone will have a statistically signifcant impact on road safety.

 

[Proton Soup]

And it is a good one. (Note my italics on the word 'why'. To be read as: "I grant that it is a valid scenario, but I ask you to scrutinize why it is reasonable (as in common) to assume that drivers are caught unawares. It is reasonable because drivers are often caught unawares.)


Hopefully, drivers will be thinking the same thing you are, and concluding that perhaps it is not so wise to let a mere split second of their attention be the only thing standing between life and death.

i think it's valid. it's taking a perfectly good reflex (braking for a pedestrian), and weakening or retraining it. I'm guessing they didn't even consult a 2nd rate psychologist who would explain to them how reconditioning a behavioral response could have unintended consequences.

 

[jackmell]

Personally, I'd do away with the picture entirely and would dream up a story to tell her, my little girl, about another little girl that runs into the street and gets hit by a car cus' she forgot to look both ways twice before going to get her ball. Let's see, hummm . . . she gets her legs broken, her back broken, winds up in the hospital, misses school, doesn't get to go to second grade like the rest of her friends because she missed too much school, is teased about "failing" first grade, and doesn't get to go to the fifth grade dance, why? Cus's she's in fourth grade.

 

[Borek]

Yep. All of which are excellent ways a driver might be caught unawares.

And none of which are acceptable excuses for accidentally mowing down a child.

Moral? Pay more attention. Don't let it come down to a split second.

Actually, if I happened to follow some car driving in front of me - say 10 meters behind, which is quite safe distance at 40 or 50 km/h - and I was presented with such a picture I would probably brake as hard as possible not even thinking about what I am seeing. And I don't think that any car breaking hard in the middle of the street for no apparent reason is safe. It is asking for troubles.

If I consider myself good driver that's not because I am technically better than others, but because I believe I have more imagination than others, so I anticipate their stupid reactions into my driving. Whoever painted that has no imagination at all.

 

[skeptic2]

It should be the basis of a psychology experiment. Monitor the speed of traffic in the area before the painting and for several months after. Then replace the painting with a real child and see what happens. (Did I say real child, I meant mannequin.)

 

[DaveC426913]

i think it's valid. it's taking a perfectly good reflex (braking for a pedestrian), and weakening or retraining it.

If it were a perfectly good reflex, then there would be no need for a campiagn to get drivers to be more aware, now would there?

 

[DaveC426913]

Personally, I'd do away with the picture entirely and would dream up a story to tell her, my little girl, about another little girl that runs into the street and gets hit by a car cus' she forgot to look both ways twice before going to get her ball. Let's see, hummm . . . she gets her legs broken, her back broken, winds up in the hospital, misses school, doesn't get to go to second grade like the rest of her friends because she missed too much school, is teased about "failing" first grade, and doesn't get to go to the fifth grade dance, why? Cus's she's in fourth grade.

Colour me dense... what does this have to do with drivers paying attention on the road?

 

[DaveC426913]

...I would probably brake as hard as possible not even thinking about what I am seeing. And I don't think that any car breaking hard in the middle of the street for no apparent reason is safe. It is asking for troubles.

We already have trouble. That's the point.

Drivers should be driving such that any emergecy does not result in a collision.


Y'all would have a valid case if eliminating this little stunt meant that we didn't have accidents that get people killed.

But we do. The status quo is not acceptable. It needs to change. And it needs to change in the minds of drivers.

If I consider myself good driver that's not because I am technically better than others, but because I believe I have more imagination than others, so I anticipate their stupid reactions into my driving. Whoever painted that has no imagination at all.

Every driver on Earth considers themselves slightly better than average. Just like every person on Earth considers themselves slightly smarter than average. And yet we do have too many accidents.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The best way to make people drive safely is to severely punish those who do the ridiculous stuff I see daily. Some of these drivers need some jail time and have their licenses revoked. Give someone a thousand dollar ticket and they'll think twice. These people are riding around in a two thousand pound weapon and have no regard for human life. Those people deserve to walk everywhere they go.

 

[Andre]

There is little doubt that the reflex is there for every reasonable driver.

However the reflex can be affected by incapacitation of any drug and if the speed is too high to begin with, it's too late anyway regardless if the reflex is good or not.

But I guess, time will learn how much kid with the shiny pink ball is going to affect traffic.

 

[jackmell]

Colour me dense... what does this have to do with drivers paying attention on the road?

No, you're not dense at all Dave. And you're right. It's off-topic. Sorry for that. Let me try again please:

I disapprove of that picture on the street. It's an unnecessary distraction and will do absolutely no good in preventing little girls from getting run-over.

 

[DaveC426913]

The best way to make people drive safely is to severely punish those who do the ridiculous stuff I see daily.

Really? You think punishment after-the-fact will improve drivers currently on the road?

There is little doubt that the reflex is there for every reasonable driver. However the reflex can be affected by incapacitation of any drug and if the speed is too high to begin with, it's too late anyway regardless if the reflex is good or not.

Your contention then is that only drug-induced people cause accidents. That the average driver simply does not get in accidents.

Sure you want to back that?

I disapprove of that picture on the street. It's an unnecessary distraction and will do absolutely no good in preventing little girls from getting run-over.

Ok, did you want to give us your rationale for believing it will do no good?

 

[Andre]

There is little doubt that the reflex is there for every reasonable driver.

However the reflex can be affected by incapacitation of any drug and if the speed is too high to begin with, it's too late anyway regardless if the reflex is good or not.

But I guess, time will learn how much kid with the shiny pink ball is going to affect traffic.

Your contention then is that only drug-induced people cause accidents. That the average driver simply does not get in accidents.

Sure you want to back that?

Maybe it's my poor command of the language. Let's try again:

Statement 1: There is little doubt that the reflex is there for every reasonable driver.

Any problems with that one? It's under the assumption that every reasonable driver has earned his/her drivers license by demonstrating to have conditioned reflexes like that.

Statement 2: However the reflex can be affected by incapacitation of any drug.

Any doubt about that?

Statement 3: if the speed is too high to begin with, it's too late anyway regardless if the reflex is good or not.

Would that rise above the level of triviality? No matter how good your reflex is and how un-incapacited you are, it's only working for a slower speed.

Does this help?

 

[jackmell]

Really? You think punishment after-the-fact will improve drivers currently on the road?


Your contention then is that only drug-induced people cause accidents. That the average driver simply does not get in accidents.

Sure you want to back that?


Ok, did you want to give us your rationale for believing it will do no good?

(1) A good percentage of people won't even see it driving by.

(2) It's only staying there for one week.

(3) Even if they do see it, they'll forget about it as they return focus to their own lives. The only ones that will be significantly impacted by it are the ones that have a personal connection with such a tragedy.

(4) Even if they see it and it gets broiled into their brain, that's still not enough to stop from hitting a small kid that runs into your path before you have time to even think about it.

 

[Chi Meson]

Another possibility is a driver will veer out of the lane to avoid the "kid", and hit...who knows what. I'd aim for an oncoming truck to avoid a kid, if I had a split second to make such a horrible decision.

This was exactly my immediate reaction to the real danger involved.

The picture will not look "real" until the viewer is in exactly the right place. Even a highly attentive driver will see a vague smear on the road, and as they approach the correct point of perspective, the picture will emerge and then that's it. If the driver has been paying attention, they will know what it is and keep driving.

If a good driver is watching the road ahead as they drive through a residential street, and glances away (good drivers always glance away, constantly, to see the speedometer, to check mirrors, to glance left and right, etc) and then happens to look ahead right at the moment the picture comes into correct proportionality, that driver should either slam on the brakes, or swerve. Both options are dangerous.

A safe driver needs to be aware of activity on the side of the road when driving through the neighborhood. Being aware of a static, enigmatic chalk smear in the middle of the road will not enhance safety practices. Perhaps it might raise awareness, but I personally do not see that it would desensitize drivers to a real situation of a child running into the road. The two experiences are very different.

 

[DaveC426913]

Statement 1: There is little doubt that the reflex is there for every reasonable driver.

Any problems with that one?

Yes. It is a very bad assumption.

If the reflex were there for every reasonable driver, their would never be any accidents or fatalities (except by drug-induced drivers).

The fact is, there are accidents and fatalities. Far too many, as evidenced by the amount of effort MoT and police go to urge drivers to pay attention.

 

[DaveC426913]

A safe driver needs to be aware of activity on the side of the road when driving through the neighborhood. Being aware of a static, enigmatic chalk smear in the middle of the road will not enhance safety practices. Perhaps it might raise awareness, but I personally do not see that it would desensitize drivers to a real situation of a child running into the road. The two experiences are very different.

Raising awareness is the entire point here.

Again, nothing will change road safety more than the drivers changing their attitudes.

 

[DanP]

We've seen this kind of illusion before...they're really cool...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/09/3d-illusion-in-street-tries-to-change-drivers-attitudes/?hpt=C2

But is this really such a good idea, to desensitize drivers to kids in the road?!? The intent is to "change people's attitudes to really change their behavior" but this may backfire.

IMO, It's parent's responsibility to supervise and later educate the kid regarding the dangers of becoming a roadkill.

Remember Stephen King's Pet Cemetery ?

 

[DaveC426913]

IMO, It's parent's responsibility to supervise and later educate the kid regarding the dangers of becoming a roadkill.

Remember Stephen King's Pet Cemetery ?

Dan, you completely miss the point.

This is about driver awareness, not about child safety.

 

[DanP]

Dan, you completely miss the point.

This is about driver awareness, not about child safety.

Oh. Yes, I missed the point of the image totally then.

 

[lisab]

Yes. It is a very bad assumption.

If the reflex were there for every reasonable driver, their would never be any accidents or fatalities (except by drug-induced drivers).

The fact is, there are accidents and fatalities. Far too many, as evidenced by the amount of effort MoT and police go to urge drivers to pay attention.

That doesn't follow at all. The occurrence of a collision isn't proof that the reflex wasn't there. It could be that the reflex wasn't fast enough or effective enough.

A person who doesn't have a reflex to avoid sudden danger should not be driving. Or walking, for that matter.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Really? You think punishment after-the-fact will improve drivers currently on the road?

I would agree to punish them before the fact, if you can figure out how to make that work.

 

[lisab]

I would agree to punish them before the fact, if you can figure out how to make that work.

...lol...

 

[DaveC426913]

That doesn't follow at all. The occurrence of a collision isn't proof that the reflex wasn't there. It could be that the reflex wasn't fast enough or effective enough.

A person who doesn't have a reflex to avoid sudden danger should not be driving. Or walking, for that matter.

The point here is that regular drivers, as they are currently driving, are not driving safely. Drug-induced states are not the issue.

We do have fatalities caused by regular drivers that are preventable through nothing more tha more dilgent driver attitudes. This is the message that the goverment, the MoT and the police are trying to get across all along.

 

[Proton Soup]

If it were a perfectly good reflex, then there would be no need for a campiagn to get drivers to be more aware, now would there?

that's just it. it's not doing what you think it is. driving is not simply an intellectual exercise that you can perform from behind your desk. it is a series of trained responses that need to happen more or less instantaneously from repeated exercise. you want people to be thinking before you start training the responses, so that they train themselves in good habits like not texting/talking.

but in this case, if that drawing were to stay in that spot long enough for drivers to become accustomed to it, or the drawings become commonplace, drivers will retrain themselves not to brake for it. even if they are more attentive to other important things like not texting/talking while driving. even if you improve competency in one area, you defeat it in another by slowing reaction time to the actual visual stimulus that you wanted them to notice in the first place.

maybe just show them pictures of human roadkill in the newspaper or on television.

 

[Borek]

If a good driver is watching the road ahead as they drive through a residential street, and glances away (good drivers always glance away, constantly, to see the speedometer, to check mirrors, to glance left and right, etc) and then happens to look ahead right at the moment the picture comes into correct proportionality, that driver should either slam on the brakes, or swerve. Both options are dangerous.

That's exactly what I was aiming at, perhaps my English failed me to communicate that clearly.

I am usually aware of what is happening around me good enough so that kids won't run in front of me unnoticed - when I see kids close enough to the road I turn my attention to them, just in case. But if I will suddenly see a kid in front of me I would not assume "Oh, I was looking around so it can't be a kid". I will brake, evade, honk and swear all at the same time.

And believing it is possible to have zillions of drivers, making zillions of miles every day, without any casualties is a nice dream, but I don't believe it. The only way to eliminate casualties is to stop traveling at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

but in this case, if that drawing were to stay in that spot long enough for drivers to become accustomed to it, o

Oh stop it! Just stop.

You guys continue to microscopically scrutinize the edge case of possible backfiring from a campaign while completely ignoring the need to get regular drivers to pay better attention to the road. This is where all the completely preventable accidents are occurring - regular drivers just not driving safely.


Man!

 

[Proton Soup]

Oh stop it! Just stop.

You guys continue to microscopically scrutinize the edge case of possible backfiring from a campaign while completely ignoring the need to get regular drivers to pay better attention to the road. This is where all the completely preventable accidents are occurring - regular drivers just not driving safely.


Man!

honestly, from your responses, i don't even believe that you drive.

 

[DaveC426913]

honestly, from your responses, i don't even believe that you drive.

Why?

 

[Hurkyl]

This is the message that the goverment, the MoT and the police are trying to get across all along.

You seem to be continually arguing

oh no, X won't happen, because we're doing this to send message Y​

which isn't a particularly convincing argument.

 

[cronxeh]

honestly, from your responses, i don't even believe that you drive.

He drives alright, just does not abide by the law

Hey Davey, how did that traffic violation play out?

 

[DaveC426913]

You seem to be continually arguing

oh no, X won't happen, because we're doing this to send message Y​

which isn't a particularly convincing argument.

No, I'm arguing: X is a trivially small likelihood, compared to the concrete benefits of Y.

Speed bumps could conceivably cause the exact same kind of accident. Do we eliminate speed numps in residential neighbourhoods because - despite the fact that they slow cars down to safer speeds - it might conceivably happen that someone will lose control and go careening across a front lawn. Is that logical?

 

[Proton Soup]

Why?

mostly, it's your attempts to intellectualize the process. sure, i try to look ahead on the road, not drive faster than the environment allows for, etc. but i simply can't be prepared for everything. i may be looking in my rearview mirror at some vehicle that wants to pass and is driving erratically. and then i glance back and there is this image in the road, and the first thing my brain tells me is that I'm about to run over a kid. what do i do? i certainly don't think about it, i brake and swerve. and maybe i crash my vehicle, for what i mistakenly interpreted as an emergency situation.

this is the sort of thing that would make me think about throttling the guy that dreamed up this campaign.