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?