Watch out for that kid oh, nevermind

[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.

 

[stevenb]

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 is the most important point that has been made and it renders all of the other good points in this thread moot. This is like a booby-trap and it could kill someone.

My neighbor crashed her car when a peacock jumped into the road. Her reflex was to avoid it, and she veered off the road into a ditch. Luckily she was going slowly and didn't get hurt.

One day I was driving in a heavy fog. I had about 30 feet of visiblity and was driving 40 mph. All of a sudden I saw a guy walking dead center in the my lane. I reacted faster than I thought humanly possible. I missed him by inches and luckily there were no cars comming in the other lane.

Human reflexes are too fast to allow thoughtful decisions to be made. Ussually the right choice will be made, but not always. Placing something like this picture in the road is just wrong. It's dangerous and outright immoral to put it there.

 

[Chi Meson]

People with screen names ending in "b" all agree.

And so do I. I'll restate that I doubt "desensitization" would occur, since the occurance would be seldom and unique for a few locations, in addition to the fact that the experience of being surprised by the picture is very different than a child running into the street.

As far as raising awareness, this might do the trick, temporarily, for a few drivers, and so the net result might be positive as long as no one overrects in the wrong way and slams into someone on the sidewalk. TO be fair, I'd guess that scenario has already been thought through by the...um..."perpetrators"?

Since we are all intellectualizing, and my cynicism is a bit high today, I'd guess that this was really a way a municipality found to get money to go to an art project. Who wants money to go to art, in a recession, unless it is for the greater good? [/cynic]

 

[wolram]

I have had a child run into the SIDE of my car, where the hell she came from i don't know, i was watching a bunch of kids playing on the pavement four or five parked cars lengths from me, luckily
i was driving well below the 30 limit and there were no injuries.
I will all ways remember this (accident), knowing a split second would have made my life a misery.

 

[Hurkyl]

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

Did you know that, over here at least, safe driving manuals tend to recommend following 25 meters behind at 45 km/h, and even that is under good conditions?

One day I was driving in a heavy fog. I had about 30 feet of visiblity and was driving 40 mph.

Have you considered not driving through pea soup? You're very lucky, not just that you avoided this guy, but also that you were fortunate enough not to encounter someone else silly enough to drive through that, but opted to drive at a more reasonable speed (a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that even 15 mph is probably a little too fast) -- I don't think you could have stopped to avoid him even if you slammed the brakes instantly upon seeing him.

(Are you sure it was only 30 feet of visibility? That amounts to half a second between seeing something and running it over)

 

[stevenb]

Have you considered not driving through pea soup? You're very lucky, not just that you avoided this guy, but also that you were fortunate enough not to encounter someone else silly enough to drive through that, but opted to drive at a more reasonable speed (a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that even 15 mph is probably a little too fast) -- I don't think you could have stopped to avoid him even if you slammed the brakes instantly upon seeing him.

(Are you sure it was only 30 feet of visibility? That amounts to half a second between seeing something and running it over)

Honestly, i didn't measure it precisely, but it was very bad conditions and I think visibility was not much more than that. You can probably estimate of the distance of visibility based on typical human reaction time. I know the speed was 40 MPH because I deliberately decided to go 5 MPH under the speed limit when I turned onto the onramp. I'm convinced that I responded just about as quickly as a person could in those circumstances because, in those days, my reflexes were better than average and my eyes were deliberately focused forward looking for taillights or objects in the road. The idea of a person being in the road never crossed my mind, since it was a 2-lane highway, at 11:00 PM, with a chain-link fence separating it from my Mom's residential area.

This happened about 15 years ago, and I've been more careful since then. I often ask myself, what are the odds that a person would walk down the middle of a highway lane in those conditions? In all my years of driving in any conditions, I've never seen anyone else walk in the direction of travel down the middle of a highway lane. Visibility was bad, but not so bad that he should not have been aware of where he was. But, stuff happens I guess. People get drunk, or have mental illness or want to kill themselves. I don't know what was up with this guy. I thought to go back and check, but then decided that was even a more hazardous thing to do.

Anyway, tying this back into the theme of the thread, I can see the point people are making about how a scare can change behavior. However, what bothers me is that the particulars of the technique seem to generate something hazardous in itself. In my case I learned a good lesson, but the lesson was learned at great risk. It seems unethical to me to deliberately create this level risk to teach a lesson, even if it seems the overall harm might be minimized by doing so. I know the stakes are high here, but I ask myself, which scenario would enrage me more?

1. My daughter is hit and killed by a careless driver going 5 MPH over the speed limit. (note I'm extremely enraged if this were to happen, and I live the rest of my life in total despair, in my home.)

2. My wife and daughter are killed when my wife swerves the car off the road to avoid a painting of a girl in the road. (note, now I go postal and kill every politician in my town, before living the rest of my life in total despair, in my jail cell.)

 

[DaveC426913]

sure, i try to look ahead on the road, not drive faster than the environment allows for, etc.

You dismiss this like it's second nature.

If people were doing this more there would be fewer accidents.

Tell me, what do you think is the single biggest cause of preventable accidents?

...many car accidents (81%) were at least partially caused by the driver talking with other passengers in the car.

The statistics also show other significant causes of car accidents are listening to or changing the radio stations (involved in 66% of all accidents) to talking on cell phones (25%).

What we can see from these car accident causes is that while being drunk is a major cause of car accidents, the most common cause of car accidents is any type of distraction.

http://www.car-accident-advice.com/car-accident-causes.html

 

[DaveC426913]

I can see the point people are making about how a scare can change behavior.

Scare??

Drivers who are paying attenton will not be caught off guard.

 

[DaveC426913]

#1 Most Common Cause of Automobile Crashes:Distracted Drivers

Mark Edwards, Director of Traffic Safety at the American Automobile Association stated, "The research tells us that somewhere between 25-50 percent of all motor vehicle crashes in this country really have driver distraction as their root cause."

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/07/20/the_6_most_common_causes_of_automobile_crashes.htm

Further: of the list of six most common causes, the first five are entirely and completely preventable by the driver. Not until we get to #6 (inclement weather) do we encounter an accident cause that has any element not in the driver's direct control.

 

[Dembadon]

It doesn't matter how many times I pass over a painting that resembles a child, I will never make the assumption that something resembling a human in front of my car is fake. In other words, I don't think it would ever be possible for me to become desensitized to children in front of, or behind, my car.

 

[stevenb]

Scare??

Drivers who are paying attenton will not be caught off guard.

I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point here. Can you explain please.

I agree drivers paying attention won't be caught off guard. The ones not paying attention might get a scare. I know I would be startled if I were not paying attention and then suddenly thought I was about to hit a young child.

What I'm trying to say there is that i agree there could be a benefit of scaring someone who is not paying attention. Maybe they will change their behavior as a result. In the close call I experienced, I did get scared, and have since been more careful in that type of situation.