Watch out for that kid oh, nevermind

[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.

 

[DaveC426913]

On http://caaneo.ca/about/blog/driving/10-leading-causes-of-car-accidents-and-tips-to-avoid-them" of the top 10, the top 4 are various ways drivers are not paying attention. You have to get to #10 before you encounter a cause that is not directly in control of the driver.

 

[Evo]

I think that there are many people that if desensitized to seeing something at a certain place all of the time will begin to ignore it. That is human nature. Maybe some people won't but we are talking about the SAME location ALWAYS being bogus. You KNOW that you are going to see the fake image, you expect it. You seriously can't imagine a scenario where someone is tired/drunk and knowing this is fake won't just ignore any other possibility?

I think this is stupid.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that there are many people that if desensitized to seeing something at a certain place all of the time will begin to ignore it. That is human nature. Maybe some people won't but we are talking about the SAME location ALWAYS being bogus. You KNOW that you are going to see the fake image, you expect it. You seriously can't imagine a scenario where someone is tired/drunk and knowing this is fake won't just ignore any other possibility?

I think this is stupid.

Fine. Back it up with numbers. I did.

 

[Evo]

Fine. Back it up with numbers. I did.

Numbers from this intersection? What numbers? Are you saying long term studies of this specific thing (fake potential accident at one place every time you go to the place) have been done?

 

[DaveC426913]

Numbers from this intersection? What numbers? Are you saying long term studies of this specific thing have been done?

You have this idea that long-term distractions in the road will result in people becoming desensitized, resulting (I assume) in more accidents when a "real" situation arises. Does that about sum it up?

It sounds plausible. Does it really happen? Do accidents occur this way?

Who knows?

But I've listed references that show very strongly that driver distraction is a leading cause of accidents. Drivers can directly affect the death statistics simply by being more aware of their driving habits.

If there were money or lives riding on this, would you put your money on what you think is your "plausible side effect" of this campaign (desensitation, leading to more accidents), or would you put your money on the numbers, that show the campaign's success will actually save many lives?

 

[Proton Soup]

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?


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

i'm not dismissing it. I'm disagreeing with their solution because i think it's dangerous.

but you dismissed my suggestion to show people the actual results. i understand that people are squeamish, but it seems that we have allowed ourselves to become desensitized, don't you think?

 

[Hurkyl]

or would you put your money on the numbers, that show the campaign's success will actually save many lives?

There are numbers that show this campaign will save lives?



PS: This decal on the road is a distraction. Having to distinguish between a decal and a person is a distraction. And aren't distracted drivers dangerous?

 

[DaveC426913]

There are numbers that show this campaign will save lives?

I did not say that.

PS: This decal on the road is a distraction. Having to distinguish between a decal and a person is a distraction.

No, it is the very opposite of a distraction; it is ensuring your attention is exactly where it most needs to be: on the area in front of your car where you are about to be in a split second.

 

[Evo]

No, it is the very opposite of a distraction; it is ensuring your attention is exactly where it most needs to be: on the area in front of your car where you are about to be in a split second.

The time to avoid an accident is seeing the child entering your peripheral vision which gives you time to take action. If you don't see the child until they are directly in front of you, it's unlikley you can avoid them.

 

[DaveC426913]

The time to avoid an accident is seeing the child entering your peripheral vision which gives you time to take action. If you don't see the child until they are directly in front of you, it's unlikley you can avoid them.

Yep. If you're distracted, you're not seeing what's in front of you or what's in your peripheral vision.

So change your driving habits.

This method may (or may not) work. Nothing else seems to.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, it is the very opposite of a distraction; it is ensuring your attention is exactly where it most needs to be: on the area in front of your car where you are about to be in a split second.

This is so very, very wrong.

First off, any moments my mind spends dwelling on whether or not the image is a decal or a person is a moment that is spent neither upon deciding how to avoid it, nor actually avoiding it. In a world where there are deceptive images on the road, this extra layer of decision is necessary -- but the world is a better place if people don't need this extra layer.

Secondly, any moment my attention dwells on a decal in front of my car is a moment where it is not dwelling on other things in the vicinity of where I am about to be in a split second.

Thirdly, my attention is on observing what is on the road several seconds ahead from where I am now, a couple seconds behind me, what is in nearby lanes, cross streets, and sidewalks. It also has to evaluate which ones may pose a danger, and which ones are at risk of changing their motion to pose a danger. Furthermore, I am noting and/or paying attention to things like road signs and traffic signals, my speedometer, and diagnostic signals my car might give me. Also, I have to recognize where I am and where I want to be, and the route I plan to take to get there. This is in addition to what other sounds/sights/smells might force their way into my attention, along with the natural breaks the mind takes.


For the most part, noticing when it's a split second in front of you is too late.

 

[encorp]

I don't claim to know everything - but I do know some things.

The only way to find out if this works; is to try it - that and I am a very very certain that the people who painted this did more than argue it's potential outcome on an internet forum.

What I'm saying by this is: This is not a knee jerk attempt at fixing a problem. It's a tried, true and sound way to train people.

All over the world their are similar strategies used to control peoples driving habits. Some places use squiggly lines on the road giving the illusion that the lane way is narrowing - this slows people down.

What painting this on the road does is present a problem to the driver. They no longer are able to assume that the road is clear for their use. They are aware that the painting is there, but they know that if they drive fast in an area it'll be hard for them to tell the difference between the painting and real children. Thus they slow down, anticipating the painting every single time, knowing they need to be careful so they can discern the painting from real pedestrians.

It's only meant to trick them once. Every other time after that they are aware of it and it reminds them that its an area to slow down.

Once the trick stops working; we change to another strategy to remind them - a good one is installing computers that respond to satellites - when a car hits a designated zone it's governed by the GPS chip and the computer inside it.

Make it a felony to tamper with these things and we're all good to go.

That's the alternative - and actually, we are NOT far off from it at all.

 

[rootX]

You have this idea that long-term distractions in the road will result in people becoming desensitized, resulting (I assume) in more accidents when a "real" situation arises. Does that about sum it up?

It sounds plausible. Does it really happen? Do accidents occur this way?

Who knows?

But I've listed references that show very strongly that driver distraction is a leading cause of accidents. Drivers can directly affect the death statistics simply by being more aware of their driving habits.

If there were money or lives riding on this, would you put your money on what you think is your "plausible side effect" of this campaign (desensitation, leading to more accidents), or would you put your money on the numbers, that show the campaign's success will actually save many lives?

Here's what you agreed upon:
1. Driver distraction is a leading cause of accidents
2. Kid painting on the road bring awareness and less distracted drivers
3. Those paints also desensitizes drivers

Here's my belief:
1. Those paintings might not lead to less distracted drivers

Conclusion:
Distracted desensitized drivers will more likely to run over real kids.

 

[cristo]

This is clearly a bad idea, since it's trying to cause an accident. If you see a child in the middle of the road you either slam your brakes on to try and stop, or swerve to try and miss the child, or a combination of both. Evasive action like this is taken without checking mirrors, or looking around you, since you're taught that there is no time to do this. Therefore, this painting is encouraging drivers to put other drivers and pedestrians at risk, for no real reason. If you want to make drivers slow down at that specific point, put either a speed camera, or a bump in the road.

 

[encorp]

This is clearly a bad idea, since it's trying to cause an accident. If you see a child in the middle of the road you either slam your brakes on to try and stop, or swerve to try and miss the child, or a combination of both. Evasive action like this is taken without checking mirrors, or looking around you, since you're taught that there is no time to do this. Therefore, this painting is encouraging drivers to put other drivers and pedestrians at risk, for no real reason. If you want to make drivers slow down at that specific point, put either a speed camera, or a bump in the road.

You are not seeing a child in the road. You're seeing an optical illusion, in the same second you realize it's not a child and it reminds you why you're supposed to go slow in that area.

I think people are taking people for complete idiots.

It looks VERY convincing, but people can tell almost right away its not real. All it is is a reminder.

Also; it's extremely bad driving habits to SLAM on your breaks ever. You're supposed to gauge the situation and either veer, brake, turn, and avoid the crash.

It's like when an animal runs across the road; you don't slam on your breaks - you avoid it by responding properly; you tap the breaks and get yourself around it - or slam right into the thing because in certain situations braking is not the best idea. Remember; a car with moving wheels will keep its direction; it'll stick to the ground. It's when you break suddenly and lose control that makes an accident worse.

If you are driving a car and you slam on your breaks because a child ran out in front of you, and you hit them. You are completely at fault. Completely. You're supposed to anticipate a pedestrian could be anywhere and drive at a pace comfortable enough that you don't ever need to stop abruptly.

Of course; this whole concept is lost on 99% of drivers.

 

[cristo]

Also; it's extremely bad driving habits to SLAM on your breaks ever. You're supposed to gauge the situation and either veer, brake, turn, and avoid the crash.

Well that's definitely false. Over here (in the UK), one of the elements of a driving test is the emergency stop. You do precisely as I said, push hard on the brakes and bring the vehicle to a controlled, abrupt stop as quickly as you can (you are also taught how to avoid wheel locking or skidding in such a stopping situation, and how to use the engine braking by not depressing the clutch until the last moment). If a child runs out into the middle of the road you would execute an emergency stop.

It's like when an animal runs across the road; you don't slam on your breaks you avoid it by responding properly; or you tap the breaks and get yourself around it - or slam right into the thing because in certain situations braking is not the best idea.

An animal and a child are two very different situations!

If you are driving a car and you slam on your breaks because a child ran out in front of you, and you hit them. You are completely at fault. Completely. You're supposed to anticipate a pedestrian could be anywhere and drive at a pace comfortable enough that you don't ever need to stop abruptly.

Well, firstly, no you are not at fault. But, secondly, if you are supposed to be driving at a pace "comfortable enough that you don't ever need to stop abruptly", then you should be driving at around 10 miles an hour on all residential roads. A child could run out from behind a tree directly in front of you at any time.

 

[Borek]

You are not seeing a child in the road. You're seeing an optical illusion, in the same second you realize it's not a child

You DON'T KNOW it is an optical illusion. If you realize it THE SAME SECOND, already several tenths of the second passed. This is time lost - you should be paying attention to what is around you, not to thinking about whether what you see is an optical illusion or not. And your instinct will make you react (slam, swerve) BEFORE you realize it is an optical illusion.

Now that I think about it, there is another problem. How long does it take to average driver to calm down after thinking s/he just run over the kid? I would prefer to not drive close to someone like that.

 

[DaveC426913]

What I'm saying by this is: This is not a knee jerk attempt at fixing a problem. It's a tried, true and sound way to train people.

All over the world their are similar strategies used to control peoples driving habits. Some places use squiggly lines on the road giving the illusion that the lane way is narrowing - this slows people down.

Yes. I notice a trend here on PF. Everyone thinks they're smarter doing this armchair style, than the people who do this for a living based on decades of research and statistics.

What fun is there is agreeing that the system is working? It's much more satisfying to poke holes in things.

What painting this on the road does is present a problem to the driver.

"Present a problem"? That sounds almost rational.

No no. PF drivers totally freak. They brake hard enough to stand their cars on the bumper; they swerve off into parked cars or groups of pedestrians. Once they figure out there's no danger, they blithely roar through anything in their way at full speed. They're playin' freakin' bumper cars out there.

PF drivers the are nightmares on the roads.

It's only meant to trick them once. Every other time after that they are aware of it and it reminds them that its an area to slow down.

Don't trouble me with your logic.

Edge conditions. It's all about the .01% times that the idea might backfire. Forget about the 99.9% it works on, causing them to think more carefully about their driving and saving lives.

For Pete's Sake...

 

[Monique]

I notice a trend here on PF. Everyone thinks they're smarter doing this armchair style, than the people who do this for a living based on decades of research and statistics.

What fun is there is agreeing that the system is working? It's much more satisfying to poke holes in things.

Can you quote that research that you are referring to? I for one have seen city workers, or whoever is responsible, do incredibly stupid - clearly unthought through - things.

 

[DaveC426913]

Can you quote that research that you are referring to? I for one have seen city workers, or whoever is responsible, do incredibly stupid - clearly unthought through - things.

The campaign is done by The BC Traffic Safety Foundation with support by BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, the District of West Vancouver, School District #45 West Vancouver, and the West Vancouver Police.

 

[DaveC426913]

By the way, the campaign only runs for a week. How does that play into these fears of desensitization?

Also:

The figure begins to take shape from about 50 feet away and appears in 3D for another 40 feet until the driver it about 10 feet away, where the image recedes into a "blob" on the street," Dunne said.

"As you’re driving over it, it's not like driving over a little girl. The illusion, as it appears, looks like a cartoon, I've likened it to the difference between a photo and a cartoon."

I'd speculate that no one here actually read the article before offering their 2c.

 

[Hurkyl]

The campaign is done by The BC Traffic Safety Foundation with support by BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, the District of West Vancouver, School District #45 West Vancouver, and the West Vancouver Police.

This doesn't look like quoted research.

 

[DaveC426913]

This doesn't look like quoted research.

You don't accept them as authorities?

 

[Monique]

You don't accept them as authorities?

You said yourself: "Everyone thinks they're smarter doing this armchair style, than the people who do this for a living based on decades of research and statistics."

I haven't seen any evidence that they've researched and have gathered statistics on these road illusions.

 

[Proton Soup]

let's check out those qualifications

http://www.tsfbcaa.com/48.aspx

 

[cronxeh]

let's check out those qualifications

http://www.tsfbcaa.com/48.aspx

Oh comeon, you know all the ideas come from junior college students doing their internship at one of those things.

 

[cristo]

Dave, you state:

The figure begins to take shape from about 50 feet away and appears in 3D for another 40 feet until the driver it about 10 feet away, where the image recedes into a "blob" on the street," Dunne said.

So, from 50 feet away from the image I can see a child in the road. If I am traveling at 30 miles an hour, this is 44 feet per second, so I have about a second to think and stop the vehicle if this is a child. I think it's pretty safe to say I'm going to presume this is a child, and not a painting on the road, so I'm going to perform an emergency stop. By the time I'm at 10 feet, I will either have come to a complete stop, or will be traveling at a speed that is dangerously slow for the road I'm driving on.

I think we can agree that driving quickly and paying little attention to the road is dangerous, but being forced to bring your vehicle to an abrupt stop for no reason is equally dangerous.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm trying to think of a good comparison for this image.

When driving around I'm inclined to go slightly above the speed limit (perhaps 5 - 10 mph over), if they install a speed camera (GATSO type in the UK), the first time I see it my reaction is to ensure I am below the speed limit as quickly as possible so I don't get done for speeding. (Now I'm not condoning this behaviour in any way, but there is a significant number of people who do this, it is common to be driving down a 30 mph road in a stream of traffic, all of which doing 40 mph where I live.)

Now, once I know the camera is there, I drive up to the camera at, say 40mph, slow to 30mph to pass it and then speed back up again. You see countless people doing exactly that, just stand near a GATSO camera for half an hour and it's blatant. This camera, has not reduced the speed of drivers, it has simply meant they slow down for that small (we're talking all of 30m) section of road.

I don't see why having this drawing will have any effect other than that. People (particularly those not concentrating) will initially react by slowing down and potentially taking dangerous evasive action. But once they know it's there they'll just ignore it.
The moment people here reports a speed camera has been disabled, speeding commences at that location (I'm trying to find the news report for this one).

There are a lot of people driving whilst being distracted (phone, gps etc), but it would only take one person not concentrating to suddenly see this image and potentially swerve into oncoming traffic endangering the lives of those in their own car and those in the oncoming vehicles. I just don't see how you can justify this risk of the above occurring (although there me be only a small chance it does), given the consequences of just one accident with it could prove fatal.

 

[cristo]

I'm trying to think of a good comparison for this image.

When driving around I'm inclined to go slightly above the speed limit (perhaps 5 - 10 mph over), if they install a speed camera (GATSO type in the UK), the first time I see it my reaction is to ensure I am below the speed limit as quickly as possible so I don't get done for speeding. (Now I'm not condoning this behaviour in any way, but there is a significant number of people who do this, it is common to be driving down a 30 mph road in a stream of traffic, all of which doing 40 mph where I live.)

But it's different to a speed camera: for that you simply reduce your speed to 30mph, but for this you will try and reduce your speed far slower or to zero.

 

[JaredJames]

But it's different to a speed camera: for that you simply reduce your speed to 30mph, but for this you will try and reduce your speed far slower or to zero.

Yes, but it was the principle of once you know it's there you won't react to it again.

I know the speed camera is there so I know when I need to slow down for about 30m and then can go again.

I know the picture of the child is there, so I won't react to it again.

Edit - if you are distracted, you look back at the road, you see a child stood there collecting a ball (or similar), the initial thought is going to be that you know there's a picture like that at that location and in the time it takes you to run through all this you could end up hitting them. it will reduce potential reaction time by increasing driver thinking time -

I agree, the reaction to this picture would be far worse (as I pointed out at the end of the post), speed cameras make people slow down to the speed limit, this picture could cause slowing down to a stop (emergency style) and potentially a lethal evasive action (depending how you react, you could swerve into oncoming traffic or onto the pavement or into a parked car).

The only effective way I see to reduce speeding safely is to use average speed cameras as they do on British motorways during roadworks. It forces you to drive at the speed limit. The problem with all speeding measure though is that once a driver knows they are being monitored, there is a tendency to monitor speed more often than normal to ensure you don't go over the limit, further distracting you any potential hazards (kids in the road). Anyway, back on topic...

 

[DaveC426913]

I haven't seen any evidence that they've researched and have gathered statistics on these road illusions.

Nor have you seen any research or statistics that drivers will become desensitized and start veering all over the place mowing down children.

 

[JaredJames]

Nor have you seen any research or statistics that drivers will become desensitized and start veering all over the place mowing down children.

You only have to stand around a GATSO type speed camera to see how people react to it when they aren't aware it is there. (of course they generally, but not necessarily always, have to be speeding first) They slam their brakes on to get under the limit as soon as possible (or in some cases people doing the limit will slow down anyway).

So if I was to drive up and see this thing, and my first thought is "oh crap there's a child in the road", I'm going to slam my brakes on (to a stop) and if I'm close enough I'd swerve. (Even if you are doing the limit, I don't know anyone who would react to seeing a child in the road [50ft away or just over a second away] "ooh, no worries I shall slow down calmly.)

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it's pretty safe to say I'm going to presume this is a child, and not a painting on the road, so I'm going to perform an emergency stop.

No, it is not safe to say that at all.

Again:

As you’re driving over it, it's not like driving over a little girl. The illusion, as it appears, looks like a cartoon, I've likened it to the difference between a photo and a cartoon.

You are now taking your own supposition, in the absence of any facts or study, over the statement of the Director of the Traffic Safety Foundation who is supported by the City and the police and is the one heading up the campaign.

They have a bit more first-hand field experience with this very installation than anyone here.

If they say it isn't getting mistaken for a real child, there is no one here that can argue that.

 

[DaveC426913]

So if I was to drive up and see this thing, and my first thought is "oh crap there's a child in the road", I'm going to slam my brakes on (to a stop) and if I'm close enough I'd swerve.

Well, instead of supposing what you think in your imagination might happen, how about asking someone who is there? See previous post.

 

[cristo]

No, it is not safe to say that at all.

It doesn't matter what the image looks like as I'm driving over it-- the kid would be dead by then! It's too late for the image to look fake as I'm 10 feet away from it since, if it were not fake, there would be no time to stop anyway.

If they say it isn't getting mistaken for a real child, there is no one here that can argue that.

If it's not going to be mistaken for a real child, then there is no advantage to this than a simple SLOW painted on the road. There is a disadvantage though, painting anything on the road that will distract a driver is not a good idea.

 

[JaredJames]

So out of curiosity Dave, let's take a hypothetical, but perfectly plausible situation:

You are driving down a road at 30mph (the limit), something catches your eye on the left pavement and you glance at it. You turn back to the road and there, in front of you, between you and the car in front is something designed to look 3D and stand out, designed to look like a child, and you have all of 50ft (or just over a second) to judge what it is and react to it.

How do you perceive yourself reacting in this situation? A calm, "ah but this is a cartoon" or a "oh crap hit the brakes"?

I just don't buy that any person would be able to make a rational judgement in that time.

On an open road, with no distraction, I agree you would see something approach which would eventually become an image and then blur away again as you pass over. No real potential for an action. But distractions are extremely common (at least where I drive, what with kids running around, cyclists etc)

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh for Pete's Sake.

I have lived up the PF standards in at least referencing the authorities involved, the people actually in the field experiencing this and some relevant statistics.

We are now on post 96 and I have yet to hear a single counter-argument in this entire thread that has a shred of anything more substantial than "This is what I surmise, in my head, might, possibly happen, if I were within a five hundred miles of the event in question."

If you guys have anything better in your bag, whip it out now, otherwise I am calling this debate, in the spirit of PF's 'back up your claims' philosophy, in favour of me.

Got anything to add? Fine, just make sure it starts with something better than "This is what I imagine..."

 

[Borek]

I have lived up the PF standards in at least referencing the authorities involved, the people actually in the field experiencing this and some relevant statistics.

If you guys have anything better in your bag, whip it out now, otherwise I am calling this debate, in the spirit of PF's 'back up your claims' philosophy, in favour of me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[DaveC426913]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Well there doesn't seem to be an entry at all for "argument by imaginative hypothetical", so...

 

[cristo]

If you guys have anything better in your bag, whip it out now, otherwise I am calling this debate, in the spirit of PF's 'back up your claims' philosophy, in favour of me.

What claims do you want me to back up: looking at my last post, would you like me to back up the fact that, if it were a real kid, it would be dead as I ran over it? Or that 10 feet away is a little too late to be waiting to see if this is a real kid or a painting? Hell, 50 feet away is too late driving at 30 mph!