Watch out for that kid oh, nevermind

[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...