Watch out for that kid oh, nevermind

[JaredJames]

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

I see no numbers on your side Dave, which makes your argument as "imaginative hypothetical" as ours. The only thing you have is that the authorities have 'said' it is safe.

I have read multiple reports on this drawing now and so far none say anymore than they 'said' it was safe and most also enclose section showing an ex traffic commissioner for new york saying they are dangerous.
(http://abcnews.go.com/Business/watc...nt-surprise-drivers-slowing/story?id=11584621)

At the moment, it is argument by authority as it is simply an authority saying they are safe.

 

[Borek]

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?

This is probably based on the idea that one should left enough place for stopping in case car in front stops in place. There is some logic behind, but I have yet to see a car that stops in place - unless it hits something it usually moves some distance before stopping, so it makes some place for me.

I hate it when people drive too close, and I always try to keep a distance that makes me feel safe, at the same time I often have a feeling that such recommendations are throwing kid with a bath. If they were followed to the letter there could be perhaps less accidents, but I doubt anyone will arrive to their destination on time.

Yes, I know, we should work on being as safe as possible, but the best way to be safe its to stay home. There is no such thing as a risk free transportation.

 

[Proton Soup]

not sure what sort of stats exactly we're looking for. but did find this.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3765974.html

A study by the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety found that vehicle-related road debris — shredded tires, sofas and bedding, lost cargo, muffler parts and other hazards — accounted for 112 fatalities in 31 states from 1999 through 2001. That's roughly 1 out of 500 traffic deaths.

"It's a pretty low percentage overall, but it tends to be things that are preventable," said consultant Gerry Forbes, author of the study. "A little bit of education and enforcement could go a long way" toward preventing such accidents, he said.

The study showed road debris as a bigger problem in Texas, where it killed 33 people in that time, accounting for 1 in 300 traffic deaths.

More recent federal data, spanning the 10 years from 1995 through 2004, show 823 people died across the nation in crashes with objects in the road other than vehicles. Forbes cautioned that different agencies classify accidents differently. Some include flying vehicle parts from a crash as road debris, and others don't, for instance.

One estimate, based on a sample of accidents in which at least one vehicle was towed from the scene, says as many as 1 out of 200 such accidents were caused by road debris. Of those, nearly 40 percent involved injuries but fewer than 1 percent were fatal.

In 1 out of 4 of the accidents, the driver managed to avoid the object in the road but crashed anyway — as did the bus in last week's fatal wreck.

the study appears to be here: http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/VRRD.pdf

so maybe 1/2000 of traffic deaths are object avoidance. deaths are fairly low for these types of vehicle accidents, but injury and property damage are a much higher percentage of the outcome if you look at the pdf.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

(1) You named the authorities involved, but you haven't cited anything they said, especially anything resembling your statements.

(2) Those statistics may have been relevant to the point that distracted drivers are a danger, but that point is mostly irrelevant in your argument against everyone else.

 

[DaveC426913]

(1) You named the authorities involved, but you haven't cited anything they said...

Yes I have. I quoted them. As did the news article.

I see no numbers on your side Dave, which makes your argument as "imaginative hypothetical" as ours. The only thing you have is that the authorities have 'said' it is safe.

At the moment, it is argument by authority as it is simply an authority saying they are safe.

I grant that I have not actually produced specific statistics making my point beyond refutation, but argument by authority is still the strongest argument on the table.

So far, the counter-argument holds no water. Again, if anyone has anything beyond 96 posts of "Here's what I suppose might happen", now's the time.

 

[DaveC426913]

cronxeh
-------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Hurkyl
You seem to be continually arguing

Originally Posted by DaveC426913
No, I'm arguing:

This turned my frown upside down. Thanks cronxeh. I needed that.

 

[stevenb]

Again, if anyone has anything beyond 96 posts of "Here's what I suppose might happen", now's the time.

When someone sets up something that looks like a booby-trap, the onus is on them to prove that there is no way it will be sprung on an unsuspecting person. I don't want an "authority" giving me their word that it is impossible for a person to check their rear-view mirror, then look back at the road, then see what looks like a child in the road, and then swerve into a head-on collision, or into a pedestrian on the sidewalk.

Yes, this is "what I suppose might happen", but it's not an unreasonable thing to imagine. As a tax paying citizen, I have a right to ask the "authorities" who install this thing for data that prove it is safe. Where is the data? Why is what I suggest impossible? If my scenario did come true, why shouldn't the "authorities" be criminally charged with manslaughter for installing a booby-trap that kills someone?


Just asking.

 

[JaredJames]

Now I don't know whether I'm just tired and being a bit dense here, but given that so far I am unable to find anything by the quoted authorities showing the tests they used to determine how people perceive this drawing, I'd have to say argument by authority fails too. Seeing as the 'authorities' in this case aren't substantiating any of their claims (I will retract this immediately if proper evidence is provided).

Although the arguments given by us are hypothetical situations which may / may not occur with this image, the fact is they do occur in other similar situations and I don't think they can be dismissed so easily.

I agree with you that for most people it will be a case of seeing it and reacting in a fairly 'stable' and controlled way. It just concerns me that the nature of this image (a child) could potentially invoke far more irrational reaction from someone than is necessary (given the message they are trying to instil).

Edit: I completely agree with stevenb, being told "it's safe and people won't see it as a real child" by any authority figure does not make it so and given the rules of PF, they aren't backing that up with the tests used / figures gained (again, retraction as above if provided). Given our examples do occur in real life, I'd be inclined to take them over somebodies unsubstantiated word.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes I have. I quoted them. As did the news article.

I just reread the original news article -- the closest thing I can find is a comment (not a quote!) that the organization (not the authority!) said a detailed risk assessment was undertaken (but not by whom!) (but not what the conclusion was!).

Digging through the organization's web-page, there still doesn't seem to be anything about the detailed risk assessment other than their assurances that "The District of West Vancouver engineers have done a full risk assessment of this initiative and are supportive of the concept and its implementation." Even still, they had to lay it in front of several other safety measures (including a crosswalk and traffic bump) add several layers of warning signs, and even include a police presence.




Incidentally, we do have http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373123,00.html that drivers get desensitized to the image of an obstacle in the road, once they are expecting a fake one. Nobody seems to have tried putting up illusions, then real obstacles resembling the illusions to see if people react more slowly to them or ignore them -- but then again, I think most people wouldn't feel a test is necessary.

 

[DaveC426913]

Incidentally, we do have http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373123,00.html that drivers get desensitized...

Thank you. That is awesome.

(speed bump illusion)
... the effect wore off after a few months.

Compare to:

(child in road illusion)
The ... decal will stay on a busy intersection ... for a week.

So, all those arguments about desensitization are refuted.

 

[JaredJames]

The Associated Press interviewed about two dozen people who have driven over the fake bumps, and only a few said they braked for them.

Not a particularly high sample group in any sense, but if we're going to quote from this then all must be taken into consideration.

Michael Serendus said his 80-year-old father has recently found it much easier to get out of his condominium complex because traffic has slowed down. But he attributed the change to the real speed bumps nearby, not the fake ones that drivers see first.

Think this one explains itself.

After you've driven over it once, you'll know it ain't real, so why would you react again? I'm speaking more regarding parents who drive across them daily to and from the school as opposed to random people driving past. The article says "over a few months" but it doesn't state what type of traffic there is, or any other details. If the traffic is generally 'newcomers' to the area or people not regularly passing through then it will take longer to desensitise than if you were driving across it daily (or even twice daily as would be the case at a school). I would still like to see a body who has actually tested this and shows the test details and results so we can draw a full conclusion. Unfortunately I don't think one exists.

EDIT: Plus, there is a difference between seeing a 3D speed bump and a 3D child.

 

[DaveC426913]

Michael Serendus said his 80-year-old father has recently found it much easier to get out of his condominium complex because traffic has slowed down. But he attributed the change to the real speed bumps nearby, not the fake ones that drivers see first.

Think this one explains itself.

Really.

Dozens of posters complaining that they need raw data to be convinced of anything; the findings of safety authorities not being valid enough for them - you talking about dozens of people being a small sample size...

But Michael's 80-year-old father in the nearby condo - his theory you'll accept.

Oh so totally BZZT.

jared: admit you have egg on your face.

 

[JaredJames]

I didn't say I accept it, I simply pointed out that you taking one quote regarding desensitisation taking months wasn't a fair overview when there are others saying they made no difference. After all, they didn't say how they checked it took months.

So far, I have seen your authority (and even then it is the Preventable group NOT the quoted authority figures) give one quote saying they're safe. Yet, I have an ex-traffic commissioner saying they're dangerous, plus the above quotes saying they're ineffective.
OK, so none of these are backed up with figures (that goes for both sides). But I won't accept your argument just because they are 'authoritative' figures.

Edit: to lighten the mood

 

[DaveC426913]

...there are others saying they made no difference.

By "others" you mean Michael's 80-year-old father in the condo. You equate his expertise of the subject matter with the tests done by City of Vancouver, the Safety Board and the police.

Just making sure I understand the strength of the counterargument I'm being overwhelmed by.

 

[JaredJames]

You equate his expertise of the subject matter with the tests done by City of Vancouver, the Safety Board and the police.

What tests? I haven't seen anything showing they conducted tests (unless I've misread something here).

Just that Preventable conducted a risk assessment for this image.

"A Canadian safety group hopes"

"But Preventable says"

Pure speculation, nothing about tests conducted though, unless you have another article for me?

I'm saying that I have an ex-traffic commissioner saying it's dangerous (no better than Preventable saying it's safe), plus they interview some actual people who have driven on it (although not many) and they show it isn't effective (but I would like to see a larger sample size) and let's ignore the old guy if you're so against him.

It does say the number of people holding the limit nearly doubled thanks to these devices, but, once desensitised it seriously limited it's effect.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm also concerned, that if you have uniformed officers monitoring these devices they could influence the results. Speed trap or not, if I see a someone resembling a cop I'm inclined to follow the rules. Is there anything showing how they'll monitor this image? Will it be more of a covert monitoring or just officers on the side of the road?

 

[Proton Soup]

we have data showing that deaths do result from motorists avoiding roadway obstacles. that is enough for me.

and when i looked at the BCAATSF, there was no indication that their staff has any qualifications at all. but they are excited to be there.

 

[JaredJames]

we have data showing that deaths do result from motorists avoiding roadway obstacles. that is enough for me.

and when i looked at the BCAATSF, there was no indication that their staff has any qualifications at all. but they are excited to be there.

+1 for me.

 

[DaveC426913]

+1 for me.

Yeees. Michael's 80-year-old father in the condo was definitely the clincher.

 

[DaveC426913]

BTW, this installation is right next to a school zone. Those drivers had d*mn well better not be caught unawares of anything in the road.

Indeed. If, as y'all say, they suddenly see something that causes them to emergency brake or swerve, then they definitely were not driving safely for a school zone in the first place.

 

[JaredJames]

BTW, this installation is right next to a school zone. Those drivers had d*mn well better not be caught unawares of anything in the road.

Indeed. If, as y'all say, they suddenly see something that causes them to emergency brake or swerve, then they definitely were not driving safely for a school zone in the first place.

If they were driving safely in the first place, would there be a need for this image?

Yeees. Michael's 80-year-old father in the condo was definitely the clincher.

Not entirely sure what you were going for there, but I was simply agreeing with what protonsoup said. Where does the 80 year old father come into it?

As he pointed out, there's no evidence they are qualified, also there's no evidence any tests on this image took place and he provided evidence distractions cause accidents. But if you are going to take the sarcasm route, then yes, the article in which the 80 year old was quoted clinched it for me, given it is the only thing I've seen so far to claim actual people who have experienced a 3D image were questioned and have the majority showed it was non-effective. (Again, as I've said before, the sample size is far too small but it does give an indication, the only indication we have.)

EDIT: also, given how busy a school zone can be, the possibility of distraction is certainly high.

 

[DaveC426913]

If they were driving safely in the first place, would there be a need for this image?

Pre. Cise. Ly.

Man. 121 posts to get here...

 

[JaredJames]

Pre. Cise. Ly.

Man. 121 posts to get here...

Well I've been discussing the safety of such a speed measure, not the necessity of it. (Perhaps this is why it's taken so long...)

 

[Proton Soup]

BTW, this installation is right next to a school zone. Those drivers had d*mn well better not be caught unawares of anything in the road.

Indeed. If, as y'all say, they suddenly see something that causes them to emergency brake or swerve, then they definitely were not driving safely for a school zone in the first place.

this does not follow

 

[Gokul43201]

Fine. Back it up with numbers. I did.

You did what?

 

[stevenb]

Indeed. If, as y'all say, they suddenly see something that causes them to emergency brake or swerve, then they definitely were not driving safely for a school zone in the first place.

Not necessarily, but probably more often than not.

But, assume it's true always. What is your point and how does it relate to the issue of lack of proof that the whole thing is safe and worthy of the possible risks?

As for my own point of view, I say don't compound one hazzard by introducing another. If people are not obeying the law in a school zone, put a police officer there to pull them over and give them a ticket. Don't booby trap them.

If I install a shotgun with a tripwire in my window at home, and it kills a burglar, I'll be in a lot of trouble. Why? Because it's illegal to install a booby trap. If I personally shoot him while defending my life and property, that's another matter entirely. The maliciousness, or ineptitude of the driver is not the question here.

 

[DaveC426913]

As for my own point of view, I say...

Bzzt.

We are sorry, this thread's quota for "I suppose in my own head" arguments has been exceeded. Please feel free to return with something more substantial.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

I am not an expert, but i would think our eyes can perceive moving objects like perceiving movements of girl playing on the road. some of them may perceive as a still image. i do not know how much this thing will help.

 

[DaveC426913]

But, assume it's true always. What is your point and how does it relate to the issue of lack of proof that the whole thing is safe and worthy of the possible risks?

There is no evidence that it poses any risk.

There is however, evidence that it does do the job of slowing drivers down, making for safer conditions.

 

[JaredJames]

There is no evidence that it poses any risk.

There is however, evidence that it does do the job of slowing drivers down, making for safer conditions.

The only evidence I've seen is a quote that says that 3D shapes in the road made people slow down, no figures to go with it. And even then those questioned about it after driving on it, the majority said they didn't slow down.

You are assuming that a 3D girl will have the same effect, but there is a difference between seeing an image of a box to seeing an image of a girl.

Safer conditions? Where does it state the nature of the deceleration? Rapid or gentle? Do you believe people will slow down for a 3D speed bump in the same manner they would slow down for a 3D girl?

EDIT - I would like to see how the monitoring was conducted. Having uniformed officers on the side of the road will have a significant impact on passing vehicle speed. If they were present I'd be doubtful about the accuracy of the results. -

As for "something more substantial", I'd like the same on your part.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is however, evidence that it does do the job of slowing drivers down, making for safer conditions.

Given all of the other things they put in place to try and mitigate the danger their decal posed, how can there possibly be evidence that the it is slowing drivers down? (And this is ignoring any question about whether the conditions are safer)

And I already cited direct, empirical evidence that even if an image causes drivers to slow down, the effect is only temporary, as drivers learn to ignore images of obstacles in the road.

 

[stevenb]

There is no evidence that it poses any risk.

Why, because no one has crashed at that site? I asked previously "where is the data", but you didn't answer before. Do you have data to support that it is safe? Are you really suggesting that there needs to be proof that it is dangerous rather than the other way around? I'd rather have proof that it isn't dangerous.

So when my neighbor veered off the road when a peacock jumped in front of her car, what does that indicate to you? It tells me that some people are prone to panic and make a poor decision. Personally, I would have run the stupid bird over, but she didn't do that. Instead she totaled her car and risked serious injury or death.

It seems to me that there is enough anecdotal evidence for a citizen to be concerned that maybe this idea isn't safe. Hence, it seems reasonable to ask, "where is the proof that it is safe?".

 

[stevenb]

Bzzt.

We are sorry, this thread's quota for "I suppose in my own head" arguments has been exceeded. Please feel free to return with something more substantial.

You should learn the difference between an opinion, and an argument. When someone prefaces a statement with "As for my own point of view, ...", you should understand what the intent is, and not degrade it. That's just common courtesy.

 

[JaredJames]

I notice in one of the articles it says that a woman contacted the organisation who had heart problems and was worried she would be startled by the image.

I don't know about anyone else, but having people driving around a school zone worried about the effect the image will have on them (a source of distraction to say the least), is slightly concerning.

 

[Chi Meson]

Someone please, drive a truck over this thread.

Don't slow down.

 

[Evo]

Thread is dead.