Watch out for that kid oh, nevermind

  • Thread starter Thread starter lisab
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    watch
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the use of 3D street murals designed to raise driver awareness about children in roadways. While the intention is to change driver behavior and enhance safety, many participants express concern that these illusions may desensitize drivers to real children, potentially leading to dangerous situations. Critics argue that repeated exposure to such images could condition drivers to dismiss them as mere art, increasing the risk of accidents when a real child is present. Some suggest that the campaign might inadvertently cause drivers to make split-second decisions that could result in harm, as they may swerve or brake suddenly to avoid the illusion. Others emphasize the need for drivers to be more attentive and responsible, suggesting that the focus should be on improving overall driving behavior rather than relying on visual tricks. The conversation highlights the complexities of driver psychology and the potential unintended consequences of such awareness campaigns.
  • #91


Monique said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92


DaveC426913 said:
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.)
 
  • #93


cristo said:
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.
 
  • #94


jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #95


DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #96


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)
 
  • #97


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..."

 
  • #98


DaveC426913 said:
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
 
  • #100


DaveC426913 said:
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!
 
  • #101


DaveC426913 said:
Well there doesn't seem to be an entry at all for "argument by imaginative hypothetical", so... :biggrin:

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.
 
  • #102


Hurkyl said:
Borek said:
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.
 
  • #103
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.
 
  • #104


DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #105


Hurkyl said:
(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.

jarednjames said:
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.
 
  • #106


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. :smile: Thanks cronxeh. I needed that.
 
  • #107


DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #108


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.
 
Last edited:
  • #109
DaveC426913 said:
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. :-p




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. :-p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #110
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111


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.
 
Last edited:
  • #112


jarednjames said:
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. :devil:
 
  • #113


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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114


jarednjames said:
...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. :wink:
 
  • #115


DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #116


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?
 
  • #117


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.
 
  • #118


Proton Soup said:
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.
 
  • #119


jarednjames said:
+1 for me.

Yeees. Michael's 80-year-old father in the condo was definitely the clincher.
 
  • #120


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.
 

Similar threads

I want to help Physics education. What should I do?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
Are Cars Too Sound-Proofed for Drivers to Hear Emergency Vehicles?
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
15K
Perhaps a world record for the shortest visit to Disneyland.
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Traveling: Update On My Life & Trip Advice
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Which logical fallacies are these?
  • · Replies 111 ·
4
Replies
111
Views
8K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
What colors and attributes could alien flora & fauna have?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
Wellcome to the desert of the real
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
What are electrons? (Is why a duck?)
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
11K