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.
  • #121


DaveC426913 said:
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?

DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122


jarednjames said:
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...
 
  • #123


DaveC426913 said:
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...)
 
  • #124


DaveC426913 said:
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
 
  • #125


DaveC426913 said:
Fine. Back it up with numbers. I did.
You did what?
 
  • #126


DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #127


stevenb said:
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. :devil:
 
  • #128


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.
 
  • #129


stevenb said:
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.
 
  • #130


DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #131


DaveC426913 said:
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) :confused:

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.
 
  • #132


DaveC426913 said:
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?".
 
Last edited:
  • #133


DaveC426913 said:
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. :devil:

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.
 
  • #134


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.
 
  • #135


Someone please, drive a truck over this thread.

Don't slow down.
 
  • #136


Thread is dead.
 

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