Watch out for that kid oh, nevermind

[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!

 

[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.