Slashdot Mirror


Obstacles Near Emergency Exits Speed Evacuation

BuzzSkyline writes "Despite fire codes that require emergency exits be clear of obstacles, some types of obstacles actually speed evacuation. The counterintuitive conclusion resulted from a series of experiments performed at a TV studio in Japan. Researchers from the University of Tokyo asked 50 volunteers to exit the studio through a narrow door. Video tapes of the experiments show that people made it out quickest when a pole was placed about 30 degrees to one side of the exit. The lead researcher believes an obstacle reduces jamming and friction among people in crowds by decreasing conflicts as the crowd presses toward the exit. A paper describing the research is scheduled to appear in the journal Physical Review E in September, but a preprint is available on the Physics Arxiv."

29 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the woman on the pole that's causing the premature evacuation

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the woman on the pole that's causing the premature evacuation

      Riiiight. Always the woman's fault. You know, there's pills for that little personal problem.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  2. Not realistic enough by VMaN · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if those volunteers were realistic enough.. They should have set the place on fire to see some face stomping, and in the long run maybe save lots of lives..

    People act very irrationally when they are afraid of being burnt alive for some reason.

    1. Re:Not realistic enough by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just do it for Money or Prizes. Heck set up these studies on Black Friday in Anytown USA.

      1 Entrance to Walmart at 10 different locations. 5 with poles, 5 without. 2-50" Plasma TV's for $100 at each location...

  3. Re:Research of evacuation jamming? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is actually a lot more useful than much of the trivial research universities sometimes do.

    Their findings can save lives...

  4. Counterintuitive conclusions by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's shocking that anyone in this day and age still finds it surprising when scientific experiments produce counterintuitive results. So-called intuition and common sense are usually nothing more than widely held but unquestioned assumptions. That people involved in software as much as Slashdot readers and contributors should be surprised is even more absurd. We ought to know well that intuitive interfaces are really familiar interfaces; the only really intuitive interface, as some wit once remarked, is the nipple.

    In any case, knowledge unverified by scientific experimentation is not knowledge at all. If there is anything surprising here, it is that we made it all the way to 2009 before someone thought to conduct experiments on a matter as important to public safety as emergency exits.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually though, if you give it a bit of thought, the result is not as counter-intuitive as you might think.

      Basically, rather than having a flat wall with an exit that everyone bottlenecks up at, the pole acts as a "funnel wall" forcing people to line up earlier and more quickly. The same principle has been in use for hundreds of years with cattle and sheep. The "cattle gate" as we now call it, acts to slowly funnel stock animals into a single file line where they can be sheared, branded, loaded onto trucks, etc.

      It just goes to show you that mammalian group behaviors are more universal than we might like to think.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by causality · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's shocking that anyone in this day and age still finds it surprising when scientific experiments produce counterintuitive results.

      Why is it shocking? Is it ... counter-intuitive for you?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      the only really intuitive interface, as some wit once remarked, is the nipple.

      And yet I've never seen one person try to suckle a laptop pointer-nub.

    4. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by Miksa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the bus drivers in local traffic seem to have come up with the same solution. They usually drive a few meters past the bus stop, so most of the people have to walk beside the bus forming a line naturally before stepping in. Always makes you wonder why more people don't stand after the stop at the point where the bus door will be. Guess that's people for you.

      --

      Begging for modpoints since '03
    5. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative

      If there is anything surprising here, it is that we made it all the way to 2009 before someone thought to conduct experiments on a matter as important to public safety as emergency exits.

      We made it to 1942 before we even required emergency exits to open outward. Google "Cocoanut Grove Fire".

      rj

    6. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      the only really intuitive interface, as some wit once remarked, is the nipple.

      And yet I've never seen one person try to suckle a laptop pointer-nub.

      They were too busy with the joystick. :P~

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    7. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by RepelHistory · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In any case, knowledge unverified by scientific experimentation is not knowledge at all.

      I'm for science as much as anyone on this site, but don't you think that's a bit of an exaggeration? You can't learn ANYTHING except through the scientific method?

      So-called intuition and common sense are usually nothing more than widely held but unquestioned assumptions.

      We DID actually evolve intuition for a reason. It's obviously not right all the time, but there's a reason why we're told to "go with our gut." Intuition is the means by which we pick up all those hundreds of subconscious signals that would otherwise slip by. It's kind of important.

      Oh and one more thing while I'm on this tangent: the scientific method uses intuition as part of its process. All scientific experimentation begins with a hypothesis, and without intuition, scientists would be totally unable to come up with a hypothesis to test. Try it: using ONLY deduction, try to think of a hypothesis to test for an experiment. Sorry for the off-topic post, I juar felt like this needed addressing.

    8. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's not counter-intuitive to anyone who has studied gas dynamics.... they've rediscovered the "nozzle"

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    9. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by value_added · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So-called intuition and common sense are usually nothing more than widely held but unquestioned assumptions ... We ought to know well that intuitive interfaces are really familiar interfaces; the only really intuitive interface, as some wit once remarked, is the nipple.

      I'd suggest that anyone who is a pediatrician or has otherwise observed a new mother trying to teach her baby how to breast feed would classify the "nipple as intuitive interface" line as not only an unquestioned assumption, but also one that's wrong.

      Put simply, the nipple, to use your terminology, is a familiar interface. The familiarity happens very early, and there's a wealth of factors that motivate it, but still it's something that's learned.

    10. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're lucky. I've seen a person too busy with a mouse.

      Yeah, but I've never seen a mouse with force feedback. XD

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    11. Re:Counterintuitive conclusions by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      A set of data transfer wires. They can be parallel or serial.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. Re:Old news by Heed00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That doesn't make it old news. Can you provide evidence the principle has previously been articulated?

    Perhaps next time you could provide some actual examples/citations/references rather than just effectively saying, "I knew that".

    I've seen plenty of obstacles in place to route/control footfall traffic, but none that I can think of to speed up egress. You have examples of those?

    --
    Thought thinks itself.
  6. Lofty goals by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yanagisawa said that the next step is to program models of people intelligent enough to self-organize into a line.

    Personally I think it would be most useful to model humans :\

  7. Dividers yes, obstacles no by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest issue with a real emergency situation is panic. People being squished against fences, walls and other obstacles because there's too many people behind squeezing, making it more dangerous and less efficient. Same is really for people being trampled, it's very dangerous and almost impossible to help someone being trampled back on their feet in such a crowd for the risk of not getting up yourself. I'd be very careful placing obstacles which might lead to more well-behaved behavior in scientific tests (left, right, left, right, that's so much better) but would be very danerous in a real panicking crowd.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. Already known by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Informative

    These guys already figured this out several years ago. (Sorry, I couldn't find a non-subscription link.)

    During the pilgrimages to Mecca, one of the things that people are supposed to do is go into a large stadium and cast rocks at three pillars. Zillions of people attend this event, and there have been numerous trampling deaths at the entrance to the stadium. These guys showed that having obstructions near the entrance improves traffic flow, and so they recommended to officials in Mecca to install such obstacles there, resulting in far fewer trampling deaths near the entrance. Other means of traffic calming were used to mitigate deaths elsewhere in the stadium.

  9. It Makes Sense by StormyMonday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think of it as impedance matching.

    --
    Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
  10. Re:but small exit ways can lead to death e2 nightc by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Informative

    The building codes try to increase exit width to handle higher traffic flow. The reality, at least as suggested by the research, is similar to what landscape architects have known for generations: people walk faster on a narrow sidewalk than a broad one.

    In an emergency, you hit the maximum carrying capacity of any pathway. The key to evacuating a densely occupied space is to convince people to spread out to multiple different exit points, which is confusing in an emergency situation.

    I don't think anything is perfect, but when people approach a single door from a number of different angles optimum traffic flow doesn't happen.

  11. Re:but small exit ways can lead to death e2 nightc by shma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are not suggesting making the exit smaller, they are suggesting that an obstacle is placed further from the door to reduce the number of paths to the door and keep the number of people trying to push through the exit at any given time to a minimum. See Fig. 18 in the arXiv paper if you want to look at a diagram of this.

    Interestingly enough, these results seem to have been known for a while (probably based on anecdotal evidence). I distinctly remember my fluid mechanics teacher telling our class almost exactly the same thing in 2006, explaining that a crowd headed for the exit behaved in similar ways to a fluid trying to pass through a small opening.

    --
    I came here for a good argument
  12. Why a Pole? by consumer_whore · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would a Russian or Italian be as effective?

  13. Re:but small exit ways can lead to death e2 nightc by Gorobei · · Score: 3, Informative

    The weird thing is that people who actually design stuff for crowd control have known this since at the least the 1980s. The goal is to get people ordered into efficient lines heading towards the goals and make sure people understand the process is fair and nothing is to be gained by jumping lines. For a real world example, see Heathrow's newer terminals versus its older ones, or any third world airport: if you make it easy to cheat by changing lines, and other people can see you do it, you get a mob in short order. So, keep lines narrow, and hard to switch from one to another, and people move faster. That means barriers - big ones. Just think Disneyworld, airports, good stadia.

  14. Re:Research of evacuation jamming? by sentientbeing · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was at this casino minding my own business, and this guy came up to me and said, "You're gonna have to move, you're blocking a fire exit." As though if there was a fire, I wasn't gonna run.

    If you're flammible and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.
    [Mitch Hedberg]

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
  15. Re:Research of evacuation jamming? by CecilPL · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unless you're a table.

  16. Re:Not intuitive at all by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually, the asshole in the escalade will try to get in front of everyone else. Then the asshole in the lexus will follow that.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.