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."

10 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. 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.
  3. 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 :\

  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  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.