Slashdot Mirror


What Clown On a Unicycle?

R3d M3rcury writes "The New York Times has an article about walking and using a cellphone. 'The era of the mobile gadget is making mobility that much more perilous, particularly on crowded streets and in downtown areas where multiple multitaskers veer and swerve and walk to the beat of their own devices.' But the interesting part was an experiment run by Western Washington University this past fall. There was a student who knew how to ride a unicycle and a professor who had a clown suit. They dressed a student up as a clown and had him ride his unicycle around a popular campus square. Then they asked people, 'Did you see the Unicycling Clown?' 71% of the people walking in pairs said that they had. 51% of the people walking alone said that they had. But only 25% of the people talking on a cellphone said that they saw the unicycling clown. On the other hand, when asked 'Did you see anything unusual?' only about one person in three mentioned a unicycling clown. So maybe unicycling clowns aren't enough of a distraction at Western Washington University..."

284 comments

  1. Re:I GOT A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS by Hinhule · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    oh hi goatseguy.

  2. Re:I GOT A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS by Upaut · · Score: 0

    Thank gods I was on my cell reading slashdot, or I would of had to notice that. *shudder*

    --
    3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
  3. Re:I GOT A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unicycling clowns, a greased yoda up someone's ass, and linux.

    Only on the internet would I not question finding these things on the same page.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  4. Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no question that one is less aware of its surroundings when using a cell phone. The real question is to see whether this lower perception is acually any danger for pedestrians. I have the feeling that when walking and using a cellphone, I am less aware of my distant environment but still keep a keen picture of everything that could hit me directly.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Admiralbumblebee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the city there are many things that are not in your immediate proximity that could be very quickly. Not maintaining a reasonable awareness of your surroundings except for that which is nearby is quite dangerous in the city. Not to mention the ease of being swindled while distracted. I find your comment particularly ironic given your signature, since your comment seems to imply that you expect those around you to keep a look out for you, but not vice versa.

    2. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by sznupi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Brakes of my car would disagree with you (especially since those are memorable events, one of the very few when ABS engages)

      Perhaps starting to slam into those people (when it's another car; would be rather safe, it's usually a car with only a driver inside, cellphone by the ear, that is coming from the opposite direction and turning left just in front of me) would get a message through. And get me a new car...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by CaptBubba · · Score: 1

      As a bicyclist I strongly disagree. Sure, you may be looking out for cars when you step out into the road, but that little bit of lower awareness may be all it takes for you to completely miss the cyclist coming down the road and step out in front of them.

      Walking around a town can be tricky, between broken sidewalks, people walking dogs, and all sorts of other obstacles. Also... being on the other end of that conversation sucks.

    4. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by biryokumaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I went to WWU. I can tell you, a unicycling clown is not that bizarre. You might as well ask a guy from LA if he saw the gang violence as he walked down the street. Or a New Yorker if he saw the potholes in the road.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    5. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      may be all it takes for you to completely miss the cyclist coming down the road

      Never mind the unicyclist in the clown suit with the SEP field...

    6. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    7. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Bob_Sheep · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Three words: Somebody Else's Problem

    8. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work for a major university police department. This year we have had 3 people vs bus accidents. The problem - three people on phones/listening to headphones have walked into crosswalks and not looked both ways. The three seperate incidents people weren't hit by the buses - they walked into the side of buses already in the intersection. That's all the evidence I have...

    9. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, let's go with this.

      > I am less aware of my distant environment but still keep a keen picture of everything that could hit me directly.

      Which part of you care about others?

      What if your keen picture shows nothing will be dangerous for you, yet you're going to hit someone and kill.

      There's no survival danger, so maybe you don't care.

      Sorry to be blunt and nothing personal -- but maybe we're good on a higher, more conscious level... that's my alternative hypothesis.

      DISCLAIMER: I'm biased to the liberal side. After seeing of self-righteous people have done to the world, I'm intolerant about selfish persons (to put it euphemically).

    10. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed...as a fellow alum I'm not certain I would have considered a clown on a unicycle in Red Square "unusual"

    11. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      I almost always have headphones in when walking around the city. Sometimes it's music, sometimes it's the phone, sometimes they're just there and turned off (earbuds are a fairly effective panhandler and petition-taker repellant.). And I've not been run down yet. I use the simple tactic of observing the crossing signals.

      And Cellphone, iPod, or nothing... distracted or not... If the signal is showing me the little green stick figure, then I have the right of way and you should already be at a complete stop never having entered the crosswalk. So if your ABS is engaging at any point due to pedestrians in crosswalks, maybe you need to review what the yellow and red lights at the intersections mean.

      Granted, for the idiots who can't be bothered to walk the hundred feet to the intersection and wander out into the street at random; you do have a point. But those people would do that with or without a cellphone.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    12. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I am less aware of my distant environment but still keep a keen picture of everything that could hit me directly.

      You mean a keen picture of all things you're aware of that might hit you and that's not good enough.

    13. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by sznupi · · Score: 1

      As you've taken note, people cross the road not only at crosswalks; and most of those don't have traffic lights anyway...

      Anyways, I don't see how that relates to using ABS when I'm driving forward...or turning right...and some other driver, going from the opposite direction and turning left, fails to notice me.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    14. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by BattleApple · · Score: 3, Informative

      To anyone that hasn't seen this video before, count the number of times the basketballs are passed from one person to another.

    15. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      Relatedly, I think a clown is something you could reasonably expect to see on a unicycle, and the idea that some form of entertainment would be at a popular college location isn't unheard of. Some of the people probably checked it off as some sort of silly event without even bothering to care. I know I might have.

      If it was a BEAR riding a unicycle, then that's a different story. It gets the danger senses up at least momentarily, plus, why the crap is there a bear riding a unicycle?

    16. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      It is worth noting that one data that is easily computed by the visual cortex is the "time to impact" of an object. Something far coming quickly (like a car) or something close moving slowly but in the good direction (like an insect). I think that someone on a cell phone ignores easily the high tti objects but is well aware of the lower one.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    17. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by sanctimonius+hypocrt · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would be awesome if I could get a grant to body-check guys with cell phones. For the sake of research, and for the sum of human knowledge, I mean.

    18. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Spaseboy · · Score: 1

      The reality is that most people do not live in New York, no one walks in LA, and Chicago is not really an intensely pedestrian city, either. DC may be an issue but there are only specific thoroughfares that people walk and they are not that crowded.

      New York is not the United States. That is a VERY hard thing for New Yorkers to understand. In the end, it doesn't matter that in one city the pedestrian traffic is bad enough that using a cell phone makes people unaware of their surroundings because that city is New York. YOU try telling a New Yorker to put down their cell phone.

      --
      "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
      -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
    19. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Depends. Most places combine the right for right-turns and green light for pedestrians. Yes the pedestrian has the right of way, but that requires the car can see you and if you are just observering the lights and not noticing your presence might being obstructed by something, you might walk right out in front of a car. Willfully dead, and worthy of a darwin award, even if the law was on your side. Another dead idiot...

    20. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      Most people think that they are just as adept at walking and driving while talking on their cell phones as when they are not. They are all wrong. Your perception of your awareness is tainted by your lack of awareness. It doesn't matter how aware you think you are; ask your neighbors around you and they will tell you about the guy who spilled his coffee trying not to collide with you or the lady who rescued her child from being trampled by you... and countless other events you never noticed.

    21. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Of course, if that is important, this study shows that you should not be allowed out of the house without a chaperon. It's for your safety after all.

    22. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Troll

      The real question is to see whether this lower perception is acually any danger for pedestrians.

      I like to create danger for pedestrians who are obliviously focusing on their mobile phones while walking down the street.

      What I do is I aim myself straight toward them and turn my head so as to be 'obviously' not looking where I am going. I clench my teeth and brace for the impact.

      If it works out I'll slam right into them sending their mobile device flying.

      Then I'll say "Ooops sorry! I guess I wasn't looking where I was going EITHER!"

      Yeh I'm evil. But its hilarious.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    23. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a couple weeks ago in downtown san francisco I saw a woman talking on her cell while walking and she crossed the street through oncoming traffic. The light had just changed so luckily she didn't get hit. When I got close to her (about 5 feet away) I said to her "You almost got hit by a car" and she didn't even hear me. She looked like she was pretty angry at whoever was on the other line. I don't think she would have seen the unicycling clown if he ran into her.

    24. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Even those conducting the test didn't notice the space ship nearby.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    25. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The same research was done in the UK for bicyclist and Motorcyclist visibility. someone on a phone was 70% more likely to not see them.

      the ones that kept a "keen picture" also missed the bicyclist in every test. am betting that you also would fail the same test.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    26. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be aware that I (accidentally) keyed the car of the last asshole who tried something like that.

      I was listening to music, and I jumped out of the way, but didn't pull my arm back in time - and made a nasty key gouge along the length of the body as he drove by, courtesy of the corner of my player. He didn't even notice the keying, or if he did, he didn't do anything about it but speed off. At first I thought it was me, but then a stranger beside me said "that maniac" was definitely driving way too fast and hugging the corner (it was one of those "pimped-out" cars with spoilers that can take corners at speed). I got away with nothing but a sharp scare, whilst he'd suffered hundreds of dollars worth of damage to what was clearly his pride and joy. So next time you think inattentiveness is a capital crime and you appoint yourself judge and jury, keep in mind that karma's a harsh mistress.

    27. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by mikael · · Score: 1

      The NY times also have a flash game where you can try and drive along a freeway while at the same time receiving and sending SMS messages:

      Driving Game

      That would seem to demonstrate that most drivers will suffer some loss of response time and not see pedestrians (the gray lady in the game).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    28. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone living in Tokyo, where it seems everyone is glued to their cellphone while they try to walk, climb stairs, even use the bathroom, I want to tell you: you are less aware of your surroundings when using a cell phone. What is worse is that people trying to operate their cell phones tend to walk about 50% slower than the traffic as a whole, indicating their brain simply isn't up to the task of walking and texting at the same time.

      I've seen people on their phones while walking or bicycling run head-long into other pedestrians (the bicycle collisions are particularly nasty). I'm sure you are the special snowflake that is the exception to the rule, but everyone else has no awareness of what is going on in their immediate vicinity *or* any distance away.

      The experience has been an eye-opener for me about the dangers of using a cell phone while doing something else. I know I'll never sneak in a quick call home from the car again. If people can't walk and use a cell phone at once, god knows they shouldn't be driving and using the cell phone at the same time.

      Just like I don't trust a person drunk on alcohol to judge whether they can operate a vehicle safely, I don't trust anyone drunk on cell-phone use to judge whether they can either.

    29. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by joeme1 · · Score: 1

      Just yesterday, my sister-in-law ran into a low-hanging tree branch while sending a text message on her cell phone. She's in the military and is physically fit and usually mentally aware of her surroundings. Maybe cell phones will be one of the factors in the next evolution of the human species. Those who are able to multi-task without killing themselves may produce offspring with quicker, more observant brains.

    30. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      In the city there are many things that are not in your immediate proximity that could be very quickly

      Case in point: a friend of mine in college was killed crossing the street in downtown Pasadena, CA, on a Friday afternoon. The car that hit him was traveling something like 70 miles per hour down Colorado Blvd (quite a feat with Friday afternoon traffic). When my friend entered the cross walk, that car would have been several hundred feet away. My friend was in top physical shape and had excellent reaction time (he was a black belt in karate trained directly under Master Ohshima, so would not have needed much warning to get out of the way.

      It's kind of frightening to realize that when you cross the street, you might have to worry about a car hundreds of feet away.

    31. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping you mean that you do this while on foot, but you implied the opposite when you failed to prefix the word "pedestrians" with "other".

      I do much the same thing (assuming that's what you meant) but I just stop moving in their path and let them bounce off of me. I am about 300 pounds and fairly strong, plus I have fairly significant mosh pit experience. Most humans represent little problem for me. I haven't had anyone fall down yet, but one guy did get close. Then I laugh while they quail in fear. But remember, use this power only for good.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      no one walks in LA

      Yeah, its abnormal to walk more than a mile total in your entire day in LA (excluding treadmill time at the gym).

    33. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by quixote9 · · Score: 1

      but still keep a keen picture of everything that could hit me directly

      Sure. Like all those other people on mobiles that the rest of us sidestep. I don't know what you call awareness, but I have to get within a foot of a cellphoner to raise even a flicker of it.

      Then there's the pickpockets. They target people listening to music or on mobiles. No doubt that's because they realize those people are highly aware of their surroundings so picking their pockets will be more of an interesting challenge.

    34. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      "I have the right of way"

      Neat. They can write that on your gravestone.

      Just because you're not responsible for a problem doesn't mean you don't suffer the consequences. People are ignorant a-holes and being aware of them is elementary survival. In a very busy city, you might be able to get away with being distracted around the roads but it's a bad habit to get into.

    35. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by dasunt · · Score: 1

      There is no question that one is less aware of its surroundings when using a cell phone. The real question is to see whether this lower perception is acually any danger for pedestrians. I have the feeling that when walking and using a cellphone, I am less aware of my distant environment but still keep a keen picture of everything that could hit me directly.

      There is a series of British Bicycling Safety ads that ask the user to do a task (such as count the number of passes in a baseketball game), and then has something unexpected show up in the scene.

      It's amazing how often one can miss the unexpected thing.

      I notice the same for automobile drivers. If a person is focused on catching a break in the traffic for a left hand turn, they won't notice a pedestrian in the crosswalk.

      Or if I'm bicycling, I've noticed that drivers will look for a car and not anything smaller while making traffic decisions. There's a bumper sticker in the US that says "Start Seeing Motorcycles" and there is a lot of truth in it. Motorcycles are still "rare" enough that many drivers don't see them.

      OTOH, with modern stereos and GPS units, I wonder if cell phones are getting too much blame. People are driving around, fiddling with the radio, or just spacing out, and with a few tons of steel and plastic in their control, that can be deadly.

    36. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Actually, people handle multiple sensory inputs differently. I, for example, ignore the person on the phone and pay attention to the immediate hazard (i.e. driving). Others, however, disregard the immediate hazards to focus their attention on the phone conversation.

      So to reword your first statement, there is no question that some people remain aware of their surroundings and ignore the person on the cell phone.

    37. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'm telling you, I drive my 1999 Ford Contour around town LOOKING for cell phone drivers. I can't wait to total the piece of crap at the expense of a cell phone yapper!

    38. Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      When I went to the University of Oregon, the pedestrians walked around like they were king (and the main part of campus has no car traffic). Then they all graduate, move to Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, and get hit by cars the first week at their new jobs...but I had the right of way!

  5. Nothing To See Here, Move Along by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wazu is known for being quite the party campus, so it surprises me not that students don't notice things like unicycling clowns, though it's highly unlikely that the cause is cellphones and not booze. What would have interested me is if they had the unicycling clown cycle around campus while talking on his cellphone and seeing how long it took for him to swerve into a parked car. And since it would be a clown, it'd be a lot more funny.

    --
    "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    1. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the school being talked about is not Wazu (Washington State), but Western Washington.

    2. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wazzu is Washington State University, which is on the Eastern border of the state (and yes, has been known to be quite the party school). This article references the University of Western Washington, which probably means Western Washington University.

    3. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by fotoguzzi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wazu is known for being quite the party campus...

      Wazoo (or Wazzu, or WSU) is Washington State University, in Pullman, Washington, in the east of the state. Besides beer-drinking, it was also known for being a suspect in the notorious Wazoo/Wazzu Virus that plagued the world in the 1990s.

      Western Washington University is, surprisingly, to the west of the state. I know they were doing some fantastic work with rotary engines in ancient days, but I don't know what the clowns are doing now.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    4. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA is about Western, not WSU

    5. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by sockonafish · · Score: 1

      Were you talking on a cell phone when you read the summary? WWU is not WSU.

    6. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course you noticed this was Western, not Wazzu.

    7. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wazu is Washington State University (WSU), which is in Eastern Washington. This story is about Western Washington University (WWU) which for some bizarre reason was written as University of Western Washington in the summary even though it was written correctly in the article. Maybe they confused it with the University of Washington (UW). We also have Eastern Washington University (EWU) and Central Washington University (CWU).

      Odd things do happen on the WWU campus, but not often enough that a clown on a unicycle would be considered normal or unremarkable.

    8. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not Wazu. Wazu is Washington State University. This is Western Washington University.

    9. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Western Washington University? Oh, well. Mea Culpa. But just because I attended WSU, I'm not nearly as think as you drunk I am.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    10. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Western Washington University is, surprisingly, to the west of the state. I know they were doing some fantastic work with rotary engines in ancient days, but I don't know what the clowns are doing now.

      Unicycling, of course.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this wasn't at Wazzu, it was at Western. Now if it were at Evergreen... Go Geoducks!

    12. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by PPH · · Score: 1

      Wazu is known for being quite the party campus, so it surprises me not that students don't notice things like

      the fact that they are now on the campus of WWU several hundred miles away.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    13. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      It started as a teaching college, then expanded into a full 4-year university + small Masters program. They're not a research university, which is part of why they're relatively uncommon in the news (compared to WSU, which for all its other faults has a substantial research program). However, they're decently large (~18k students I think) and have a moderately selective admissions program. As for rotary engines, their automotive engineering program was considered to be among the best in North America a few years ago, and I haven't heard anything to suggest otherwise recently.

      They were my backup school when applying to university, and a few of my friends attended or are attending. Having visited the campus a few times, I'll grant you that while a unicycling clown would not occasion major comment, it's not exactly commonplace; I'd have expected people to notice.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    14. Re:Nothing To See Here, Move Along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wazu is Washington State University (WSU), Western is Western Washington University (WWU). Though if one were to just replace booze with weed, your comment would be pretty accurate. I went to WWU and I doubt I would really take notice of a unicycling clown in red square, though depending on the time of the day I would probably be able to recall seeing one regardless if I was on my cellphone.

  6. Pointless study by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    This study doesn't take into account that people aren't going to be searching the background, but instead look for threats in the foreground.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Pointless study by sznupi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who in his right mind would not interpret unicycling clown as extremely threatening?...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Pointless study by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Right. They should have asked "Did you walk into a unicycling clown?"

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Pointless study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe next time, the student riding the unicycle while wearing a clown suit should mutter things like, "Microsoft no good. Starbucks no good. Personal property no good".

    4. Re:Pointless study by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      It's often the threats in the background that matter especially when driving as cars move much faster than people walking.

      People who think they can use a cellphone and driving are just selfish. If ever I saw someone on a cellphone in an accident, assuming they're the only one hurt I wouldn't stop. I would feel the need to be equally selfish and not waste my time.

    5. Re:Pointless study by precariousgray · · Score: 1

      Speaking of threats in the background, the real question is did these people notice the non-unicycling clown picking their pockets, then making a swift getaway in a comically tiny automobile?

      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
  7. Awesome Awareness Test Advert by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 4, Informative

    Reminded me of this observational skills test (by Transport For London to remind drivers to look out for the many cyclists on city streets): http://www.dothetest.co.uk/basketball.html

    1. Re:Awesome Awareness Test Advert by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Without cheating (apart from knowing that something would happen, I counted 10 passes out of 13 and I noticed the bear. I didn't notice that it was moon walking though

    2. Re:Awesome Awareness Test Advert by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      You know what? I think this test is bunk. Everyone sees the gorilla or bear or white rabbit, the first time around. Then, they smugly think "I'm so much smarter and aware than all those other morons in the human race." Meanwhile nobody actually fails this test.

      Is there any actual study that shows numbers for how many people actually miss the suprise, really?

      It's like when the reporter Mike Royko signed books for his colleagues at a party. He wrote in everyone's book "You were my favorite reporter -- don't let the others know!" Everyone thinks they're special.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:Awesome Awareness Test Advert by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

      Nobody I know, including myself, saw it first time round but perhaps we just are from the moron segment of the human race ;-)

      The point of the video is to be viral (which it did reasonably well at) so as to spread a useful message. One of the better uses of advertising money I've seen out of public sector, as long as it reached enough people.

    4. Re:Awesome Awareness Test Advert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is such a study, since the kind of video in that cyclists clip was originally created for such a study:
      http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.125.9246&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    5. Re:Awesome Awareness Test Advert by shovas · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Pretty sure the majority of people miss the bear if they follow the instructions the video gives. It makes sense, you're intently focusing on the ball to the exclusion of everything else.

      There's another (original) version with a gorilla walking in between basketball playings passing the ball. In that one I did as they said, focus on the ball being passed, and I was amazed to find out that I missed the gorilla the first time through. I couldn't help but notice the bear in this video, though, as I already knew what was happening.

      --
      Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
    6. Re:Awesome Awareness Test Advert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to admit, I lost count on the passes after the WTF? moment

      but then again, I have ADD ;)

    7. Re:Awesome Awareness Test Advert by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You know what? I think this test is bunk.

      Of course it is. They give you a task. To succeed at that task, you must focus. That focus will have you miss something unrelated.

      Driving is focusing on the task, and looking for black bears *is* what you are supposed to be doing, ignoring the ball. Told to do that, and 100% would notice the bear. Noticing motorcycles is directly related to driving and what one should be doing. It's not a task that if you do, you'll fail at the other. The way human attention works, it's pretty much impossible for someone doing that test the first time to "succeed" at counting the passes and see the bear. If you count, you miss the bear. If you see the bear, you do a double-take and miss one or more passes. It's designed to make you fail. Supposedly, that's like driving, except not at all, not even a little.

      It reminds me of a safety simulator that played a scene passing, like you were driving. Then it stopped. It asked what was the last roadsign. I didn't remember. What was it? A no parking sign. If you are paying so little attention to the road that you remember when you are passing no parking signs, then you should fail, but the test indicated that if you didn't remember every no parking sign you passed, you were a bad driver.

      It's stupid stuff like that which makes teens bad drivers. There is only so much attention to go around. Spend it on the road, not no parking signs when you aren't parking. Teaching young drivers, who don't have a good hierarchy of safety yet, to go out and count parking signs is setting them up for failure. At least when I was a teen in that driving class, I recognized it as bunk. Unfortunately, those that don't will be less safe after that safety class.

    8. Re:Awesome Awareness Test Advert by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      What I meant was I think the test is bunk, because I didn't think anybody failed to notice the bear or the gorilla. I noticed the animal on my first go-around, and nobody clued me in to the trick. I was counting passes. My count was off after being distracted by a man in a gorilla suit walking though a game of basketball, so in that sense I failed the test.

      What I meant was I thought that the test failed in measuring what it purported to measure -- people's ability to notice unusual things. Judging by other people's comments, I was wrong.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  8. My Lawn! by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unicycling clown? Unicycling clown? Back in my day, we had to walk uphill to college for miles while dodging unicycling elephants who came downhill. (It may sound absurd, but it makes sense--after all, can you imagine a unicycling elephant going uphill?)

    More seriously, it seems to me that the important part of the test isn't necessarily whether you saw the unicycling elephant (or clown), but whether you detected the unicycling clown or elephant as an object that must be avoided. When one is walking in a crowded area or even driving, while there may be objects you consciously see, there are also a lot of obstacles that you navigate without thinking about it or that you see peripherally but don't think about. The important part is whether it affects your navigation. So if, for example, anyone collides with the unicycling elephant (or clown), then it might be appropriate to make a regulation about driving while talking on a cellphone in the vicinity of unicycling clowns...

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:My Lawn! by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      There's (anecdotal) evidence that people will "not see" a six-foot person in an orange rabbit suit piloting a reflectorized pedicab and also not avoid it. Oddly enough, even though one might interpret "I didn't see her" as an admission of driving while blind, the only charge that stuck was hit-and-run.

      (I have read elsewhere that the rabbit smelled alcohol on the driver's breath, but note that there was no charge of DUI, so legally, not intoxicated.)

  9. Not really by Rix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pianos don't really fall from windows, and it's exceedingly rare for cars to leave the road.

    People pay attention to what they need to. Do you notice every homeless person?

    1. Re:Not really by maxume · · Score: 1

      That last question doesn't have an honest answer.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Not really by maxume · · Score: 1

      honest yes or no answer.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Not really by Admiralbumblebee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It maybe rare for cars to leave the road, but it's very common for pedestrians to enter the road, especially when distracted.

    4. Re:Not really by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I honestly noticed every homeless person that I noticed, which is a lot more than I feel there ought to be in a civilised society (unless they are homeless as a lifestyle choice, but most of them don't look like they are). I can't tell you how many of them I didn't notice, however, so I can't tell you if I noticed all of them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Not really by maxume · · Score: 1
      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Democrats, you forgot to add.

    7. Re:Not really by Admiralbumblebee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you're missing the point here. When people walk in the city, they voluntarily enter the road frequently. It's not about "oh whoops, I entered the street without knowing it hurr durr". It's about "Ok, crossing the street.. oohhh someone replied to me on facebook!"

    8. Re:Not really by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Cyclists spend a lot of time on the road. It would be nice if drivers were paying enough attention to see them.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    9. Re:Not really by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      which is a lot more than I feel there ought to be in a civilised society

      Well keep in mind that the majority of our homeless population is not on the street every day, but either in school if they're under 18 or working some shit job. I think in San Francisco the statistic a few years ago was that you only saw 10% of the homeless population on the street. It's a national embarrassment.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    10. Re:Not really by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      I notice every homeless person I notice.

      If I missed one, how would I know?

      --
      My page.
    11. Re:Not really by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yet every driver that kills a cyclist or motorcyclists says, "I did not see them."

      I'd say that people DON'T pay attention to what they need to.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pianos don't really fall from windows, and it's exceedingly rare for cars to leave the road.

      People pay attention to what they need to. Do you notice every homeless person?

      Yes,
      and observe their war torn boots, rifle callus on their hands, and their mumblings of eastern lands.
      Can you deduce their origin? If so, your observation is less than but almost equal to Sherlock.

      Observe life, and life becomes elementary.

    13. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you notice every homeless person?

      yes

    14. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what homeless person?

    15. Re:Not really by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Do you notice every homeless person?

      As far as I can tell, yes.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    16. Re:Not really by mjwx · · Score: 1

      People pay attention to what they need to. Do you notice every homeless person?

      Yes I do notice every homeless person.

      1. There aren't that many of them where I live.
      2. They stick (and smell) out.
      3. They are nocturnal (most hobo's sleep during the day).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:Not really by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Cyclists spend a lot of time on the road. It would be nice if drivers were paying enough attention to see them.

      Apparently the obvious fix is for cyclists to call drivers to warn them that they are on the same road (or at least leave voice mail).

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    18. Re:Not really by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Yet every driver that kills a cyclist or motorcyclists says, "I did not see them."

      I'd say that people DON'T pay attention to what they need to.

      Do you expect a driver that kills a cyclist to say, "Yeah, I saw them. And I'd do it again too! Nya!" ?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    19. Re:Not really by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Ok. What is your phone number?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    20. Re:Not really by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Ok. What is your phone number?

      Sorry, I don't take calls when I'm cycling.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    21. Re:Not really by Gabrosin · · Score: 1

      Pianos don't really fall from windows

      Out of curiosity, what does happen when a piano exits a window? Does it just sort of hover there? Perhaps it floats away into the distance?

    22. Re:Not really by jakykong · · Score: 1

      No, but I would expect a few to say "I saw them, but it was too late to miss them." In cases where this was probably the case, I'd bet most people would still say "I didn't see them."

    23. Re:Not really by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      But when a car does leave the road, it rarely ends well.

      I notice every homeless person that is standing precariously close to the curb and risks being hit by my vehicle.

      Besides, most of these types of studies show that people yapping on their cell phones don't notice the important things (let alone the homeless people). And by "important things" I mean me in the small white car already occupying the lane your giant-SUV drivin', cell phone yappin' soccer-mom wife is merging into, or things like red lights that mean stop, or things like signs that say "45" which mean 45 mph, not 25, or things like the white and yellow lines we call "lanes" that you are supposed to stay in between.

    24. Re:Not really by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      And when many drivers are also distracted, it sucks to be a distracted pedestrian.

  10. WWU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Western Washington University, not University of Western Washington.

    1. Re:WWU by Enleth · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah, so the clown must have been a member of the Judean People's Front!

      --
      This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
    2. Re:WWU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea!

    3. Re:WWU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought we were the Popular Front, Reg.

    4. Re:WWU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second this. Whoever was summarizing the article obviously wasn't paying attention to the name of the college in the article.

      Someone needs to mod the parent up. Maybe we can get a correction going in the summary.

  11. Send in the clowns... by klubar · · Score: 3, Funny

    What the study (or the reporting of it) failed to note is whether clowns, unicycling, or unicycling clowns are common on the campus. For example if everyone at the campus wears a clowns suit or unicycles then one more unicycling clown isn't noticible.

    Bad reporting. No donuts.

    1. Re:Send in the clowns... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      But if everyone was wearing a clown suit, then the subjects would probably have noticed at least one of them.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Send in the clowns... by cbart387 · · Score: 1

      “I was trying to think about what kind of distraction we could put out there, and I talked to this student who had a unicycle,” said Ira E. Hyman Jr., a professor in the university’s psychology department. “He said, ‘What’s more, I own a clown suit.’ You don’t have a student who unicycles in a clown suit every day, so you have to take advantage of these things.”

      I think the implication is that, no, it's not common...

      --
      Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
    3. Re:Send in the clowns... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      But if everyone was wearing a clown suit...

      As an aside, I can remember the media furore about Jello Biafra (of the Dead Kennedys) running for Mayor of San Fransisco in (I think) '79. One of the points on his manifesto was that all businessmen should be forced to wear clown suits within city limits. He finished 4th out of a field of 10. So close...

    4. Re:Send in the clowns... by times05 · · Score: 1

      Common or not I still think a much better experiment would involve a student who happens to look arabic and a professor in the university who happens to have an AK-47. Give AK to the student and let him walk around campus screaming "Allah Akbar" see how many people talking on cell phones would notice that.

    5. Re:Send in the clowns... by biryokumaru · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As I've mentioned elsewhere, I attended WWU for some time and can easily say that unicycling clowns are not on the wide end of bizarre for Bellingham, regardless of what Professor Hyman might think.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    6. Re:Send in the clowns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not at a Clown College!

    7. Re:Send in the clowns... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      I don't know about western Washington. But in San Francisco, a unicycling clown is pretty far from the most unusual thing you'd see while walking down the street. I'd bet that most people would hardly bat an eye.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    8. Re:Send in the clowns... by sdpuppy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Perhaps it is common for professors to unicycle on campus.

      Then the question is whether students are able to distinguish clowns from their professors.

      To do this correctly, you would require three line-ups:

      one with professors only

      one with clowns only

      one with a mix of clowns and professors.

      Then you would need some students who are asked the question whether there is anything unusual in the lineup.

    9. Re:Send in the clowns... by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      I applied to Clown College, but they just laughed at me.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    10. Re:Send in the clowns... by cbart387 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that would that be a better experiment?

      --
      Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
    11. Re:Send in the clowns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I go to WWU, and I can confirm that there are no clowns or unicycles that I have seen, although it's pretty easy to find oddly-dressed people.

    12. Re:Send in the clowns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bellingham, WA, there are all kinds of clowns there.

    13. Re:Send in the clowns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clown college? You can't eat that.

    14. Re:Send in the clowns... by Dogbertius · · Score: 1

      I applied to Clown College, but they just laughed at me.

      I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way!

    15. Re:Send in the clowns... by thoughtfulbloke · · Score: 1

      The quantitative test on the notability of unicycling clowns would be how many people twittered about it? None? Then it is not actually particularly remarkable for anyone to see a clown on a unicycle, so being asked 'did you see anything unusual?' is not going to get a very high response.
      Indeed, I would argue that a man in a clown suit actually makes it a less unusual event than just the unicycle. Once you are seeing a unicycle, you are quite likely to see a clown on it. Now, if it had been a man in a nun's habit on a unicycle, I think the question 'did you see anything unusual' would get a higher response.

    16. Re:Send in the clowns... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      American paranoia. Most of us don't shit ourselves every time there's a clown around. A guy shouting Allahu Akbar, AK-47 or no, will get noticed.

    17. Re:Send in the clowns... by cbart387 · · Score: 1

      I get that, but I'm not sure how that benefits the study.

      “It’s a huge dropoff of awareness of the environment around them,” Dr. Hyman said. “It shows that even during as simple a task as walking, performance drops off when talking on the cellphone. They’re slower, less aware of their surroundings and weaving around more. It shows how much worse it would be if they were driving a car, which is a more complex task to manage.”

      It seems to me, the goal of the study was to see how much of an impact a cellphone has on people not noticing their surrounding - not to see how primed Americans are to thinking of people who follow Islam as terrorists. Your suggestion would certainly be an interesting study but I'm not sure it's useful to the goals of the study in question.

      --
      Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
  12. camoflage, not awareness. by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So in a dark underpass, they cover a guy completely in a dark suit, and in a video the size of a postage stamp, it's supposed to be a surprise you don't see him?

    That's camouflage, not "awareness".

    1. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by DavidRawling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention that looking out for idiot pedestrians, cyclists, motorbikes and other obstacles while driving is de rigeur, while watching for a moonwalking bloke in a black suit is NOT de rigeur when you're effectively asked specifically to ignore the team in black ("How many passes does the team in white make?"). Now if the "did you see" item was a chick on a bicycle, or indeed a damn clown on a unicycle, it might have been relevant.

    2. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's not a good implementation of that test. The first time I saw this experiment performed (around 2004/5?) they used a much clearer background and the bear was in the frame for a lot longer. Still most people didn't notice it. This time I was looking for the bear and only saw it just before it went off the screen.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by dr2chase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't see the bear, did you? :-)

    4. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is not so much different from cyclists riding at night without lights, which is more common than I'd like it to be here in NYC...

    5. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      This is different how when most cyclists blend in and that's why they're supposed to have lights an some wear high-vis leg bands, both of which don't do much when they're beside you and you're not paying attention. Most people aren't professional clowns and therefore won't be cycling to work in brightly coloured clothes.

    6. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Oh by the way, the video could have been watched in full-screen and from the other replies I would guess no one noticed the bear is in the preview shot that is completely still and you're able to stare at for as long as you like.

    7. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the dark-suited cyclist who showed up in your mirror under the dark overpass, right before you drove over him.

      I don't know about London, but I have seen plenty of situations where the other traffic participants are harder to pick out than a moonwalking bear.

    8. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      So the point is you have to be aware of your assumptions, and be on the lookout for exceptions. Just like how the beginning driver has to learn that just because a car is parked doesn't mean it is a non-hazard (someone might open the street-side door). The point isn't supposed to be "look how dumb you are" the point is "look how easy it is to miss things".

    9. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i've been hit by a car before because even though my bike had lights and I was wearing reflective clothing, the driver was only looking for the large twin headlights of a car.

    10. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by clong83 · · Score: 1

      I hardly saw it even after I was told it was there. Seriously just looked like a player on the black team. Here is a more interesting series of this type of video:
      http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/djs_lab/demos.html

    11. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the point. If you are looking for the bear it is blatantly obvious. The take away for me is to demonstrate how effectively your brain can filter out things you aren't actively interested in seeing. In this contexts it was a reminder that there things in addition to other autos you should be aware of so your brain passes those other things to your conscious thought as well.

    12. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understood the premise of the experiment.

      The basic premise of the experiment is that attention is limited. By focusing on thing A, you are less likely to be able to see thing B. Thus, cell phone speakers who are focusing on their cell phones are far less likely to notice thing B, the pedestrian crossing the street or the red SUV turning into your lane.

      Another possible experiment could be overloading someone with stimuli and asking them for whether one specific stimuli existed during that time. Driving is, after all, an overload of stimuli because your situational awareness has to be fairly active.

      Driving while looking out for idiot pedestrians is one thing, driving while talking to someone on a cell phone and checking for pedestrians is another. If driving weren't a radically dynamic task, then dividing your attention even more would be fine.

      The fact that you're saying the experiment's attempt to show the fact that focusing on one thing ruins your focus of another is what makes the experiment's hypothesis that focusing on one thing ruins your focus on another as false is pure madness.

      MADNESS I SAY. MADDNESSSSSSSS!

    13. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was once hit by a car, and the driver claimed afterwards that he "thought I was a car" - and therefore could not possibly have been on the cycling lane.

    14. Re:camoflage, not awareness. by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      i've been hit by a car before because even though my bike had lights and I was wearing reflective clothing, the driver was only looking for the large twin headlights of a car.

      To be fair, bicycle lights are hard to see even if you're expecting them. My daily commute is on a route that's also frequently used by bicyclists, and I've only ever seen two who I'd describe as "adequately visible". One of them was wearing a construction worker's reflective vest (bright yellow, with a huge reflective area), and the other had put a motorcycle's headlight and tail-light on his bike. Normal bicycle headlights are at best only marginally more visible than simple retroreflectors, and white clothing is only visible in comparison to dark clothing.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  13. Darwin by koan · · Score: 1

    They aren't going to see the truck coming either.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  14. A lot to see here... by sznupi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did you really miss the huge differences between three categories of people, cellphone users during the experiment among them, that were mentioned in TFS?

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:A lot to see here... by rvw · · Score: 1

      Did you really miss the huge differences between three categories of people, cellphone users during the experiment among them, that were mentioned in TFS?

      I don't know if this kind of distraction counts, but while typing this the Wild Norseman was talking to his mum on the intercom down from the basement.

    2. Re:A lot to see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was probably on his cellphone while reading it...

  15. College campuses are full of unusual by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the other hand, when asked 'Did you see anything unusual?' only about one person in three mentioned a unicycling clown. So maybe unicycling clowns aren't enough of a distraction at the University of Western Washington..."

    What would have been more interesting would have been including data on how many semesters people had been on campus. I strongly suspect that freshmen would be more likely to notice the guy on the unicycle, and seniors to ignore him.

    College is where every flamboyant moron "expresses" himself/herself, so you get used to seeing unusual things. A unicycle is pretty normal for a clown- and a clown isn't that unusual for a college campus.

    1. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Funny

      > ...a clown isn't that unusual for a college campus.

      Right. The frats, for example, are populated entirely by clowns.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by Max(10) · · Score: 1

      > ...a clown isn't that unusual for a college campus.

      Right. The frats, for example, are populated entirely by clowns.

      Right. I'm sure at least 90% of all the sober people there would have noticed Gates McFadden riding a unicycle, now that's something amazing and unexpected!

    3. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 truthful

    4. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: Art school.

    5. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by Nov+Voc · · Score: 1

      The parent speaks the truth. One day at my campus, I walked by an entire crowd of mimes. That same week, the aged president of the university whizzed by me in a go-kart, cheering. Not too much later, a man in a top hat and lab coat, astride a five foot tall bicycle with a mounted fire extinguisher, rode past. I could go on, because these are everyday things here. We even have a handful of unicyclists, so I don't know if I'd notice one dressed as a clown.

    6. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Let's assume that's true. Why does it only affect those on cell phones or are you implying that freshman always walk as couples and only seniors have cell phones? ;)

    7. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by deepgrey · · Score: 1

      It's not quite that bad here, but I've seen unicyclists juggling while riding to class, a middle-aged man riding a razor scooter with a dinosaur head mounted on the handle bars, people going down hills in wheeled trash cans, people walking around with 5 foot wooden swords for no apparent reason, etc. That said, I would guess that people walking around a campus square are probably not paying lots of attention to their surroundings since it's not that dangerous. Such places are typically pedestrian only and fairly secure, so being run over by a car/eaten by wild animals/attacked by terrorists isn't really a concern.

    8. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you nailed it. I can't count the number "individuals" I've seen on campus, but I don't stare at them. They just want attention and I'll be damned if I'm going to give it to them. If I saw a clown on a unicycle I would say to myself "what a fucking idiot" and continue on my way. If I were on a cellphone at the time I'd say it to the person on the other end.

      You have to learn to tune out people who are acting like idiots or you'll go crazy.

    9. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, when asked 'Did you see anything unusual?' only about one person in three mentioned a unicycling clown. So maybe unicycling clowns aren't enough of a distraction at the University of Western Washington...

      What would have been more interesting would have been including data on how many semesters people had been on campus. I strongly suspect that freshmen would be more likely to notice the guy on the unicycle, and seniors to ignore him.

      Or how about a follow-up question. "Did you notice anything unusual?" "Did you notice a clown on a bicycle?" "A man on a horse?" "A seven-foot-tall man?" "A stiltwaker?" and a few other red herrings.

      That way we know if they actually saw the clown, and if they thought it was unusual.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    10. Re:College campuses are full of unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to learn to tune out people who are acting like idiots or you'll go crazy.

      That's for sure.

  16. Mistake in TFS by RobVB · · Score: 3, Informative

    FTA:

    “I was trying to think about what kind of distraction we could put out there, and I talked to this student who had a unicycle,” said Ira E. Hyman Jr., a professor in the university’s psychology department. “He said, ‘What’s more, I own a clown suit.’ You don’t have a student who unicycles in a clown suit every day, so you have to take advantage of these things.”

    The student owned the clown suit.

    --
    I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    1. Re:Mistake in TFS by Idbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      The summary may be right. A student that has a clown suit and knows how to ride a unicycle, may as well know how to ride a professor. Ok, perhaps there's a comma missing somewhere.

    2. Re:Mistake in TFS by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Funny

      I applaud your superior reading comprehension skills my dear sir. I deduce that you must have been home schooled and your mother a professional teacher. ;)

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:Mistake in TFS by bigdavex · · Score: 4, Funny

      The student owned the clown suit.

      The submitter must have been talking on his cell phone when he wrote the summary.

      --
      -Dave
    4. Re:Mistake in TFS by tomhath · · Score: 1

      He said, ‘What’s more, I own a clown suit.’ You don’t have a student who unicycles in a clown suit every day, so you have to take advantage of these things.”

      You misread it. The professor wants to take advantage of the student while he rides a unicycle in a clown suit. This probably involves a Yoda doll too.

    5. Re:Mistake in TFS by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The student owned the clown suit.

      My opinion of the professors of [Wherever] University has gone downhill. All self-respecting universities should have at least one professor who owns and wears a clown suit which the entire university knows about. (Closeted clown-suit-wearing professors are just sad.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  17. well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    28 y.o. Toronto woman was killed by a 5 tonne delivery truck. She was on her phone and walked under the rear wheels of a truck, that was making a left turn. The driver could not have possibly seen her because of the truck length and the fact that he was making a left turn. She walked under the rear wheels herself because apparently she was unable to evaluate the situation around herself while on her cell phone.

    Darwin award, obviously, but it shows a case where a pedestrian was a hazard (this time to herself) because she was so distracted.

    1. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by SpeZek · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't even understand how that accident was possible. Do people close their eyes while talking or something? She walked into a semi!

    2. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by anagama · · Score: 1
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by Yvanhoe · · Score: 0, Troll

      Obviously, an anecdote allows to prove an entire theory...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, it's actually a fact that this person died walking and talking on a phone and walking under a truck, it's data. But, as to your point, it doesn't prove a theory, but it does answer your question:

      The real question is to see whether this lower perception is acually any danger for pedestrians.

      At least in this case lower perception caused their life, which fits the definition of being danger for that pedestrian.

      Any more questions?

    5. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humm, not to brag about this, but since it was much the same scenario...

      Sometime around 2004/2005 I was returning to work after lunch and there I was waiting for the red light to stop the traffic so that I could cross the street. Me and a bunch of people here in São Paulo (largest city in South America).

      I was already on the street, which is a bad habit those of us more impatient have (like me). Mostly cars were coming and they tend to turn right (as one commenter points downstream) by not cutting the corner, so I was at a more or less safe place -- since cars derived to the middle of the street to make the curve as open as possible.

      Then came a bus. From past experience, I knew a bus behaves differently from a car: the driver throws the front to the other side of the street right from the start and begins turning the driving wheel frantically, so as not to reduce the bus speed. The net result is that the bus does not advance as much as it rotates -- while a car driver avoids turning the wheel to maximize speed.

      I immediately figured out I was in danger -- and not just me, but also a woman beside me... she had a white coat like those used by drugstore employees. Having no time to explain the physics of it all, I grabbed her and pulled her back to the sidewalk. The bus driver didn't even mention to hit the brakes.

      She was totally shocked (because I touched her fried egg-like breasts) and I said superfast I did it because we were about to be run over. And got away from there superfast, too.

      Later, reviewing the facts, I concluded it's not easy to everyone to understand how such rotations can be dangerous. Also, there was a disturbing sensation about touching such intimate parts of another person (probably made even more disturbing because they were so small and firm).

      I don't know whether I would have acted so swiftly, had I been using my cellphone...

    6. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even understand how that accident was possible. Do people close their eyes while talking or something? She walked into a semi!

      You've been modded funny - but there is insight in your post. People don't UNDERSTAND how these things happen. Because they don't UNDERSTAND, they are prone to making the very same stupid mistakes.

      Case after case points to the fact that many people are unable to walk and chew bubblegum. A study I read not long ago (I think it was mentioned right here on slashdot) shows that very few people are as good as they THINK they are at multitasking. Personally, I've never missed a phone call that was important enough to get hurt for. My phone is on my desk, and that is exactly where it will stay.

    7. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Humm, not to brag about this, but since it was much the same scenario...

      ...

      She was totally shocked (because I touched her fried egg-like breasts) and I said superfast I did it because we were about to be run over. And got away from there superfast, too.

      ...

      Also, there was a disturbing sensation about touching such intimate parts of another person (probably made even more disturbing because they were so small and firm).

      so let's say you were bragging, was it about you being super-fast or touching her intimate parts (egg-like breasts)?

    8. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Talking to a passanger and talking on the phone are two completely different things, with a phone you have already trained your brain to ignore distractions but with a passenger they are the distraction you have trained your brain to ignore. If you've ever taught someone to drive it's obvious (and scary) that avoiding eye contact with passengers is not something that comes naturally.

      When I first got a mobile in the early 90's it was not illeagal to use it and drive. One day as I was doing so I noticed that I had rolled my eyes skyward because the caller had said something that I had to think about. You may not notice yourself doing this but most people will do the eye roll thing when they have to think for a moment. The sudden realization of what I was doing scared the shit out of me and I have never used a phone in the car since.

      Taking that sort of thing to the level this woman did is very difficult to comprehend but (apart from suicide) it's the only plausible explaination.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:well, here is a case of a dead woman from 2009 by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot. Most of us avoid eye contact with anyone

  18. I wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they will spot near-east looking man with beard and a backpack.

  19. no, it's diversion of attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's how magicians do their thing...

  20. U-dub alumnus speakes out by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

    "On the other hand, when asked 'Did you see anything unusual?' only about one person in three mentioned a unicycling clown. So maybe unicycling clowns aren't enough of a distraction at the University of Western Washington..."

    That's not even close to "weird enough to lay down a pointer to something in the days events".

  21. Correction by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    The truck was making the right turn, sorry and in this article they actually mention the cellphone. I just remembered this story from last year and thought it was quite appropriate.

    1. Re:Correction by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      This assumes we have no complaint with the design of the truck itself. Being overrun happens in cases where the squashed person is not at fault (and I note that the pedestrian in this accident was unable to present her side of the story; do we have an account from a disinterested party?) I had heard that safety skirts were required in Europe to prevent exactly this accident, when I googled for "europe trucks safety skirts", I found this:
      http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/aerodynamic-hea.html
      and here:
      http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/mag/trucks_outside_frame_avoids/
      Apparently, they can also add significant fuel savings.
      As to whether this is reasonable, I note that unmarked, unbarricaded open manholes are considered an actionable problem in this country.

    2. Re:Correction by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Here in Denmark the truck driver would definitely have been found at fault in that kind of accident.

      Things seem to be different in Canada.

      From the (second) linked article: "Police say it is unlikely that charges will be laid against the truck driver."

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:Correction by Grimbleton · · Score: 4, Informative

      She walked under the rear tires. It was already finishing its turn, by the time the REAR tires are in the intersection. There is no jury in the world that would say she had the right of way there. Except perhaps in California.

    4. Re:Correction by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1, Funny

      I challenge the veracity of your assumption. Truckers are not allowed to make right turns over crosswalks in Danmark?

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    5. Re:Correction by marshallr · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not quite- the article says she walked into the side of the truck, was knocked down, and then run over.

    6. Re:Correction by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So imagine you are the truck driver, you have waited your turn, made sure nobody was on your turning side, that there were no vehicles coming at the intersection that could collide with you and you start making a turn, you are almost done making it when someone walks into the side of your truck and you do not stop, continue going for another 2-3 meters while they have fallen and are crashed by the wheels.

      Question: which way were you looking? Answer: you were looking to your left and straight ahead, but not to your right. After you have made sure that there was enough clear space at your right to make the turn and you started making it, you can assume that it is now responsibility of other actors on the road not to collide with your right side. Everyone was given plenty of warning of your turn and nobody was there when you started it. So now you have to look straight and somewhat to your left not to cross into the incoming traffic from intersection.

      At this point someone is not looking and walking into the side of your truck and they fall and are ran over by the rear wheels. Verdict is: it's the pedestrian's fault, and it is correct. Too bad their fault caused them their life, but that's how it is. If you are a pedestrian, whether you are right or wrong, you will die if a truck runs over you, so really, it is your problem to make sure you don't step into or under one.

    7. Re:Correction by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Particularly if the truck is also expect to travel on, say, building sites, it will need a certain amount of clearance under any skirts to allow for rough ground. For a sizeable vehicle, that's probably more than enough gap to run someone over.

      The person shouldn't have walked into the truck. Can anyone give a valid argument against that statement?

    8. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can a right turn accident ever not be the fault of the driver?

      Yes she might have been distracted and yes she might have walked into the turning circle of the truck, however, one cannot assume every pedestrian knows how a truck swings, I see lots of people choosing a bad position at a crossing because they aren't aware of how a truck turns - but this doesn't change the fact that the truck probably shouldn't have been in that crossing anyways, if she wanted to cross she would in most places around the world have right of way.

      Here in Denmark the truck driver would definitely have been found at fault in that kind of accident.

      At a red light the truck was making a right turn on to Front Street from Blue Jays Way. The woman was crossing Front Street, on the West side of the intersection.

      Just take a look at the intersection from google maps - http://goo.gl/6VDM

      Make sure that you compare the image in the story to google street view - the story does not specify which direction the driver was going, but that can be correlated from the location of the body and the story
      http://goo.gl/YaW0
      http://goo.gl/PZlA

      Now if the truck was at the red light and was making a legal turn to the right then that means that the woman was jaywalking at a red light - completely unprotected.
      Even if she was protected, the driver was already in the intersection thus giving him the right of way. Just because the person is on the street does not give them the right of way, they must obey the same rules as vehicles. You yield to vehicles that are in an intersection just as you yield to pedestrians. The only difference is that you allow them to cross before you turn IF you are both in the right of way at the same time AND you yield the right of way to them if they were already in the street and the light turns red on them.

    9. Re:Correction by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Your statement is literally true, but the design of the truck contributed to the severity of the accident. One presumes that there are building sites in Europe, yet somehow they manage to use trucks there. Clearly, one should always be on the lookout for hazards, but that is no excuse for creating hazards willy-nilly without some blame to the hazard-creator.

      It is standard advice to cyclists in the US to never, ever ride (or stop) to the right of a truck when the truck has the option of making a right turn, but that does not change the fact that the risk to the cyclists (or the pedestrian) could be reduced with a proven-practical change to the design of the truck.

    10. Re:Correction by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The intersection was clear when he started the turn. While in the commission of a slow-speed turn, in the time it took to complete that turn, someone essentially walked up to the intersection, ignored the large truck already there, then walked under it and died.

      Here in Denmark the truck driver would definitely have been found at fault in that kind of accident.

      I guess if you are backing out of a parking spot, and then see a pedestrian coming and stop, if they walk into the side of your car, it's your fault? I've seen many places that indicate that if a pedestrian is in a crosswalk or even approaching one, you must yield. But no where have I seen where if you are in a crosswalk and no one was trying to cross, if someone who was purposefully hiding from your view until you were in it were to run out and try to hit the side of your car, that you would still be at fault. Yes, she didn't purposefully try to die, but her level of negligence makes it equivalent. The vehicle was there before she started crossing, yet she entered and walked directly into the path of the wheels. The incident was unpreventable by the truck driver, and preventable by the pedestrian, so everywhere I've ever heard of would place the blame on the pedestrian. And, unless you can show me a similar incident where the driver was charged or link to the law (though unless it's in a language I know, it won't do me much good) I'll go right on assuming that it's the same in Denmark, despite your comments to the contrary.

    11. Re:Correction by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Even if she was protected, the driver was already in the intersection thus giving him the right of way.

      I'm not sure about anywhere else, but the Texas Driver's Handbook (made by the people that enforce the laws and from which the driver's test is taken) pretty much states that "right-of-way" doesn't exist. You must yield to those with it, but if they are supposed to yield and don't, you have no "right" to proceed. The law speaks only of who must yield. If there is no one with the right-of-way approaching the intersection (pedestrian or otherwise) and the truck legally proceeds, the pedestrian approaching does have the right-of-way, but the truck can't yield, so the pedestrian must. That's why "right-of-way" is discounted by the driver's handbook. The person with the right-of-way must yield when appropriate, and when they are taught it is a right, then the rules aren't followed.

      The law (and the handbook about it) speak only of who must yield. In that instance, the truck has no one to yield to, so may proceed. All others must make sure the area around the truck is clear before proceeding. And so, the pedestrian is required by law to yield to the truck.

      I personally find the "who must yield" description much easier to use, because of all the nutcases that assert "my state says that if you rearend someone, you are always at fault" (though no one has ever actually linked to a law that says that), or "pedestrians always have the right-of-way" when that is not the case, as no pedestrian has the right-of-way when illegally jaywalking across an interstate where pedestrian traffic is explicitly prohibited and no legal crossings exist at the roadway level. When you start talking "rights" people get all focused on their perceived rights, and not the law, nor common sense.

    12. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rofl then Denmark is either a much of tools, or you don't know what you are talking about.

      This woman willfully walked UNDER A TRUCK. There's no way it's anyone's fault but hers. Dude is supposed to be on the lookout for suicidal morons leaping under his rear tires?

    13. Re:Correction by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "because of all the nutcases that assert "my state says that if you rearend someone, you are always at fault" though no one has ever actually linked to a law that says that"

      Maybe, but your insurance company will automatically pay up if you rear-end someone, the reason they do this is because they know they have little chance of winning if they go to court. It's an agreement between insurance companies to reduce their court costs rather than an explicit law that one could point to.

      Example: A friend of mine was the collateral damage in a road rage incident where a driver in an old bomb deliberately pulled in front of the car in front of him and slammed on the brakes causing a three car pile up. Even though there were two independent drivers who witnessed it plus a couple of passengers my friends insurance payed for the whole thing. He lost his no claim bonus and got stuck with the excess bill. He didn't pay and swapped insurer's but if it happens to him again the new company will act in exactly the same way as the old.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Correction by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Your statement is literally true, but the design of the truck contributed to the severity of the accident. One presumes that there are building sites in Europe, yet somehow they manage to use trucks there.

      Nope, sorry, for safety reasons all of our building sites use Smart cars.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    15. Re:Correction by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Read the story, she cannot have misjudged the turning circle because she didn't even see the truck. She walked into the side of a large moving vehicle, people with white canes don't do that, how she managed it will forever remain a mystery.

      "Here in Denmark the truck driver would definitely have been found at fault in that kind of accident."

      If I'm ever on trial for an accident I hope to hell that you are not on the jury.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're giving away the game, friend. We've killed off all the big packs of wolves and such... if it weren't for big trucks, who would cull the stupid and impulsive?

      IT'S OK EVERYONE, WE SOLVED THE TRUCK THING! GO BACK TO YOUR SEXTING!

    17. Re:Correction by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but your insurance company will automatically pay up if you rear-end someone, the reason they do this is because they know they have little chance of winning if they go to court. It's an agreement between insurance companies to reduce their court costs rather than an explicit law that one could point to.

      Example: My sister (not a friend or a friend of a friend that I heard the story about, but my only sister) was hit from behind. The person that hit him happened to be a lawyer. At the scene, the cop talked to her, and talked to him, and said he'd file the report, as is usually done. Well, the cop talked to the other guy much longer than her. The report stated that my sister stopped without warning to make an illegal turn without a signal (not true, and in no way related to what she told the cop) and my sister's insurance paid up to the guy that hit her from behind. Oh, and my mother was with my sister, so there were two people on my sister's side and only the one guy in the back, and the cop still went with the other story, and, to avoid confrontation, didn't say what he'd be filing and hinted to my sister that it was the other guy's fault, then filed the report to the opposite of what he told her.

      So, whenever someone says the guy in the back always pays, I know they are 100% wrong. That's the great thing about absolutes, you take something 99% true, add always, and it makes you 100% wrong. "Always" is simply false. I know. I've seen the cars and the police report and insurance papers from it being wrong. So convincing me that it "always" happens is simply impossible.

      He lost his no claim bonus and got stuck with the excess bill.

      "excess bill"? Where are you from? In the US I've only ever heard it called the "deductible" and outside the US it's often called "excess." So I'm curious where your experiences are from.

      Example: A friend of mine was the collateral damage in a road rage incident where a driver in an old bomb deliberately pulled in front of the car in front of him and slammed on the brakes causing a three car pile up.

      I'll call them cars 1, 2, and 3 (in the order they ended up in the crash). If car 2 could have stopped after car 1 slammed on the brakes, then car 3 hit car 2 and pushed it into car 1, then car 1 should be charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and car 3 should pay for all the damage because the crash would never have happened if they hadn't been carelessly tailgating car 2. Unfortunately, the US (and most of the world, from what I can tell) doesn't charge people with crimes behind the wheel unless they do them to cops. But regardless, car 2 did nothing wrong, hit the car in front of them, and didn't have to pay. That contradicts your premise. The tailgater of car 2 could have avoided all this by leaving a little more space between them and car 2, and thus is certainly responsible for the damage they did to the rear of car 2 at the very minimum. You could easily restate this as "car 3 was tailgating car 2. Car 2 stopped suddenly, and the tailgating car 3 struck car 2." I see nothing in that which would vindicate car 3. And that's why the finding was against him. Personally I'd have held car 1 more at fault, but from the perspective of car 2, they rearended someone and weren't at fault, and car 1 and car 2 issues are irrelevant to car 3 being unable to stop when the car in front of them stopped.

    18. Re:Correction by ejasons · · Score: 1

      So imagine you are the truck driver, you have waited your turn, made sure nobody was on your turning side, that there were no vehicles coming at the intersection that could collide with you and you start making a turn, you are almost done making it when someone walks into the side of your truck and you do not stop, continue going for another 2-3 meters while they have fallen and are crashed by the wheels.

      We had a couple of situations here in Portland, OR in the last couple of years, where a large truck stopped at a light at an intersection, with its right turn signals on. While the light was still red, a bicycle pulled up into the bike lane on the right side of the truck. When the light changed, they both went ... and the truck won.

      This situation isn't nearly as blatant as the one you mentioned, and a lot of people want to blame the truck driver. However, as in your situation, I just don't think it's reasonable to expect the driver to keep track of bicycles that might pull up after he has stopped (I'm not sure he would even be able to see them), assuming that he did indeed signal ahead of time (around here, turn signals, if used, are often more of a "I'm turning now" indication, rather than "I plan to turn soon"). And, as a biker, one really needs recognize and avoid such situations, as one's life is often at risk.

  22. Elephant by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Made me remember a joke in an old Lucky Luke comic. A circus goes to town. Then a drunk goes to the bar and say something like "You wont believe this Outside saw an elephant, and this one is gray!"

    If in that campus everyday something weird happens you end not giving them attention. The normal could end being the new weird.

  23. This should not be about mobile phones by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny that this about cellphones and not about the difference between people walking in pairs and people walking alone. That is much more interesting then the fact that people are bad in doing two things at the same time.
    Why is it more interesting? Because it is counter intuitive. You would think that talking to somebody would be distracting (just like talking on the phone would be) yet it isn't.

    If walking alone is the median to start from and placed at 100%, talking on the phone is 50% (as might be expected, as it is a distraction) and walking in pairs is 150% (wich is odd)
    As the walking in pairs is the odd one out, that is what the students and professors should be focusing on.

    What could be looked at then is gender specific coupling. Next what happens if there are three or more people? Does it go down? Also perhaps the increase is just that when together somebody is more likely to say: "Look at that clown on a unicycle." Then you can start looking if they are aware that the other said so, or if they thought it was their own observation.

    And then the question. What if the same question was asked and there was NO clown on a unicycle? What would the results be then? Perhaps people together are more likely to say yes, because they would be afraid to admit they didn't and people on the phone are more prone to be honest as they are aware they are distracted and therefore even more alert. What about the single ones then? Well, they still might be not willing to admit not paying attention, but less so then with a friend.

    So drop the phone part and concentrate on the other side of the results.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, the talking in pairs does make a kind of sense. If talking to someone actually present doesn't lower your awareness at all, then you'd each independently have a 50% chance of spotting the clown. You would definitely point it out to your companion. So the overall chance would be about 75%--50% of the time you see him, and 50% of the times you don't see him your friend does and points him out to you.

    2. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you're walking with someone, there's a tendency to look at them. To compensate for this, you need to look where you're going more carefully so that you still have an accurate mental picture of your surroundings when you look at the person. The people who didn't do this all walked into trees and died before they could breed. Walking in a pair or a group probably triggers some of the instincts developed by our pack-hunting ancestors. If you don't keep track of your pack and your prey, you either become something else's prey, or you don't get your share of the kill and go hungry.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If walking alone is the median to start from and placed at 100%, talking on the phone is 50% (as might be expected, as it is a distraction) and walking in pairs is 150% (wich is odd)
      As the walking in pairs is the odd one out, that is what the students and professors should be focusing on."

      Not really. People walking alone without a cell phone had a probability of seeing the clown of Pa = 0.51. Assume that if one person out of a pair sees a clown he or she will mention it to the other half of the pair. Thus, you'd expect the joint probability of seeing the clown to be the probability that either one of them sees it: Pp = Pa + Pa - Pa^2 = 0.51 + 0.51 - 0.51^2 = 0.76. They actually observed 0.71 which, assuming it is not due to experimental error, could mean that walking in pairs can distract you a little and/or that there is a small probability that the person in the pair who sees the clown won't point it out to the other.

    4. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by hrvatska · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to be assuming that everyone in the pairs who noticed the event mentioned it to their companion. Maybe not everyone in the pair of people who noticed the unicycling clown mentioned it to their walking companion. If the same proportion of people in pairs initially notice the unicycler, 51%, and only about half of those people mentioned it to their walking companion, then the 71% figure doesn't seem unusual.

    5. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by MooUK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As you suggested: I suspect that if the question was "did you see the unicycling clown?", people together will be less willing to admit they didn't see it. People alone have less incentive to try and impress someone. And people on their phones just weren't paying attention.

    6. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by MooUK · · Score: 1

      This being a university, I suspect the chance of not mentioning it is fairly high. It's not the weirdest thing to happen.

    7. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Maybe not worth mentioning, but worth looking at, and the person talking to you looks at you, sees you are looking at something, then looks at it because you looked at it. Yet no words about it are ever spoken.

    8. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Hmm, good point. And perhaps it's more likely to stick in your mind because you both looked at it together.

    9. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      When I walk with someone I'm usually looking for something to talk about with them. A clown on a unicycle makes great conversation.

      --
      My page.
    10. Re:This should not be about mobile phones by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the answer is even simpler; the vast majority of communication is nonverbal. You are not only looking ahead, but also receiving cues from them (conscious or not) about what they have seen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Not so unusual by Kenoli · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's what clowns do.
    Maybe if it had been a normal person unicycling, or a clown simply walking, someone would have noticed.

    1. Re:Not so unusual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if it was not at WWU, those people are freaks!

  25. say again? by v1 · · Score: 1

    oh, you mean THAT unicycling clown. Ya, I saw him.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  26. just me by phrostie · · Score: 1

    personally, i would have used a gorilla suit

  27. Texting is becoming too dangerous by mathx314 · · Score: 1

    Texting while doing stuff just needs to stop in general. A few friends and I went out last night to go ice skating. I saw two people texting while skating, and the rink was full enough that I suspect there were more I didn't see. As a college student, it's getting fucking ridiculous every time that I have to try to navigate around some clueless person on the sidewalk who's paying more attention to texting than the world around them.

  28. Sure it does by Rix · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you wilfully ignore them, as the vast majority does.

    1. Re:Sure it does by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How can you possibly know if you are willfully ignoring all of them?

      There is at least a chance that you are ignoring some of them by accident.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Sure it does by maxume · · Score: 1

      That was largely my point. We tend to cultivate certainty as a habit of thought, and your question is phrased in such a way that it prompts a certain answer. That cultivation is to the point where, for example, there isn't any honest discussion on TV, people just go on and rattle talking points at each other (my notion being that this would be a less effective strategy in a world where people cultivated careful consideration as a habit of thought).

      (I hope this doesn't come across as being hilariously preachy, that isn't my intent; that's why my initial comment just pointed out a characteristic of the question)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  29. Man using women's restroom by RJFerret · · Score: 5, Funny

    At an amusement park, a female friend returned from the restroom relating how a man entered while talking on his cellphone, looked her dead in the eye then turned to enter a stall, talking all the while.

    Other women heard him talking and asked "is that a guy in here?" She responded, "Yeah, he doesn't realize he's in the 'ladies', don't worry about it."

    He finished the call, finished in the stall, came out and his eyes widened when he saw all the women.

    1. Re:Man using women's restroom by RobVB · · Score: 1

      "Oh, I'm sorry, I was, errr, on the phone. Yes, the phone..."

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    2. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that is a new way to pickup girls!

    3. Re:Man using women's restroom by cerberusss · · Score: 1, Troll

      Other women heard him talking and asked "is that a guy in here?" She responded, "Yeah, he doesn't realize he's in the 'ladies'

      I have never understood the obsession of separating sexes in the bathroom. What possible reason could there be? Except maybe a few swinging dicks if the ladies did their best to look over the separators between urinals.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    4. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *grunt*

      *grunt*

      *grunt*

    5. Re:Man using women's restroom by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It does have the advantage of letting the guys efficiently relieve themselves, rather than waiting in line for packs of women gabbing and adjusting their makeup. Using a crapper sitting next to an eligible woman would also be awkward. My college had co-ed bathrooms that worked fine, but they were low-traffic and only had one toilet. Really I'd rather have 2 bathrooms with 3 people of any gender in them at a time than one with 6, and dividing the bathrooms by gender is an efficient way of evenly dividing the population; less awkwardness due to modesty and fear because of gender difference is a side-benefit.

    6. Re:Man using women's restroom by ortholattice · · Score: 1

      I have never understood the obsession of separating sexes in the bathroom. What possible reason could there be? Except maybe a few swinging dicks if the ladies did their best to look over the separators between urinals.

      In Amsterdam they don't even bother with the bathroom (well, for men at least): street urinals

    7. Re:Man using women's restroom by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      There's nothing in the bible that says that men and women should share a bathroom and everyone knows life was better and there were no terrorists when men and women had separate beds.

    8. Re:Man using women's restroom by iris-n · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing that in the math institute I study, there are as much female bathrooms as there are male ones.

      The relevant datum is that the female population is ~10% of the total.

      --
      entropy happens
    9. Re:Man using women's restroom by laederkeps · · Score: 1

      if the ladies did their best to look over the separators between urinals.

      Well, if she's standing at a urinal peering over the separator, that's a pretty lame disguise for some good-old-fashioned peeping...

    10. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it comes from the Puritanical urge to to avoid people having sex.

      I was going to say "...sex in public spaces" but realized that it would be quite a stretch to define a restroom stall as "public space".

    11. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you're forgetting how many men would look under the stalls to see the panties next-door- and the women carrying bloody feminine hygiene products to the trash (hopefully (as opposed to flushing)), and the girl-talk island effect.

    12. Re:Man using women's restroom by TempeTerra · · Score: 2, Funny

      So they're still short on female bathrooms?

      (/me is going to hell)

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    13. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps because a lot of nutjob guys would be looking over and under the stalls to watch the women do their business.

      In other words, don't be stupid. You know full well the reason behind separating them.

    14. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A man can shit and fart without having to worry if he's offending a woman in the stall next to him...and women can shit and fart without having to pretend they don't.

    15. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unwanted sexual interaction.

      In most places, toilet facilities are not in high traffic areas. They are usually in a corner or down a hall or somewhere else out of sight. In places like malls, the possiblity of sexual assault would be much higher. At sporting events/concerts/other large gathering of people, the possibility would be through the roof. I would also assume that there is something in law about due care and attention; i.e. they could be sued for a number of reasons.

    16. Re:Man using women's restroom by Caity · · Score: 1

      I've been to plenty of places where the toilet separation has broken down after the women get fed up standing in a long queue while there are perfectly serviceable cubicles standing empty through the other door. Usually in busy bars.

      There are some places that have unisex bathrooms. They just have floor to ceiling walls and doors for each cubicle to stop the peepers, and the urinals are behind a waist-high wall.

      There have been a couple of sexual assaults in them - but I think that there are sexual assaults in split bathrooms too on occasion - it's not like you have to swipe your chromosones at the door to get in.

    17. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most people don't feel comfortable being around perverts, and the first pervert that would come along would make every associated non-pervert look bad.

    18. Re:Man using women's restroom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women need garbage cans in their lavatories, so by classifying lavatories by gender, you can buy 50% less garbage cans.

  30. Completely normal by jermays · · Score: 1

    I went to WWU. A clown on a unicycle isn't really that strange compared to what happens on campus. You see, there's another college on the WWU campus. Fairhaven College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairhaven_College). Fairhaven students study such useful courses as 'Mushroom Identification', aren't graded, and generally live as if they are in the '60s. My first room-mate at WWU was one such student. I came back to college after a weekend visit and found him 'Making our room into a forest'. He was dragging evergreen boughs into our room and tucking them into every corner and under the mattresses, had a camp stove going, and listening to Bob Dylan. Needless to say, he had taken several hits of LSD. A clown on a unicycle? People probably just thought it was a Fairhaven student.

    1. Re:Completely normal by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      You stole my post. I did a CS degree at main campus but my GURs at Fairhaven. I had some very good classes there such as Constitutional Law and English/Writing but it often was breakfast serial - what are not fruits and nuts, are flakes. At least I got to talk about my feelings and get in touch with my inner druid...

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    2. Re:Completely normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to WWU. A clown on a unicycle isn't really that strange compared to what happens on campus. You see, there's another college on the WWU campus. Fairhaven College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairhaven_College). Fairhaven students study such useful courses as 'Mushroom Identification', aren't graded, and generally live as if they are in the '60s.

      Oh I get it, Fairhaven College one of those living history locations... like Colonial Williamsburg, but with drugs!

  31. If They'd Done This at The Evergreen State College by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    . . . it would have been a giant mushroom on a mini-bike.

    And nobody would have reported seeing anything unusual that day.

    --
    What?
  32. Which doesn't negate the answer by Rix · · Score: 0, Troll

    You can also answer "I believe I am not ignoring any" honestly.

    1. Re:Which doesn't negate the answer by maxume · · Score: 1

      That statement doesn't actually answer the question.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Which doesn't negate the answer by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      You could but that doesn't really answer it and means nothing.

  33. Not really by Rix · · Score: 0, Troll

    That'd be one of the proximate things people do pay attention to. If you don't, well, it's not the iPod's fault.

  34. It becomes my problem by newdsfornerds · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I get tired of being forced to make way for self-absorbed clods attempting to walk down crowded sidewalks while shouting into their phones. They keep their heads down while having their ever-so-important conversations about who texted who last night. They do this partly to announce just how overwhelmingly great their social life is. Sometimes I deliberately block their path so as to force them to pay attention. Sometimes they walk straight into me, assuming I will clear a path for them. I expect to see one of them be run over by a bus one of these days and no, I am not looking forward to it.

    --
    Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  35. Gorillas by symes · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a rerun of the classic Gorillas in our Midst experiment - look here for an abstract and more info from here and here

  36. Not at all unusual by argent · · Score: 1

    Hell, when I'm thinking about a programming problem I've been known to miss things stranger than that. No cellphone required.

    I don't drive without music playing, because the music provides enough stimulation that it keeps me from drifting off into hyperfocus.

  37. Monkeys throwing beachballs by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

    A similar study was done several years ago using guys dressed up in gorilla suits, throwing beachballs to oneanother. Only about 50% of people noticed at all.

    Which is why motorcyclists have to see for other people.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Monkeys throwing beachballs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize that motorcyclists were in charge of protecting people from gorillas throwing beachballs. Usually it's a lot later in the day before I've learned something on slashdot, but I guess now I can go outside and play -- and watch out for motorcyclists looking for me.

    2. Re:Monkeys throwing beachballs by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Why has no one tried this experiment with naked female super models? I'm sure the results in the heterosexual male population would be close to 100% with or without a cell phone. However if his significant other was walking with him those results would very quick approach 0%.

  38. Is the cell conclusively the cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to say "yes, they didn't see that clown because they were on a cell phone"

    But could it be the mere fact that those people are engaged in a conversation and intentionally blocking out external distractions. That is to say, it's the "conversation" or the "doing something" that is to blame, not the cell phone itself.

    So, how do you pick the correct "non-cellphone" users as your control? Do they need to also have been in a conversation so we can say that it's actually being on the cell phone that made the person so clueless about their surroundings?

    We can argue that this doesn't matter, I suppose and that "hey look, cell phone use = more distraction no matter what the underlying reason for using one". And perhaps, this is a less practical thought exercise. But, specifics are a good thing. I'd rather see "distractions such as a conversation, which may be on a cell phone, will likely result in the talker missing out on a unicycle riding clown".

    I'm just saying, if there are clowns on unicycles, I don't want to think I'll get to see one by simply avoiding cell phones. Show me how to see the clown. Not how to avoid not seeing it.

  39. Re: Wrong and Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Wazu is known for being quite the party campus...

    This is not about WSU, it's is about "Western", in Bellingham, WA not WSU Pulman, WA.

    And BTW R3d M3rcury, it's called "Western Washington University" not "University of Western Washington".
    I did go there after all...

  40. People do stupid crap by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    People do a lot of stupid crap. I'm sure if there had been a clown on a unicycle on the streets where I live, I wouldn't have noticed. There's car alarms going off, people honking, yelling at each other, handing out leaflets, asking for change, street performers, street painters, street vendors, gawkers, kids running around, gaudy hipsters and fashionistas doing their thing, and public service workers on the job. Most of the time I'm in my own head simply because all of that stuff already seems annoying and I'm tuning it out, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Why would anyone pick up on some random clown on a unicycle? Maybe it's different on a school campus, but schools too have their fair share of motley crowds.

  41. Anyone actually do that? by Rix · · Score: 1

    If you really have to check facebook before the traffic lights, well, it's not facebook's fault.

    1. Re:Anyone actually do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If you die because you were paying too much attention to facebook or something, it's probably not a great loss.

    2. Re:Anyone actually do that? by arth1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you die because you were paying too much attention to facebook or something, it's probably not a great loss.

      What about the loss to the driver who hits the moron? He'll almost certainloy lose his license and get sued by the blood relatives of the moron, and if in an "at will" state, quite likely lose his job too, whether innocent or not.

      I think we need a better law system. Start enforcing fines against jaywalking, "reckless use of mobile devices while riding a bicycle" or "adjusting make-up while operating a vehicle on an interstate highway", and even use the three strikes law. Those people are in no way a better human than a homeless guy who is caught stealing food or clothes for the third time in his life.

    3. Re:Anyone actually do that? by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      I agree 1000%. I'm sure plenty of employers would overlook a DUI conviction discovered in a background check but would reject a candidate with a misdemeanor battery conviction. The DUI guy could easily have killed someone. The batterer (could have been self defense) just wrestled his attacker to the ground. The DUI guy has a "disease." The batterer is considered a violent criminal.
      Just because driving is such a humdrum, everyday chore does not prevent it from being the most dangerous activity we engage in.

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
  42. Stream of Thought by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    I suspect this study is fundamentally flawed, or at least the conclusion is. Here's why: it's been my observation that while doing some things (for example driving is a big case, but walking in a crowded place is also very much the same), my brain goes into a stream-of-thought mode. Basically, my brain sees and processes things around me in real time, as I need to deal with them. It pretty instantly makes decisions, I take action, then almost *immediately* forget about them. The brain throws that memory away because I don't need to remember every thing I ever see.

    Now, if I'm bored, I think I'm more likely to remember the clown on a unicycle. If I'm in a good conversation with a friend where I'm thinking mostly about the conversation, and secondarily about walking and avoid obstacles/collisions, I might 'see' the unicyclist, but lets face it, seeing performance artists of all types on a college campus is far from unusual, so it's not going to register with me as that unusual, and so I'm likely to forget about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't actually see it. It just means that my brain *correctly* filtered that memory as unimportant and threw it away.

  43. Sure it does by Rix · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In fact, all answers really have an implicit "I believe" prepended. Unknown unknowns, and all that.

  44. Re:I GOT A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    I would say that on an university area you can expect to find just about everything. So a clown on a unicycle isn't really strange.

    Unusual would be if someone had put a live blue whale on the campus ground.

    If students can get away with THIS, a clown on a unicycle is just another event in the day on campus.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  45. it's about the clown suit by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    It is obviously about the clown suit, if the professor didn't have one, the student wouldn't know from which end to start and where to finish ;)

  46. Alternative hypothesis: Not that unusual by npsimons · · Score: 1

    If I had seen someone unicycling on my campus, I wouldn't even blink. If I saw someone unicycling in a clown suit on my campus, I might think it was his day off - or he was on his way to a second job as a clown for a kids party. Or I might think that someone was doing an experiment. The only thing out of those three situations that would give me pause would be the thought of "what does unicycling in a clown outfit have to do with real science? is this some weird way to prove the Casimir effect?" (we didn't have many soft "sciences" at my university).

  47. I'd thought it was a video game problem. by Animats · · Score: 1

    I'd thought this was a video game problem, with focus on the screen narrowing awareness to a narrow cone.

    I own a horse, and horse barns tend to have teenagers around. The kids who ride usually have good situational awareness. Part of riding training is to ride in a busy ring, constantly aware of what all the other horses are doing. But often the parents drag along non-riding kids. When they're using their iPhone or Nintendo DS, they're totally oblivious.

    Even offline, they're not aware of what's going on behind them. I've had the experience more than once of riding up behind a child and having to work at getting their attention just to get them out of the way. I'm not talking about not noticing something at a distance. There are kids that don't notice the horse's nose directly above their head. This is a lack of basic survival skills. What would these kids do in a bad neighborhood?

    The first time this happened, about five years ago, I thought that perhaps someone had brought a retarded kid to the barn. But I've seen this too many times since then.

    If you're bringing up kids, make sure they do something that forces wide situational awareness. Riding. Soccer. Martial arts. Paintball. Birdwatching. Otherwise you're bringing up a victim.

  48. cellphone while bicycling more common by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Dot only driving or walking, but more bicyclists talk on their phones too. And get into accidents.

  49. Trust me there are more distracting things at WWU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So maybe unicycling clowns aren't enough of a distraction at the University of Western Washington..."

    That's because the psych dept. dresses someone up and sends them out into red square as often as they could sucker some student into it. Usually in fall or spring quarters, at least when I was there. I definitely wouldn't call in unusual. Hell, the Green Peace people were more distracting. After running into them you'd want to club a baby seal after you practically had to push some of them out of your way so you could get to class.

  50. Inattentional blindness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inattentional blindness is the official term for this phenomenon, for those who didn't RTFA. It'd be a good idea to add it to the tags, too.

  51. Somebody Else's Problem by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

    With or without a cellphone, this could be very closely related to Doug Adams' SEP effect. I think sometimes people see things that are so bizarre and out of context that it's easier to subconsciously edit out the image rather than try to make sense of it. Or, alternately, some people are so jaded and inattentive to begin with that the anomaly doesn't even register.

    Case in point is a similar college campus experiment I read about. Researchers posed as clipboard-bearing survey takers. One would approach a student and begin asking questions. At some point, in a deftly choreographed stunt, two confederates posing as workmen would briefly pass between interviewer and interviewee, carrying a large door that momentarily obscured sight of the interviewer. A quick switch was made during the maneuver, so that when the door was no longer obscuring sight a few seconds later, there was now a completely different person conducting the interview, picking up where the first had left off and acting totally matter of fact, as if nothing unusual had just happened. What they found was that, even when using obvious extremes of appearance (say, a large African-American man replaced by a small Asian woman), a significant percentage of the subjects never batted an eye, and would later deny they had seen anything unusual when "debriefed" after the mock survey was completed.

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    1. Re:Somebody Else's Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever head of Omegle? It's an online chat service that connects you with one completely random person at the click of a button. With the right scrips, it's possible to connect to multiple people at once, essentially gaining control of their conversation. It's interesting to silently disconnect one of the talkers in the middle of the conversation and bring in someone new. The majority of users get confused and disconnect, but a number of people don't even realize that anything has changed. An even smaller number of people appear to realize that they're talking to someone new but don't think it's odd or surprising.

    2. Re:Somebody Else's Problem by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      I find this kind of awareness experiment absolutely fascinating! -I think it is deeply related to many things in our reality, and the ability of people to ignore changes in order to exist within a logical continuum is what is meant by being Asleep versus Being Awake. There are SO many things in 'official' reality which don't add up and which take a form of cognitive dissonance, (the term people studying this stuff have come up with to explain the general insanity of people's lack of reaction to weirdness in the world), to live with.

      Here's the study I think you are referring to. . .

      And here's a treat: some videos of "Change Blindess" experiments.

      -FL

    3. Re:Somebody Else's Problem by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      You cannot know, of course, how many of those people were lying when they said they noticed nothing.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Somebody Else's Problem by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

      Well, that's another potential response -- denying anything unusual had been seen, for fear of being thought a fool if you are wrong. Reminds me of the two garbagemen witnessing the Bird of Prey uncloaking and taking off in "Star Trek IV":

      "Did you see that??"
      "No...and neither did you!!"

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  52. Pacific Northwest by kinema · · Score: 1

    You've obviously never been to the Pacific Northwest if you think unicycling clowns are out of the norm.

  53. Sorry by PPH · · Score: 1

    I was busy watching the lady with big tits.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  54. Really? by Kae+Arby · · Score: 1

    A clown on a unicycle

    cycling around a college campus

    is considered unusuall?

  55. Berkeley version by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Something unusual? There was a young guy wearing a suit and tie who didn't look like he was going to a job interview. Oh, wait, you're probably wondering if I saw the clown on the unicycle. He wasn't juggling knives and flaming torches like the kid who's usually here at lunchtime, so I just assumed he was headed somewhere else to work.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  56. OH NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone could get hurt! we must ban it. why haven't they outlawed walking/driving with a radio too!

  57. Re:I GOT A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    oh hi yodaseguy.

    Here, corrected that for you 8p

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  58. Who's the clown now? by PPH · · Score: 1

    You expect us to read TFA in the NY Times and get charged for it?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  59. My age, your age... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Super-fast.

    An astute reader by now knows I'm old and you're young. :-P

    (This is funny, if you stop to think about it... it's depressing having to mention it's funny...)

    1. Re:My age, your age... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      an apt reader knows I am old enough to find humor in the parent's post where it was not necessarily intended.

    2. Re:My age, your age... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is surprising to me. Maybe my vision of the world is somewhat more boring than yours.

      While I don't exactly envy this, I do congratulate you. Life with humor is so much better.

      Have a nice day. (No sarcasm here).

  60. Re:I GOT A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

    They seem to have forgotten they are dealing with students, too. A sign saying "Free BBQ", or, better yet, "Free Beer", would be noticed by almost everyone who can see it.

    A clown riding around on a unicycle is unlikely to offer any free stuff, and probably won't be very entertaining either, so they'll get ignored.

  61. Jessica Alba Nude beats Unicycle Clown repeatedly. by bronney · · Score: 1

    What a fail. Why do you think they call it Uni-versity? It's full of unicycles. And to see clowns in university? Pfftt.. Aren't they supposed to be filled with those too?

    Next time, try a Scarlett Johansson nude doing a kick flip!!!

  62. "unicycling clowns aren't enough of a distraction" by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

    Or perhaps they thought they were in DC, watching members of Congress?!?

  63. Supermodel by Well-Fed+Troll · · Score: 1

    I can guarantee you that NO-one would see the clown in that case.

  64. Twice I have experienced -- by dwiget001 · · Score: 1

    -- people that were *driving* with a cell phone held to their ear, pretty much oblivious to the world around them.

    1. I was crossing a street at a cross walk, street lights, the whole nine yards, coming back to work from local lunch spot. Light turns red, I give it a moment, start across, car screeches to a halt about 4 inches from me, I look up a bit startled, lady is on her cell phone. At the time, it was not yet illegal to do so in my state, but the law had been passed to be effective about four months later.

    2. Driving home after work, about two blocks from my house, I make a right hand turn to head down the last two blocks. There is a pickup about halfway down the block, in a driveway to my left. As I approach, the truck all of a sudden does a left hand turn into my lane, causing me to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting him. I look up and clearly see through is back window, he has his cell phone planted in his left ear.

    The laws already on the books or about to be for such things (including texting) need to be A) made very broadly known and B) the punishment for violating such laws should be comparable to drunk driving, IMHO.

    People are already, just in the normal day-to-day activity, pretty oblivious to the world around them, IMHO, worrying about work, attention on something else or whatever while driving, add cell phones to the mix and it just adds another layer of oblivion on top.

    And don't get me started on people playing their music in their vehicles so loud, that it can be heard two blocks away....