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..."

Comments

Not really

[Rix]

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?

Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care

[sznupi]

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...

A lot to see here...

[sznupi]

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

College campuses are full of unusual

[SuperBanana]

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.

This should not be about mobile phones

[houghi]

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.

Re:This should not be about mobile phones

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:This should not be about mobile phones

[ceoyoyo]

"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.

Re:Correction

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:camoflage, not awareness.

[pjt33]

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.