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..."
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
Please help metamoderate.
Who in his right mind would not interpret unicycling clown as extremely threatening?...
One that hath name thou can not otter
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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a rerun of the classic Gorillas in our Midst experiment - look here for an abstract and more info from here and here
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.