What Clown On a Unicycle? 284
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..."
My Lawn! (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...
Not really (Score:5, 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?
Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care (Score:5, 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...
camoflage, not awareness. (Score:3, 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".
A lot to see here... (Score:5, 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?
College campuses are full of unusual (Score:5, 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.
Re:camoflage, not awareness. (Score:3, 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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This should not be about mobile phones (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.
Re:This should not be about mobile phones (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:camoflage, not awareness. (Score:3, Insightful)
It becomes my problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This should not be about mobile phones (Score:5, 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.
Re:This should not be about mobile phones (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Man using women's restroom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correction (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.
Re:Anyone actually do that? (Score:0, Insightful)
If you die because you were paying too much attention to facebook or something, it's probably not a great loss.
Re:Anyone actually do that? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Alternative hypothesis : didn't care (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...
Re:camoflage, not awareness. (Score:4, 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.
Re:Man using women's restroom (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.