h a l f b a k e r yLoading tagline ....
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Child Spotlighter
May ruin the game of hide-and-seek for the little brats... friggin' Wahhh! | |
Supposedly, the reason speed limits in residential
neighborhoods is usually very low (25 mph unless
otherwise posted in my state) is that children have a
tendency to be hiding between parked vehicles along
the side of the road, from which position they cannot
be seen and yet are prone to rapidly
entering
the traffic
lane without looking to the left OR right, let alone both
ways, first.
So vehicles equipped with parking collision-avoidance
sensors could use these sensors to detect when people
move very close to either bumper (say, within 1
meter). Perhaps they need to be fitted with infrared
detectors to tell the difference between a person and a
closely-parked vehicle.
Whenever a parked vehicle's sensors detect a person
within that range, it lights up a red LED cluster mounted
atop the antenna to alert oncoming drivers to the
presence of an unseen child or large* animal.
*Larger than a large housecat. Anything smaller than,
say, 15 pounds gets a either a green LED or nothing at
all.
Cross-walk Rope Swing
http://www.halfbake...walk_20Rope_20Swing
Keeping kids out of traffic (going over it) since 2009. [swimswim, Oct 17 2011]
[link]
|
| |
From the title and author, I figured this was going to be
some sort of rifle attachment, and wandered over to see if
the Borg were hanging around...
|
|
| |
// yet are prone to rapidly entering the traffic lane
without looking to the left OR right, let alone both ways,
first. //
|
|
| |
This is called 'natural selection'. No, I don't have children,
and no, I won't think any differently when I do.
|
|
| |
// a red LED cluster mounted atop the antenna //
|
|
| |
I already have enough stupid lights blinking at me when I
drive. And that's in a '93 XJ. Give me a steel panel set with
a few analog gauges and I'm all set. If the kiddies can't
hear me coming then they need a lesson in what ears are
for.
|
|
| |
Then again, I'm a redneck. Most of my vehicles sound like
piston-powered Armageddon coming up the street.
Seriously, though, I think we're becoming so inundated
with sensors and indicator lights that eventually we're
going to forget how to drive. Driver's Ed will become a
two-day seminar on what various LEDs mean and what you
should do when you see them. |
|
| |
//the reason speed limits in residential neighborhoods
is usually ... 25 mph ... is that children have a
tendency to be hiding between parked vehicles//
|
|
| |
So your invention is based on the claim that 25mph is
not slow enough? Or that, with your invention, the
speed limit can be increased?
|
|
| |
I think the speed limit has been set at 25 because it
is the speed at which good drivers can avoid hitting
commonly occuring neighborhood obstacles (incl.
children). Bone from me because I don't like crutches
that give people an excuse for shirking responsibility --
good, safe driving. |
|
| |
Research has shown that the average driver tends to leave breaking until too late when approaching children. It seems that drivers judge distance based on average adult height.
Therefore short people's mistakes are disproportionately punished.
|
|
| |
Furthermore, people shorter than the average vehicle will be masked by parked cars, they're generally not deliberately hiding. To be fair to your proposal, I think it may be effective if it applied to all parked vehicles, but if not I suspect that it would be worse than useless.
Given that, I propose that it would be cheaper to have crossing places marked on all roads, where parking was not permitted for maybe 50 meters.
|
|
| |
Please say if you're proposing a legal requirement for all cars to have your proposed system. (If so, you'll need to update the idea a bit to reflect that, too). |
|
| |
Nope, that would be a Let's All. And I'm not suggesting we do anything to the speed limit, UNLESS it becomes implemented as a legal requirement for all vehicles. |
|
| |
//Nope, that would be a Let's All.//
|
|
| |
No it wouldn't. From the help file:
|
|
| |
//let's all ... - the author wants something some people are already doing to be more widely practiced, but doesn't provide a novel idea, invention or mechanism to allow it to be more widely practiced.//
|
|
| |
Clearly, the idea as proposed isn't practiced *at all*.
For your idea to actually work it needs to be implemented by all cars, without exception.
Therefore, proposing a legal requirement for it should be valid - it's like the inventer of the wheel stating a need for long, flat surfaces between places for the device to function efficiently. |
|
| |
Well fair enough... but the problem with making it a legal
requirement is, who eats the cost of upgrading millions of
vehicles with this system? The majority of vehicles
on the road aren't currently even equipped with standard
parking sensors, and probably none with infrared. You
could make it a requirement in new cars, but look how
many OLD cars are still being driven. |
|
| |
//... but the problem with making it a legal requirement is, who eats the cost of upgrading millions of vehicles with this system?//
|
|
| |
Certainly the implied cost is a disadvantage - but one that is necessary for your idea to lead to a decrease rather than a likely increase in pedestrian fatalities.
|
|
| |
People not of the Heath Robinson / Rube Goldberg mindset might consider other options. |
|
| |
Well I think the current system is silly. The idea of
forcing traffic to drive slowly to avoid hitting something
that may or may not be hiding between parked vehicles
is ridiculous. If your child isn't old enough to know how
to safely cross a street (indeed, to not play in the
street), then he isn't old enough to be allowed out of
your yard unsupervised. If you can't trust your kid to
stay in the yard when he's told to, then he shouldn't be
allowed out of the house. Forcing society to modify
their driving habits as a substitute for effective
parenting is, in my view, a weak idea to begin with. Oh,
so you've got a deaf kid? Well, you better teach him
to use those eyes then, huh?
|
|
| |
The only other options than making cars report the
presence of a person hiding in their midst to oncoming
vehicles would be imposing a law requiring effective
parenting, or a magical radar-like device that allows
your moving vehicle to magically see around corners and
warn the driver. |
|
| |
Well, there are other options.
|
|
| |
You could force society to modify their parking habits instead, for example.
|
|
| |
How about a law: No car which is not equipped with a friggin' brat detector/reporter system may be parked at the kerbside.
|
|
| |
Then owners of existing cars have the options of installing the system or not parking on the road.
|
|
| |
That'd probably free up a lot of parking space too, so two birds with one stone, right? |
|
| |
Or alternatively - there's the French option, which is to only allow crossing of roads at certain positions, which can then be made safer (warning signs, clear sight-lines etc). |
|
| |
We've already done that in the USA. Crossing at
undesignated crosswalks is a crime. The problem is that
it's rarely enforced. |
|
| |
Is that true in residential neighborhoods, or only in other classes of street? Most residential streets that I'm aware of don't have designated cross-walks. |
|
| |
// a law requiring effective parenting //
|
|
| |
Such a law already exists; it's called "The Law of Natural Selection".
|
|
| |
Environmental pressures weed out the less fit individuals. Those individuals who display poor parenting skills will lose proportionately more offspring; their representation in your species gene pool will decrease. It's surprising how quickly and effective;y this process can operate.
|
|
| |
Children that run out from between parked cars are clearly not adapted for their environment.
|
|
| |
Either (a) only those children with an instinct to look around before crossing a road will survive, or (b) a child will be evolved that can withstand being struck by a massive object traveling at 40 km/h.
|
|
| |
A very effective lesson to parents is to have an offspring - in whom considerable resource has been invested - wiped out by a passing car.
|
|
| |
Preferably, the offspring should be killed outright, as if it is not it may well pass on its inadequate alleles to the next generation.
|
|
| |
Raise the speed limits, and ensure all road vehicles have rigid fronts. |
|
| |
// Crossing at undesignated crosswalks is a crime. The
problem is that it's rarely enforced. //
|
|
| |
In Maine, a motorist failing to stop for a pedestrian waiting
at a crosswalk is also an infraction, albeit yet another that
is rarely, if ever, enforced. There was quite a bit of heat
about it when it first came into effect, but, predictably,
nobody cares any more.
|
|
| |
// This is called 'natural selection'. //
|
|
| |
// it's called "The Law of Natural Selection". //
|
|
| |
We really have to stop agreeing like this. |
|
| |
Going even a little bit faster than 20 Mph in a school zone,
however, is practically an offense against all of humanity,
to judge by the fines they issue. Should not the children
attending school have been educated about proper road
crossing? Why do they need to hold up traffic? What are
they teaching kids these days? |
|
| |
// Should not the children attending school have been educated about proper road crossing? //
|
|
| |
Yes, but - and this is the important bit - NOT by the schools. Teaching day to day survival skills should be the responsibility of the parent. If the parent fails to teach such skills, the offspring are at greater risk, and more likely to selected out. It not only desireable, but necessary, indeel critical, zat zer unfit elements are from zer poplulation outtaken, wir musst sofort beginn das razlial clenzing, NosZING MUZT SCHTAND IN ZER VAY OFF ZER MASTER RACE, VE HAFF BEEN CJOZEN BY ZER DESTINY ZU FULFILL UNSER <COUGH> <cough> <splutter>
|
|
| |
Sorry, not quite sure what happned there.
|
|
| |
// What are they teaching kids these days? //
|
|
| |
One thing they are clearly not teaching is "How to run out from between parked cars into traffic and not be killed." We suggest a masterclass in such antics could be taught by, for instance, Eddie Murphy, Mel Gibson, or Tom Cruise, all of whom seem to be able to sprint out into traffic without a sideways glance and arrive on the other side of the road without a mark on them. |
|
| |
Is that anything like NSDAP ? |
|
| |
Having a Dr. Strangelove moment, are we, [8th]?
|
|
| |
Just because I know you all love my 'Here in Maine'
additions so much: school zones here are 20mph most of
the time, but when the huge orange lights are blinking
(when school is letting in or out and during recess periods)
it drops to 15. This is the setup at every school in the
state. Some of the schools with traffic problems even have
the displays that tell you how fast you're going and blink
angry red numbers at you if you're over the limit. I've also
seen snipers posted on school rooves. |
|
| |
// I've also seen snipers posted on school rooves //
|
|
| |
We understand that that's far from uncommon in the USA, and not just on school buildings.
|
|
| |
Unfortunately they all too often seem to shoot ordinary passers-by, rather than anything useful (politicians, lawyers, accountants ...) |
|
| |
Here, the usual limit for residential areas is
30mph.
|
|
| |
The reason, as far as I know, is because there's a
tipping point at around 30-35mph. Below 30mph,
most pedestrians will survive the impact; above
about 35mph, most (especially children) will be
killed.
By 40mph, the chances of survival are way down.
|
|
| |
It's all to do with kinetic energy and the physical
strength of the important bits of the body, and it
really is a steep slope between 30 and 40mph.
That's why the 30 limit.
|
|
| |
As for the idea, well, it's great apart from being
dumb. Yes, children are disproportionately
represented in pedestrian casualties. And yes, a
good proportion of those happen because an idiot
child runs out in front of a law-abiding, attentive
and fast-witted driver from between parked cars.
|
|
| |
However, other fatalities happen because children
run out from behind a tree, or behind a skip
(dumpster), or from a driveway that has little
pavement (sidewalk) between it and the road.
Others happen because a child who has just
crossed the road and is visibly safe on the other
side remembers something and turns back, into
the road. Still other fatalities happen because
the driver had time to brake, but didn't because
they happened to be looking the other way.
|
|
| |
I would guess that your device, if fitted to every
car and if mandated by law (you would, obviously,
be happy to pay the cost of purchase and
installation, even if you live in the boondocks)
might well alert drivers to the, oh, maybe 20% of
children who would run out from between parked
cars. Of those 20% of children, 80% would have
survived the impact at 30mph.
|
|
| |
However, it will fail completely to prevent the
other 80% of accidents and, if you're now allowed
to hit them at 40mph, 80% of those children will
be killed.
|
|
| |
Frankly, I would like to be able to drive faster and
am not overly sentimental about children.
However, the things that keep me at 30mph are
the facts that (a) there are an infinite number of
ways for people to have accidents and (b) I could
probably cope with landing an idiot in hospital,
but I am not
sure if I would cope as well with having killed
someone.
|
|
| |
Anyway, enough po-faced rationalizing. Carry on
with the 'natural selection' theme.
|
|
| |
// I could probably cope with landing an idiot in hospital,
but I am not sure if I would cope as well with having killed
someone. //
|
|
| |
Aim for [The Alterother]. He is a complete idiot and has an
interesting habit of not dying when he's supposed to*. It
may be your one and only chance to have your cake and
eat it too.
|
|
| |
* The deer incident wasn't the first time I've sustained
major trauma requiring hospitalization and reconstructive
surgery. It wasn't the worst one, either. |
|
| |
Look, it's something that people could CHOOSE to buy,
perhaps subsidized by local governments, if they wanted
to contribute to the safety of the kids in their
neighborhood.
I'm not saying we have to make all poor people
install it on their car. Where the hell did I say that?
|
|
| |
//might well alert drivers to the, oh, maybe 20% of
children who would run out from between parked
cars.//
|
|
| |
Where did you come up with that statistic? Please, cite
your sources if you're going to claim that kind of specific
knowledge. |
|
| |
The 20% is guesswork. Pick 5% or 60% if you like.
|
|
| |
As for the mandating - what is the point of it, unless
you know you can rely on most of the parked cars to
alert you that a child is waiting to run out? |
|
| |
Look, I just invented the device ok? You handle the
marketing, mandating and distribution if you think you can
get it done. |
|
| |
Regrettably, we are too preoccupied with the
Rentisham's campaign to accept another commission
for a device which is unlikely to benefit the
purchaser.
|
|
| |
A question: imagine that this device can be bought,
right now. Would you buy it? How much will you be
prepared to pay for it? |
|
| |
What, a pair of infrared sensors, an LED cluster, and a bit
of wire? Sure, I'd shell out 50 bucks for it, if only because
of the other benefits it provides, such as warning me
about the car jacker hiding behind the vehicle in a
crowded parking lot. You've got to advertise the other
benefits. |
|
| |
What if you attack the suspected carjacker only to end up
slaughtering somebody's poor lost poodle? A device that
alerts me to the presence of, oh, something-or-other near
that car over there without giving me any more
information than that is just one more potential
distraction. If I'm busy scrutinizing the antennae of the row
of parked cars I'm driving past in case one of them might
warn me that something may or may not jump out in front
of me, it will be that much harder to spot the errant child
coming from the other direction. |
|
| |
Notice I said anything above a certain size limit. Perhaps
15 pounds is too low, which was why I phrased it in an
optional way. The size limit is entirely negotiable. You
don't want to hit something big enough
to cause damage to your vehicle, regardless of weather or
not it's a human, and the infrared sensor ensures that it's
not an inanimate object like a road cone. |
|
| |
// I am not sure if I would cope as well with having killed someone //
|
|
| |
Try, it, it's a lot easier than you think. After the first half-dozen, you become blase about it.
|
|
| |
// if they wanted to contribute to the safety of the kids in their neighborhood //
|
|
| |
... they would go house-to-house and drop off leaflets saying "We're going to be prowling the streets ove the next few months looking for kids to mow down, Teach 'em road sense, or lose 'em. Your choice."
|
|
| |
// You don't want to hit something big enough to cause damage to your vehicle, //
|
|
| |
We suspect [The Alterother] is probably already aware of that.
|
|
| |
However, if the target is sufficently small (like a child, or a cat) that your vehicle can strike it without damage, then a green "carry on, no problem" light should illuminate. |
|
| |
Exactly as I stated in the post. |
|
| |
// something big enough to cause damage to your vehicle
//
|
|
| |
No worries. Motorcycles are the only damagable vehicles I
own. |
|
| |
What if there's a deer lurking in the shadows behind a car parked on the side of the road? |
|
| |
// What if there's a deer lurking in the shadows behind a
car parked on the side of the road? //
|
|
| |
I'll pop my duece into 3rd and fill my freezer, that's what.
May I refer you back to my statement regarding
indestructible vehicles? |
|
| |
But what if it happens while you are ON the motorcycle? Think of this as another line of defense against teleporting deer. |
|
| |
Regular deer I can avoid quite deftly when riding, and have
on many occasions. The elusive Blink Deer, on the other
hand, would by their very nature be undetectable to such
a device; the only method I have yet discovered for sensing
the movements of Blink Deer was accomplished using some
very sophisticated equipment loaned to me by CERN.
Unfortunately, when they discovered it was missing, they
politely requested that I return it immediately.
|
|
| |
FYI, the Swiss Army is armed with more than just iconic
folding pocket knives. A lot more. |
|
| |
Ahh, but what about blink deer who teleport between parked cars to avoid being caught in the act, hmmm? |
|
| |
Your persistence is adorable.
|
|
| |
Possible, but unlikely. Firstly, Blink Deer seem to be
utterly without shame and indeed often _proud_ of their
terrorist acts, and thirdly, the vehicle equipped with the
sensor would need a suspension capable of supporting a
particle accelerator. |
|
| |
Oh I know much more about the Blinks than you may
suspect... who do you think tipped off the Swiss? |
|
| |
It was mentioned on BBC news this morning that the 7 billionth member of the human population will be born this month.
|
|
| |
Counter-evolutionary ideas such as this can no longer be tolerated.
|
|
| |
//It was mentioned on BBC news this morning that the 7 billionth member of the human population will be born this month.
Counter-evolutionary ideas such as this can no longer be tolerated.//
|
|
| |
It's empirically the case that as child mortality is reduced, so is average family size.
So reducing childhood traffic accidents should actually help reduce the population growth. |
|
| |
I think the cheapest option would be issue stilts to children. Then they would learn a skill useful in flood-prone areas and/or the circus.
|
|
| |
Or, how about going the other way and have shorter cars like that Citroen suspension wot only pumps up when the engine is running.
|
|
| |
Neither of these would do anything about those quantum deer though. |
|
| |
May I also self-promotingly suggest <link>? Only make sure the low-end of the swinging motion is higher than the tallest car. |
|
| |
An oxymoron; statistics are merely numbers perverted to support the conclusion you want. |
|
| |
//I like the way you've abused statistics to prove your point without including the word 'dickhead'.//
|
|
| |
Not only am I unsure of what abuse I performed, but I have to say that including the word 'dickhead' in that post didn't occur to me - and I don't see how that would improve it. |
|
| |
//Causality. The general interpretation is that family sizes grow to the point where after natural kid attrition, you've got a few left. I can't see planning ahead for RTAs being a factor.//
|
|
| |
You now seem to have conceded that child mortality does appear to affect increase family size, and now are arguing about either the exact shape of the correlation and/or whether the decrease in child mortality would be detected.
|
|
| |
Against the first potential argument I suggest that existing populations with an intrinsic negative growth rate suggest that conditions can be favourable for population growth regulation.
|
|
| |
Against the second potential point I have the following quote (gleaned via quick google seach):
"Child pedestrian injury arising from road accidents is the leading cause of child accidental death in the UK."
I posit that people don't approach the analysis consciously or rationally, but instead integrate many sources of data. If someone in your circle loses a child, you will be much more aware of this risk, and may subconciously increment your reproductive goal. |
|
| |
//statistics are merely numbers perverted to
support the conclusion you want// Apparently, I've
been doing it wrong. |
|
| |