Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
fnord

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                               

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Child Spotlighter

May ruin the game of hide-and-seek for the little brats... friggin' Wahhh!
  (+1)
(+1)
  [vote for,
against]

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.

21 Quest, Oct 14 2011

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.
Alterother, Oct 14 2011
  

       //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.
swimswim, Oct 14 2011
  

       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).
Loris, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       //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.
Loris, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       //... 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.
Loris, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       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?
Loris, Oct 14 2011
  

       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).
Loris, Oct 14 2011
  

       We've already done that in the USA. Crossing at undesignated crosswalks is a crime. The problem is that it's rarely enforced.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
swimswim, Oct 14 2011
  

       // 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.
8th of 7, Oct 14 2011
  

       // 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.
Alterother, Oct 14 2011
  

       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?
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       // 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.
8th of 7, Oct 14 2011
  

       Is that anything like NSDAP ?
8th of 7, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
Alterother, Oct 14 2011
  

       // 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 ...)
8th of 7, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
  

       [-]
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 14 2011
  

       // 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.
Alterother, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       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?
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 14 2011
  

       Look, I just invented the device ok? You handle the marketing, mandating and distribution if you think you can get it done.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       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?
MaxwellBuchanan, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
Alterother, Oct 14 2011
  

       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.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       // 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.
8th of 7, Oct 14 2011
  

       Exactly as I stated in the post.
21 Quest, Oct 14 2011
  

       // something big enough to cause damage to your vehicle //
  

       No worries. Motorcycles are the only damagable vehicles I own.
Alterother, Oct 15 2011
  

       What if there's a deer lurking in the shadows behind a car parked on the side of the road?
21 Quest, Oct 15 2011
  

       // 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?
Alterother, Oct 15 2011
  

       But what if it happens while you are ON the motorcycle? Think of this as another line of defense against teleporting deer.
21 Quest, Oct 15 2011
  

       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.
Alterother, Oct 15 2011
  

       Ahh, but what about blink deer who teleport between parked cars to avoid being caught in the act, hmmm?
21 Quest, Oct 15 2011
  

       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.
Alterother, Oct 15 2011
  

       Oh I know much more about the Blinks than you may suspect... who do you think tipped off the Swiss?
21 Quest, Oct 15 2011
  

       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.
  

       (-)
Twizz, Oct 17 2011
  

       //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.
Loris, Oct 17 2011
  

       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.
not_morrison_rm, Oct 17 2011
  

       May I also self-promotingly suggest <link>? Only make sure the low-end of the swinging motion is higher than the tallest car.
swimswim, Oct 17 2011
  

       // self-promotingly //
  

       Sp. "elf-promotingly"
  

       // abused statistics //
  

       An oxymoron; statistics are merely numbers perverted to support the conclusion you want.
8th of 7, Oct 17 2011
  

       //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.
Loris, Oct 17 2011
  

       //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.
Loris, Oct 17 2011
  

       //statistics are merely numbers perverted to support the conclusion you want// Apparently, I've been doing it wrong.
mouseposture, Oct 17 2011
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle