Traffic safety “nudges” can cause number of crashes to increase (2022)(science.org)
science.org
Traffic safety “nudges” can cause number of crashes to increase (2022)
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abm3427
148 comments
This is reminiscent of an experience we had at ClearHealth with managed hospital aesthetics. Not a scientific study in any sense, but as part of rebranding a hospital group, the color scheme was changed from a neutral green to a much brighter orange. The change coincided with a small but meaningful increase in mortality for procedures done on the associated floor. Enough that we reverted to the older aesthetic. The mortality change reverted as well. Chalked it up to coincidence. This process then repeated at two other separate campuses. I can't rule out this was some sort of reverse "Hawthorne Effect" where our communications about the change were the source of the problem but it bothered me enough to mostly put an end to our appetite for large scale aesthetic redesigns.
Color has a measurable effect on humans. There's an extensive body of research on the psychological effects of color; every designer worth their salt knows this. The fields of branding and marketing use color purposefully every day as well.
Green has a soothing, calming effect on people because it's most common in our natural surroundings. For example, TV shows use "green rooms" filled with plants (and sometimes even painted green) to calm down guests before they go on stage for this very reason.
Orange, on the other hand, excites people and can elevate their heartbeat. It's a cross between red (hot-blooded, passion, rage) and yellow (energy, happiness, attention). You could say it encourages your emotions to interfere with rational thought.
So you can keep your appetite for large-scale redesigns! Just add a step to incorporate color psychology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_psychology
Green has a soothing, calming effect on people because it's most common in our natural surroundings. For example, TV shows use "green rooms" filled with plants (and sometimes even painted green) to calm down guests before they go on stage for this very reason.
Orange, on the other hand, excites people and can elevate their heartbeat. It's a cross between red (hot-blooded, passion, rage) and yellow (energy, happiness, attention). You could say it encourages your emotions to interfere with rational thought.
So you can keep your appetite for large-scale redesigns! Just add a step to incorporate color psychology.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_psychology
A factory here, a few decades ago spend 150 k to select a color scheme for maximum productivity. No one believed in it but one investor insisted because he used the service before and the consultant had a lot of numbers to show.
50 cm above the floor the wall had 6 washed out grayish colored bars 20-25 cm width with green and orange slightly brighter. I didn't notice a productivity gain but it did allow excellent peripheral vision.
50 cm above the floor the wall had 6 washed out grayish colored bars 20-25 cm width with green and orange slightly brighter. I didn't notice a productivity gain but it did allow excellent peripheral vision.
At least one study was done that concluded the real effect wasn't from the change, it was the expectation that people were being measured. You could change in any direction and get the same results - repeated across different companies which in turn mean some left what another went to - and both got similar gains.
This features prominently in one of my most-quoted sitcom episodes: Better Off Ted's "It's Nothing Business, It's Just Personal"
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1459081/
"I worked so hard so that this exact thing wouldn't happen"
"I worked so hard so that this exact thing wouldn't happen"
>but it bothered me enough to mostly put an end to our appetite for large scale aesthetic redesigns.
But how do we know a different color might not save lives? Only half joking.
But how do we know a different color might not save lives? Only half joking.
Sure, like shouldn't we try all the colors?
What if yellow cures everyone?
What if yellow cures everyone?
Yeah, I remember noticing Google doing A/B tests on the color of links. A/B test everything! Few may die-- more may live in the long run. (If that's what you're trying to optimize.)
The "famously" tested 41 shades of blue in the 2000's, again a couple of years ago[0] and I am sure they test this again some times to times.
[0]: https://goodui.org/leaks/google-has-been-a-b-testing-link-co...
[0]: https://goodui.org/leaks/google-has-been-a-b-testing-link-co...
Yellow is garbage. Nothing good ever came of yellow. If anything is going to cure, it's indigo.
McDonalds famously uses yellow to get people to eat and leave in a hurry.
Lavender and violet are universally calming in humans. I don’t have the links handy, but color psychology doesn’t vary much by individuals, it’s something somewhat hard wired.
Don't think Amazon hasn't tried every shade of orange that's plausibly on-brand.
The answer is obvious - Rainbow color scheme.
Everything is cured and everyone is happy.
Everything is cured and everyone is happy.
First do no harm
Perhaps wall color makes the doctor thinks you're sicker than you actually are.
The sicker you look, the stronger medicine they want to give you. Always made me wonder how many people would have recovered naturally. And adding a strong medicine with potential dangerous side effects into the mix, must be killing a substantial number of people that would have recovered on their own without it.
Like how many people put on the ventilators would have been better off without them, for example.
Just look up survival rates in places without medical care vs with, and the answer should be clear to you.
Bright orange is a warning color in nature, neutral green suggests an hospitable environment.
It could be that the warning color added subconscious stress to doctors and patients alike.
It could be that the warning color added subconscious stress to doctors and patients alike.
In one car I've driven, whenever you turn it on, a pop-up appears that says (paraphrasing): "Taking your eyes off the road to interact with this screen can cause an accident. Press OK to continue."
Irony...
Irony...
Car manufacturers get bonus points when the screen obscures the backup camera feed.
My car's crash safety rating was significantly dinged because lower trim lines don't have low beams that follow the steering.
I wish they'd deduct a star for "there is a circumstance in which the car is on, and the main console is displaying a non-time-critical-popup, or refusing to accept input".
On a related note, why do car manufacturers make you come to a complete stop on the freeway so the person in the passenger seat can type an address into the navigation system?
My car's crash safety rating was significantly dinged because lower trim lines don't have low beams that follow the steering.
I wish they'd deduct a star for "there is a circumstance in which the car is on, and the main console is displaying a non-time-critical-popup, or refusing to accept input".
On a related note, why do car manufacturers make you come to a complete stop on the freeway so the person in the passenger seat can type an address into the navigation system?
I live in Japan and here the infotainment system in cars all have broadcast TV tuners and DVD players as standard equipment.
They're supposed to blank the video out when the car is moving (going audio-only), but your dealer will pretty much by default pull the one sense wire on the back of the unit that causes it to do that so you can watch TV when driving, since that's what everyone wants.
Now here comes the interesting part - despite having the sense wire pulled so that it can play video while in motion, it will still disable the settings menu when the car is moving. So there must be a second sense wire somewhere in the wiring harness that it's using for the "real" safety feature, while leaving a sacrificial sense wire for the feature everyone will disable anyway. Very bizarre.
They're supposed to blank the video out when the car is moving (going audio-only), but your dealer will pretty much by default pull the one sense wire on the back of the unit that causes it to do that so you can watch TV when driving, since that's what everyone wants.
Now here comes the interesting part - despite having the sense wire pulled so that it can play video while in motion, it will still disable the settings menu when the car is moving. So there must be a second sense wire somewhere in the wiring harness that it's using for the "real" safety feature, while leaving a sacrificial sense wire for the feature everyone will disable anyway. Very bizarre.
I wouldn't say bizarre, I'd say clever. What's bizarre is having a TV on in the car!
> On a related note, why do car manufacturers make you come to a complete stop on the freeway so the person in the passenger seat can type an address into the navigation system?
I have to wonder whether adding friction to the UX in the name of safety can have the complete opposite effect. Sure, drivers might do something dumb like trying to pair a Bluetooth device while they're driving, but if the car makes this impossible, isn't it increasing the amount of time the driver is distracted?
I have to wonder whether adding friction to the UX in the name of safety can have the complete opposite effect. Sure, drivers might do something dumb like trying to pair a Bluetooth device while they're driving, but if the car makes this impossible, isn't it increasing the amount of time the driver is distracted?
as a passenger do ya know how many times i've tried to pair a phone while at a stop light only to have to try again at the next one? ugh..
I’ve got a 2014 Mazda 6, it was probably a weekly occurrence where trivial events (calls, song changes, phone connect/disconnect, etc.) would cover up the feed as I was actively backing up. Since common sense has failed manufacturers, is there no regulation (US) to mandate an uninterrupted view? I’ve had to turn off Bluetooth whenever reversing, which creates another problem by distracting myself futzing with the phone.
[deleted]
Car manufactures should position the touchscreen/display so it cannot be seen or reached by the driver. If you are driving you don't need to see it or control it - that is the navigators job. If you are solo, then slide over to the passenger seat when you are stopped (I miss bench seats!)
I don't think US Congress intended for a driver to shuffle into the passenger seat to use the legally mandated back up camera.
It would sound about par for Congress though.
Presumably because the car doesn't know that there's a person there, the seat may have a weight sensor, and the car knows that the passenger seat belt is plugged in. Both are trivially circumvented.
Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS?
I have GPS in my car, but I use an external one because the internal one is so annoying this way - the first time I got lost because my passenger could not interact with the GPS was also the last time I used it.
I have GPS in my car, but I use an external one because the internal one is so annoying this way - the first time I got lost because my passenger could not interact with the GPS was also the last time I used it.
> Why is it the cars job to even decide if I should be allowed to use the GPS?
"I'm a good multitasker! I can do this perfectly safely! Why shouldn't I? Cops do it all the time!"
Every time I've seen this sorta subject come up on car-related forums there's a non-negligible amount of people who carry an opinion like that.
"I'm a good multitasker! I can do this perfectly safely! Why shouldn't I? Cops do it all the time!"
Every time I've seen this sorta subject come up on car-related forums there's a non-negligible amount of people who carry an opinion like that.
The problem is that these people will find a way to "multitask" no matter how hard the car makes it. Often by just doing it with their phone instead.
Not just car related forums, those people are everywhere.
I've seen someone on this site call for the abolition of drunk driving laws, arguing that the punishable act should be driving recklessly rather than the factors that led to the reckless driving; because of course, if you think you can drive drunk safely, then why shouldn't you be allowed to (/s)?
I've seen someone on this site call for the abolition of drunk driving laws, arguing that the punishable act should be driving recklessly rather than the factors that led to the reckless driving; because of course, if you think you can drive drunk safely, then why shouldn't you be allowed to (/s)?
That's idiotic, but current drunk driving laws in most places are overzealous in punishing responsible behavior.
E.g. sleeping off your drunkenness while sitting in the front seat with the keys within reach. Starting the car to run the heater or AC might get you additional punishment.
E.g. sleeping off your drunkenness while sitting in the front seat with the keys within reach. Starting the car to run the heater or AC might get you additional punishment.
Is that really "most places"? I only ever heard of such weird laws happening in one country.
> I've seen someone on this site call for the abolition of drunk driving laws, arguing that the punishable act should be driving recklessly rather than the factors that led to the reckless driving
Is there some flaw in the argument? Typically it's the reckless driving which would get you caught anyway. Which is why the "I'm fine" crowd still does it despite it being illegal -- they think they're not going to do anything that will get them pulled over.
The advantage of that proposal isn't that the drunks get away with it. If they're weaving in and out of lanes or driving 35 on the highway they're still getting cited.
It's that the person doing the exact same thing because they're excessively tired or otherwise incapacitated gets the same citation even if they can blow in the machine and get a zero.
Is there some flaw in the argument? Typically it's the reckless driving which would get you caught anyway. Which is why the "I'm fine" crowd still does it despite it being illegal -- they think they're not going to do anything that will get them pulled over.
The advantage of that proposal isn't that the drunks get away with it. If they're weaving in and out of lanes or driving 35 on the highway they're still getting cited.
It's that the person doing the exact same thing because they're excessively tired or otherwise incapacitated gets the same citation even if they can blow in the machine and get a zero.
What's the problem with swerving around and driving over speed limit if you don't hit anyone?
EDIT: /s
What's the problem with playing Russian roulette if you don't kill anyone?
> What's the problem with swerving around and driving over speed limit if you don't hit anyone?
It can cause someone else to hit you.
And the example was driving under the minimum speed.
It can cause someone else to hit you.
And the example was driving under the minimum speed.
Why try to prevent problems when you can just react once it's too late? Brilliant.
I'd be more inclined to agree with their arguments if the driving test tested more than just having a pulse.
Sure if you can demonstrate that you can do X activity safely it seems reasonable to allow you to do so. However, that hasn't been demonstrated.
Sure if you can demonstrate that you can do X activity safely it seems reasonable to allow you to do so. However, that hasn't been demonstrated.
I think you should be able to take a driving test while intoxicated. You'd get an endorsement on your license that your permitted to drive up the BAC level you tested at.
It's really not funny because it doesn't stop there. Two or three years ago a completely habituated faculty member at UMass Amherst hit a pedestrian in a mall parking lot with something like 0.25 % BAC. Ordinary people would cycle between bed and bathroom at that level of intoxication and feel very sorry for themselves, but terminal addicts go out to the mall and exceed the limits of even their tolerance. Woman fell up the ladder and is now a named chair at a different institution.
It's bizarre - it ought to occur to such people that ordinary folks cannot function with six or eight beers in the head, and that they ought to seek treatment for their condition but it just doesn't. No tolerance for alcohol behind the wheel.
It's bizarre - it ought to occur to such people that ordinary folks cannot function with six or eight beers in the head, and that they ought to seek treatment for their condition but it just doesn't. No tolerance for alcohol behind the wheel.
But I guess my phone doesn't have a nanny? Are we planning to nanny the entire world?
Putting a nanny on a car is just stupid. Especially because, surprise, surprise, passengers actually do sometimes ride in cars!
This is simply not the job of the car.
Putting a nanny on a car is just stupid. Especially because, surprise, surprise, passengers actually do sometimes ride in cars!
This is simply not the job of the car.
Then let the passenger do that shit on their own phone. Why do you need them entering stuff into the car's nav unit? That shit is distracting anyway. Don't half-ass shit. Besides, we all know you want to fucking watch TV while you drive.
Because if someone crashes and dies while fiddling about with the GPS, their family might sue. Two lines of code to prevent a potential slew of multi-million dollar lawsuits is an easy risk-benefit decision for the manufacturer. They don't have to bear the cost of being slightly annoyed by the GPS and they know that customers don't check that sort of thing before they buy.
Maybe a solution is for someone to sue the next time a car is navigating to the wrong place or otherwise misconfigured, there’s a passenger in the car, and the car won’t let the passenger fix it.
(Almost every modern car knows when there is a passenger in the front passenger seat — they could feed this knowledge to the infotainment system.)
(Almost every modern car knows when there is a passenger in the front passenger seat — they could feed this knowledge to the infotainment system.)
Sure, but that's tangential to this sub-thread.
The GP is taking the nanny-ware as a given, and narrowly asking why the passenger isn't allowed to bypass it.
I'm pointing out that cars don't have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). That it works this way isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't looked into it.
The GP is taking the nanny-ware as a given, and narrowly asking why the passenger isn't allowed to bypass it.
I'm pointing out that cars don't have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use(). That it works this way isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't looked into it.
> I’m pointing out that cars don’t have a is_occupied_by_human(), just car_seat_weight() and seat_belt_in_use().
Um, except they actually do, and its used to control safety-related equipment (passenger=side airbag), safety notifications (passenger airbag and seatbelt lights), and alarms (passenger seatbelt not in use when seat occupied alarm).
It may not be wired into the infotainment system, though.
Um, except they actually do, and its used to control safety-related equipment (passenger=side airbag), safety notifications (passenger airbag and seatbelt lights), and alarms (passenger seatbelt not in use when seat occupied alarm).
It may not be wired into the infotainment system, though.
Yeah, my car shows similar on startup.
"Our infotainment system is a danger for anyone to use because of the terrible design. Please press "I agree" to confirm it is all your fault and responsibility somehow." Mercifully but even more ridiculous, it just goes away without being pressed when you start driving.
"Our infotainment system is a danger for anyone to use because of the terrible design. Please press "I agree" to confirm it is all your fault and responsibility somehow." Mercifully but even more ridiculous, it just goes away without being pressed when you start driving.
> it just goes away without being pressed when you start driving.
Some don't, I'm afraid to say.
"If you ignore this automatic popup warning in order to focus on driving, the screen will continue to display the message indefinitely at maximum brightness to distract or blind you for your entire trip until you take your attention away from the road to turn it off."
Some don't, I'm afraid to say.
"If you ignore this automatic popup warning in order to focus on driving, the screen will continue to display the message indefinitely at maximum brightness to distract or blind you for your entire trip until you take your attention away from the road to turn it off."
"And of course you need your screen to run the AC so you have to press confirm anyway while driving"
Thats a huge PITA on newer cars. On both, mine (Skoda) and my wife's (Nissan) I have to accept their data protection policy every time I start the car. The dialogue usually pops up a few seconds after I start driving.
I love google maps's insistence on trying to convince you to use driving mode when you start navigating by car. Of which literally every time I've done so I was you know starting to pull out of my driveway, airport parking lot, etc. They seem to have solved this recently by not giving you an option and just forcing you into driving mode.
My Chrysler does this. Thankfully the screen goes away on its own after some amount of time (I've never bothered to time it, but it's definitely seconds rather than minutes) if you don't click the Okay button.
[deleted]
Oh mazda...
In at least some Mazda models, you can replace the firmware in the entertainment system to eliminate that message. I’ve done it.
On my old 2014 Mazda 3, you could SSH in over USB Ethernet as root, and just edit the timeout delay in the console JavaScript files. That was great.
wow, this is the first time I've wished that my 2013 3 had the infotainment system
Do you _have_ to press ok or does it go away after a while?
It goes away on my Subaru (admittedly an older 2018) but it does obscure the rear camera. So if I want to start the car and back up immediately after, there's a delay. It's not painful, but I have gotten into the habit of using the mirrors instead, and the camera + sensor is very useful so I should not be doing that.
What an annoying "feature". Could that be the same thing as with other American idiosyncrasies, e.g. caution hot coffee is hot, objects in mirror might be closer than they appear, etc due to people being too litigation happy?
Please don't repeat stories without knowing the basis. What you're calling "hot coffee is hot" should be called "coffee stored at unnaturally high temperatures which cause 3rd degree burns is hot". Normal coffee does not lead to those burns. McDonalds put in a lot of effort, and probably money, to make it seem like "hurr durr it was just a dumb American being dumb". It's not that. The woman also didn't sue to become rich, only to cover her medical costs.
The story itself is quite tragic, and indeed everything you say is true.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that the warning label “CAUTION: Contents hot” on a paper cup is indeed pretty useless and likely exists as a result of this lawsuit — not because it will actually keep anyone from burning themselves (for that goal, you’d want it to say some variant of “our coffee is much hotter than what you make at home”), but because a bunch of lawyers thought it would make for an easier defense next time.
That’s the root cause right there.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that the warning label “CAUTION: Contents hot” on a paper cup is indeed pretty useless and likely exists as a result of this lawsuit — not because it will actually keep anyone from burning themselves (for that goal, you’d want it to say some variant of “our coffee is much hotter than what you make at home”), but because a bunch of lawyers thought it would make for an easier defense next time.
That’s the root cause right there.
On my Subaru (2019), as soon as I shift into reverse, the backup camera supersedes everything, including the silly notice. (The notice will also disappear if I ignore it.)
Things I think should be disallowed:
- traffic messages that are displayed by rotating through three or more screens; two is fine if necessary, as you can ingest all of it in short order; but to keep staring at it waiting for the third screen is just way too dangerous
- digital advertising billboards, for the same reason; these are even worse because the ads are generally poorly designed with tiny fonts that are hard to read at a glance
I have a strong preference for an analog speedometer for the same reasons. In an instant your eyes can discern whether you are accelerating or decelerating. On a digital display, with a measly 1 MPH resolution, you have to keep looking down over and over to determine if you are maintaining your speed.
- traffic messages that are displayed by rotating through three or more screens; two is fine if necessary, as you can ingest all of it in short order; but to keep staring at it waiting for the third screen is just way too dangerous
- digital advertising billboards, for the same reason; these are even worse because the ads are generally poorly designed with tiny fonts that are hard to read at a glance
I have a strong preference for an analog speedometer for the same reasons. In an instant your eyes can discern whether you are accelerating or decelerating. On a digital display, with a measly 1 MPH resolution, you have to keep looking down over and over to determine if you are maintaining your speed.
Aircraft with digital displays usually use a scrolling column of numbers analogous to a tape measure for critical information like airspeed and altitude. This provides information at a glance with digital precision and a more compact display because the full range doesn't need to be shown all the time.
Notably, some pre-glass cockpit military aircraft had (and some still have, e.g. B-1B) analog "tape" displays for these values as well. Only in the civilian sector were round dial gauges the standard right up to glass cockpits.
The digital speedometer on my vehicle is surrounded by an "analog" speedometer. I'm not sure why anyone would need it to determine whether they are accelerating or decelerating, but it's there.
If you want to maintain a particular speed, you need to know not only your current speed but also your acceleration. Otherwise you are frequently going to be slipping pretty far off your target before you notice. High latency control loops like that are an impediment to precision.
If you are accelerating at 1 mph per second, it can take up to an entire second for the digital display to indicate that you are accelerating at all, and, even then, you still don't know how fast you are accelerating. The resolution just isn't good enough.
If you are accelerating at 1 mph per second, it can take up to an entire second for the digital display to indicate that you are accelerating at all, and, even then, you still don't know how fast you are accelerating. The resolution just isn't good enough.
Humans can detect accelerations as low as .25 mph/s so while you might not know exactly what your acceleration rate is, you definitely would be aware that you are accelerating and whether your efforts to compensate are increasing or decreasing it. And these very low acceleration rates take a very long time to significantly alter your speed. On an analogue dial you probably wouldn't even notice the movement. In practice, maintaining speed in a vehicle is pretty darn simple.
> Humans can detect accelerations as low as .25 mph/s
Maybe under ideal conditions. Not while driving. And below .25 is still enough to have you drift off speed.
> you definitely would be aware that you are accelerating and whether your efforts to compensate are increasing or decreasing it.
It is by no means definite. It's very easy to drift off the correct speed when e.g. the slope of the road changes, even if you're trying not to.
Maybe under ideal conditions. Not while driving. And below .25 is still enough to have you drift off speed.
> you definitely would be aware that you are accelerating and whether your efforts to compensate are increasing or decreasing it.
It is by no means definite. It's very easy to drift off the correct speed when e.g. the slope of the road changes, even if you're trying not to.
With what level of precision are you trying to maintain constant speed? At .25 mph/s it takes 4 seconds to have a 1 mph change in speed. At highway speeds the change in your position from where you'd expect to be at perfectly constant velocity would be 0.8%, or about 3 feet off. That's nothing compared to the variability of your speedometer, which is only accurate to about +/- 10%. If you're a blue angel trying to fly in close formation at hundreds of miles per hour, yeah that's not good enough, but for a normal person driving on a road it is trivially simple to keep your speed within the margin of error of your speedometer.
You might be able to detect an acceleration, but I bet you can't accurate gauge how fast that acceleration is.
But why do you need to gauge rate of acceleration? If you're trying to maintain constant speed, you want an absence of acceleration.
It's easier to eyeball an angle at a glance than to read a number. Some digital speedos subtly change color as you approach and exceed the speed limit, which is a particularly elegant affordance.
That reminds me of the Citroën CX speedometer that was like a horizontal ribbon (probably a cylinder though):
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BQSdmmRemeg/maxresdefault.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BQSdmmRemeg/maxresdefault.jpg
Yep, it was a cylinder, here is a naked picture:
https://www.varaosahaku.fi/image/900/a/85/d62c83/path/mnt/ne...
https://www.varaosahaku.fi/image/900/a/85/d62c83/path/mnt/ne...
.jpg){kind=link}
Hmm, idk. I don't like their modeling approach.
Their dependent variable is the number of crashes per hour, scaled by the "population average" for segments of the same length. I guess this is fine so long as you look at the same areas. They give two tests to try and control. One is checking upstream crashes but I kind of suspect the signage is positioned where you're supposed to be extra careful due to increase risk, so that may not be relevant. The other is looking at the same areas before and after. This does seem like a fair argument.
They also include specific effects for exact date-hour combos, but I feel like this is a bad approach as you would want to ideally capture higher level weekday + hour seasonality traits; not specific date hours.
They say on the multi variate: > In particular, we show that clustering by segment-year-month reduces the standard error in half, clustering by just geography produces slightly smaller standard errors, controlling for rain more flexibly does not affect our results, not controlling at all for rain doubles our estimated treatment effect, not controlling for holidays increases our estimate slightly, and dropping hours immediately before and after campaign weeks (i.e., hours outside of campaign weeks that sometimes display fatality messages, see fig. S6) further increases our estimate
Which implies a lot of it may be random sample bias of the test set all being on worse weather days, even if they try to control for it here.
Regardless. I think it's a plausible analysis. The effect size is just 1-2% though.
Their dependent variable is the number of crashes per hour, scaled by the "population average" for segments of the same length. I guess this is fine so long as you look at the same areas. They give two tests to try and control. One is checking upstream crashes but I kind of suspect the signage is positioned where you're supposed to be extra careful due to increase risk, so that may not be relevant. The other is looking at the same areas before and after. This does seem like a fair argument.
They also include specific effects for exact date-hour combos, but I feel like this is a bad approach as you would want to ideally capture higher level weekday + hour seasonality traits; not specific date hours.
They say on the multi variate: > In particular, we show that clustering by segment-year-month reduces the standard error in half, clustering by just geography produces slightly smaller standard errors, controlling for rain more flexibly does not affect our results, not controlling at all for rain doubles our estimated treatment effect, not controlling for holidays increases our estimate slightly, and dropping hours immediately before and after campaign weeks (i.e., hours outside of campaign weeks that sometimes display fatality messages, see fig. S6) further increases our estimate
Which implies a lot of it may be random sample bias of the test set all being on worse weather days, even if they try to control for it here.
Regardless. I think it's a plausible analysis. The effect size is just 1-2% though.
How do they control for situations where the sign is displaying a traffic alert that preempts the informational display?
Presumably, if the sign is displaying "congestion ahead" warnings, then traffic has often already slowed to a crawl, which could lead to a few percentage point decrease in crashes.
Also, unless the signs were placed poorly, they're likely in high-congestion areas, and frequently toggling between normal and congested display modes.
Presumably, if the sign is displaying "congestion ahead" warnings, then traffic has often already slowed to a crawl, which could lead to a few percentage point decrease in crashes.
Also, unless the signs were placed poorly, they're likely in high-congestion areas, and frequently toggling between normal and congested display modes.
Seems they're looking at the same areas across their analysis. That is, they always have signs. The question is whether the signs are specifically within the campaign period showing the crash number message.
This should be replicated outside of Texas. When I lived there my coworkers and I used to get a good laugh at the traffic signs like "do not drive into water". Who could be so dumb?
Actually of course texans are no dumber or smarter than anyone else, but there were very many opportunities for a laugh, parallel to the "known to the state of California to be harmful" signs. Still, it would be interesting to see if there are cultural differences before drawing too broad a conclusion.
Actually of course texans are no dumber or smarter than anyone else, but there were very many opportunities for a laugh, parallel to the "known to the state of California to be harmful" signs. Still, it would be interesting to see if there are cultural differences before drawing too broad a conclusion.
People drive into water all the time. They see water across the road, and using past experience of the road conclude that the road surface is only a few inches below the water. Better wet than late so they decide to drive through it. Except unknown to them, the water washed out the road and they fall into a trench deep enough to wreck their car or worse.
It's so easy to find videos of this online. People should know better but hubris is a hell of a drug. Anyway, I doubt the signs help much.
It's so easy to find videos of this online. People should know better but hubris is a hell of a drug. Anyway, I doubt the signs help much.
The solution, here at least, is fit snorkels and winches and to drive in pairs.
Always interesting in the wet season. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zPIbaE_nI
Always interesting in the wet season. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3zPIbaE_nI
I have had a long standing suspicion that the proposed attentional mechanism is the same reason why nagging someone almost never actually helps get something done, because it shifts their attention away from the actual activity and toward a negative social interaction.
Far better to restructure the environment so that the person can get the work done. In the case of traffic deaths we have really good data that says that you should change the structure of streets and roads so that people instinctively drive safely.
Far better to restructure the environment so that the person can get the work done. In the case of traffic deaths we have really good data that says that you should change the structure of streets and roads so that people instinctively drive safely.
1] never nag some one to do something, while also expecting them to abandon doing something that was previously nagged about.
2] when some one shifts focus to do something, and is nagged to do exactly that thing, the chance of it being done, with quality, or at all, will approach zero.
2] when some one shifts focus to do something, and is nagged to do exactly that thing, the chance of it being done, with quality, or at all, will approach zero.
Sounds sort of like the near-irresistible impulse to achieve the high score in the "Your Speed Is" sign game.
I was bummed when they capped the reading at 70 on the signs in the I-5 mountain passes in Oregon, but that's Oregon for you, I guess. At least they let you pump your own gas now.
I was bummed when they capped the reading at 70 on the signs in the I-5 mountain passes in Oregon, but that's Oregon for you, I guess. At least they let you pump your own gas now.
Near my parents house they painted dots on a dangerous road with signs "keep 2 dots apart". The dots didn't make much a different until someone painted pacman about to eat one of the dots on the road. Now the DOT repaints that pacman and thee average following distance is longer.
Reminds me of the "Werther Effect," a phenomenon where the publicity of suicides leads to a spike in suicide rates, particularly when reported in a sensationalist manner. - If the same principle applies to traffic crashes, then it's vital that to consider how and if this needs to be presented to the driver.
Edit: Changed the last paragraph to apply it to traffic.
Edit: Changed the last paragraph to apply it to traffic.
I think that displaying this information on those DMS is a bad idea unless you give it some context.
In Texas they throw up the message similar to "1669 deaths this year on Texas roads" as in the article. Drivers who read the sign have no way of knowing whether this is lower than, higher than, or about the same as the number of deaths for that date in previous years. As the year goes by the number gets larger but there is still no context.
A better way to convey this information if you are going to do it at all would be use a reward/penalty message format that is readily understandable at highway speeds.
The message should be simple. For example - "Texas Traffic Fatalities lower this year than last. Good Job! Drive Friendly" or "Texas Traffic Fatalities higher this year than last. Drive Friendly"
That tells anyone reading exactly what they need to know and the message highlighting an improvement contains a simple reward message. When drivers become accustomed to seeing the message in this format they will immediately recognize that fatalities must be higher because the reward is missing from the message. That could trigger an effort to drive more safely.
Personally I hate the DMS signs and billboards. In a world where I made the rules there would be no billboards at all as the immortal Ogden Nash said:
I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree.
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all. -- Ogden Nash (after Joyce Kilmer's poem about trees)
I would not allow any form of dynamic advertising along roads or highways. That means that if billboards are allowed there would be no LED billboards flashing a new message periodically and distracting drivers. All allowed billboards would be totally static and unless they advertised critical services for travelers they would be unlit at night. That means that no lighted billboards unless they are advertising travel-related infrastructure such as restaurants, clean restroom facilities available for travelers, auto towing, maintenance, or repair shops, etc. All advertised infrastructure can only be lighted during the hours when it is open and available for use by travelers. If the business is closed then the lights must be off.
There are already too many distractions for drivers with dash-mounted tablets, cell phone holders, navigation screens, and drivers do not need flashing shit along the road to distract them from the important task of maintaining a safe following distance from other traffic and monitoring other drivers on the road while scanning the highway for hazards along their route like traffic light status, objects in the roadway, unsecured loads, etc.
In Texas they throw up the message similar to "1669 deaths this year on Texas roads" as in the article. Drivers who read the sign have no way of knowing whether this is lower than, higher than, or about the same as the number of deaths for that date in previous years. As the year goes by the number gets larger but there is still no context.
A better way to convey this information if you are going to do it at all would be use a reward/penalty message format that is readily understandable at highway speeds.
The message should be simple. For example - "Texas Traffic Fatalities lower this year than last. Good Job! Drive Friendly" or "Texas Traffic Fatalities higher this year than last. Drive Friendly"
That tells anyone reading exactly what they need to know and the message highlighting an improvement contains a simple reward message. When drivers become accustomed to seeing the message in this format they will immediately recognize that fatalities must be higher because the reward is missing from the message. That could trigger an effort to drive more safely.
Personally I hate the DMS signs and billboards. In a world where I made the rules there would be no billboards at all as the immortal Ogden Nash said:
I think that I shall never see a billboard lovely as a tree.
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall, I'll never see a tree at all. -- Ogden Nash (after Joyce Kilmer's poem about trees)
I would not allow any form of dynamic advertising along roads or highways. That means that if billboards are allowed there would be no LED billboards flashing a new message periodically and distracting drivers. All allowed billboards would be totally static and unless they advertised critical services for travelers they would be unlit at night. That means that no lighted billboards unless they are advertising travel-related infrastructure such as restaurants, clean restroom facilities available for travelers, auto towing, maintenance, or repair shops, etc. All advertised infrastructure can only be lighted during the hours when it is open and available for use by travelers. If the business is closed then the lights must be off.
There are already too many distractions for drivers with dash-mounted tablets, cell phone holders, navigation screens, and drivers do not need flashing shit along the road to distract them from the important task of maintaining a safe following distance from other traffic and monitoring other drivers on the road while scanning the highway for hazards along their route like traffic light status, objects in the roadway, unsecured loads, etc.
The rest of your comment, I agree with but:
> That tells anyone reading exactly what they need to know and the message highlighting an improvement contains a simple reward message
Do they need to know it though? Is someone going to see that, and adjust what they're doing because numbers are trending up? It seems unlikely.
If you have to show something, how about a standard caution sign that says "elevated accident zone"? It conveys everything that /might/ be helpful, is highly relevant to the specific area the driver is in, and does not require critical thinking (numbers up? numbers down? how does this affect me? Is it for this spot, or all of Texas?). Caution signs are also taught as part of driver's ed as warning of road hazards - deer crossing, falling rocks, etc.
> That tells anyone reading exactly what they need to know and the message highlighting an improvement contains a simple reward message
Do they need to know it though? Is someone going to see that, and adjust what they're doing because numbers are trending up? It seems unlikely.
If you have to show something, how about a standard caution sign that says "elevated accident zone"? It conveys everything that /might/ be helpful, is highly relevant to the specific area the driver is in, and does not require critical thinking (numbers up? numbers down? how does this affect me? Is it for this spot, or all of Texas?). Caution signs are also taught as part of driver's ed as warning of road hazards - deer crossing, falling rocks, etc.
>Is someone going to see that, and adjust what they're doing because numbers are trending up? It seems unlikely.
The data cited shows that the negative message they currently employ has an effect on the accident rate: multi-vehicle accidents increase in proximity to the signs.
This suggest that some drivers see the message and react by adjusting their driving and that other drivers near them either do not see the sign, do not make adjustments, or are not paying enough attention to the road to notice that a driver in their hazard zone has made an adjustment that will cause an accident if they don't react similarly.
It may be that some drivers see the sign and slow down or change lanes to a slower traffic lane while the driver behind them is too close and this speed or lane change leads to a collision.
Using the signs to highlight sections of highway with higher than average accident rates sounds like a good idea. It would be especially useful on interstates affected by sudden heavy rainfall where ponding leads to hydroplaning at ordinary safe speeds for a dry highway. There is a long stretch of interstate west of FtWorth where this is a problem due to the number of curves and the crown of the road not allowing rain to flow to the shoulders fast enough to prevent ponding.
While it is true that caution signs and things like this are part of driver's ed, that doesn't mean that they make it into the actual practice part of every driver's skillsets. In my view, everyone should be required to take a defensive driving test at least every 5 years so that the lessons about focusing on driving and minimizing accident potential are set in stone. Ordinary drivers ed covers this ground but most drivers never have to revisit the safe driving habits after getting licensed unless their employer requires defensive driving or they get a ticket and opt for ticket dismissal thru defensive driving course.
The data cited shows that the negative message they currently employ has an effect on the accident rate: multi-vehicle accidents increase in proximity to the signs.
This suggest that some drivers see the message and react by adjusting their driving and that other drivers near them either do not see the sign, do not make adjustments, or are not paying enough attention to the road to notice that a driver in their hazard zone has made an adjustment that will cause an accident if they don't react similarly.
It may be that some drivers see the sign and slow down or change lanes to a slower traffic lane while the driver behind them is too close and this speed or lane change leads to a collision.
Using the signs to highlight sections of highway with higher than average accident rates sounds like a good idea. It would be especially useful on interstates affected by sudden heavy rainfall where ponding leads to hydroplaning at ordinary safe speeds for a dry highway. There is a long stretch of interstate west of FtWorth where this is a problem due to the number of curves and the crown of the road not allowing rain to flow to the shoulders fast enough to prevent ponding.
While it is true that caution signs and things like this are part of driver's ed, that doesn't mean that they make it into the actual practice part of every driver's skillsets. In my view, everyone should be required to take a defensive driving test at least every 5 years so that the lessons about focusing on driving and minimizing accident potential are set in stone. Ordinary drivers ed covers this ground but most drivers never have to revisit the safe driving habits after getting licensed unless their employer requires defensive driving or they get a ticket and opt for ticket dismissal thru defensive driving course.
> This suggest that some drivers see the message and react by adjusting their driving and that other drivers near them either do not see the sign, do not make adjustments, or are not paying enough attention to the road to notice that a driver in their hazard zone has made an adjustment that will cause an accident if they don't react similarly.
This is all potentially true, but an equally valid interpretation of the limited data is that the larger sign requires more cognitive overhead, resulting in less attention given to the road.
> take a defensive driving test at least every 5 years so that the lessons
Yes, especially here in the US where it's really easy to get a license to drive. A cultural shift would help too, because right now it's all about "Well, it's not my fault" - as if the accident and potential fallout is less important than who bears financial responsibility. In /most/ cases, there are defensive steps a driver could have taken to avoid an accident even if they were not directly at fault, but we don't emphasize that enough. (Or at all?)
This is all potentially true, but an equally valid interpretation of the limited data is that the larger sign requires more cognitive overhead, resulting in less attention given to the road.
> take a defensive driving test at least every 5 years so that the lessons
Yes, especially here in the US where it's really easy to get a license to drive. A cultural shift would help too, because right now it's all about "Well, it's not my fault" - as if the accident and potential fallout is less important than who bears financial responsibility. In /most/ cases, there are defensive steps a driver could have taken to avoid an accident even if they were not directly at fault, but we don't emphasize that enough. (Or at all?)
Ohio has a good implementation of safety messages in my opinion: http://zerodeaths.ohio.gov/create-your-message.aspx
Whoever they have picking messages is doing a really good job keeping things consistently corny.
Around here, the signs flip between time and distance to other highways or cities and a safety message. If there is an accident closing lanes, that's displayed instead of the safety message. The signs seem okay at night. Nothing like blinding billboards.
Whoever they have picking messages is doing a really good job keeping things consistently corny.
Around here, the signs flip between time and distance to other highways or cities and a safety message. If there is an accident closing lanes, that's displayed instead of the safety message. The signs seem okay at night. Nothing like blinding billboards.
That page almost looks like anyone can submit a message. That's a pretty good idea.
I think the message has a more positive impact if it emphasizes positive things or uses humor. Texas, with their focus on depressing stats with no context, loses out by alienating drivers.
I think the message has a more positive impact if it emphasizes positive things or uses humor. Texas, with their focus on depressing stats with no context, loses out by alienating drivers.
Texas resident, in my experience they display those stats when nothing else is going on. So mostly right now they are always about staying indoors to avoid the heat or that the air quality is low so limit activity. They actually do all sorts of jokes or mention some major event in the area, like Texas vs. OU. I personally just appreciate the traffic warnings.
The article says they display those stats monthly beginning one week before their monthly meeting.
Anyway fellow Texan, I too appreciate the traffic data the most. Just tell me before I get to my exit whether I should consider a different route due to traffic or unusual events. Provide actionable information and stop all the dumbass silver warnings and missing person shit unless it can clearly be demonstrated that those warnings have helped locate a missing person or an old person who just needed to get away.
Anyway fellow Texan, I too appreciate the traffic data the most. Just tell me before I get to my exit whether I should consider a different route due to traffic or unusual events. Provide actionable information and stop all the dumbass silver warnings and missing person shit unless it can clearly be demonstrated that those warnings have helped locate a missing person or an old person who just needed to get away.
Texans know that they need more "masculine" slogans for road signs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Mess_with_Texas
This works if you pair the message with a Texas icon like Willie Nelson. Maybe today those redneck bastards that keep tossing their trash from their trucks into the ditch in front of my property would keep in their trucks for the last two miles to their houses if a native Texas gal like Miranda Lambert delivered the message.
It's worth a try.
It's worth a try.
Click It or Ticket needs to go
I agree. Since they made seatbelts mandatory about 40 years ago there is no need to remind people to comply since there is no excuse for them not knowing the law and the purpose for it. Just ticket their dumb asses if you catch them with unbelted.
better yet repeal the law entirely
Highly recommend this "If Books Could Kill" episode on the concept of "nudges": https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nudge-part-1-a-simple-... (critical of the concept but I think quite fair and well-researched)
I don't even think it's a cognitive overload thing, it's a "oh shit, you're right, this is hard, skirrrrt" sort of thing.
Like telling someone they will do badly on a test and comparing them with a control group that isn't told that. Reverse placebo effect.
Like telling someone they will do badly on a test and comparing them with a control group that isn't told that. Reverse placebo effect.
Haven't owned a car for years, but when I did, those signs just never... hit.. enough to warrant a significant behavior change. Obviously it is a lot, but that's just not how it feels while on the road. Can't imagine I'm the only one.
That is the problem - it is really hard to figure out how anyone would make a change. either you know how to drive safe and you do, or you don't and think you do. I've never seen anyone back off to the recommended 2 second following distance for example. (that is something I know about and do - but I have no idea what other safety advice now exists that I don't even know of)
When I learned to drive, we were taught hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel. Apparently now, my kid was taught 9 and 3 or even 8 and 4 because modern cars with steering wheel airbags are more likely to injure you if your hands are placed the old way.
I somewhat recently got my drivers license and was taught to never grip the steering wheel with my thumbs on the inside because, and I quote my government certified instructor, "The airbag will rip your thumbs clean off."
No clue if that's true, but it doesn't seem entirely unlikely so my thumbs don't go inside the wheel.
No clue if that's true, but it doesn't seem entirely unlikely so my thumbs don't go inside the wheel.
TLDR the strategy - "Let's add attention grabbing signs on poorly designed roads that are know to be dangerous instead of improving the road themselves" does not work.
[deleted]
Having signs on the side showing complex information (how is that metric defined, exactly?) unrelated to the task at hand (driving safely) won’t help much.
Showing relevant information with a clear impact on the driver has proven to work effectively: have color-coded feedback telling you that your insurance premium just went up when you drive too fast, erratically, too close to the car in front don’t look ahead, or turn without checking behind the mirrors and behind you.
Showing relevant information with a clear impact on the driver has proven to work effectively: have color-coded feedback telling you that your insurance premium just went up when you drive too fast, erratically, too close to the car in front don’t look ahead, or turn without checking behind the mirrors and behind you.
how about you don't "nudge" i.e. attempt mass mind control in the first place. it's the same thing as dark patterns. involuntary experimentation on people, driven by analytics. if lying to people helps reduce car crashes by 1% and dog bites by 5%, let's roll out our lying operation nationwide
Do you think that there are no "nudges" if nobody comes along and tries to "nudge"? The situation as-is is not some kind of default that's nudge-free. Whenever someone makes a decision, it probably results in some kind of "nudge".
Accepting this reality, and working with it, is completely different from "mass mind control". Any time a city decides which streets to repair, it's a nudge. Any time a city decides which streets to renovate at the same time, it's another nudge. Any time a city decides not to repair streets it's a nudge. How do you get out of this "nudge-less"?
Accepting this reality, and working with it, is completely different from "mass mind control". Any time a city decides which streets to repair, it's a nudge. Any time a city decides which streets to renovate at the same time, it's another nudge. Any time a city decides not to repair streets it's a nudge. How do you get out of this "nudge-less"?
we can't stop nuking people because supervolcanoes exist and we can't let the supervolcanoes win. accepting the reality that you can propagandize and deceive your countrymen on an industrial scale. yes, I accept that reality. and I accept that you are the enemy when you do that. at least if you coerce them out of their money to do it
how about you fix the streets when people complain that the street in front of their house is fucked? or better yet stop promising people you can fix their streets if they continue to pay their taxes and stop arresting people who fix their own streets? what are you even talking about lol
how about you fix the streets when people complain that the street in front of their house is fucked? or better yet stop promising people you can fix their streets if they continue to pay their taxes and stop arresting people who fix their own streets? what are you even talking about lol
I tried re-reading your comment multiple times, but it doesn't make any sense. Could you try re-phrasing it clearly? What are you talking about with supervolcanoes and nukes and industrial-scale deception? Who do I coerce out of what money to make me an enemy?
I've made a clear point in my previous comment. Please engage with it directly.
I've made a clear point in my previous comment. Please engage with it directly.
Firstly, I am mocking you. Nobody said you could eliminate every source of malign influence any more than you can prevent all domestic violence. Secondly, you support public funds for nudging. You have already admitted as much with your street story. Do we really need to have the conversation about how taxes aren't voluntary? Like... really?
Maybe you're not aware, but the thing about mother birds rejecting their chicks if they're touched by humans was a nudge. Not like an exaggeration or a miscommunication. A straight-up nudge. You literally funded your own scientific gaslighting hahaha.
Maybe that's not consequential enough for you. The thing about masks not working was a nudge so you wouldn't buy up all the masks. Then the thing about masks stopping the spread was a nudge. You got cross-nudged on the same issue by the same guy. And that doesn't even get into what people were told about medicine these last few years.
Go ahead and defend your ludicrous utilitarianism where you can monitor and track and account for all possible consequences of your publicly-funded disinformation via your surveillance state.
What of the people who die because your deliberate falsehoods? Do they get restitution? Or they're just collateral damage on the avenue to utopia?
Maybe you're not aware, but the thing about mother birds rejecting their chicks if they're touched by humans was a nudge. Not like an exaggeration or a miscommunication. A straight-up nudge. You literally funded your own scientific gaslighting hahaha.
Maybe that's not consequential enough for you. The thing about masks not working was a nudge so you wouldn't buy up all the masks. Then the thing about masks stopping the spread was a nudge. You got cross-nudged on the same issue by the same guy. And that doesn't even get into what people were told about medicine these last few years.
Go ahead and defend your ludicrous utilitarianism where you can monitor and track and account for all possible consequences of your publicly-funded disinformation via your surveillance state.
What of the people who die because your deliberate falsehoods? Do they get restitution? Or they're just collateral damage on the avenue to utopia?
> Firstly, I am mocking you.
Thank you for being upfront with this, I'll end the conversation here. You've either fundamentally misunderstood my point or are arguing in the worst faith possible. Either way it doesn't make sense to talk any further. Have a nice day!
Thank you for being upfront with this, I'll end the conversation here. You've either fundamentally misunderstood my point or are arguing in the worst faith possible. Either way it doesn't make sense to talk any further. Have a nice day!
I graciously accept your surrender.
Anyone have any idea what the deal is with California's new:
If I get a speeding ticket, can I just argue that the sign's use of the future tense clearly indicates the lowered speed limit doesn't apply yet?
The 55 MPH Speed Limit Will Be Enforced
If I get a speeding ticket, can I just argue that the sign's use of the future tense clearly indicates the lowered speed limit doesn't apply yet?
The word "will" isn't strictly future tense. It also conveys purpose or intent. e.g. "If you suggest a silly reading of a traffic sign, I will explain why you're being ridiculous."
It still will be the future though unless he's getting radar'd at the exact moment he is reading the sign, which is highly unlikely.
No, the unspoken preceding clause for that sign is "if you are speeding". i.e., "if you are speeding, then speed limit will be enforced."
That's why I formulated my silly example the way I did, but I guess I was being too subtle.
That's why I formulated my silly example the way I did, but I guess I was being too subtle.
Yes but California's speed limit also "is" enforced, now and for some stretch of the recent past and for some stretch in the near future, in the habitual aspect. Language!
I've still yet to win, or see anybody win a traffic case based on technicalities like this. But if you have a traffic lawyer, he can probably 'convince' the judge over a game of golf to accept your argument.
I'm pretty sure that the way it works is your lawyer "convinces" the prosecutor to drop the charges, in exchange for a kickback.
Hmmm, I generally remember those in construction zones. Have they started putting them elsewhere?
And generally don't those say "Strictly Enforced"? The implication being that they will bust you even for 56 in a 55 (generally, again, because it's a construction zone).
Finally, I seem to remember that the issue is that California has a relatively (couple years old) new law that a speed limit must demonstrate that it is at the 80% point or has an explicitly documented exception or it's challengable. Presumably, these signs fall into the "explicitly documented exception" category.
And generally don't those say "Strictly Enforced"? The implication being that they will bust you even for 56 in a 55 (generally, again, because it's a construction zone).
Finally, I seem to remember that the issue is that California has a relatively (couple years old) new law that a speed limit must demonstrate that it is at the 80% point or has an explicitly documented exception or it's challengable. Presumably, these signs fall into the "explicitly documented exception" category.
Go ahead and try it, then let me know how it works out for you.
I hate dynamic speed limit signs so much. You don't need to tell me that the recommended speed is 30mph in bumper-bumper traffic. It's patronizing and that money could have been better spent elsewhere, like on things which reduce actual traffic such as highway merge lights (the kind that you wait at before getting on the highway).
It is the future as soon as you finish reading it. You can definitely unsuccessfully make that argument though.
I’m pretty sure we do driver harrowing on purpose, here in Portugal. This is not to excuse rash driving, which is rampant, but rather to indicate the presence of sadistic individuals in our roadway infrastructure safety and design areas.
Adding any sort of complexity / unnecessary information will do that. Not quite following why this requires a study.
Because in the US verbose, complex and bespoke signage is commonplace so clearly the powers that be do not have an intuitive grasp of this concept.
Editorialized title on this submission. The year of this article is 2022, which isn’t reflected in the HN title.
Actual title: “Can behavioral interventions be too salient? Evidence from traffic safety messages”
[deleted]