but was wearing earphones
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/8404263/toll-from-headphone-clad-pedestrians-triples
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
the pedestrian wasnt wearing a helmet....
(22 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
I wonder if, in the same period, the wearing of headphones has tripled?
Posted 13 years ago # -
More than half of the incidents involved pedestrians who were run down by trains.
Perhaps if they were not on the train tracks half the accidents could have been avoided!
Posted 13 years ago # -
I have been hearing about this over the past couple of days but haven't seen any number.
"The annual tally rose from 16 in 2004 to 47 in 2011, bringing the total of cases to 116 over this period, say the authors."
And wow, that is a very small number. The total pedestrian death toll in the US must be enormous surely? So 47 must be a teeny percentage of it, even if it is three times more than 16. Is it really significant?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Apparently between 2000 and 2009 47,700 poedestrians were killed in the US. For th sake of convenience let's say that's 4,770 a year. 47 conveniently being... 1%
Mind oyu, it's actually all Michelle Obama's fault.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Haha, yes I have just being trying to look it up and came up with the same story!
From the stories that have been going around I was kind of expecting some sort of zombie pedestrian holocaust. In actually it seems to be pretty rare at 1%?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yes, but need to blame ANYONE but the drivers! We could save 47 lives if we only stop people listening to music while walking!
What's that? The other 4,623? Erm... We'll get back to you.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Indeed. ;-)
It would appear that by far the biggest danger is from;
Drunk peds-35%
Drunk drivers 40%
Speeding drivers 31%(Maybe any percentage non-adding up is from drunk AND speeding drivers or speeding drivers plus drunk peds.)
http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm
Bit of a moral panic over not very much?
Posted 13 years ago # -
It may not necessarily be a case of the ped not noticing the car that hit them - maybe they saw it and misjudged its approach?
Entirely anecdotal of course, but I take WAY more risks in crossing roads when I'm listening to stuff on headphones than when I'm not wearing them.
For whatever reason, I will cross the road in front of cars that in a un-headphoned state I would allow to pass before crossing. And, weirdly, my conscious mind notices it once I'm a few steps into the road "You wouldn't normally do this..."
Posted 13 years ago # -
Bad Journalism warning label required I think.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Here is the article, I don't know if you will be able to read it but I will look at it tonight.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2012/01/03/injuryprev-2011-040161.long
But at a quick glance, this is extremely odd:-
"Eighty-six of the 116 cases (74%) had an ‘A’ evidence grade, meaning that the police and/or eyewitnesses reported the victim was wearing headphones at the time of the crash. Thirty-four of the 116 (29%) reports specifically mention horns or sirens being sounded prior to the victim being hit."
So um, 30 of the 116 victims were not wearing headphones after all??
Posted 13 years ago # -
Maybe it was 'suggested' they were wearing headphones, or it was assumed because they didn't react to the horn?
PS, that's an interesting observation - kinda like missing the unicycling/juggling bear, but more seeing it and thinking 'mmm, yeah' and carrying on...
Posted 13 years ago # -
That's pretty much it. I'm guessing the headphones give a certain detachment from surroundings. Or just a cool soundtrack that makes you feel invincible.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Aha, you're strutting along to the Theme from Shaft and the like? That explains it... ;)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Damm right....
Posted 13 years ago # -
Can you dig it?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Shut your mouth!
Posted 13 years ago # -
The trawl of US accident statistics covered iPods, MP3 players and other musical devices. It did not include mobile phones.
There's a statistical flaw right away!
This morning, waiting for the Aberdeen train I observed the passengers disembark. Trailing at the rear of the rushing commuters were a gaggle of half a dozen (presumably unrelated) young men (all under 30), ambling/stumbling along, peering at their mobiles (held out in front of them in mid-air!) and not looking where they were going AT ALL.
It was so comical I shook my head in disbelief.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@Min
So um, 30 of the 116 victims were not wearing headphones after all??It's asking for a password to access it, so I can't see what evidence grades B and C mean, but I'd downgrade their A to a B. Surely category A should be a witness who heard music from the victim's headphones? When I used to walk into work I'd hit Pause when crossing roads, but I'd not bother taking them out. I didn't use inner-ear phones so there wasn't anything like as much of a plugging effect.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Okay, I'll try do a quick rundown of it Uberuce.
Crowriver "There's a statistical flaw right away!"
Well not really as the study is only looking at headphone use. If your mobile phone does not have headphones in it then it is not headphone use.
"Eighty-six of the 116 cases (74%) had an ‘A’ evidence grade, meaning that the police and/or eyewitnesses reported the victim was wearing headphones at the time of the crash."
Solved this mystery. Cats B and C mean that according to the Police the victim MAY have been wearing headphones or the article did not make clear who said they were or that headphones were found near the victims body.
However this is the main problem with this particular piece of research:-
From the report:"This report has several major limitations. First it relies on media reporting which likely over-publishes tragic events but vastly under-publishes non-fatal cases"
Yes. And it also over-reports on things it has a moral outrage over, such as headphone use.
Really. They got their info from googling a few media sites. That is where the statistics ultimately come from.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Thanks Min. Between you, Ruggtomcat and Anth, I think my opinion is pretty much covered; poor reporting of a poorly conducted study that seeks to absolve people of responsibility.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yeah, so "Slacker dude wandering zombie like while checking cellphone gets leg crushed by Humvee, survives." didn't come up in the search results, huh?
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
