Most absurd VMS messages

[kalvado]

Actually, I'd say that public safety messages like this shouldn't refer to pop culture/works of fiction at all. Unless it's part of the school curriculum, there's no guarantee that any given motorist has consumed some bit of media, and without the needed context the message is likely to not be readily understood.

This is where many people (not me) would butt in and say ITS JUST COMMON SENSE.

And of course you've explained above why that is a flawed argument, because common sense is only common to those with a common experience.

(On the other hand, we do find we often have to live by certain philosophies, flawed or not, or else we'll find ourselves at an insurmountable societal disadvantage...)

I would look at things differently.
Can an unclear message harm anyone? I would say the possibility is pretty remote. Not more than a confusing custom license plate or a sticker on a car.
Can a message which rings the bell for only a small group still do any good? Most likely yes. Those few star wars fan smiling and easing their foot mean that the message worked - as long as we assume that slow down of the flow is a good idea.

[Rothman]

People need to get with the times rather than making VMS messages boring.

[Scott5114]

People need to get with the times rather than making VMS messages boring.

[kphoger]

I would look at things differently.
Can an unclear message harm anyone? I would say the possibility is pretty remote. Not more than a confusing custom license plate or a sticker on a car.
Can a message which rings the bell for only a small group still do any good? Most likely yes. Those few star wars fan smiling and easing their foot mean that the message worked - as long as we assume that slow down of the flow is a good idea.

I would look at things differently.

Is there a message that would covey the same meaning to a greater number of people?  Then use that message instead.

[kalvado]

I would look at things differently.
Can an unclear message harm anyone? I would say the possibility is pretty remote. Not more than a confusing custom license plate or a sticker on a car.
Can a message which rings the bell for only a small group still do any good? Most likely yes. Those few star wars fan smiling and easing their foot mean that the message worked - as long as we assume that slow down of the flow is a good idea.

I would look at things differently.

Is there a message that would covey the same meaning to a greater number of people?  Then use that message instead.

What about efficiency of the message? Would anyone respond to regular "please slow down" these days? It may be crystal clear to most. ..

[kphoger]

What about efficiency of the message? Would anyone respond to regular "please slow down" these days? It may be crystal clear to most. ..

You're suggesting that more people take their foot of the gas pedal based on a Star Wars -themed message?

[Scott5114]

Given that the existence of real financial penalties isn't enough to make most people slow down, I kind of doubt any VMS message could accomplish that particular task.

At least with a seat belt message, it could cause someone who merely forgot to buckle up to do so.

[hotdogPi]

Given that the existence of real financial penalties isn't enough to make most people slow down, I kind of doubt any VMS message could accomplish that particular task.

Someone said they couldn't see this type of image (below), but I can. Maybe it's the Chrome http bug?



(message is fictional)

[7/8]

Given that the existence of real financial penalties isn't enough to make most people slow down, I kind of doubt any VMS message could accomplish that particular task.

Someone said they couldn't see this type of image (below), but I can. Maybe it's the Chrome http bug?



(message is fictional)

Yep on my Chrome the image is blank, but I can right-click on it to open in a new tab and see it there. Meanwhile I just downloaded Firefox and it works fine there. I think I'll just Firefox for the forum from now on so I can see Oscar's and others' photos instead of that annoying Chrome issue.

[kphoger]

Given that the existence of real financial penalties isn't enough to make most people slow down, I kind of doubt any VMS message could accomplish that particular task.

Someone said they couldn't see this type of image (below), but I can. Maybe it's the Chrome http bug?



(message is fictional)

Every one drive 50 mph to avoid Kum & Go.

[US71]

Until about a year ago, there was an antique mall in Alma, AR that had a VMS sign advertising their store.

Now there's a message board outside a coffee shop at Mountainburg near the old Lake Fort Smith access road,

[kphoger]

Given that the existence of real financial penalties isn't enough to make most people slow down, I kind of doubt any VMS message could accomplish that particular task.

At least with a seat belt message, it could cause someone who merely forgot to buckle up to do so.

Which brings me back to this...

Or the department needs to choose between the following two options:

  (a)  A large subset of the population won't understand this message, so–in the interest of public safety–we should stop trying to be cute.

  (b)  These messages have no real impact on safety anyway, so we should stop displaying nanny messages.

1.  If people don't actually slow down because of the messages, then they're just noise–maybe even distracting drivers from the act of driving.

2.  I have mixed feelings about seat belt laws, but they certainly don't have an impact on safety other than to the person wearing it, so chalk that one up as a nanny message.

[abefroman329]

2.  I have mixed feelings about seat belt laws

Why?

, but they certainly don't have an impact on safety other than to the person wearing it

Safety...maybe, but I'm sure it would be incredibly traumatic for the driver of the other vehicle if the driver and/or passengers of vehicle A weren't wearing seatbelts and were killed or seriously injured.

[kphoger]

2.  I have mixed feelings about seat belt laws

Why?

Because I'm generally opposed to laws that do nothing but protect a person from his own decisions.  My general starting position when it comes to the law is that we should be free to do whatever we want until the point that it affects someone else.  Your wearing a seat belt has zero effect on the safety of anyone else on the road, so I think you should be free to choose not to wear it.

On the other hand, if I get in a car wreck, and my child is injured because he wasn't wearing a seat belt, then I also feel like I–as his parent–should be held responsible for that.

As I said, mixed feelings.

Similar arguments can be made about bicycle helmets.  I wear my seat belt every time I'm moving the car more than like 20 feet, but I don't even own a bicycle helmet anymore, and I wouldn't appreciate being legally obligated to wear one.

[abefroman329]

Similar arguments can be made about bicycle helmets.  I wear my seat belt every time I'm moving the car more than like 20 feet, but I don't even own a bicycle helmet anymore, and I wouldn't appreciate being legally obligated to wear one.

OK, but again, the driver of the vehicle that collides with you is gonna be pretty bummed about splattering your brains all over the road.

And neither of these scenarios take into account the cost to society of someone doing something foolhardy.  Frankly, I can't think of a single thing we as humans do that affect absolutely no one but ourselves.

[kalvado]

What about efficiency of the message? Would anyone respond to regular "please slow down" these days? It may be crystal clear to most. ..

You're suggesting that more people take their foot of the gas pedal based on a Star Wars -themed message?

I assume that more people would actually give such message a thought. Regular ones are much more likely to be treated as junk mail or white noise. So yes, unusual message have a potential of being more efficient.
I am on the same page as you in terms of zero effect of regular messages. This may be a bit better overall, even in only a fraction of drivers gets it. 

[empirestate]

Is there a message that would covey the same meaning to a greater number of people?  Then use that message instead.

Or, even better still, use both.

And, better or not, both is closer to the reality we have now–not all messages in the road currently are Star Wars-themed, but some might be, from time to time. So that would be the context within which to evaluate, rather than either/or.

[kphoger]

OK, but again, the driver of the vehicle that collides with you is gonna be pretty bummed about splattering your brains all over the road.

Making sure other people don't get "pretty bummed" isn't a good basis for lawmaking.  Besides, I'm sure the driver a vehicle that splatters a pedestrian's brains all over the road would be just as bummed/traumatized, but I never hear anyone suggest pedestrians should be required to wear helmets.

(For the record, I have collided with a vehicle three times while cycling.)

And neither of these scenarios take into account the cost to society of someone doing something foolhardy.  Frankly, I can't think of a single thing we as humans do that affect absolutely no one but ourselves.

Very good point.  No man is an island.

Still, though, I don't believe we should outlaw bacon and salami–even though heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the USA.  The cost to society of eating a lot of saturated fat is quite high, but that doesn't mean I believe it should be against the law.

[abefroman329]

Making sure other people don't get "pretty bummed" isn't a good basis for lawmaking.

Better tell your fellow Christians to stop trying to outlaw school curricula that makes white students feel bad about themselves, then.

Besides, I'm sure the driver a vehicle that splatters a pedestrian's brains all over the road would be just as bummed/traumatized, but I never hear anyone suggest pedestrians should be required to wear helmets.

Pedestrians don't travel at 20 MPH and, if they impact, say, a wall at walking speed, there is a close to 100% chance that they'll walk away without a scratch.

(For the record, I have collided with a vehicle three times while cycling.)

And how many of those collisions would have been avoided if you were traveling at walking speed and able to stop much faster/sooner?

Still, though, I don't believe we should outlaw bacon and salami–even though heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the USA.  The cost to society of eating a lot of saturated fat is quite high, but that doesn't mean I believe it should be against the law.

Well, no, it shouldn't be against the law, but if the health care costs for people who consume mass amounts of saturated fat are significantly higher than those who don't, then I wouldn't object to insurance companies charging more in premiums for people who consume mass amounts of saturated fat.

Or, to bring it full circle, people who ride bicycles without helmets.

[kalvado]

Making sure other people don't get "pretty bummed" isn't a good basis for lawmaking.

Better tell your fellow Christians to stop trying to outlaw school curricula that makes white students feel bad about themselves, then.

Besides, I'm sure the driver a vehicle that splatters a pedestrian's brains all over the road would be just as bummed/traumatized, but I never hear anyone suggest pedestrians should be required to wear helmets.

Pedestrians don't travel at 20 MPH and, if they impact, say, a wall at walking speed, there is a close to 100% chance that they'll walk away without a scratch.

(For the record, I have collided with a vehicle three times while cycling.)

And how many of those collisions would have been avoided if you were traveling at walking speed and able to stop much faster/sooner?

Still, though, I don't believe we should outlaw bacon and salami–even though heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the USA.  The cost to society of eating a lot of saturated fat is quite high, but that doesn't mean I believe it should be against the law.

Well, no, it shouldn't be against the law, but if the health care costs for people who consume mass amounts of saturated fat are significantly higher than those who don't, then I wouldn't object to insurance companies charging more in premiums for people who consume mass amounts of saturated fat.

Or, to bring it full circle, people who ride bicycles without helmets.

There is a lot of traditionalism in what is allowed and what is not.
Bacon and salami are OK because George Washington was eating those (just a wild guess). 
Aspirin is OK because people got used it, but it wouldn't be cleared for sale - moreso for non-prescription sale - by today's standard.
People like to compare marijuana and alcohol risks. Without getting too far off-topic, I would expect a lot of arguments for not permitting alcohol - more than for marijuana - if alcohol wasn't mainstream since ancient world. 

I can argue (tongue in cheek, obviously) for mandatory helmet in crosswalk, at least for kids; and <0.08 BAC in crosswalks for all ages. Last one would have a huge positive effect BTW. 

[kphoger]

Making sure other people don't get "pretty bummed" isn't a good basis for lawmaking.

Better tell your fellow Christians to stop trying to outlaw school curricula that makes white students feel bad about themselves, then.

I'm confused.  Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?  I actually suspect you're in favor of certain political positions based on an "individual liberty" standpoint but in favor of others based on a "cost to society" standpoint.  And really, most people probably do.  At least I'm honest enough to say I have mixed feelings about these issues.  And, for what it's worth, my fellow Christians I've personally spoken with about school curriculum (quite a few members of my church are public school teachers, for example) have likewise expressed mixed feelings about the issue;  I'm not going to get into why, because that would be both a political and also a religious discussion.

Besides, I'm sure the driver a vehicle that splatters a pedestrian's brains all over the road would be just as bummed/traumatized, but I never hear anyone suggest pedestrians should be required to wear helmets.

Pedestrians don't travel at 20 MPH and, if they impact, say, a wall at walking speed, there is a close to 100% chance that they'll walk away without a scratch.

Who's talking about a wall?  I'm talking about getting hit by a moving vehicle.  Whether you're a pedestrian going 3 mph or a cyclist going 15 mph, it's bad news to get hit by a car going 45 mph.

(For the record, I have collided with a vehicle three times while cycling.)

And how many of those collisions would have been avoided if you were traveling at walking speed and able to stop much faster/sooner?

One.

Well, no, it shouldn't be against the law, but if the health care costs for people who consume mass amounts of saturated fat are significantly higher than those who don't, then I wouldn't object to insurance companies charging more in premiums for people who consume mass amounts of saturated fat.

Or, to bring it full circle, people who ride bicycles without helmets.

So would you be OK with insurance companies charging higher premiums for people who don't wear seat belts, while not making it a legal requirement to do so?

And how, exactly, would they determine how much saturated fat you ate, or how often you wore your seat belt?

There is a lot of traditionalism in what is allowed and what is not.

I've said it before:

If bicycles were invented today, people wouldn't be allowed to ride them.

[abefroman329]

There is a lot of traditionalism in what is allowed and what is not.
Bacon and salami are OK because George Washington was eating those (just a wild guess).

Bacon and salami are OK because the US isn't a theocracy (for now).

Aspirin is OK because people got used it, but it wouldn't be cleared for sale - moreso for non-prescription sale - by today's standard.

Aspirin is OK because humans have been using willow bark as an anti-inflammatory drug for over 2,000 years.

People like to compare marijuana and alcohol risks. Without getting too far off-topic, I would expect a lot of arguments for not permitting alcohol - more than for marijuana - if alcohol wasn't mainstream since ancient world.

Banning both are probably one of the few areas where I agree that banning something creates a black market of unsafe goods that wouldn't exist if they were legal.

I can argue (tongue in cheek, obviously) for mandatory helmet in crosswalk, at least for kids; and <0.08 BAC in crosswalks for all ages. Last one would have a huge positive effect BTW.

...sure.

[abefroman329]

I'm confused.  Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?  I actually suspect you're in favor of certain political positions based on an "individual liberty" standpoint but in favor of others based on a "cost to society" standpoint.  And really, most people probably do.  At least I'm honest enough to say I have mixed feelings about these issues.  And, for what it's worth, my fellow Christians I've personally spoken with about school curriculum (quite a few members of my church are public school teachers, for example) have likewise expressed mixed feelings about the issue;  I'm not going to get into why, because that would be both a political and also a religious discussion.

Using the term "pretty bummed" was probably a mistake on my part.  Killing another human being with a vehicle is, in all likelihood, going to be traumatic (ask any engineer who's hit someone with their train).  My fundamental point is that the worst-case scenario resulting from driving around without a seatbelt is not that you're harmed and literally no one else is.

And yes, I don't have clear-cut beliefs on where individual liberty starts and ends.  "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" is a good start, but I don't know where the other person's nose is, to torture a metaphor.

Who's talking about a wall?  I'm talking about getting hit by a moving vehicle.  Whether you're a pedestrian going 3 mph or a cyclist going 15 mph, it's bad news to get hit by a car going 45 mph.

I agree, but that's not the only scenario in which a bicycle colliding with another object could lead to the injury of an unhelmet-ed cyclist.[/quote]

So would you be OK with insurance companies charging higher premiums for people who don't wear seat belts, while not making it a legal requirement to do so?

Health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance?  And if we can do it without a bunch of nanny-state horseshit like cameras all over the interior of the car?  Yes.  I think it'd be even more effective than a law mandating it, and best of all, cops would have one less excuse to pull over a minority so they can empty their guns into them.

And how, exactly, would they determine how much saturated fat you ate, or how often you wore your seat belt?

Presumably they wouldn't be able to do so without demolishing the right to privacy.

I've said it before:

If bicycles were invented today, people wouldn't be allowed to ride them.

Survivorship bias in action.

[vdeane]

If bicycles were invented today, people wouldn't be allowed to ride them.

If cars were invented today, the ability to drive them would probably be far more strictly regulated than it is in reality, to the point where few would own their own cars and most people would take transit or a taxi.

[kalvado]

There is a lot of traditionalism in what is allowed and what is not.
Bacon and salami are OK because George Washington was eating those (just a wild guess).

Bacon and salami are OK because the US isn't a theocracy (for now).

There are sure traditional foods with very limited distribution. Try getting non-homogenized non-pasteurized cow milk, for example (IMHO it is delicious. Nothing like supermarket white fluid).  I am not even mentioning igunaq. Nothing to do with religion, just public health.
One of my worst fears is healthy living standards being expanded towards caffeine with full-strength tea and coffee being banned...