Cheraw Chronicle

Complete News World

How warning signs actually lead to more deaths

How warning signs actually lead to more deaths

A study along the highways this week shows that good intentions on the part of policy makers don’t necessarily have to be good.

Tony Mod

It seems very logical: put warning signs along the road, then people will drive with greater caution and this will save deaths and injuries. But scientists showed this week in Science It nicely shows how erratic and counter-intuitive this practice can be.

Researchers from the University of Minnesota, among others, examined the impact of warning signs in Texas. On the electronic boards, local authorities posted updated warnings of 1,669 deaths. This year on the roads in Texas. They also gave the scientists the gift of methodology by playing the signals for only one week a month, creating a great comparison material.

Contrary to policymakers’ intentions, the number of accidents actually rose in the weeks that signs issued their warnings, possibly because they were distracting the driver. In the 10 kilometers following the signal, there were 4.5 percent of deaths, an effect that, according to the researchers, is comparable to increasing the speed limit by “3 to 5 miles per hour” (5 to 8 kilometers per hour). Scientists estimate that the signature campaign in Texas leads to an additional 2,600 accidents and 16 deaths each year. And the belief is that 27 other countries issue similar warnings along their routes.

I think it would be good to do a similar study in the Netherlands on the “Rij Mono” signs. So I first looked at that panel, then looked reflexively at my mobile phone, to discover if the little icons were set to mono. All this time I could have kept my eyes on the road better.

See also  Thanks to the hard collision between galaxies, it is likely that dark matter will exist again

Cycling helmets: Another traffic issue where logical interventions at first glance may be counterproductive. take the Discussion about helmet requirementsThat erupted last week after new annual figures for road deaths were published. The trend of the last 20 years: Fewer car deaths, same number of bicycle deaths.

Give a helmet to anyone who falls off their bike. But the important question is: What else will change mandatory helmet use and how will it affect our health?

British scientist Ian Walker once did a ORIGINAL EXPERIENCESometimes he rode with a helmet and sometimes without one. The rangefinder recorded how close cars and vans were to him. Conclusion after 2,500 overruns: If he wore his helmet, the cars were 8.5 cm closer to his bike. This may be because, as Walker suggested in a BBC interview, helmeted cyclists are seen as more experienced and to be expected, a kind of “Lycra runway warriors”.

Well then: such a helmet may reduce the risk of injury if you fall, but it actually increases the risk of getting hit. Another example of how mandatory helmet use can negatively affect health at a turn: in Australia, after the introduction of such a requirement, more cyclists started wearing helmets, but there was also a decline in 30 to 40 percent of the number of cyclistsdue to trouble, government sponsorship, etc.

Crowds of people starting to do a little exercise: it doesn’t sound healthy to me Side effects of helmet requirements