Advocacy & Safety - Hopping bunny not seen by drivers

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/police-sting-involving-rabbit-costume-sparks-criticism-in-glendale.html

Too much. Look at the picture-- it's obvious the driver wasn't paying much attention. There's a small army of cops on motorbikes just behind the bunny.

Of course, there are complaints about this "sting".

Enjoy.

Now repeat as needed... and do the same for cycling... put an officer on a bike and have him/her take the lane... check for motorist reaction.

Make sure there is a big press write up afterward... so the public gets the message.

So, this is of course disturbing without the bunny costume being involved. In CA at least, all street corners have crosswalks. There are marked and unmarked crosswalks, or implicit and explicit ones. ( So says the driver's manual handed out at the DMV. ) Pedestrians always have the right of way. But that isn't really the case on the street; if you step out into a crosswalk ( marked or not ) blindly every day, you'll regret it before very long. And anything that makes it safer for people to walk in the walking zone, is a good thing.

On the other hand, the rabbit costume is a bit of a cheap prank. Whoever designed this sting didn't think "We'll dress our guy up as a mascot, and it'll stand out so much that non driver will possibly fail to notice." They knew people wouldn't notice, and that dressing up as a bunny would make headlines.

A similar experiment was done in Seattle, where a clown on a unicycle (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2055) made circles around a sculpture in an outdoor park. Researchers stopped everyone who crossed the square, asking them whether they'd seen the clown. Only 25 % of people on cell phones noticed the clown. ( Just like those drivers who didn't notice the bunny, thanks to their evil cars? ) But then only 51 % of people walking by themselves saw the clown. Half the people walking by with nothing obvious to distract them, failed to notice a clown moving about a statue on a unicycle, which is as unusual to see as a seven foot rabbit walking across the street.

Human attention is a strange thing, and the brain seems to prioritize it in funny ways.

Now of course drivers don't have the right to hit people ( or rabbits ) with their cars, in or out of crosswalks. But dressing up like a giant little furry mammal doesn't really change anything. And it's kind of a tried-and-true stunt borrowed from psychology.

I like how the one councilman described it as "breathtakingly dangerous"... obviously because most drivers are awful and fail to yield to pedestrians! Too right, DUH!

Yeah ... the council member is probably from a residential area where people are especially in love with their cars. "What right do they have to ticket drivers just because they broke some minor law?" I wonder exactly what the councilman meant by dangerous, though. Dangerous to the police to walk in a crosswalk? Everybody else has to.

Police furries? What is this, are we now allowed to live out our fetishes at work.

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. First off, put someone in a suit restricting their visibility and then have them walk out in front of a car? What would have been wrong with simply sitting at a crosswalk and ticketing drivers who did not yield for actual pedestrians?

And what does the last part of the story have to do with the rest of the article?

"Izekelian generally walks his dog every morning before opening his shop, Central Automotive and Electric. But his dog jumped in front of him one day at Central and Garfield and was hit.

“If I was a little bit ahead, I would have been hit,” he said.

After his dog was hit, he grabbed it, jumped in his car, tracked down the motorist and called police."

The guys dog jumped in front of a car and was hit. He didn't have control of it, he's lucky he didn't cause a more serious accident when the driver tried to avoid. And his statement about if he'd been a little bit ahead he'd have been hit was ridiculous, he would have looked before crossing, right? Right?

Seems a little silly, using the bunny suit and all, but overall, it makes sense. It did prove the point, though -- too many drivers don't pay attention, thinking they're entitled to just go-go-go. (BTW, IMO, 2 is too many -- 1 can be chalked up to random freak chance.)

The outrage of the councilman is laughable; what he was REALLY saying was, "How dare these... these POLICE actually try to enforce traffic law instead of letting my constituents motor about as they damned well please?"

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. First off, put someone in a suit restricting their visibility and then have them walk out in front of a car? What would have been wrong with simply sitting at a crosswalk and ticketing drivers who did not yield for actual pedestrians?

And what does the last part of the story have to do with the rest of the article?

"Izekelian generally walks his dog every morning before opening his shop, Central Automotive and Electric. But his dog jumped in front of him one day at Central and Garfield and was hit.

“If I was a little bit ahead, I would have been hit,” he said.

After his dog was hit, he grabbed it, jumped in his car, tracked down the motorist and called police."

The guys dog jumped in front of a car and was hit. He didn't have control of it, he's lucky he didn't cause a more serious accident when the driver tried to avoid. And his statement about if he'd been a little bit ahead he'd have been hit was ridiculous, he would have looked before crossing, right? Right?

Quite possibly wrong. It could be he and the dog were in the crosswalk, crossing, and the driver refused to yield, hitting the dog. If the dog was on a leash, it could easily have surged, even six inches ahead of the ped might have been enough. You're making quite a few assumptions to exonerate the driver. The story isn't clear one way or another on this item.

What is clear is this is a dangerous stretch, with "five pedestrian involved collisions" already this year. And the drivers were given ample time to stop; the bunny didn't start crossing unless the cars were at least 164 feet from the intersection. It was planned quite carefully, although the bunny suit is a nice little seasonal publicity stunt.

The complaints of the city councilor remind me of a situation we had here in Virginia, where the General Assembly raised the fine for driving without a liscence to one thousand dollars. Motorists howled over this unfair infringement on their "rights", and the fine was quick rescinded.

Somehow that bunny suit reminds me of a certain purple gorilla...

http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

The complaints of the city councilor remind me of a situation we had here in Virginia, where the General Assembly raised the fine for driving without a liscence to one thousand dollars. Motorists howled over this unfair infringement on their "rights", and the fine was quick rescinded.

Here locally, the fine for driving on a suspended license is having your car impounded for a mandatory 30 days at a 30 dollar a day storage rate. If you cannot pay the storage fee, your car will be auctioned off after a designated amount of time.

Now repeat as needed... and do the same for cycling... put an officer on a bike and have him/her take the lane... check for motorist reaction.

Make sure there is a big press write up afterward... so the public gets the message.

Portland does lots of pedestrian stings, but, despite lots of promises, they have yet to mount a bicycle sting. I even went for a ride-a-long in a patrol car once about six years ago with a bicycle officer, pointing out places to do it, but it never happened. Quite simple really, get a plainclothes cop on a bike to take the lane somewhere it's obvious the lane is too narrow for sharing, and bust motorists who violate the cyclists ROW by passing to close, tailgating, honking or harassing the cyclist verbally, etc.

I like how the one councilman described it as "breathtakingly dangerous"... obviously because most drivers are awful and fail to yield to pedestrians! Too right, DUH!

Yeah, I was curious about that myself. Don't any and all sting operations involve some degree of risk?

Yeah, I was curious about that myself. Don't any and all sting operations involve some degree of risk?

Sure, but in this case the irony is the councilman was acknowledging the problem while denying the "cure."

Good for the cops ... enforcement and education, with a sense of humor. Unusual combination.

Too bad about the council member all in a twit ... and if his streets are so F-ing dangerous, maybe he should do something about it.

And when politicians use phrases like "breathtakingly dangerous," well, they just like to hear themselves talk.

I think the cop in the bunny suit was being hazed. ;)

What is an "unmarked" crosswalk? The crosswalk lines are on the road but there is no sign pointing it out?

Somehow that bunny suit reminds me of a certain purple gorilla...

http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php

Yup. Just about the same thing.

People just do not see what they are not expecting to see. That's why I don't get too caught up in the high visibility vest, multiple light thing.

Not only that, each time I've been hit, I've asked the driver/cyclist, "didn't you see me", to which they always have replied, "Yes."

Maybe if a cyclist was in the crosswalk cutting out into cross traffic like the bunny there would be some relevance.

How does this test relate to a cyclist who is traveling with traffic in the main travel lanes where drivers are always looking? My experience (especially with high visibility gear) is very little.

Yup. Just about the same thing.

People just do not see what they are not expecting to see. That's why I don't get too caught up in the high visibility vest, multiple light thing.

Not only that, each time I've been hit, I've asked the driver/cyclist, "didn't you see me", to which they always have replied, "Yes."

So they don't see what they aren't expecting to see, yet they did? Please explain.

What is an "unmarked" crosswalk? The crosswalk lines are on the road but there is no sign pointing it out?

by law there is a cross walk at every intersection whether it is marked or not. if the intersections are very far apart, a cross walk is anywhere you want to cross. you state law will specify exact distances

Bravo LAPD -- It's about time! As a 5 mi/day walker/jogger, I have to deal with right hooks at every intersection. At least on the bike I can merge leftward to reduce turn movement conflicts and to enhance my visibility. In San Diego we are finally seeing some signs saying, "Turning motorists must yield to pedestrians."

On the other hand, the rabbit costume is a bit of a cheap prank. Whoever designed this sting didn't think "We'll dress our guy up as a mascot, and it'll stand out so much that non driver will possibly fail to notice." They knew people wouldn't notice, and that dressing up as a bunny would make headlines.

If the claim is they didn't see the big frakin pink bunny then they've just admitted to not paying attention while driving.

I think it's an absolutely brilliant ploy by law enforcement. We had a sting here a couple weeks back, couple of plainclothes offices stood on the sidewalk near a traffic light. They noted the vehicles with drivers talking on cellphones, not using seatbelts or proper child restraints, than radio'd the info ahead to a couple of units up the road. After awhile it looked like the Macy days parade.

Sure, but in this case the irony is the councilman was acknowledging the problem while denying the "cure."

Genec,

Granted an officer or anyone with a full face/head mask is cutting down on their field of vision, one can only presume that the custom wearing officer was in full radio contact with the other officers and that they wouldn't place him in too great of a risk.

Yep, I think that we all know that there is a problem with most of streets where motorists don't yield to the disabled, pedestrians, or bicycles. Falling back on the "everyone is in a hurry to get nowhere fast." Problem, if people would just slow down and take their time a lot of these problems would no longer be a problem.

Good for the cops ... enforcement and education, with a sense of humor. Unusual combination.

Too bad about the council member all in a twit ... and if his streets are so F-ing dangerous, maybe he should do something about it.

And when politicians use phrases like "breathtakingly dangerous," well, they just like to hear themselves talk.

Yep, we need more education and/or enforcement with a little more degree of humor/entertainment. If for no other reason then to get people's attention.

When I was in NY taking care of my Grandmother we had a local gas station blow up. Everyone tried to blame the customer for using his cell phone while filling his car. To include unfortunately the fire chief and inspector. When several people wrote into the local paper pointing out that The Mythbuster's had already debunked that urban legend. Officials were at first quick to try and point out that they are entertainers not scientists. It took several more letters for them to realize that they are scientists and that they are using entertainment to get their message out.

Shh, that might upset is constituents who love their cars. And they might not vote for him come the next election.

Sadly, I think that that is true for a lot of them.

What is an "unmarked" crosswalk? The crosswalk lines are on the road but there is no sign pointing it out?

I think that that is referring to any corner without either crosswalk signs or the lines being painted on the road.

Bravo LAPD -- It's about time! As a 5 mi/day walker/jogger, I have to deal with right hooks at every intersection. At least on the bike I can merge leftward to reduce turn movement conflicts and to enhance my visibility. In San Diego we are finally seeing some signs saying, "Turning motorists must yield to pedestrians."

The irony is that such signs shouldn't be needed, it should be common sense. But we have them at a number of intersections here in St. Pete as well.

So they don't see what they aren't expecting to see, yet they did? Please explain.

explain to me why they drove into me when they said they saw me coming. They couldn't.

I think the point is, don't expect drivers to do the right thing. Sometimes they do, but not enough to be reliable. Unless cops are out enforcing rules on a regular basis, drivers will do what ever they want. Expect the unexpected and adjust.

The irony is that such signs shouldn't be needed, it should be common sense. But we have them at a number of intersections here in St. Pete as well.

We have such signs here in San Diego too... And I fully agree that there should be no need for such signs.

These signs are a clear indication that the driving public doesn't know the rules. By the same token, I WANT to see signs that say "Bicycles may use full lane," as again that driving public is virtually brain dead.

I think the point is, don't expect pedestrians to do the right thing. Sometimes they do, but not enough to be reliable. Unless cops are out enforcing rules on a regular basis, pedestrians will do what ever they want. Expect the unexpected and adjust.

Fify. Sorry, DC is making me hate self-absorbed peds even more.

"I can cross because everyone's supposed to yield to ME." Yeah, that'll save ya from a texting crackhead in a Chevy Caprice. You'll be lucky if it's not a cop.

Then there's the ones who run across the highway like it's the Rio Grande.

They remind me of my local drivers. Oblivious and perpetually blind to everything around them. Not surprising those didn't see hopping bunnies. They obviously wouldn't see even a rock slide across two lanes. Ah, well. Nothing new there.

We have such signs here in San Diego too... And I fully agree that there should be no need for such signs.

These signs are a clear indication that the driving public doesn't know the rules. By the same token, I WANT to see signs that say "Bicycles may use full lane," as again that driving public is virtually brain dead.

Genec,

Yep, and they point to the fact that in this (and many other countries) that it is way too easy for a person to get a driver's license, and way too hard to revoke it. As well as pointing to most of our favorite refrain that it all comes down to education, education, education.

And I agree with you that I would like to see more "Bicycles may use full lane" signs or even "Share the road" signs. And ain't that the truth? On my way to the library today I saw a number of people yakking on their cell phones while driving. When they get into a crash they'll be the first one to wonder how it happened. . .

They remind me of my local drivers. Oblivious and perpetually blind to everything around them. Not surprising those didn't see hopping bunnies. They obviously wouldn't see even a rock slide across two lanes. Ah, well. Nothing new there.

Hmm, don't we have a thread on that subject??? The rock slide, that is.

Genec,

Yep, and they point to the fact that in this (and many other countries) that it is way too easy for a person to get a driver's license, and way too hard to revoke it. As well as pointing to most of our favorite refrain that it all comes down to education, education, education.

And I agree with you that I would like to see more "Bicycles may use full lane" signs or even "Share the road" signs. And ain't that the truth? On my way to the library today I saw a number of people yakking on their cell phones while driving. When they get into a crash they'll be the first one to wonder how it happened. . .

Agreed... except I don't want "share the road" signs, as drivers interpret that to mean that any cyclist on the road "taking a lane" should share with the motorist. Motorists don't see it as a sign that's meant for everyone... as the motorists already assume they own the road. They see the bike symbol and assume that "share the road" means "yo, you biker, share the road."

This is why I want signs that specifically tell motorists to give way to other road users... such as pedestrians and cyclists.

As Digital_Cowboy noted, if you have an intersection that one would often see a painted crosswalk on the road but no paint exist at that intersection, THAT is an unmarked crosswalk. Some of the laws refine the definition by talking about sidewalks continuing in the direction of the crossing on both sides of the street.

The prior posting is WRONG in the claim that they are mid-block crossings.

explain to me why they drove into me when they said they saw me coming. They couldn't.

They misjudged your speed or don't understand when a cyclist has the right of way, but they did see you. Sometimes cars, trucks, and even emergency vehicles running lights get run into.

I highly question the tired line that "people only see what they expect to see". If a UFO landed in the street and aliens stepped out, would not people notice even though it was unexpected? The bunny was most likely "not seen", or more accurately, ignored, with pretty much the same frequency as a normal ped would have been in the same situation.


I think the point is, don't expect drivers to do the right thing. Sometimes they do, but not enough to be reliable. Unless cops are out enforcing rules on a regular basis, drivers will do what ever they want. Expect the unexpected and adjust.

Of course.

If they didn't see a bunny, you do you expect them to see the moonwalking bear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4)?

I think the point is, don't expect drivers to do the right thing. Sometimes they do, but not enough to be reliable. Unless cops are out enforcing rules on a regular basis, drivers will do what ever they want. Expect the unexpected and adjust.

And we wonder why it is that only a few (less than 2%) of the population chooses to ride a bike on a regular basis... it is this need to maintain a beyond "normal" defensive posture when dealing with every other road user... this creates a stressful situation that frankly most folks just choose to avoid.

... this creates a stressful situation that frankly most folks just choose to avoid.

... or this leads to calls for creation of a separated network for those who wish or already do ride.

I understand this, even if my preference is to simply get people to behave because, even in cyclist only facilities, cyclists ignore common sense and are unpredictable too. I have more close calls on paths than roads, and have been hit by people on bikes almost as often as I have been hit by cars.

If everyone simply behaved themselves, the problem would be solved.

...this creates a stressful situation that frankly most folks just choose to avoid.

well, they still go out and drive despite this, so I think it's more of a lame excuse, and not a legitimate reason not to bike or walk