Eyewitness Statistics

Throughout this investigation, data collection and statistical analysis will be performed to determine the validity of the following claim; “for driving a car, quick reactions are the most important factor. Males will be better drivers than females because they have faster reaction times” (Michael, 2014). In terms of driving, the time it takes for an individual to react to stimulus will have a major impact on the outcome of the situation. In an emergency, a driver may be required to rapidly slam on the breaks or turn the steering wheel, however it the individuals reaction time is slower than average, the likelihood of a collision is much greater. For instance, when an individual with a

Simms makes an important move, “1.2 million people across the world are killed in road crashes each year and 50 million injured” (qtd. in Simms 542). This fact shows that Simms acknowledges that car crashes result in many deaths a year; however SUV’s by almost any measurements, are more dangerous than cars. Next Simms provides more supporting facts. “People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in cars” (qtd. in Simms 542). Simms also states that due to the size of an SUV, they suffer from greater rear view blind spots. Which he stated may account for the number of parents who killed their children by running over them. These strong facts speak for themselves; and bring an emotional appeal to the reader. A child dying in any circumstance promotes sadness.

The Car Crash Study was done in 1974 by Loftus and Palmer that was aimed to test their theory that the language used in an eyewitness testimonies can alter the eyewitness’s memory of the event. They got 45 American students and showed them 7 films of traffic accidents, ranging from 5 to 30 seconds, in a random order. Afterwards the subjects were asked to describe what happened as if they were at the accident. They were then asked more specific questions such as, “About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted) each other?’. This was to see if the if the verb used in the question would affect the answers given by the subjects which it did. In the next part of the experiment they showed 150 students a one-minute film that showed a car driving through the country side followed by four seconds of a multiple traffic accident. Afterwards they split the students into three groups and asked them different questions. The first group was asked “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”, the second group was asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”, and the third group was kept as a control group and wasn’t asked anything. One week later they were asked, without seeing the film, ten questions about the film. One question asked “Did you see any broken glass? Yes or No?” which there was none. The results showed that more participants who were asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed?” said

The study, Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction undertaken by Loftus & Palmer in 1974 consisted of two experiments, these experiments were completed in order to test their hypothesis that ‘the way in which a question about an eyewitness testimony was asked can change the recollection of events perceived by the witness’. The study served to aid the argument that memory can be altered and distorted when they subject is presented with new information that is given prior to the event. In order to test their hypothesis, Loftus & Palmer conducted two laboratory experiments; both experiments took the design of an independent measures. The first experiment consisted of a group of 45 students who were shown footage of car accidents, following each film questionnaires were answered. The critical question from this questionnaire was in regards to the speed at which the car was travelling. In this question the verb used to describe the actions changed, meaning this was the independent variable. The results of this question varied depending on the verb used. With the highest mean speed being for the word ‘smashed’ and the lowest for the verb ‘contacted’. The dependent variable in this experiment was the estimated mean speed.

The statistics that I have read about driving have surprised me immensely for many different reasons. The first statistics that impressed me was that one of the top causes of deaths on Utah highways was unrestrained occupants. I would’ve thought that would not even be one of the top 5 because I never really hear about people dying because they did not have their seatbelt on. Another thing I found interesting from the video “Stop the text Stop the wrecks” is that they were just out for a walk and were hit by a car. They mentioned a fact that they believe the driver did not leave their house expecting to hitting to pedestrians. I think this took great courage of that woman to say that because it is hard to accept the fact that the accident could

Cars flew by in a constant swarm of impatience, each barreled past the couple’s car more quickly than the last. Undoubtedly, a great majority of the drivers pondered whether or not the vehicle was intentionally

The participants were shown to a car accident film again and following with filling out a questionnaire, among all the questions there is again one critical question asking for a speed estimate when the car “hit” each other or “smashed” each other. In this experiment, there are fifty participants in the control group which they were not asked about the speed of the vehicle. After one week, the participants returned and without re-watching the film they were asked to fill out series of a questionnaire, and among these questions, the critical question is “did you see any broken glass?” The participants were asked to answer either yes or no (Loftus & Plamer, 1974). In this experiment, the verb in the critical question is the independent variable and the answer of broken is the dependent variable.

Script D (Debriefing Note): Thank you for participating in the study. This was actually a study on the effect of language on the retrieval of memory. The surveys released had two different versions. The only difference between the two was one word in the question asking to estimate speed: Whether the vehicles “smashed into” or “contacted” each other. We were testing to see if changing this word had any effect on your responses. Thank you very much for your time.

Experiment 1 comprised of Forty-Five students, they were split into groups of various sizes and were shown seven short clips ranging from 5 to 30 seconds of road traffic collisions. Each participant would then receive a questionnaire following each film

I modeled my experiment after that of Loftus & Palmer 1974. My aim, replicated from the original experiment, is to study how leading questions could alter eyewitnesses' testimony and change memory. I hypothesized that language would have a statistically significant impact on the witnesses' speed estimate. The independent variable was the phrasing of the question given to the participants. The dependent variable was the MPH the participants guessed the car was going. The results show a relationship between word choice and memory. It was shown that if you ask someone “How fast was the car going when it crashed?” the participant is more likely to answer a speed over MPH; If you ask “How fast was the car going when it hit the other car?” the participant

Have you ever been caught in a rush hour traffic moving at the speed of light? For a whole one year during my CO-OP I commuted to and fro Toronto on one of the busiest highway of North America and it was no fun. I’ve raced, tailgated, changed lanes without using indicators, ranted and seethed at slow drivers and everything I could to save as little as five minutes to reach my destination. And I considered myself a skillful driver at that time. Not knowing that the opposite might also be true if I look at it from a different perspective. We usually tend to have a one-sided opinion about certain things until we experience the both sides of the story ourselves. This phenomenon of naïve realism was well presented in the class along with different TED Talk videos to support the argument among which the most prominent and thought provoking was the talk on ‘Believing Strange Things’ by Micheal Shermer.

In my own experience with road safety, interest in motor racing can also be given as a possible source of influence on driver attitudes toward speeding and driver behavior. Unfortunately, I am forced by circumstances, to use the word ‘roadkill’ with reference to my best friend who was a victim in 2015, of an accident occurred just after a major motor race held in my home country, Sri Lanka.

Following a car accident with no injuries where the other driver speeds away, you'll want to immediately make note of the type of

Shinar: Contended that dissatisfaction coming about because of deferrals and movement clogging is a benefactor to forceful driving. This study inspected Israeli drivers' responses to a circumstance in which the driver in front of them didn't move when the movement light turned green. Shinar found that when the light the members were at just stayed green for a short measure of time, they were faster to blare than when they were at a light which stayed green for a more drawn out time of time. He additionally found that drivers were

While it is true that the road is not a risk-free environment regardless of the mode of transport, and that we as individuals cannot control the actions of our fellow driver’s, we can at least, with our experience, keep ourselves measurably safer in a car. It is clearly a game of life and death when a small nudge from any other vehicle can easily kill you as a result, and yet many chose to chance these odds for the thrill. The estimated ratio for deaths in a car per mile, opposed to a motorcycle in 2014, was 1:27! And, for an inexperienced motorist, these accidents are far less