They were also asked to answer some specific questions, but the critical question was to do with the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision. There were five conditions in the experiment and the independent variable was manipulated by means of the wording of the questions. For example: Condition 1: 'About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?' Condition 2: 'About how fast were the cars going when they collided into each other?' Condition 3: 'About how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?'
After each film the participants were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and then answer a series of specific questions about it. There was one critical. This question was ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’ One group of participants were given this question. The other five groups were given the verbs smashed, collided, bumped or contacted in place of the word hit. The mean speed estimate was calculated for each group.
As the number of vehicles operating at higher speeds on 65 mph interstates is increased it results in a chance of collisions due to increased speed variance and greater risk of fatality resulting from higher crash impact speeds. Today in the USA, “Lead Foot Nation”, many drivers hit speeds that seemed out of reach to everyone but race-car drivers, stuntmen, and moonshiners. Many drivers regard the posted limit as a minimum, not a maximum. USA Today analyzed 1.2 million speeding tickets issued in 2002 on interstates in 18 states or about
This happens because the vehicle’s speed has stop from hitting the other object but the person’s body is still going at the speed the vehicle just was until something stops the person. Don’t let the ground be what stops a person in a car accident, let the seat belt do its job and stop people from flying into the dashboard. “Bad enough at 15 miles an hour, but a 30 miles you hit "the wall" four times as hard as you would at 15. Or to put it another way, with the same impact you'd feel as if you fell three stories,” (Parlay International). This is explaining that if a person got into a car accident going 30mph, that person would hit the dashboard, windshield, or steering wheel at the force a person would hit the ground if they fell from a three story building.
The next rhetorical device I noticed was a stereotype of teenagers – “teens take greater risks: driving while intoxicated, speeding and not using safety belts”. This negative implication is that all teen drivers behave this way. I personally know several teenage drivers that are sticklers for following the rules of the road and behave responsibly when they are driving. This article was also had several examples of proof surrogate devices, for example: Some people think they have a better chance of survival if they are thrown from the car. Studies show that those who did not wear seat belts… Some think that if your car is equipped with an airbag….
Usage and Expansion It seems as though over the past few years, people have become experts at “beating the system”. It is seen way to often; someone slamming on breaks when they see a police car from afar, or even better, someone turning into a random parking lot just so that an officer cannot run their tags. Would it not be much more effective if these drivers did not the cop? A simple solution for driver who seems to have found a way to break the system would be these license plate scanners. How they work is, a computer scans the symbols and compares them with a database of stolen cars, along with other crime records (Weise & Toppo, 2013).
Outline and evaluate research into the effect of misleading information on the eyewitness testimony. The dictionary definition of misleading information is – Any wrong or misleading information given to the insurer, which may affect underwriting decision. Loftus (1975) experimented the effects of misleading information by showing participants a video clip of a car accident then later splitting the group in half. The first group were asked the simple question “How fast was the white sports car going while travelling along the country road?” This was obviously the controlled question. Others were asked the misleading question “How fast was the white car going when it passed the barn while travelling along the country road?” After a week followed all participants were asked “Did you see the barn?” 17% of the participants asked the misleading question claimed they had seen the barn but only 3% of the other participants said that the barn actually existed.
Raise the driving age Do you know that statistics show that car wrecks are the top killer of teenagers? The mininum driving age should be raised to 17 everywhere because too many teens are killed in car accidents, they are not responsble, and they abuse their driving privileges. Too many teens are killed in car accidents. Young teenagers are always pileing their friends in the car with them. The risk of a teen getting into a wreck increases by 44 percent with one teenage passenger and quadruples with 3 or more passengers.
These days texting while driving is being compared to driving while being drunk. In a recent report conducted by CBS News, crashes caused by drivers using cell phones rose from 636,000 in 2003 to 1.6 million in 2008. As a result, many accidents have taken place in the last ten years due to the use of texting while on the road. Texting while driving is being such a target as the biggest distraction. Unlike talking to someone else in the car, speaking on a cell phone demands much greater continuous attention which takes the drivers eyes off of the road at times and their mind from driving.
LEADING QUESTIONS AND EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY1 An experiment exploring leading questions and their effect on the reliability of eyewitness testimony. LEADING QUESTIONS AND EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY2 Abstract Accurate memory recollection is vital in eyewitness testimony. The aim was to determine whether leading questions can alter the reliability of the testimony as a replication of Loftus and Palmer's 1974 experiment. Participants saw a video of a car crash and one group were asked “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” while the other was asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”. It was predicted that the word 'smashed' would produce a higher mean speed estimate.