The Roadkill Experiment

So, apparently SUV owners (of which I am one) can be ruthless, heartless bastards.



andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com...

Mark Rober placed some rubber animals on the side of the road to see who would swerve out of their way to kill it:

He found out that 94 percent of drivers did what anyone in their sane mind would do: keep driving on their lane. Remember that the animals were on the road's shoulder, way outside their driving path. They didn't pose any danger whatsoever to the drivers' safety. On the other hand, six percent went out of the driving lane to run over the animals. Think about that: sixty out of one thousand drivers actually went out of their way to kill a living thing that didn't represent any danger to their lives—and risking their own lives in the process, no less. Six percent were just cruel because they could be.

And of that 6 percent? 89 percent of them drove SUVs.

I thought the experiment was pretty cool. The guy started out wanting to see which would be targeted more, turtles or snakes but he ended up finding out some other interesting things.

It begs questions about beauty and worth. Of the animals most likely run over, the tarantulas didn't stand a chance. What if it had been a cat or a dog on the side of the road?

It begs questions about power - some drivers took the opportunity to kill just because they could.

And it begs questions about affluence. Of those who chose to run over an animal, most of those were SUV owners. For purposes of discussion, I'm assuming SUV owners are at least slightly more affluent since it takes more to fill up an SUV gas tank.

That last fact sort of reminded me of those money/empathy studies.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

“We have now done 12 separate studies measuring empathy in every way imaginable, social behavior in every way, and some work on compassion and it’s the same story,” he said. “Lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”

Just wondering what ATS thinks about some of these observations on humanity.

FTR..Even though I own an SUV, I go out of my way - sometimes at my own peril - to avoid hitting an animal. I am also one of the ones who will stop and try to redirect an animal to safety.

reply to post by KillerQueen


I agree, I have stopped traffic to save an animal on more than one occasion. Oh, BTW I also own a SUV. Why would anyone go out of their way to kill a turtle? That is just sad.

reply to post by KillerQueen


There is some data that still needs to be disclosed to understand this study.

For one, what ist he percentage of SUV drivers that were in the test overall? Is 89% a close estimate of the number of SUV drivers?

And does it speak to SUV drivers being of a certain personality? Or that a car driver sees the risk of driving over a turtle?

reply to post by KillerQueen

Aww man, I wonder of the percentage that swerved to hit the critters, how many were male and how old were they?
I am guessing they were 95% male and between the ages of 16-30 maybe?
The question about dogs and cats makes me think that cats would still get hit becasue I have known and seen people that intentionally go out of the way or speed up to hit a cat. Coward punks if you ask me...
I'm not sure about the SUV thing, I would suspect the vehicle does not make much difference, it's a human(un) thing, not a car thing, imo.

reply to post by KillerQueen


Funny thing, one time a car in front of me deliberately aimed for a squirrel. It happened so unexpectedly that my rage boiled out of control in an instant. Lot of 'ifs' here, but if the car had suddenly stopped, and if I had had a gun, I would've killed that driver out of blind rage, even though the squirrel got away. And I would've had no defense.

Should we inturn run over the six percent?
What should we do with the ones that shed a tear for the fallen on the side of the road?

reply to post by KillerQueen


I don't think I've ever heard about people going out of their way to hit an animal with their car. I didn't think it was possible to reach those sort of depths of inhumanity. One would only hope that their swerve doesn't end and in fact lands them in the ditch to become what they were initially trying to create—roadkill.

reply to post by KillerQueen


Definitely a cool experiment, and sad that 6% of people have no hearts.

And it begs questions about affluence. Of those who chose to run over an animal, most of those were SUV owners. For purposes of discussion, I'm assuming SUV owners are at least slightly more affluent since it takes more to fill up an SUV gas tank.

I don't think this anomaly was about affluence, I think car drivers know that running something over could damage their car, whereas SUV drivers buy them specifically because they are able to run things over. (Debris hopefully, not animals.)

I've seen this before, and I found it kind of surprising that most of the people who hit the animals were owners of SUV.

I personally drive a sedan, and have had to swerve twice in my life to miss dogs crossing the road right in front of me. Once was I-275 in Tampa (8 lane highway). Had to get out and attempted to coerce the dog to come to me, but he was too startled and confused by all the traffic, and sadly didn't make it. The person who hit him was driving an SUV, and did not even attempt to stop. I was enraged, yelling, and couldn't help but cry seeing it all happen...

Originally posted by deadeyedick
Should we inturn run over the six percent?
What should we do with the ones that shed a tear for the fallen on the side of the road?

Yes, next experiment should include a spike strip!

Intentionally hit the animal, deploy the tire flattener! Stop to help the animal, $5 gift card to Starbucks hippy!

Is 6% considered high? I guess for what the 6% intended to do, it is. This sort of reminds me of another survey where people who put garbage on the ground in front of a trash can to see how many people would throw it away. Most people just walked by it like nothing.

reply to post by ReadyPower


I wonder if within that 6% there is another 6% that would swerve to hit a human if they were certain nobody was watching?

That would be about 4 people out of 1000. I wonder what percentage of people are socio or psychopaths naturally?

reply to post by KillerQueen


Those are some disturbing numbers...I'm not shocked though;
I was working out west for a construction company, I had been getting a drive to work with the owner of the companies son (happened to have an suv). One beautiful morning, on our way to work, we saw a family of ducks crossing the road in the distance. He had plenty of time to slow down and wait for them to cross; instead he sped up. Made me sick hearing the little "pops"....

reply to post by getreadyalready

I wouldn't put a name of psychosis on these people but i do believe that this 6% would not hesitate to take a human life if it would benefit them at the moment.

You should drive the open roads of Australia! especially in the dry season where the greenest grass in on the side of the highway :/
When you're sitting on 110klms/hour to swerve is to die, having said that, I think most people here would slow if they saw it first, most do.
Kangaroos have a nasty suicide habit of waiting till the last split second and then jumping in front of the car out of fright I suppose. Must be vigilant here.

Head further and you might have to slow down for a water buffalo or a camel, you don't want to hit those, they would win.

The only thing I remember hitting was a bird and I felt ill (the rainbow lorrikeets get drunk here off fermenting fruit and quite often have car accidents , but even running over dead things on the road turns my guts and I wont if I can avoid it.
Doesn't stop me from rifling through bones though and placing them on our display shelves for the kids.

I just wont kill it first.

That study is sure a disappointing example of human behaviour, doesn't matter how much your car is worth.
Those people are probably the same people who would be bitten by an animal or attacked, and would they deserve it?
hmmmm

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ReadyPower

 

I wonder if within that 6% there is another 6% that would swerve to hit a human if they were certain nobody was watching?

That would be about 4 people out of 1000. I wonder what percentage of people are socio or psychopaths naturally?

edit on 25-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

I guess you could say im an asshole for what im gonna say but oh well. If there were a human(not infant or child) and an animal and i could only avoid hitting one of them i would make sure i can avoid the animal before the human. I know, its crule and just heartless, sorry...


Peace

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

I wouldn't put a name of psychosis on these people but i do believe that this 6% would not hesitate to take a human life if it would benefit them at the moment.

Given a "you or me" scenario?

96%

I own an SUV and would very nearly kill myself trying to avoid hitting an animal. I tend to try and jerk the wheel to avoid it even in situations where I would probably be safer just hitting it. I hit a dog not long after I started driving and had to go back home. I cried about all day over that.

I would never go out of my way to hit one...dead or alive. The "thud" itself is beyond sickening, so I go way out of my way to try to not hit even the dead ones.

Some people... :shk:

One time a squirrel ran out in front of me and I swerved to try and miss it. My swerve ended up killing it, and I think if I didn't swere, I wouldn't of hit it. I looked in the rear-view mirror and seen it flopping around.....really made me feel like crap.

I hate people that swerve to hit an animal. They have no compassion, no empathy, no humanity. The one squirrel I hit a few years ago is the one animal I've hit in my 5 years as a driver. The amount of dead animals you see on the side of the road, if for every 1,000 drivers, 60 of them would intentionally hit one, it's no wonder there's so much roadkill.