| YES | if the statement agrees with the views of the writer |
| NO | if the statement contradicts the views of the writer |
| NOT GIVEN | if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this |
Deadly Illusion Brings Death on the Road
Children are being killed on Britain’s roads because of an optical illusion, warn researchers at the University of Aberdeen. The illusion fools drivers into underestimating how long it will take them to stop, and by the time they discover their mistake it is too late to avoid an accident
About 50 children are injured on Britain’s roads every day. Investigators looking at this problem have tended to blame children’s inexperience and carelessness. But the researchers at Aberdeen suggest that the problem lies with the drivers. Doug Stewart of the university’s engineering department says that the optical illusion is responsible for more than half the injuries to children on the roads.
People normally judge the time it will take an approaching object to reach them by the rate at which its size increases, a phenomenon called optic flow. This is adequate for catching a ball or ducking a projectile, Stewart says, but for car drivers it is only effective in the final second or so before collision. At speeds of 50 kilometres an hour, which are typical for traffic in towns, it takes around 3 seconds to stop a car.
Stewart and his colleagues Chris Cudworth and Rely Lishman say that instead drivers judge the time before a collision by subconsciously measuring the angle between the top and the bottom of the pedestrian’s image. In the absence of any other clue, they assume that the pedestrian is an adult and judge the distance accordingly.
If the pedestrian turns out to be a child, this assumption can be lethal, as it leads drivers to believe the child is farther away than it really is. By the time the error has become apparent it can be too late for the driver to avoid hitting the child.
Stewart and his colleagues conducted a series of tests in which volunteers acted as drivers in a computer simulation of a car approaching a pedestrian. In the test, volunteers were presented with a child one metre tall and an adult 1.8 metres tall. The volunteer "drivers” were asked to stop at a safe distance in front of the pedestrian.
Describing their results in the journal Perception, the researchers say that drivers were more likely to make errors when the image was a child’s. They also found that the driver’s height above the road influenced the number of errors. A driver sitting 1.8 metres above the road was less likely to misjudge the distance than one sitting one metre above the road.
This seems to be borne out by the road accident statistics. Cars are two to three times more likely than lorries to hit children, when the number of each type of vehicle on the road is taken into account. Lorry drivers sit higher up than car drivers.
Stewart says that the risk of drivers making potentially fatal errors can be reduced by providing visual cues for drivers about the size of the object they are approaching. Britain has one of the worst child safety records in Europe. One reason, says Stewart, is that other European countries have more zebra crossings, and that the markings on the road help drivers to distinguish between a child and an adult.
Britain's zebra crossings are gradually being replaced by pelican crossings, which have traffic lights but no striped markings on the road. Stewart says that pelican crossings should also have road markings to help drivers judge the size of a pedestrian.
In correspondence with Stewart, the Department of Transport describes the research as “interesting”, though it does not accept that the paper “demonstrates that perceptual error in the way described is the main reason for children having a much higher accident rate”. The DoT does agree, however, that marking the road with stripes at pelican crossings could improve things. Unfortunately, says Stewart, there is no indication that the positive tone of some of the DoT’s comments has led to “action to curb child pedestrian accidents or to promote further research”.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Writer reports researchers actively investigating causes of child road accidents.
Correct Answer: YES
Why this is correct: The writer clearly states that investigators and researchers at Aberdeen are examining why children are injured on roads. This shows active scientific study, not just description of accidents.
Passage Reference: Investigators looking at this problem have tended to blame children's inexperience and carelessness. But the researchers at Aberdeen suggest that the problem lies with the drivers.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Not Given trap. Students think research is implied, but here it is clearly stated.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'Investigators looking at this problem' = Statement: 'Scientists are studying traffic accidents'
Tips: When you see words like researchers or investigators, that usually signals YES for statements about studies.
Key Vocabulary:
- investigators = researchers
- problem = issue
Question Focus: Definition of optic flow is misrepresented.
Correct Answer: NO
Passage Reference: People normally judge the time it will take an approaching object to reach them by the rate at which its size increases, a phenomenon called optic flow.
Why this is correct: The writer defines optic flow as judging distance by how fast an object's size increases, not by its moving speed. This directly contradicts the statement.
Common Mistake: YES - Paraphrase trap. Speed sounds similar to rate, but the meaning is different.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'rate at which its size increases' = Statement: 'moving speed of an object'
Tips: For NO answers, always show the exact opposite meaning in the passage.
Key Vocabulary:
- rate = speed of change
- phenomenon = effect
Question Focus: No opinion expressed about changing speed limits or laws.
Correct Answer: NOT GIVEN
Passage Reference: At speeds of 50 kilometres an hour, which are typical for traffic in towns, it takes around 3 seconds to stop a car.
Why this is correct: The writer mentions typical town speeds as a fact, but never says Stewart wants a law to reduce speed. The opinion in the statement is missing.
Common Mistake: NO - Not Given trap. Lack of opinion does not mean disagreement.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'speeds of 50 kilometres an hour' = Statement: 'drive at a lower speed in town'
Tips: If the writer does not say what should happen, the answer is NOT GIVEN.
Key Vocabulary:
- typical = usual
- required by law = legally forced
Question Focus: Cause-and-effect explicitly supported by writer.
Correct Answer: YES
Passage Reference: Cars are two to three times more likely than lorries to hit children, when the number of each type of vehicle on the road is taken into account. Lorry drivers sit higher up than car drivers.
Why this is correct: The writer links fewer child accidents with lorries to the fact that lorry drivers sit higher up, supporting the explanation in the statement.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Causation trap. Here, the cause is clearly implied by the writer.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'sit higher up' = Statement: 'drivers sit higher up'
Tips: When two sentences are clearly connected, the writer is supporting a cause.
Key Vocabulary:
- likely = probable
- taken into account = considered
Question Focus: Writer reports opposite view.
Correct Answer: NO
Passage Reference: Stewart says that pelican crossings should also have road markings to help drivers judge the size of a pedestrian.
Why this is correct: Stewart does not say pelican crossings should be replaced. He says they should also have road markings, which is the opposite idea.
Common Mistake: YES - Reverse meaning trap. Adding replacement changes the meaning.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'should also have road markings' = Statement: 'should be replaced'
Tips: Be careful with words like replace. They often reverse the meaning.
Key Vocabulary:
- replace = remove and change
- also = in addition
Question Focus: Writer shows criticism, not appreciation.
Correct Answer: NO
Passage Reference: Unfortunately, says Stewart, there is no indication that the positive tone of some of the DoT's comments has led to 'action to curb child pedestrian accidents or to promote further research'.
Why this is correct: The word Unfortunately shows Stewart's negative opinion. He clearly believes the Department of Transport has not taken real action.
Common Mistake: YES - Opinion marker trap. Students miss negative opinion words.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'no indication' = Statement: 'appreciates what the Department has done'
Tips: Opinion words like unfortunately are strong signals for NO.
Key Vocabulary:
- unfortunately = sadly
- curb = reduce
Question Focus: Writer agrees that comments led to no action or research.
Correct Answer: YES
Passage Reference: there is no indication that the positive tone of some of the DoT's comments has led to 'action to curb child pedestrian accidents or to promote further research'.
Why this is correct: The writer directly supports this view by saying the positive comments have not led to action or further research.
Common Mistake: NOT GIVEN - Synonym match. The wording is different but the meaning is the same.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'has led to action to curb child pedestrian accidents or to promote further research' = Statement: 'resulted in reduction of child accidents and increased research work'
Tips: Different wording with the same meaning is often a YES.
Key Vocabulary:
- indication = sign
- promote = encourage
General Tips:
- YNNG tests the WRITER'S VIEW, not just facts. Always ask if the writer agrees or disagrees.
- YES and NO need clear opinion words. Without them, the answer is often NOT GIVEN.
- Statements usually follow passage order. Use the last answer to find the next one faster.
- Watch for trap words like replace, always, only. They often change the meaning.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation