I bought these to try to help lessen the blind spot: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Adjustable-Blind-Spot-Mirror-Wide-A...
How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
111–120 of 321 posts
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#112I have used this advice for the past decade and I could not recommend it more. After just few days of driving like that I could not believe how it was possible for me to drive with incorrectly set mirrors like 99÷ of car drivers.
I see many comments complaining about almost hitting bikes while using this method. How is your experience?
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#113These seem like good guidelines, although I would add that drivers should also be aware of other cars that may merge from the side, so you cannot depend entirely on the mirrors. This happens quite frequently in heavy traffic when folks are eager to take any space available
Agreed, drivers often do not check for this. If I'm merging into a lane, I prefer to do so when not sliding next to another car. If it's inevitable, I do it slowly.
Yes! I wish more people thought like this.
I've more than once been signaling a merge and had the car two lanes over attempt the opposite merge right into the space I'm signaling into, often when I'm already partially in it, without signaling. I'm very wary of merging next to someone now for that reason.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Physically turning your head in __not__ a risky operation if a driver has given proper following distance to the vehicle in front. Turning to look over your shoulder is only dangerous if you are driving dangerously by following too closely or at an excessive speed difference between your vehicle and surrounding traffic. My personal rule of thumb is at least 1 car length for every 10mph I'm traveling at, so at 70mph >…
That rule of thumb gives you about a second, assuming no one cuts into your lane or crosses the median. You are reducing but not eliminating risk enough to emphasize that it’s not risky.
Yes, but it is a floor, not a ceiling. That's why I said "at least 1 car length".
I give as much space as I possibly can in following distance without impeding traffic, but not less than 1cl/10mph.
For example, if someone merges in front of me at approximately 3 car lengths at 65mph, I'm not going to slam on my brakes to increase the gap, then gun it back up to speed. That's dangerous. I'm going to get off the throttle, maybe brake a bit, and let the gap grow out before reapplying power, which gives me reasonable protection without endangering me too much. This is also much more predictable for cars behind me, which again is safer.
Not every situation is in perfect compliance with the rules. My goal is to maximize my safety, predictability, and compliance without causing traffic problems for others. That's why it's a rule of thumb. It's not written in stone, but it's a good guideline to start.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#115Here's a paper going into some technical details of blind spots and how to overcome them:
https://doi.org/10.4271/950601
The Geometry of Automotive Rearview Mirrors - Why Blind Zones Exist and Strategies to Overcome Them
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over-reliance on technology is a plague on driving quality. This is actually why I (and I realize this isn't realistic) think that new drivers should be required to learn to driv and pass the driving test using a manual transmission vehicle without driver aids such as blind-spot detection, lane-assist, assistive braking, etc. Each year, cars become more and more insulated and isolated from the reality of driving, whi…
Anyone who's relying on driver assists as their primary safety (rather than just as a backup to their senses) is a bad driver. Bad drivers exist, and aren't going to magically become good drivers if you take away these aids, they'll just cause an accident instead. The NHTSA can provide volumes of actual data to refute your anecdata. https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/driver-assistance-technologi...
> new drivers should be required to learn to driv
This hypothetical situation is part of the learning process. That is the point. People __learn__ to drive without the assists. Not to all of a sudden revoke a current drivers' ability to use them.
This would help educate drivers in their formative stage in order to reduce the number of "bad drivers" on the road later.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#117Works only if lane splitting for motorcycles isn't allowed. You need to be able to see between lanes and the rearview can be obscured by a close following vehicle you.
I disagree. Proper side view mirror alignment results in the car driver able to clearly see the dividing lines for a significant distance behind the car. A vehicle following closely behind you does (or rather, should) not impede the side view mirrors.
It can. It doesn't always. If the driver behind you is not particularly well aligned in the lane it can be difficult. Doubly so if it is a larger vehicle, relative to you. (I drive a small sedan, for example.)
Imagine you are centered in the leftmost lane. The driver behind you is tailgating and riding close to the dashed lane divider to your right. You'd like to see down that very lane divider, to see an oncoming motorcycle.
Your rear-view is going to be obstructed by the vehicle behind you. Particularly, the right side of the view, since the trailing vehicle is to the right of your center.
You side view is also going to be obstructed, as the trailing vehicle will obscure the LoS going straight back along the dashed line. I'm able to see the dashed line, but only for a small distance; often only 0.5 to 1 seconds of travel distance. This isn't really sufficient, safety wise.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
That rule of thumb gives you about a second, assuming no one cuts into your lane or crosses the median. You are reducing but not eliminating risk enough to emphasize that it’s not risky.
Yes, but it is a floor, not a ceiling. That's why I said "at least 1 car length". I give as much space as I possibly can in following distance without impeding traffic, but not less than 1cl/10mph. For example, if someone merges in front of me at approximately 3 car lengths at 65mph, I'm not going to slam on my brakes to increase the gap, then gun it back up to speed. That's dangerous. I'm going to get off the thrott…
Yes, but you said that turning back to look is _not_ risky and only gave one number that is too close to look back without risk. Theoretically “at least” has no upper bound, which I suppose gives you an out...
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#119Here's a paper going into some technical details of blind spots and how to overcome them: https://doi.org/10.4271/950601 The Geometry of Automotive Rearview Mirrors - Why Blind Zones Exist and Strategies to Overcome Them
Googling that paper turned up an interesting summary of innovations in side mirrors, etc.
https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/are-blind-spots-...
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#120There are smaller things (bicycles, motorcycles, pedestrians) that can sneak into the gap between the side and rearview mirror views here. And colliding with one of those is much more likely to cause serious injury or death than colliding with a car. It's a much better idea to make sure your side and rear mirrors have complete coverage (i.e. no gaps) at the back, and actually turning your head to check the blind spot…
I relearnt driving as an adult and had a driving instructor. This is what he insisted again and again and again. It's now a second nature for me to turn my head quickly and glance at the blind spot before switching lanes or turning. It's way too many times I have noticed a motorbike/bicycle has sneaked into that spot. Mirrors and adjustments are all good but this (simple) extra step avoids accidents.