Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

pages.cs.wisc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 321 posts

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#191

Post by Novashi »

danjayh wrote: post #186
AceyMan wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. I'm so positively gobsmacked that a statement this plainly ignorant came from a fellow HN participant, I don't even know where to begin. Start with: bicycles are vehicles—always have been, in fact. Pedestrians are not. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. (It's not a "sideride" after all. ) Even razor/bird scooters on sidewa…

Ignorant because it's not what you believe, or because you have data to justify your beliefs? Explain to me the logic from a safety perspective. 40mph car vs 15mph bike? Biker is lucky to live. 15mph bike vs 4mph pedestrian? Maybe a broken bone, if that. Besides insulting me and declaring that because bicycles are vehicles they should be on the road, you provide no quantitative reasoning to back your position. I fail…

Cars can avoid bikers more easily than pedestrians. You don't walk around with rear-view mirrors.

A bike rear-ending a pedestrian is going to be much worse than broken bones for both. A bike rear-ending a car is just going to hurt the biker.

The solution you're looking for is for people to not ride bikes if they don't want to take the risk.

I'm pretty sure sidewalk building codes are also written to assume they're not a bike path. You're more likely to run into blind corners on the sidewalk (and thus risk a collision) than a bike lane.

You've also forgotten about disabled people using the sidewalks.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#192

Post by singingboyo »

mstade wrote: post #182
mlillie wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US equivalent is SMOG: Signal, Mirrors, Over the shoulder, Go when safe. Not sure whether it is better to signal before or after looking, but that was what my partner's driving instructor taught.

The point of looking first, as explained by my instructor, was to not freak out other drivers by signaling first. They might think you're going to suddenly pop out of the lane, spooking them to either speed up or slow down, or perhaps swirving, causing an accident that way. By looking first to make sure things are clear, you mitigate this risk. Of course, in heavy traffic this is still an issue; but heavy traffic typ…

My thought is that signaling before the full check gives the other driver a chance to make sure they're comfortable with and prepared for the change, but obviously you want to know they're there already.

I think the missing point in that SMOG acronym is general awareness. I don't know if they teach this, but I won't signal unless I'm already quite sure I'm lined up with a clear space I want to get into. But, once I'm aligned and think I'm good, I'll signal, double check mirrors, shoulder check, and then go. The only new info that gives is the shoulder check, and if you're paying attention a shoulder check should never surprise you.

If you need to change lanes within the next 30 seconds, and don't already have general knowledge of the destination lane's status, you've screwed up already. [1] It makes much more sense to consider checking after signaling if it's a double-check, not your first look at what's around you.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#194

Post by FPGAhacker »

wcarron wrote: post #11

There's an even simpler, more effective way of checking blind spots: Actually turning ones head and looking over the shoulder. The "blind spot" doesn't exist when drivers exercise proper caution and responsible driving behavior. Of course, expecting this of drivers is unrealistically utopian. Nevertheless, a "blind spot" is just another excuse for unsafe drivers.

I advocate turning your head and looking, but it’s not safe to take your eyes off the car ahead of you in Seattle traffic many times.

When traffic is both fast and heavy and with the potential to completely stop fast enough to engage abs, randomly, every few miles, anything you can do to shorten the quick look the better.

I have done this with my mirrors for a year or so and it’s been a big help. I still dart a glance when I feel safe enough, but there are times when it isn’t safe.

I am careful to give a blink on my signal before moving over and I try to change at a speed where if I’ve made a mistake, someone has time to dodge or honk.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#195

Post by ssambros »

Hello71 wrote: post #187
ssambros wrote: post #183

People who drove cars in the EU and in the USA: did you ever notice how the blind spot problem almost completely disappears in the EU? That's because US enforces in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #111 [1] that the left side rear view mirror cannot be convex, to aid the detection of the vehicles in the blind spot. I have not yet come up with a good understanding of why that regulation even exists, but perso…

it's the same reason that convex mirrors in America must have the text "OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR" engraved. i.e. Americans (think Americans) are stupid.

> it's the same reason that convex mirrors in America must have the text

Precisely.

S5.4.2 Each convex mirror shall have permanently and indelibly marked at the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface, in letters not less than 4.8 mm nor more than 6.4 mm high the words “Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear.”

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#196

Post by Cpoll »

AceyMan wrote: post #167
danjayh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree that extra caution is needed for pedestrians and bicycles. Having said that, I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. The threat posed by a car to a bike is much greater than the threat posed by a bike to a pedestrian, therefore, to maximize safety bikes should be on the sidewalk. As far as motorcycles are concerned - I think they're a bad idea in general…

> I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. I'm so positively gobsmacked that a statement this plainly ignorant came from a fellow HN participant, I don't even know where to begin. Start with: bicycles are vehicles—always have been, in fact. Pedestrians are not. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. (It's not a "sideride" after all. ) Even razor/bird scooters on sidewa…

I'm gobsmacked that you can feign amazement and then post a reply that's basically "sidewalks aren't called siderides, so bikes should stay off" with no further logic. Perhaps we should stay on the driveway?

You're phrasing your conclusions like the alternative is moronic, but it's not. There are lots of places that allow bikes on the sidewalk, and it doesn't lead to martial law.

I lived in a large but suburban city that allowed it, and it was hardly a problem, bikes would yield to pedestrians, and the only problem is bikes taking the intersections too fast.

At higher densities, I've seen bikes on sidewalks in various Asian cities, including several Japanese cities with various pedestrian densities. I think these anecdotes are a fair counter to your LA anecdote.

If we follow the logic of your post, we should also ban vehicles such as electric wheelchairs from the sidewalk.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#197

Post by flatfilefan »

danjayh wrote: post #186
AceyMan wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. I'm so positively gobsmacked that a statement this plainly ignorant came from a fellow HN participant, I don't even know where to begin. Start with: bicycles are vehicles—always have been, in fact. Pedestrians are not. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. (It's not a "sideride" after all. ) Even razor/bird scooters on sidewa…

Ignorant because it's not what you believe, or because you have data to justify your beliefs? Explain to me the logic from a safety perspective. 40mph car vs 15mph bike? Biker is lucky to live. 15mph bike vs 4mph pedestrian? Maybe a broken bone, if that. Besides insulting me and declaring that because bicycles are vehicles they should be on the road, you provide no quantitative reasoning to back your position. I fail…

A bike going 30 km/h on a sidewalk is often impossible to see from a car doing a right turn because it’s covered by cars parked on the curb.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#198

Post by Johnny555 »

danjayh wrote: post #186
AceyMan wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never understood why bicycles aren't required to ride on the sidewalks in areas that have them. I'm so positively gobsmacked that a statement this plainly ignorant came from a fellow HN participant, I don't even know where to begin. Start with: bicycles are vehicles—always have been, in fact. Pedestrians are not. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. (It's not a "sideride" after all. ) Even razor/bird scooters on sidewa…

Ignorant because it's not what you believe, or because you have data to justify your beliefs? Explain to me the logic from a safety perspective. 40mph car vs 15mph bike? Biker is lucky to live. 15mph bike vs 4mph pedestrian? Maybe a broken bone, if that. Besides insulting me and declaring that because bicycles are vehicles they should be on the road, you provide no quantitative reasoning to back your position. I fail…

The problem with your logic is that few bike accidents happen from a 40 mph car overtaking a 15mph bike.

Most car-bike collisions happen at intersections and not only does riding on the sidewalk not reduce that problem, it makes it worse both because a bike on the sidewalk is not as easy for the car to see, but also it multiplies the number of intersections since suddenly every driveway becomes an intersection that a car might be pulling out of.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#199

Post by Johnny555 »

I rented a car once that had blind spot cameras in the outside rear view mirrors -- when you turn on the turn signal, it displayed the camera's view in the multifunction display in the middle of the dashboard.

It had a better field of view than the mirror, and made it very easy to see if there's a bike or pedestrian beside you. Since it was just a rental, out of habit I still turned my head to look, but it seemed like a useful. I think it even flashed and beeped a warning if there was someone in the blind spot, but that may have only worked for cars.

I think these systems should be required for trucks and other large vehicles that have a large blind spot.

http://www.carblogmy.com/honda-blindspot-display-system/

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#200

Post by tempestn »

ummonk wrote: post #25

There 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…

Yes you'll probably still want to turn your head somewhat. However, the way most people adjust side mirrors, so they can see the side of the car without moving their head, is unnecessary. The view out the rear window from the rear-view mirror angles outward. Therefore if your side mirrors give you a view straight back down the sides of the car, you have overlap beginning right at the corner of your car. By turning them out further, you can increase the side coverage without creating any holes in the back.

It definitely varies from one vehicle to another based on things like rear window size and position though, so your advice for testing makes sense.

Post reply on HN