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

201–210 of 321 posts

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#201

Post by [deleted] »

Cpoll wrote: post #196
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#202

Post by ncmncm »

wahern wrote: post #158
mveety wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fantastic advice. The only thing I can really add is you should be keeping track of what’s around you, don’t look just before a lane change. Having good situational awareness is the most important thing when driving.

I used to emphasize and practice that, back when I drove a '93 Honda Civic. It was a useful skill as I would naturally adjust my speed to prevent cars from cruising in my blind spot or to give myself more room for maneuvering. But newer cars have such poor visibility that it takes too much effort to track movement such that it becomes a diversion. In my '93 Civic any kind of movement in my peripheral--direct or in th…

Poor visibility is an ironic consequence of automakers responding to women's increasing role in vehicle purchase decisions. Automakers insist that women choose cars with poor visibility because they thereby feel less "exposed" to people in other cars. Is it true? It's true that automakers think so. They compete to make cars with bad visibility.

It will probably take a lot of lawsuits to turn the trend around. We might not get there before driving your car is outlawed, obviating the whole problem.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#203

Post by AceyMan »

Cpoll wrote: post #196
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…

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…

>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.

You must'a missed the subtle metaphor abuse to lighten the mood. Sorry 'bout that.

At any rate ...

Side walks haven't the width for fast moving traffic. Sidewalks cross other rights-of-way with always implied priority, traffic comprised of pedestrians, kids, dogs, old folk, etc.

I ride a bike in the city every day. I know riding on the sidewalk wouldn't work, even if you made it legal. Not at real commuting speeds.

You really advocate cyclists poking down the sidewalk at 5-8 mph, dinging their bell at every pedestrian, asking them to step aside? Or no, wait .. does the cyclist have to stop, do a track stand, and weeble-wobble around every blockage? Oh, and bunny hop over dog leashes. Hmm, yeah.

Anyone who thinks bikes should be on sidewalks has nearly zero understanding of what an urban mix of traffic works like.

Fellow cyclists, please jump in here!

/AC

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#204

Post by danjayh »

Novashi wrote: post #191
danjayh wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

It is obviously the bike's responsibility not to rear end a pedestrian, not vice-versa. In any case, I would counter that a bike rear ending a pedestrian is a lesser accident than a car rear ending a bike.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#205

Post by pdonis »

m1n1 wrote: post #175
pdonis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This method requires you to also lean into the mirror to see more towards the side of the car. You don't need to move your head at all to see a car at any point while it is coming up behind you and passing you: that's the whole point of adjusting your mirrors the way the article describes. As the article notes, you should still turn your head before making a maneuver like changing lanes. But because your mirrors ar…

> You don't need to move your head at all to see a car... But what I'm saying is the article's suggestion doesn't allow me to see something smaller like a motorcycle with the mirrors, and either I'd have to turn my head even further to see it with the mirrors in suggested position to check that area or -- worse yet -- I can't physically see that spot without the aid of a mirror.

> the article's suggestion doesn't allow me to see something smaller like a motorcycle with the mirrors

In other words, you now have some amount of "blind spot" for motorcycles--but only motorcycles. Whereas, with the mirrors adjusted further in, you still have some blind spot for motorcycles--though perhaps less than with them adjusted further out--but you also now have a blind spot for cars, which you don't have with the mirrors adjusted further out. And cars are much more common than motorcycles, so adjusting the mirrors further out is a net gain in how many vehicles you can see with the mirrors.

An even better solution is cameras like the ones that some higher end vehicles now have for changing lanes. In the ones I've seen, when you turn on your turn signal, your vehicle's screen (the one that shows the backup camera image when you're in reverse) shows a view of everything on that side of your vehicle. No blind spot for anything. Eventually I'm hoping this will become mainstream (the way backup cameras are getting to be).

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#206

Post by sys_64738 »

FPGAhacker wrote: post #194
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 glanc…

This description suggests that it's not safe to change lanes in such traffic.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#208

Post by Johnny555 »

ams6110 wrote: post #82
wcarron wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, this is also part of the driving exam. However, it is not an automatic failure on its own. I myself failed to do it once, on the test for turning right after crossing through a bicycle lane on my right. Every other maneuver, I checked over my shoulder. Felt bad because I used to commute via bicycle and it was...well, a little ironic that I messed up there of all places. Agreed, though. The US driving test…

The bike lane on the right scenario is just stupidity. In what other context is it permitted to turn right across another straight-ahead lane to the right? When I turn right and there is a bike lane to my right, I pull into the bike lane first so nobody can pass me.

Where else would you put it? If you put it on the left, then bikes are going to have to cross the car's path to get in/out of the bike lane. So either way, cars and bikes will be merging past each other.

However, in California, cars are not supposed to "turn right across another straight-ahead lane to the right", they are supposed to merge safely into the bike lane and turn right from the bike lane, letting any bikes behind pass the car on the left.

https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#209

Post by Noumenon72 »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #110

I've been aligning my mirrors like this for years. I prefer it because I can see cars in immediate adjacent positions without turning my head. It's particularly helpful in situations where I need to very quickly assess the situation, such as unexpected debris on the road and little time to react. As noted, however, motorcycles can draw up unseen. But more often, when it fails, it's a car two lanes over to my rear tha…

Yes. I always turn my head before I switch lanes, but I much more frequently am just aware that I don't need to turn my head because there is someone beside me. And you gain continuous situational awareness that means you pretty much always know which way you can go if you have to.

I also have had more surprise cars coming up next to me than motorcycles, because they're so rare and they don't come ut in the winter.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#210

Post by Noumenon72 »

ketralnis wrote: post #95
deltaecho1338 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Car Talk guys used to advocate for this method. I did it for a while, and liked it. Until I almost killed a motorcyclist.

I'm a motorcyclist in a crowded city and sadly this is a multi-daily occurrence

As a bicyclist, I always drove so that even if a car had no idea I was there at all, I would be safe or have a plan to dodge. On a motorcycle, I have to think that any time I entered a car's blind spot I would alert and planning to leave. Even in a car I don't hang out there.
Post reply on HN