I've almost been hit by so many idiots who don't turn their heads and just trust their stupid mirrors, I want to have 5 minutes alone in a locked room with whoever wrote this article.
How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
211–220 of 321 posts
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 migh…
Come again? Isn’t the more reasonable explanation simply that cars have to meet much more stringent auto safety standards which required thicker, more obnoxious A pillars?
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pedestrian…
Well, when I was growing up, common sense said I should ride on the side walk. The side walk was hardly ever used and perfectly suited to riding a bike. The road was much more frequently used; by 3000lb death machines piloted by zombies. No thanks.
If the side walk is too populated to comfortably ride a bike, and the road is busy with said suicide cans, then there is simply no place for a bike. I haven't ridden one in years. A short section of "bike lane" and a helmet wouldn't do much to convince me otherwise.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#214> must have been in the Insured's blind spot, therefore it was an unavoidable accident
No shoulder check => gross negligence => revoke license
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#215Earlier 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.
Absolutely, this is the best advice in this thread. In the event that I lose track of what's behind me, I will even sometimes go as far as intentionally varying my speed a bit to get something to go around me so I can re-establish a complete mental picture with 100% certainty.
Or maybe use your mirrors or shoulder check instead of flying blind.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had plenty of moments in my 33 years as a driver where a vehicle dropped out of the sky and into my blind spot; they just do that! The problem is that your attention isn't riveted on the mirrors at all times. If you have been sternly monitoring the mirrors in the previous fraction of a minute, then such a hypothesis does hold. In road tests, you have to do everything by the book, though. They want to see that yo…
> The problem is that your attention isn't riveted on the mirrors at all times. This is mitigated by what pilots call their "scan" or "flow" (I've heard both terms). Pilots follow a visual path around the instruments to ensure they refresh their awareness of critical values and system states (airspeed, ascent rate, engine parameters, etc.) at appropriate intervals¹. I argue that drivers should have a similar flow to…
How much does the roster of what pilots are constantly scanning have to do with what is happening to the rear of the airplane's path of travel?
Pilots don't have the problem of a child jumping into their path from between parked cars.
They can fly blind in a complete fog, by instruments.
In a car, your attention should be mostly toward the front. The rear action deserves attention, but not a lot; just a glance every few seconds.
There are times in driving when what is happening rearward is very important and deserves a lot of attention; it's generally good to keep those to a minimum.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it’s worth, it’s like that in much of the U.S. too— at least in my state (North Carolina), you’ll certainly fail the test if you change lanes without checking your blind spot. Driving tests vary state to state, though. And I agree with you that overall, driver education in the U.S. is woeful. I didn’t even have to parallel park for mine! Meanwhile Scandinavians have to prove they can recover from a slide to…
> Meanwhile Scandinavians have to prove they can recover from a slide to even get a license. Not entirely accurate, at least not when I did it. You do have to go take the slide test, otherwise you're not actually eligible for even taking the driving test. The slide test isn't so much a test though, but more of a forced (albeit very fun) experience to get you to experience first hand what it's like to hit a patch of i…
> I wonder if it's possible to retake this test every year or so.
Here the ADAC offers a Fahrsicherheitstraining (safe driving training) which includes similar exercises (e.g. evading an obstacle while experiencing aquaplaning).
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#218Earlier 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…
Pedestrians and cyclists can be killed or seriously injured in a collision:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-safety...
A pedestrian was killed by a cyclist in my city (Perth, Western Australia) on a shared (bikes and pedestrians) path some years ago.
The argument that broken bones are the worst outcome of a cyclist-pedestrian collision is incorrect.
Apart from human error ("failed to look properly"), the second most common factor in car-cyclist collisions is whether the cyclist is entering or crossing the roadway:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-saf...
In other words road crossings and riding past driveways across the sidewalk increase the risk of car-cyclist collisions considerably. As a commuting and recreational cyclist, my personal experience aligns with this strongly. Most of my close calls with cars have happened when I have been riding on a designated cycle path (separate from the road) and had to cross or enter a road.
So riding on a sidewalk that contains numerous road crossings or driveways can increase the risk of a collision for the cyclist.
In Perth we have a network of "shared paths" for use by cyclists and pedestrians. These are wide paths with a center line marking (ie they are for bidirectional use, convention is to keep left) and are separate from the roadway. Until very recently, adult cyclists were not permitted to use other sidewalks/footpaths unless they were accompanying a child cycling.
On these shared paths pedestrians always have right of way (even if they are on the wrong side of the center line). If a cyclist hits a pedestrian, the cyclist is considered to be at fault.
Why?
Well these paths are often through public parks or along scenic sections of the coast or river bank. As such they are popular places for families to take their children and to walk their dogs. Young children and dogs have no concept of "keeping left" and may do unpredictable things. As cyclists are the faster moving path users, it is their responsibility (by law) to enure they can safely pass pedestrians. Cyclists must have a warning device (bell or horn) to warn they are approaching and if it is unsafe to pass must slow down or stop until they can pass safely. Dog owners are required to keep their dogs under control (I think they may be required to use a lead by law, though many don't).
Most other sidewalks here are not designed for mixed use by cyclists and pedestrians. They may not be wide enough, have no designated center line marking, may be in front of retail or food outlets (increased pedestrian traffic with added unpredictable stopping/direction change) or have numerous driveways and road crossings.
Children, the elderly and dogs are common users of sidewalks. Children and dogs often make unpredictable moves on paths. The elderly are generally less agile (unable to take evasive action to prevent a collision), have diminished sight and hearing and are at high risk of serious injury in a fall or collision.
As a regular cyclist, I choose to ride on the road over the sidewalk as it is more efficient and safer for me and others (even though I have been hit by cars a few times). Where possible I will use a shared path, but often elect not to as they are too heavy in pedestrian traffic (coastal paths) or have numerous road crossings.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Where else would you put it?
Just have the cyclist ride in the right-most lane available for traffic. Then there are no crossing movements to deal with. Cars making a right turn will either be directly ahead of the cyclist or directly behind the cyclist.
Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”
#220I can deal with blindspots. What boggles my mind is that some modern cars still have abnormally large ones. Cars with bad crash ratings get shat on but apparently designs with massive blindspots are totally OK.
This. I drive cars from the 90s for a combination of economic and nostalgia/aesthetic reasons, but every time I get in a recent model, I'm struck by how many of them have seriously compromised fields of visibility by comparison. Is it just that there's no institutional rating of this sort of thing? I can't imagine that insurers would leave that stone unturned. Or is it really that it makes less of a difference than I…
> Is it just that there's no institutional rating of this sort of thing?
The ADAC gives school grades and explanations of the visibility for tested cars; most cars get shit-tier grades. E.g. the BMW X1 gets a straight 5.0 (fail) for rear view and 3,5 overall.
Many cars cannot be safely reversed alone without having a backup camera — which is often an extra feature.