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

221–230 of 321 posts

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#221

Post by null000 »

I've been doing this for years. TBC - it doesn't eliminate the need to check your blind spot anyway (as many have mentioned) - just makes it more likely that you catch something moving unexpectedly into your blind spot, or you catch it before turning to look.

Also, the positioning is difficult to get used to, since you kinda have to trust it blindly (you can't get a good idea for where it's positioned based on seeing the side of your car) and then also it's just awful positioning for parking. Not to mention, anyone else using or sharing your car will complain to no end about the weird mirror positions.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#222

Post by megaremote »

danjayh wrote: post #136
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…

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 am amazed that we allow cars in any place that people are nearby, such as cities of suburbs? 40,000 people die every year in the US, just so someone can get somewhere slightly quicker. Roads take up more space than private housing. Cost billions every single year.Such a ridiculous cost.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#223

Post by analog31 »

wahern wrote: post #168
InitialLastName wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking, I'm perpetually baffled by the people who drive up behind me, overtake me, and seem to forget I'm there before they even finish passing me. The worst case is when they expect to turn right soon; I consistently have drivers half-overtake me and then start moving towards me, or turn right across a bike lane without looking.

For a stretch of a few hundred feet (like a city block) where you'll both likely come to a stop, do you prefer cars overtake you beforehand or to trail behind? Do cars trailing you make you anxious? I don't think I've ever forgotten about a biker I've passed, but I also like to avoid situations where I might forget, which put the biker in a position to surprise me, or which impede my maneuverability if something else…

I'm an avid urban cyclist. My preference is for you to behave the same way as if I'm driving a car. Pass me if you can. If you're alongside me, a gentle tap on my brake will get rid of you quickly enough. ;-)

I will admit to having a mildly "political" motive, in that I would like drivers to have a positive experience dealing with cyclists. So I'm probably more courteous than the bare minimum required by the traffic laws. I get out of the way if I'm backing up traffic, whether driving a car or riding my bike.

My general preference is to find routes where there's minimal car traffic.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#224

Post by justapassenger »

wcarron wrote: post #35
criley2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turning your head means not looking forward. You might think it is safe to operate a multi-ton death machine at death speeds while closing your eyes or looking backwards or whatever you're doing except looking forward. But it is not. Learn to use mirrors, so your peripheral vision remains on the most important thing: where you are going. "Turning your head" is an unsafe way to avoid having properly set mirrors. With…

Turning your head is completely safe, with one caveat: Proper Following Distance. A quick, over-the-shoulder check is not dangerous at all if a driver gives the car in front proper following distance. Too many people follow WAY too closely, especially at highway speeds. Lastly, safe driving includes both actions. Step 1 is to check your mirrors (first rear, the side views). Step 2 is to quickly check over the shoulde…

What about debris falling off a car in front of you? Or driving on a city streets, with people randomly running onto the street? Proper following distance isn't universal remedy for not looking forward.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#225

Post by ummonk »

pdonis wrote: post #205
m1n1 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

You can turn your head and check the blind spot on your side. You can’t turn your head and check the motorcycle blind spot at the back. A large checkable blind spot (which you always check) is far preferable to a small uncheckable blind spot.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#226

Post by jacobolus »

m1n1 wrote: post #44
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…

This, and the other comments that say turning your head is still necessary. I tried what the link suggests and had many instances where a motorcycle zipped by close to my car -- I didn't notice them until [what would have been] too late because I couldn't see the area next to my car easily that way. Now I have my mirrors adjusted so I can see motorcycles better, and I turn my head to check the remainder. All humans a…

> All humans are legally blind in their peripheral vision just a few degrees off-axis,

This is a misleading summary. Humans can’t read text or distinguish fine textures in peripheral vision, but peripheral vision is very good at detecting moving objects (that’s arguably its main purpose).

I like to think of peripheral vision as “prey vision” – as in, “what would I need to know about my environment if I were a deer and a wolf might jump out at me from any side, and my main response should be to run away as soon as possible?”

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#227

Post by wtmt »

In India, rear view mirrors with a wider view have been available as "clip on" options for a long time. If those are made standard in cars (instead of as addons), the specific "blind spot" problem would instantly disappear. Many of these aren't even highly convex, and so don't create much of a distance perception problem.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#228

Post by ummonk »

mveety wrote: post #108
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…

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’ve found that adaptive cruise control has really helped here. Instead of having most of my driving effort put into managing the distance and speed between myself and the car in front (something that is hard for a human but easy for a computer) I can let the computer handle it, only sanity checking to make sure it isn’t messing up, and put much more focus on situational awareness (something humans are good at but computers are bad at), constantly checking what is happening around me and scanning the road and traffic ahead for potential dangers.

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#229

Post by ak217 »

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…

People are having a strong reaction to what you're saying because you're fundamentally presuming a car-centric infrastructure where others have to accommodate cars.

Bikes are vehicles and have as much of a right to be on the road as cars do. It is car drivers' and regulators' responsibility to make cars avoid colliding with bikes, not vice versa. There are plenty of collisions between cars and big rigs on freeways, yet we don't ban cars from going on freeways, instead we insist on more stringent safety standards for big rigs.

> Let's first acknowledge that between mixed traffic (whatever the mix may be) collisions will happen, and then discuss how to minimize harm.

Sure. It's best to separate the traffic. Either build bike paths, or (if that's not an option) take lanes away from cars and make them into bike lanes (protected by curbs and bulbouts).

Re: How to Eliminate the Dreaded “Blind Spot”

#230

Post by leetcrew »

spookthesunset wrote: post #212
ncmncm wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A pillars don't create much of a problem; you're pretty much always going to be aware of objects 45 degrees to the left or right of your heading. fat B and C pillars are far more problematic.

that said, there are plenty of affordable cars with great visibility (e.g., a vw golf). if you pick a car with bad visibility, it's kinda on you.

Post reply on HN