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

The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 378 posts

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#291

Post by bee_rider »

r00f wrote: post #183
sdfjkl wrote: post #85

Different cultures have different unwritten behaviours on roads. In the mountains of Italy, drivers give a short honk before entering a turn on a serpentine road, which usually can't be seen around. If there is no responding honk, they will take the full width of the road (making the very tight turn easier and faster). Tourist drivers have to pick up on this :) In much of Europe oncoming cars flash their lights to wa…

A friend from Syria once told me that in their country flashing warning lights means "f* you", and when he saw it for the first time when going abroad, he was really angry when someone thanked him. Like "I've just let him merge and that is how he acts to me?!" But I personally haven't heard of any other cases when this isn't considered a thank you gesture

I'm surprised at the thank you gesture. The intended use of warning lights is to... warn people, right? I've always understood them to mean "something weird has happened, and so I may do something unpredictable." I can't see how that could have morphed to "thank you."

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#292

Post by tasuki »

hereforphone wrote: post #250
sdfjkl wrote: post #85

Different cultures have different unwritten behaviours on roads. In the mountains of Italy, drivers give a short honk before entering a turn on a serpentine road, which usually can't be seen around. If there is no responding honk, they will take the full width of the road (making the very tight turn easier and faster). Tourist drivers have to pick up on this :) In much of Europe oncoming cars flash their lights to wa…

"Tourists have to pick up on it" seems like a strange thing to bet one's life on. Does making the very tight turn faster get one home much quicker? Why not just slow down?

> "Tourists have to pick up on it" seems like a strange thing to bet one's life on.

Tourists are generally advised to pick up on local customs. I used to live in Amsterdam. Cyclists expect pedestrians to hear the bell ring once and get the hell out of the fietspad. If you don't, you will get hit.

> Does making the very tight turn faster get one home much quicker?

In Italian Alps where you spend half the time turning? You bet!

> Why not just slow down?

Have you met many Italians? :)

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#293

Post by dzhiurgis »

dvirsky wrote: post #245
sdfjkl wrote: post #85

Different cultures have different unwritten behaviours on roads. In the mountains of Italy, drivers give a short honk before entering a turn on a serpentine road, which usually can't be seen around. If there is no responding honk, they will take the full width of the road (making the very tight turn easier and faster). Tourist drivers have to pick up on this :) In much of Europe oncoming cars flash their lights to wa…

In Israel, flashing the warning lights or hazard lights or whatever they're called when driving, means "hey car behind me, you're on high beams and blinding me, please stop". Since moving to the US I haven't found an effective way to signal people about this, they certainly don't understand this signal. Flashing high beams quickly is either a warning about police ahead, or "turn on your damn lights" (there is also a…

How about when someone leaves their rear fog light on and you are behind them…

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#294

Post by cptskippy »

whymauri wrote: post #262
calahad wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flashing the high-beams to warn of police is a thing in the US also, although you can get ticketed for it. (Apparently this has been successfully challenged in court as free speech though lol https://www.myimprov.com/flashing-headlights-in-florida-prot... )

This is why rural Arizonan drivers were my favorite during a cross-country roadtrip. Everyone drove fast, but competently, and gave you a heads up for speed traps. By the time I crossed into CO I was flashing my lights to warn of police, too.

I've seen flashing lights to warn of speed traps used all over the south east and mid west.

Oddly though, no one in Southern California holds Arizona drivers in high regard. Quite the opposite. Best I can tell they're the western equivalent of Florida drivers.

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#295

Post by cptskippy »

oxfeed65261 wrote: post #272
sjg007 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people these days drive with their LED high beams on all the time.

I see the opposite problem more often (Bay Area): cars with always-on daytime running lights that don’t turn on their headlights (and the corresponding taillights) at night. I flash my lights at them but this rarely seems to help.

I've never understood why DRL are only in the front.

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#296

Post by ghayes »

icambron wrote: post #258
matt-attack wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that is an interesting point I never considered. That the message being conveyed is simply "Obey the law". Not that the contents of the message should be germane (in my opinion) when considering whether a specific act of speech should be considered legal or not.

IANAL, but my understanding is that there are different levels of "scrutiny" that can be applied to a statute when analyzing its First Amendment compatibility, and which one is appropriate depends on several factors. Typically a judicial opinion walks through the logic of which one it applies before applying it. And the level of scrutiny determines how strongly the law is constrained. Under the strictest scrutiny--ap…

This comes from Footnote Number 4 [0], which was literally a footnote in a case where a Justice articulated what the Court was already doing in analyzing its cases. The Court generally applies one of three levels of scrutiny [1]:

* Strict scrutiny - The Government must prove there is a compelling state interest behind the challenged policy, and the law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve its result.

* Intermediate scrutiny - The law must serve an important government objective, and be substantially related to achieving the objective.

* Rational basis review - A challenger must prove the government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or there is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.

While I don't believe the Supreme Court has taken up a case of light signaling, it is likely that the Court would apply strict scrutiny due to the clear First Amendment considerations. If so, thus the government would need to prove that it's narrowly tailored solution to a compelling state interest. It would need to answer questions such as: is it okay to say flash your headlights for road hazard? Would the state prohibit the defendant from telling others at a gas station about the police officer? Etc. I'd suspect that it would be a hard case to win for the Government.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Carolene_Prod....

[1] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/challenging-...

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#297

Post by nawgz »

kube-system wrote: post #279
oxfeed65261 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the opposite problem more often (Bay Area): cars with always-on daytime running lights that don’t turn on their headlights (and the corresponding taillights) at night. I flash my lights at them but this rarely seems to help.

Cars have too many features. And I don't mean this in a, "I'm a luddite and wish cars were simple" type of way. I seriously think the number of controls on a vehicle (and burden of the owners manual) is so great that it is causing safety issues. My car has more controls for the lights alone than my first vehicle had for everything. Literally. "Automatic" features like headlights were supposed to make us safer, but I…

> My car has more controls for the lights alone than my first vehicle had for everything. Literally.

As someone driving a 2021 Subaru who grew up in a 99 Integra and an 01 Civic. I don't see this at all? The controls are extremely familiar for the lighting, except my new car has a no-friction option: I turn on the "Auto" setting and it automatically puts on DRLs or full lights for me given the lighting conditions. It even turns on my lights for me when I pull into my parking garage at midday.

How exactly could this be made less complex?

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#298

Post by [deleted] »

brirec wrote: post #111
amalcon wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that a "mistake" in Massachusetts includes not just things that are dangerous, but also such grave misconduct as stopping for a yellow light, going at only the speed limit, or riding a bicycle.

There’s something about being a motor vehicle driver that just makes bicycle riders very bad people

[deleted]

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#299

Post by toss1 »

kube-system wrote: post #279
oxfeed65261 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the opposite problem more often (Bay Area): cars with always-on daytime running lights that don’t turn on their headlights (and the corresponding taillights) at night. I flash my lights at them but this rarely seems to help.

Cars have too many features. And I don't mean this in a, "I'm a luddite and wish cars were simple" type of way. I seriously think the number of controls on a vehicle (and burden of the owners manual) is so great that it is causing safety issues. My car has more controls for the lights alone than my first vehicle had for everything. Literally. "Automatic" features like headlights were supposed to make us safer, but I…

Yup, I discovered that I have an automatic headlight dimming feature. It works well most of the time, often surprisingly well.

BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, it sometimes fails, and at the worst times - like when it is drizzly & foggy at night, in a tight bit of road and a lot of wet pavement glare from the oncoming car — so the workload is already high with bad visibility & grip, and now I have to ALSO flick the lever and move my eyes to the dashboard display to check whether or not I got the lights to the correct state (it may unpredictably finally work and my action goes back to high beams a half second later).

I keep being lulled into giving it a few more chances, but I'm pretty sure it'll get turned off for good. I already reliably switch the hi/lo beams at a subconscious level with near-zero mental workload, so I'm better off just letting that instinct work by feel, rather than randomly having to engage another higher-level attention task at particularly high-workload moments.

This is a Ford and I read that they had this same feature about a decade ago and had to remove it because it just wasn't good enough. It seems that they're a lot closer, but not enough.

Something like the uncanny valley of tech features - almost good enough makes it really bad?

Re: The origins of ‘horn ok please,’ India’s most ubiquitous phrase (2016)

#300

Post by t0mas88 »

genewitch wrote: post #254
sjg007 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people these days drive with their LED high beams on all the time.

I don't understand how a car with detectors that dim mirrors can't also turn your high beams off when they detect another car in front of you. Easily 5/8ths or more of every vehicle I pass at night has their high beams on, and in areas without fog lines it gets old in a hurry - and dangerous.

BMW does "automatic high beams" in Europe, they turn on when there are no cars ahead or opposite and off when it detects a car through the cameras. I've had it since 2006, so it probably existed a few years before that.
Post reply on HN