41–50 of 522 posts
A few speed bumps at the intersection would slow drivers. Speed bumps are cheap and effective. You can lay several in series to encourage drivers to slow. It would be a shame not to use them in such an instance, where lives might be saved.
I posted this 2 days ago, but for some reason it didn't make it to the front page like yours. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16094431
Unless there's a significant discussion in a previous submission, this sort of comment isn't particularly useful. HN's collective choice in what to promote / demote is exceptionally fickle and happenstance. Rather like success in the SV start-up world. In both cases, backing a winner is generally more rewarding than doubling down on an attempt which, through no fault of its own, has failed. HN also periodically give…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, a stop sign would solve this, wouldn’t it? Simplist & cheapest solution first. The point about the geometry is that it doesn’t matter at which point the driver can see over the hill and brush; they still won’t see the cyclist.
The UK hates stop signs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#United_Kingdom
The longer I use the road in any function (cycling, driving, walking, etc), the more I am convinced that the vast majority of people are not competent drivers. So if one is interpreting the guidelines as whether an average person could have made the mistake, then they will surely come to an incorrect conclusion, as the average person is absolutely terrible at driving.
I'm reasonable good at controlling my car and I'm fairly aware of what is going on around me. I never drive distracted or drunk, and I follow all of the rules of the road. However, I don't consider myself a particularly good driver. I am lucky thus far that none of the mistakes I've made have resulted in harm to anyone. My skill in handling the car and my general attentiveness have prevented accidents (or perhaps even deaths), but there have been plenty of times where I've had near misses due to human error.
I've often wondered whether other people are fundamentally more competent drivers; whether they had a trait that I lacked. The more rides I take with other people, the more I am convinced that most people are fundamentally terrible drivers. Human nature and human perception are not suited for driving. It is nearly impossible to be a competent driver, regardless of how much care you take. Some of the worst drivers I know are the most careful. They diligently check every mirror and every blind spot before making a move, yet do so at such a slow pace that all the information they gathered when they checked each of the prior locations is irrelevant. Their caution can only go so far, as they eventually need to move to reach their destination, and at a certain point their hesitance is a danger to others, as massive differentials in speed one of the biggest hazards in driving.
Humans are just astoundingly incompetent drivers on all levels. Most people I know can't even adjust their mirrors so they can be used without moving their head substantially. How can a person be a competent driver if they have deprived themselves of easy access to what is happening next to their vehicle or behind it.
According to the World Health Organization, traffic deaths are the 10th leading cause of death in the world. There is no more likely 'accidental' cause of death than a car accident; each of the nine causes of death more common than car accidents are diseases. In 2013, 1.4 million people died from road traffic accidents, and 54 million people were injured.
I love driving. I love the open road, and the freedom that comes with it, but the truth of the matter is that people are terrible at driving. The sooner we have an alternative to people driving cars, the better.
Good write-up about a phenomenon I’d never expect to matter in a car. In aircraft it is the norm for mid-air collisions to occur this way. For example, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706 but there are many others. Aircraft in the US now have autonomous transponders broadcasting their location to each other. The author overlooks this fact since the “pilot training” to avoid this problem actually…
This is critical in the context of the author claiming that drivers should be expected to recognize the risk in this situation. Pilots are required to undergo significantly more training and expected to be much more methodical about operating their vehicles than drivers. In spite of all that, they're not very good at watching for this kind of scenario either.
Instead, a combination of air traffic control, transponder-based traffic warning systems and the fact that air traffic is vastly more sparse than road traffic make collisions between aircraft rare events. If a particular intersection design causes collisions, the primary fault should be considered to be with the intersection rather than the drivers.
Wow, after all these years I finally learned the name of this phenomenon, constant bearing decreasing range. I recall a scene in the movie Sin City where two cars crash and the camera was moving in CBDR to the perpendicular car as it zoomed into the impact site. I thought it was a cool shot. Also I’ve almost hit pedestrians several times when they were obscured by my A pillar. Sometimes I wonder if I would have actua…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze_heuristicI know most comments indicate that even without the maths, the rolling geography would seem to block the view, and that the best solution would be a 4-way stop, a roundabout or the split road suggestion in the article. But going back to the a-pillar, Volvo did have a concept design with a see through a-pillar. I'm not sure why it never made it to market. I'm guessing it didn't pass their safety requirements? http://w…
In New Zealand, with rural grid roads, they usually have 2 way stops (or give-way/yields) which will alternate, so you get priority at one intersection, then stop/give way at the next, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, they would put up a stop sign and park a cop near there for some instant, costly learning experiences. Although, if the speed is sufficient you would probably get an overpass, particularly if one road is a known truck route. It would be interesting to build a bicycle only overpass.
The US also tends to overuse stop signs when a yield (give way) sign would suffice. That is, if there is sufficient visibility of approaching traffic, coming to a complete stop is not necessary to safely yield to any conflicting traffic. Also, coming to a complete stop and then proceeding isn't sufficient to properly yield to approaching traffic. In the end, stop signs end up being treated like yield signs. The only…
A vehicle doesn't have to be obscured by the pillar for you not to notice it. If you're both moving at a constant speed, anything on a collision course will have the same bearing and appear relatively motionless. If you look left and right, your eyes might saccade right past the target.
If you get to a junction and move your head right and left
to look for oncoming traffic, you need to understand that
you cannot guarantee that you have seen approaching traffic.
It is entirely possible for our eyes to ‘jump over’ an
oncoming vehicle during one of the saccades. The smaller
(and specifically, the narrower) the vehicle, the greater
the chance that it could fall within a saccade. You are not
being inattentive, you are physically incapable of seeing
anything during a saccade. Remember the ‘Think Bike!’
adverts, where a driver pulls out into the path of a
motorcycle? I am convinced that it is the phenomena of
saccades and fixations that is most likely to lead to this
sort of accident.