this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
160 points (66.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

9680 readers
1318 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 69 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Other things they need to ban in driving:

Shitheads who refuse to use turn signals. Not shoulder checking. Not Leaving a gap. leaving your high beams on. Not Getting to the side for emergency vehicles. Doing multiple lane changes all at once.

These are already not legal but too many drivers do this shit. No one is reinforcing it.

Looking for excuses to Turn off your brain just cuz your foot is on the gas pedal should be when you have your licence taken away.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I was recently proposing regular drivers re-tests as a solution.

My teen has already developed some bad driving habits, like we all do, and is focused on not doing them during his upcoming driving test. For example, what if he fails for driving a little too fast?

Similarly, maybe if people had to think about their bad driving habits and risked losing their license if they slipped back into them, maybe it would help reinforce safer havits

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The idea someone gets lisenced once and never retests for decades is absurd. Road rules, car technology, bad habits, and health issues all may change drastically over that time period. Regular retesting would be expensive but should be done. Make the drivers pay for it and use it to reduce the subsidizing of roads.

[–] f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Where I am in the US, there's no longer Drivers' Ed. class in public schools, and DMV road tests are so far behind that you have to schedule your test appointment two years in advance.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm guessing a major metro area? If you have a friend or relative that will drive you to and from the test, you may find that calling around to the various close by counties can get you tested much faster.

There will be for profit drives ed schools in your area, unless you live in AK, I don't know what those run since I took it in school, but the racing licence schools are several thousand dollars, and worth every penny.

[–] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Every renewal should be a retest with increasing frequency after 55.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Everyone is blaming older people, yet as I’ve seen older people approach the point where they should no longer drive, they limit themselves before anyone else does. That older neighbor driving to church once a week may be slow but they’ll probably be ok.

Meanwhile, it’s the people who have no physical/mental impairment who blow through stop signs and rights on red, who speed excessively, who drive drunk, who text and drive, who drive trucks bigger than they can keep in the lane, who can’t park between the lines, who rage drive ……. There are a lot of dangerous drivers who have nothing to do with being elderly, and many of these behaviors are more likely to cause injury/death

[–] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not blaming older people, I blame drivers in general. As a pedestrian, I take bad drivers very seriously, but I also recent moved away from a town that had a large population of elderly people who drove and there would be multiple accidents a month caused by elderly drivers as well. Bad drivers are bad drivers, but age only makes it worse.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Except the age group you are picking are actually the safest speaking on statistics. They are currently likely far more safer than the younger drivers that can’t put away their fucking phone.

[–] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I am also a believer in zero tolerance driving policies because of those drivers, and don't believe anyone under the age of 21 should be driving, but people usually think that's too extreme.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The highest group for liability are actually teenage boys

The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among teens ages 16–19 than among any other age group.

It’s so much so that insurance companies know to charge the highest risk group statistically

Women tend to pay less for car insurance than men. And it should come as no surprise that young drivers pay the most. Age correlates with driving experience and the risk of getting into a car accident.

If anything, speaking statistically, people are probably the least accident prone in their 50s-60s if they were good drivers all their life.

The high car insurance rates that young drivers pay start to go down at age 25. You’ll get the best rates in your 50s and early 60s

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Funny, while I was in high school guys probably did have more fender benders but girls were the ones destroying cars and getting themselves killed. Of the four vehicle-related fatalities while I was in high school, three were girls at the wheel, one was one of their passengers.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And I’ve experienced the younger male gender to be more severe because they were more risk taking, go higher speeds and take out more vehicles than just themselves. Women tend to make mistakes and have less fatalities overall as they go slower and doesn’t involve another vehicle. And I’ve experienced this in more than one country. And more than one highschool. Hence why insurance companies don’t take your singular anecdote alone to set their standards. They’d lose money.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Thanks to cell phones and distracted driving, those numbers are steadily equalizing, making all teens more dangerous and expensive to insure.

[–] WillFord27@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

What stopped me from driving too fast, when I developed that habit, was the realization that my eyes and brain can't process fast enough to prevent the worst possible scenario. A child runs out from between two parked cars? The 10 miles an hour between 25 and 35 makes all the difference.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

If they're illegal aren't they already banned? I don't understand. Enforcement is a completely different argument.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This just makes me sad that the police won't do what we actually want them to do.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

I think the car has got so common and roads so vast that it is nearly impossible for the existing police service to effectively police the roadways causing a focus on the most extreme violations.

I passed a cop doing radar in a school zone the other day, average speed was 15 over and they didnt pull anyone. They probably still handed out several tickets for 20+ over in that zone but they couldnt ticket 80% of the drivers on the route as it was too busy.

[–] TheDannysaur@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Shoulder checking isn't even necessary. People just don't set their side mirrors correctly. If you can see your own car in your side mirrors, they're incorrect. Or I guess I should say inefficient for what they are trying to accomplish.

Setting those properly would do a lot of people a lot of good.

Edit: I should clarify, I'm assuming shoulder checking meaning looking back, beyond 90 degrees to look backwards. Most people do this to check the "blindspot", but this basically doesn't exist if mirrors are correctly set. You still need to check the immediate sides of the car.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Blind spot is in all cars back passenger side window. It’s so well known that it is taught to avoid that spot while riding a motorbike. Refusing it exists makes you all that more dangerous behind a murder machine.

[–] icedterminal@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

With properly adjusted mirrors to create a continuous field of view, motorcycles are visible. Car has "blind spot" detection but is completely useless. The vehicle it claims is out of my view is in fact. Your diagram is actually incorrect as well. The passenger side mirror is angled too far inward. It's a pretty poor diagram because I certainly don't have any issue seeing motorcycles no matter where they are.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-avoid-blind-spots/

[–] TheDannysaur@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It seems you and I are alone in this thread. I like how you said a continuous field of view, that's exactly what it is. The over the shoulder check is unesscessarily dangerous, and leaves you bet susceptible to rear ending people.

For most people, you shouldn't see your own car in your side mirrors.

[–] icedterminal@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Idk why people have a hard time grasping it. Not one bit of my car is visible in the door mirrors. The issue comes down to who educates drivers these days. An independent training program for new drivers is going to be much more thorough. The local DMV isn't gonna care too much. People have this obsession where the need to so what's directly behind them with all three mirrors, when that's not what all three are for.

[–] TheDannysaur@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

From what I've seen, people are saying the blind spot is anything that's not in your mirrors. As in your "blind spot" is directly to your left or right. Anything that requires turning your head at all.

Which is fine... But I thought the blind spot referred specifically to the area back left or back right of the driver, where most people do a full turnaround to check those spots. That specific action can be eliminated through proper mirror adjustment. That's the only point I was trying to make but damn people got spicy about it.

[–] TheDannysaur@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I absolutely do not understand that diagram at all... How can you have a blind zone where you can literally turn your head 90 degrees and see?

Motorcycles are a bit different, in that I'm always extra careful if I see them around since they are small. I can't speak for all cars, but in both of the ones we have, I can see a car smoothly exit my rear view mirror into my Sideview mirror with a bit of overlap and then as it is exiting the side mirror I can see it with my eyes and my head turned, with a bit of overlap. There's literally no place to hide.

Also your comment is pretty rude, painting me like I'm some invincible road warrior who just merges with no precautions because I'm so confident that my mirrors are right that I merge hard enough to kill someone. I still signal, wait several seconds, merge slowly, and remain aware. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

[–] icedterminal@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I can see a car smoothly exit my rear view mirror into my Sideview mirror with a bit of overlap and then as it is exiting the side mirror I can see it with my eyes and my head turned, with a bit of overlap.

Literally what mirrors are for when they are correctly adjusted.

[–] User_4272894@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm guessing they call it something different where you live, but in America "blind spot" refers to the area you can't see in your mirrors, and must turn your head to see. It's literally what you describe as you talk about a car passing in your second paragraph. "Checking your blind spot" refers to the process of physically turning your head to check and making sure the lane change/turn is safe to do.

The reason he painted you as an invincible road warrior bent on killing pedestrians is because you denied the existence of one of the biggest causes of car-on-non-car incidents: failure to check blind spots. Which, prior to this comment, you definitely sounded like, and I think you'll agree if you reread your comment with the new context of what Americans call "blind spots".

[–] TheDannysaur@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I am American, but I'm trying to get to where the disconnect is.

What I've usually heard referred to as the blind spot is diagonally back, sort of looking out of the back seat windows on either side.

I've driven in a lot of cars where they have their mirrors set up incorrectly, and yes you have to turn all the way around to see that spot.

I'm saying in my cars, with a proper setup, you don't need to turn back that far. You only need to check out your own window, which hardly requires much of a head move.

Turning around and checking backwards takes your eyes completely off the road, and is quite dangerous.

This YouTube video explains it quickly in just 60 seconds: https://youtu.be/tpFXTvmToiU?si=n35tVyuDELaZ3lau

I tell people this IRL and get the same reaction. But if you use this setup, you have to be basically negligent to not see someone in your mirrors.

[–] User_4272894@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We're saying "you need to check your blind spot when driving" and you're saying "blind spots don't exist, but also you can almost completely eliminate blind spots by mirror position, but also I still check blind spots".

The disconnect is that you've arbitrarily defined "blind spot" incorrectly, and refuse to acknowledge that "the bit of road not shown in rear view mirrors that is only visible by physically turning your head" is a blind spot. No amount of mirror adjusting is going to be able to fully replace checking a blind spot. Even using the method of the video you linked, seeing cars 2 lanes over merging in is basically impossible.

Blind spots are real. Mirrors, by definition, can't show you everything in your blind spot. If you don't check your blind spots, you could be responsible for someone's death.

[–] TheDannysaur@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I feel like you're being the thing you're accusing me of. Don't think we're going to get anywhere, I have nothing new to say. I think a reasonable person can decipher my point of view pretty easily.

I'm just gonna respectfully back out at this point.

[–] User_4272894@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

This is the image, taken directly from your mirror adjustment video. The red triangles (added by me) show the "blind spots" you have when using just your mirrors, as adjusted in this video. If you fail to check these blind spots before making a driving maneuver, you could easily kill someone. You have to turn your head to check these spaces. The act of turning your head is the literal definition of checking a blind spot.

Feel free to back out of this discussion, but be sure to check your surroundings before going in reverse.

[–] deur@feddit.nl -3 points 11 months ago

At best you're obtuse. Your comments in this thread have been annoying and inaccurate.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The diagram is for driving on the left side of the road. Flip it around for the way we drive in the US. Car too. They labeled the right side of the car the driver's side, and the left side of the car the passenger's side. It also assumes people don't use their passenger's side mirrors. For safety's sake, I can understand that, as enough people don't use that mirror that it's safer to assume no one does.

[–] endhits@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The blindspot absolutely exists with mirrors. It's just bigger or smaller depending on vehicle size.

[–] TheDannysaur@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what to tell you. In my car I can see a motorcycle that approaches and passes from the rear view, then the rear and side mirrors, then the side mirror, then the side mirror and out my window, then out my window as they pass. I literally never lose them for a moment between these 3 visibility areas.

I drive a pretty sensible car, so I can imagine this is more of an issue with large trucks, but I simply do not have an area that I am completely blind to.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

Iy tends to be more of an issue with some modern muscle cars, and cars which have larger back seats like your modern SUVs or crossovers, because the space between the visibility of the mirror and the visibility of your side window is much larger, and tends to be more exaggerated on the right hand side of the car, if you're LHD. You know, as compared to a hatchback.