By signaling to oncoming traffic and vehicles approaching from the side, a front brake light provides an essential visual cue that a car is slowing down or preparing to stop. When the light is extinguished, it indicates that a stationary vehicle might initiate movement. According to Tomasch, this visual feedback can significantly truncate the reaction time for other road users, leading to shorter stopping distances and consequently diminishing the likelihood of accidents.
Sounds reasonable. Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again.
And also like, used at all.
Here’s an idea. How about we zap the drivers after they make a turn if they didn’t use a turn signal beforehand? 😀
Can we do this in the same bill as the popup spikes that take out your tires if you stop across the crosswalk? The guided RPGs replacing red light cams can wait a little longer.
Cars with lane-keep assist with vibrate the steering wheel and beep at you. It’s at least something but I think most people turn it off if it gets annoying
Anyone complaining about lane keep not letting them change lanes or make turns is telling on themselves
There are a couple situations where it’s annoying and I turn it off. My truck has the “steer back into lane” style assist, but it’s tried to push me off the road before while I was towing a trailer on some narrow 1-lane roads. Some of the corners it’s just not possible to get around without touching the center line.
The vast majority of the time it stays on though and is quite helpful.
Okay Verstappen calm down there
It means they’re not indicating for their lane changes or turns.
Couldn’t we just use the point system from 5th element? The car noticed you did something illegal and dedicated from your point pool.
Theres a saying in computer stuff that applies nicely here. PEBKAC, problem exists between keyboard and computer…turn signals have to be turned on, no amount of engineering can fix bad driving.
Heads up, it’s actually keyboard and chair, not keyboard and computer
Dang it, sometimes I just type stuff and dont think about what I typed (the irony of what I was writing out)
I’ve always heard it as “PICNIC”
Problem In Chair, Not In Computer
And never forget about the I-D ten T error.
ID10T for those who didn’t get it.
Layer 0 obfuscation error.
Oh, you think I need a new chair? Will the Internet come back then?
I’ve actually always found it weird with all the automation vehicles have, that blinkers aren’t linked to the wheel. it already automatically disengages when turning, it shouldn’t be too hard to have it auto engage as well when turning
The thing is, you want the turn signal to turn on before the start of the turn, so other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists can react.
agreed, I don’t think the blinker switch should be removed, but a late indicator is better than no indicator.
I cannot stand how in some vehicles if I turn on the signal to indicate I am planning to change lanes, it will beep at me that there is a car there. I’m indicating I plan on it. Not that I’m turning the wheel right this second. I know there is a car to my side, I’m going to change lanes behind it, but am indicating mostly to the car behind them.
So it sounds like you’re checking to see when the light turns off, to know that the car is going.
Sounds like what we actually need is a green accelerator light on the front of the car.
Some of the new Kias have the rear indicators in the bumper. Why are they hiding them?
Because the designers and marketers were given priority over the safety engineers.
And anyone that drives cars ever, apparently.
Maybe redo the driving test like… At least every 20 years? There are people on the roads who got their licenses when their town didn’t even had traffic lights. People who never saw a roundabout in their first 20 years of driving.
Its nice that we restrict young people by making them take more and more driving lessons and paying more for tiered licences, like we do in Europe for motorcycles and trucks.
But maybe also take a look at the 70+ year old grandpa who had two strokes and one heart attack, has two pairs of of glasses but his license says that he’s perfectly fit.
I always say there are drivers out there who only survive by the grace of other drivers.
Sometimes you see those videos from a dash cam of a truck that hits a bridge, obviously the truck driver was been being inattentive but often so was the recording cars driver. All I can ever think is, “why were you so close behind, it was blindingly obvious that was about to happen”, yet to them apparently it wasn’t, and now they’ve got bits of truck roof in their windscreen.
There was an astounding number of people who really cannot drive, and yet they think they’re driving safely. They just haven’t gotten a crash yet.
Because it wasn’t blindingly obvious? I don’t know how tall the truck in front of me is, and since I don’t drive tall vehicles I know even less about the heights of bridges. Usually commercial drivers are the better ones.
Well the thing that made it blindingly obvious was that it was a 30 second video of a tall truck driving full tilt toward a low bridge, so obviously something was about to happen!
If we limited drivers permits to the 8% or so of drivers who are actually competent we’d solve a lot of problems in several domains.
I self-selected as ineligible to drive years ago, and I’ve never regretted it. Of course I had to move away from my home country and learn a new language, but those are the shakes.
Reading all such things I’m starting to think “what if I can drive?” I’ve always thought I can’t, but since everyone around who thinks they can drive like suicide bombers, maybe I should find those driving lessons.
Define safe? If everyone drives safely enough that you are more likely to die of suicide than an automobile accident, is that safe enough?
That is a weird question.
How do you calculate odds of dying by suicide anyway, wouldn’t they be personal?
The U.S. death rate is about 750 / 100,000 overall, with about 14.1 of those 750 declared suicide (you can never really know, but the suspected actual suicide rate is a bit higher, to preserve insurance benefits…)
The current US death rate by automobile accident is around 13.4 per 100,000 - so, by those statistics, people are already slightly more likely to take their own lives by choice than they are to die in an auto accident.
Of course if you choose to walk, you’re not entirely safe, the US pedestrian death rate is around 2 per 100,000, and that’s with most people driving everywhere most of the time.
Another fun way to look at the end is lifetime odds:
Death by suicide: 1/87 Death by automobile accident: 1/93 (which seems to indicate in itself that deaths by auto accident are expected to decline, or perhaps have recently increased slightly?) Death by firearm (US): 1/91 Suicide by firearm (US): 1/156
Next time you’re driving on a 2 lane highway at speed, oncoming cars approaching at a relative velocity of 100mph and more (50 in your direction 50 in theirs…) count oncoming cars. When you get to 87, odds are that one of those drivers will ultimately die by suicide… there’s a little solace in the fact that most of them won’t be doing it by swerving into oncoming traffic, and the bigger relief is that most of those that do, won’t be doing it at that particular moment just before you pass.
As for guns - that’s a whole different mess, but interesting that the numbers are so close.
Fatal motor vehicle accidents are just over 865000 times more common than commercial air travel accidents, but until dash cams we never got to see them, so people think it can’t happen to them, when it’s slightly worse than even odds.
IMO, the big problem is just a matter of standards and practicality. The bar for a DL is “can operate a vehicle” and not “can safely drive a vehicle in public for extended periods of time.” I agree with periodic re-licensing though; everything else called a “license” seems to need that for a host of reasons.
At least give them some new info like now it’s legal to go the wrong way on a bike if the speed limit is 30 km/h where I live. Guess not a lot of people know about that and a gazillion other things.
In Finland we have this thing called “huoli-ilmoitus” Super useful when you meet elders driving 70-80km/h in 100km/h area.
I have to contend with 70-80 year olds doing 30km in an 80 while swerving across the midline because they saw a bird across the street.
Here in France they drive at 70km/h in a 90km/h road. They also drive at 70 in a 70 road. And 70 in a 50 road. And 70 in a 30 road…
Yeah, like if someone crashes their car due their own stupidity, I’m not stopping to help. Darwin Awards and all that.
I see too many people treat a roundabout like a stop sign when it is clearly empty.
The couple of times they tried out roundabouts in my area, they didn’t last long because people were too stupid to figure out how to use them. So instead they just bitched until they were taken out.
Sure but the second I lose my mobility I will put a deer slug through my head.
So risking everyone else’s life around you is worth it?
It isn’t a negociation. If some bureaucrat ticks that box, it will just be the end.
Another kind of solution. But not needed.
Why not move to a place where low mobility doesn’t cut you off from the rest of society?
There’s plenty of retirement communities where you can get around with a golf cart. In the 3 biggest cities here in SK, old folk can ride the subways for free, and sometimes you even see them drive mobility scooters on.
Other places I’ve been have level boarding for buses, but I’ve never seen someone drive a mobility scooter onto one. Certainly it wouldn’t fly in SK.
I don’t think I could afford to be homeless in SK.
No, being in poverty is really bad here, but I just picked SK out as a close example, old folk becoming recluses who only interact with Fox News and people serving them is pretty specific to American and/or car-centric culture. Hell even car-centric parts of america have retirement communities where they all drive scooters or golf cars.
Well in any case I’m here and not there and when that happens there won’t be money to go to some magical car free place. We have winter here and the groceries are 20 km away. There is no bus, no taxi and not even uber. Not that I would have the 60 bucks a ride would cost. Of course I would also lose my job which 60km away.
So deer slug to the brain will be the prescription.
I’d rather see mandatory rear running lights. The amount of people who can’t be arsed to turn on their lights in bad visibility conditions is too damn high.
and on the opposite side don’t turn on your emergency lights while driving in bad weather. you’re only causing confusion by making it seem like you have turn signals on if i can’t see both blinkers.
The hazards also override your turn signals so I now have no idea when you are going to attempt lane change.
The hazards are to indicate you are stopped and now a hazard.
Only when you are stopped and now a hazard. Your car becomes a blinking light. We have road rules for blinking lights, so it SHOULD be saying one specific thing.
Thank you for coming to this road safety talk.
They also indicate slow moving road hazards like a semi carrying an oversized load
and honestly i have the same problem with that intended use. it often looks like a stopped car is attempting to turn out into traffic. IMO emergency lights should have a faster blink pattern or something to differentiate from turn signals.
Faster blink is already used to indicate that one of the lights is burned out. It’s a consequence of the mechanical part that operates (used to operate) the blinking; less resistance caused by a burned out light means it blinks faster
There’s a programmable flasher relay that does exactly this. It’s specific to certain Toyota/Lexus and Subarus from the 2000s to mid-2010s, but it’s something. I have one in my 2008 Sienna - the “emergency flasher” part is programmed to strobe, kinda like a tow truck. I like it.
It used to be mandatory with always on rear lights in Sweden (you couldn’t even turn them off). But an adaptation to EU rules removed that requirement. 😓
I strongly doubt it was genuinely linked to that. There are EU countries where having lights on all the time is mandatory.
There was an EU rule about ten years ago that stipulated that rear lights are no longer mandatory in daylight. The reasoning being to save on fuel. Which is a ridiculous reason, even more so with today’s LED lights.
I don’t know about other EU countries but this was the reason that Sweden removed the requirement. All cars in Sweden used to have the rear lights turned on at all time, even if the light switch was in the off position, but that changed around the same time.
that stipulated that rear lights are no longer mandatory in daylight.
I don’t believe these were ever mandatory in the EU? UK never had such requirement.
Edit:
What I mean is there are EU countries where lights are still mandatory and countries where it isn’t so I cannot see how it could be linked to EU requirements either way.
deleted by creator
Rear fog lights on all vehicles (some vehicles have them now).
it’s forbidden to use rear fog lights under rain (it’s more confusing than helpful)
if you live somewhere dry, that’s not a concern. But here it rains 1 day in 3
I don’t know where you are but rear fogs aren’t illegal in the rain here and from experience they are nothing but helpful in heavy rain and white out snow. I am always so so sooo glad when someone in front of me is using them when it’s absolutely pouring. You really have to not be paying attention not to notice that it’s two lights and not three and somehow mistake them for stop lights.
In fact, Transport Canada recommends using them in fog, rain, or snow.
Use only if driving in fog, rain or snow as these lights can be confused with stop lights, distracting other drivers.
II. - Le ou les feux arrière de brouillard ne peuvent être utilisés qu’en cas de brouillard ou de chute de neige. ☞ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006842263
Feux de brouillard arrière : ils sont indiqués uniquement en cas de brouillard ou de chute de neige (mais jamais sous la pluie en raison de leur trop grande intensité) ☞ https://public.codesrousseau.fr/conseils-pratiques/909-feux-de-brouillard-avant-et-arriere-quand-les-utiliser.html
Ça c’est de l’osti de merde comme on dit ici.
Yes that as well, I love mine and use them a lot. But that’s a step above rear running lights. There’s no god damn reasons the rear indicators shouldn’t be on all the time.
I still think rear signaling could be improved dramatically by using a wide third-brake light to show the intensity of braking.
For example – I have seen some aftermarket turn signals which are bars the width of the vehicle, and show a “moving” signal starting in the center and then progressing towards the outer edge of the vehicle.
So now take that idea for brake. When you barely have your foot on the brake pedal, it would light a couple lights in the center of your brake signal. Press a little harder and now it’s lighting up 1/4 of the lights from the center towards the outside edge of the vehicle. And when you’re pressing the brake pedal to the floor, all of the lights are lit up from the center to the outside edges of the vehicle. The harder you press on the pedal, the more lights are illuminated.
Now you have an immediate indication of just how hard the person in front of you is braking. With the normal on/off brake signals, you don’t know what’s happening until moments later as you determine how fast you are approaching that car. They could be casually slowing, or they could be locking up their wheels for an accident in front of them.
Japan introduced brake lights that increase intensity based on how hard the driver was braking. 20+ years ago. They tested it in the US and drivers found it to be “confusing.”
deleted by creator
Plenty of cars flash their brake lights when ABS(/ESP?) engages, which is reasonable and should be a legal requirement IMO.
There’s lots of room to give additional info in between that and “brake light is on because the driver doesn’t understand that they can do mild adjustments by letting off the gas / stupid bitch-ass VW PHEV computer thinks using cruise control downhill with electric regen requires the motherfucking brake lights”. It’s like no-one realizes or cares that brake lights lose all purpose if they’re on when the car isn’t meaningfully decelerating. ARGH.
BMWs need a speeding indication more than a braking one /s
deleted by creator
BMW should focus on making the turn signals work first.
I suspect because there’s no consistency in the brightness of vehicle lights. But that’s one of the reasons why I think an incremental light bar would be better, there’s no variation between vehicles. You could even make it more informative by flashing the whole bar when you first brake, so someone behind you can more easily see how much of the bar is being lit up.
If you want that, just light up the first and last LED always.
That’s a good point, although flashing does help to grab attention, but it can also be annoying when the person is driving with their foot on the brake pedal.
If Japan introduced that they never caught on, unless it’s specific to an area or model of car.
90% of the things that Japan introduced according to comment sections on the internet never happened (or never made it past the prototype stage) and the rest was actually introduced in Korea, not in Japan.
The Japanophilia is strong with a lot of people on the internet.
Yeah I mean I’ve been commuting 2 hrs a day in Japan for almost 10 years now-- you’d think I would’ve seen these brake lights by now
probably because thats a terrible way to do it. It would be noticeable if a car started braking and then started braking much harder, but if they slam on the brakes you don’t see anything change, just a normal brake light.
I think that’s a neat idea, but we could instead, collectively, just do better at following other cars at a safe distance. I know it’s impractical to expect all drivers on the road everywhere to change their behavior, but it’s also persistently frustrating as someone who has for years frequently been stuck in traffic to see 95% of drivers insist on following less than a car-length behind. Following too closely to enable decision-making or accommodate other drivers is the cause of like 98% of both traffic accidents and congestion, according to my completely anecdotal and made up research.
I suspect a lot of that has to do with the entitled way people are driving these days. If you leave a car length gap, some kid will wrecklessly attempt to cram their way in because your lane momentarily moved slightly faster.
There’s this idea I’ve been considering for a long time.
Imagine putting a remote controlled firework smoke bomb under the tailpipe, hidden from sight. At best a really stinky one that smells like burned rubber or something.
When someone follows to closely, just fake an engine issue or something by activating the smoke bomb and fill their AC air intake with the smell of burned rubber for weeks. Just to teach them to not follow too closely again.
I think a secondary light that blinks quickly would be a good signal of emergency braking. Like some aftermarket motorcycle taillights that start with a blinking pattern before they stay on, but reverse the order.
So, standard brake light comes on at the standard time, at the first touch of the brake. For stronger braking, the second light comes on. For emergency braking, the standard brake light stays lit while the second light begins blinking frantically.
Edit for consistency
That could probably be implemented in most existing vehicles, and at least it would provide more information.
I think some cars also turn on the hazards automatically if you really hammer the breaks.
That would serve the same purpose without and extra light, I think they’re into something
I have seen some cars flash their brake lights when ABS is activated, but this would be better
The EU has approved G-triggered brake lights that do just that, flash rapidly on hard braking. I’ve only seen it on higher end cars so far, but they absolutely exist. Unfortunately in the US people stick brake flashers that blink in patterns every time they touch the brake. Mostly useless as they’re installed to be “look at me, aren’t I cool with my blinky brake lights?” rather than any additional safety.
I see a lot of those on trucks here in the south. Good for when you are towing shit so people can see around all your junk in the trailer.
Does your state not require good lights on the trailers? I just built a new trailer last year, I was required to have full working brake and turn signals along with running lights, but I went the extra step and included more brake/turn lights on the front and rear of the fenders, along with reverse lights plus four marker lights along each side. Trailers are hard enough to see, I didn’t want to make it harder for anyone by just sticking with the bare minimum.
I think only brake lights are required I’ve never seen turn signals on them. I suspect the ones I’ve seen with those aftermarket ones drive those trailers on other states with more strict requirements
Wow that’s got to be almost worthless. As you say, it just takes some idiot with a load obscuring the vehicle lights and suddenly nobody behind them knows what’s going on. What’s next, are we going to make tail lights optional?
Seems much more complicated than having the brake lights rapidly flash during hard braking. But of course we couldn’t do that in the US because our turn signals/hazard lights are red
Turn signals can be either red or amber in the US.
yeah, but they shouldn’t be allowed to be red to begin with.
Since we’re all throwing random ideas out here, I want to equip my vehicle with an annoyingly loud external speaker so that when someone near me does something dumb, I can personally shame them.
Counterpoint: the dumb people could have them as well.
Every car needs proximity chat so traffic becomes like a COD lobby.
Now there’s a Black Mirror episode with true horror!
I am not trying to brake check people and get in an accident but I would very much like a signal for “Please remove your car from my butthole, it’s getting uncomfortable.”
There are LED bars for mounting in your rear windows to display text to those behind you
Pretend to suddenly avoid a pothole.
I’ve never done it, but I wonder if turning on the rear fog lights would work. You’re not braking, but they might think you are. I don’t know what the legality of that would be
In some places in the world you can give it a shot and see, but we don’t have rear fog lights in the US. I’ve never seen one on any car designed for this market, and my Crosstrek just to name an example has a conspicuous filler panel over the hole where the rear fog light goes on the same model sold in other markets.
As to why, I have no idea. But we also mandate that front fog lights can’t be configured so they can be activated without the main headlights on at the same time, which kind of defeats the purpose if you ask me. So maybe asking DOT regulations to make sense is a tall order.
You are looking for war
Road rage 5000 initiate
Like… a horn?
No. I want to make my voice loud enough for me to stop at a red light and ask the guy behind me if there is a proctology emergency or if they could stop riding my ass, and savor their expression as it dawns on them what is happening.
This is definitely a thing. I had a friend in high-school who put a loud speaker in his 69 Tempest. He was funny too. He would say the silliest things to people.
Now imagine everyone having one. Yeah, nah.
I want to equip my vehicle with an annoyingly loud external speaker so that when someone near me does something dumb, I can personally shame them.
CB radios often had a “PA” switch that sent your microphone audio to a loudspeaker under the hood.
I’d prefer a “FlameThrower” button next to the horn.
Yeah this is exactly what I have in mind. I want to feel like Smokey the Bandit calling people out for bad behavior with a receiver that has a coiled cable attached to it, at a minimum.
CB radios often had a “PA” switch that sent your microphone audio to a loudspeaker under the hood
We used to roll those back in the day. A friend gave my very drunk self a lift home one evening and I used it to give commentary to a group of revellers on the side of the road… who threw a beer bottle at us, and then chased the car which luckily didn’t get stopped at the traffic light nearby.
Good times.
These exist. I used to deliver pizza and one of my coworkers installed one of these on their car.
Liknks or didn’t happen
This would seem quite risky to use on US roads. I mean probably elsewhere too, but at least they don’t pack the same hardware.
Ah but I don’t care about my life
Yes, and an oil slick button that drops some oil on the road for the hard of hearing tail rider.
How about reducing the brightness of headlights so I don’t feel like the sun is driving at me at night?
Also, if the car is in drive the headlights should go into auto mode. Always see people driving with just parking lights on at sundown.
Yes… WHY DO CARS STILL HAVE 2 SETTINGS LIKE ITS 1935. it would take basically zero effort to have low, high, stun for headlights so the rest of us who drive normal appropriate cars don’t have to be blinded by selfish assholes driving a massive truck alone by themselves that they never used for work once in their lives. Yes, im a car person and despise truck posers.
You say this like those same people won’t leave it on stun
Well yes they will, but at least it’s an option . Also a lot of vehicles have auto dimming now but they don’t work well and don’t last more than 6 years before the sensors get borked
Higher up and brighter lights=driver can see more and feels safer. Yes, even if shadows and the area immediately arounds the car are less visible and the vehicle becomes more dangerous for everyone around you.
There are now headlights that can be “high” but block out portions of the beam directed at light sources like oncoming headlights. Can’t have them in the US though.
Also known as the “fuck everyone not in a car”-setting
First of all, this would be illegal in many countries.
Second of all: we can differentiate cars by: has red lights, back.
If we lose this option we can no longer differentiate easily if there is a car coming towards us or driving away from us.
They tested using a green light for the front brake light, not a red one
It is to colorblind people. You could use something else of course, just saying…
It’s doesn’t matter, since the absence or presence of light would still be perceived by colour blind people. It doesn’t change how they would drive, as they are already driving with the knowledge of colour blindness in mind when looking at tail lights.
It’s doesn’t matter, since the absence or presence of light would still be perceived by colour blind people. It doesn’t change how they would drive, as they are already driving with the knowledge of colour blindness in mind when looking at tail lights.
Tail lights being red is fine if you live with the most common forms of colorblindness which fall into what we call “red-green colorblind.” It is still a different color than headlights.
Now put those same red-green lights on the front, and we have a problem.
They could use traffic light green. There’s not any problems identifying those even in places with the lights mounted horizontally. There’s enough difference in saturation you can tell the difference even with colorblindness.
But why? Again, the perception would be absence or presence of light on a standardized indicator.
FYI signal lights are much more strictly regulated in Europe, such as position, colour, shape and strength.
This study is from Austria.
A lot of colorblind people can tell the difference between red-green and white.
They just percieve red-green as the same.
So they lose the visual cue for front-back under the proposed change.
Colorblind person here. If we’re talking about limited visibility differentiation of front and back, the color of light is way less noticeable than whether we’re looking at headlights or not (based on intensity). There would be no issue telling whether we’re looking at a front brake light or a back brake light so long as the front brake light has headlights around it.
Flashing blue would be neat.
Reminded me of this Technology Connections video, in which the dude explained (among other brake-light related things) how some law allows electric vehicles to get away with not using their brake lights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0YW7x9U5TQ
Yeah my electric 208 is kinda like that (if I remember the video well, watched it a while ago) but since it’s Europe there actually is a regulation about how much a car can decelerate before break lights come on, so instead of making the system turn the lights on they throttle how much it can decelerate for recharge and still makes you use the break to use full regen (and eventually the actual brakes, of course). So it’s not a real “one pedal driving”.
One pedal driving just sounds like motion sickness city.
Nah not at all tbh, you can get very smooth deceleration with it and it doesn’t feel floaty or whatever, it does take a tiny adjustment to how you drive, you don’t coast anymore but rather you can finely control your deceleration by how much you lift the accelerator, it’s quite nice to be honest I always drive it in that mode (even if it’s not real one pedal).
I’ll be the judge of that once I’m a passenger in such a scenario.
I’m kind of surprised he made absolutely no mention of manual gearbox vehicles. Some of the problems he’s describing predate EVs and adaptive cruise. I have a manual car and motorcycle. I pretty regularly apply just enough to the brakes to turn the light on without engaging them during engine braking. Engine braking depending on gear choice can be pretty strong. Likely not as aggressive as a regenerative braking system but more than enough to cause issues. I’m certain I’d have been rear ended if I didn’t make the lights turn on while just slowing down, not coming to a full stop.
I feel like if your car is doing anything to actively slow itself down (as in apart from just cruising) it should turn the brake lights on.
Wouldn’t better driving education and testing work just as well, if not better?
100% agree, but it’s amazing how quickly some people forget their education once they get out on the road, especially after a few years accumulating bad habits. How about less reliance on cars in the first place?
How about less reliance on cars in the first place?
Americans seem to think of buses as some sort of commie plot.
Buses, as implemented in the US, are vehicles of humiliation and mental torture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZkouut-9RQ
How to waste an entire day? Take a bus trip somewhere that you could drive in a private car in 20 minutes.
Or on your motorcycle in 15.
Everyone with the usual compliment of legs should be forced to start on a motorcycle or moped. After 2 years of that we let you graduate to being in a box. Riding a motorcycle will force you to learn how to remain attentive and focused 100% on operating your machine, and when you’re finally afforded the luxury of a roof and heat, not having to get rained and snowed on half the year, you’ll really appreciate what you’ve got instead of treating it like the world owes you a car.
Lifetime care for the additional seriously injured will be very expensive…
I live in a retirement center, here it is very obvious that driving licenses should be revoked when vision, reflexes and other driving skills reach the level of the average 75 year old. But, since the majority of voters here are retirees- instead they keep making it easier for the extremely elderly to keep driving themselves - because, of course the world can’t take their freedom of movement away from them.
In the US, it seems supporting policies that make the elderly retake the driving exam is complete political suicide. There is a good reason for it and it would keep people safe, but there’s no chance of it happening while the population that mostly votes is old.
Im not sure how true that is, at least FL requires you to renew your license more frequently as you get older. Idk if its just a vision test though.
I propose the following amendment, then: If you cause harm to a two wheeled rider due to negligence and/or belligerence, you get busted down to a Vespa for a further 5 years.
Nice thought, but how will the rich demonstrate their status from a Vespa? Perhaps by paying off the judge so they don’t get restricted?
Passing a test is very different from internalizing the lessons tested.
No test prepared me for black ice. Sure they tell you to be careful when temps drop but how much slower should you go? I guessed wrong and crashed. There are too many conditions that you just never get to experience where one misjudgement has dire consequences.
What fucks me up is hearing about experienced drivers crashing in similar ways, so you’re never really going to figure out everything, especially during snowy seasons, you just have to hope that whatever you do is correct and risk your life.
I learned to drive in Florida. Saw my first snow while driving five years later, I was trying to take a (rented) front wheel drive minivan out to get breakfast and about 5" of snow had fallen overnight. I put it in drive and it barely moved. I cut the wheel and it moved a little, I cut the wheel back and it moved a little more. I tried saw-toothing the steering left and right and got up a little speed, finally getting up to about 5mph while sawing the wheel back and forth. I drove around the parking lot like this, twice, before deciding: people do this all the time, it has to get easier after I get going… as I started toward the exit, I noticed: the parking brake was on, I had been dragging the locked rear wheels around the parking lot behind me. I released the parking brake and driving in snow became 100x easier from there on out.
You can pass multiple driving tests, and still be an idiot driver. So many people drive HUA, (Head Up Ass), while thinking they are the best driver on the road that it isn’t even funny.
Remember Kiddies, driving should never be viewed as “relaxing” or “enjoyable.” It’s work, hard work and should be mentally taxing every minute you are on the road.
As someone with ADHD, it is relaxing. And it is super enjoyable. I like thinking about how the weight of my car shifts going around corners. I like trying to be as smooth as possible shifting gears. There is a lot of information and the focus on it all quiets the noise normally in my head.
Leave early enough you aren’t stressed about being late.
Just let the asshole aggressive driver in.
Leave more than enough space that you have time to react.
Don’t treat it as a competition and it’s a pleasurable experience.
Shut up nerd
Maybe introducing driving lessons on the read and done by professionals all over the world would already change a lot. That and the introduction of better road systems like roundabouts, reducing road traffic by adding public transport and walkable/bikeable area’s etc.
as with a lot of tests, the thing a driving test is the best at measuring is how well you can take a driving test.
‘Here’s an idea: let all those around you know your status.’
‘Revolutionary!’
It’s weird we haven’t already done this, but good.
My status is in a relationship
Don’t get any ideas buddy
How do I set my car’s status to “It’s complicated”?
Don’t worry, my fellow americans, we’ll still manage to fuck it up.
The combined indicator/brake light thing you guys do is fucking stupid, so there’s a precedent.
Agreed. Are they turning, or just braking periodically with a taillight out? Who knows!
I also love the front turn signals that turn off that headlight. Dumb as hell for everyone.
Also, animated signals should be banned. On or off, no flashing, glowing, or sliding.
Don’t even get me started on the wild and wonderful design ‘features’ on modern cars. Fucking hell, they want you to do anything but drive the thing and pay attention to the road.
Clearly it’s your fault for both breaking and going around a corner at the same time. Who does that?
Can you edit that to ‘braking’, and I’ll delete this comment, please? It’s breaking my brain. :)
It’s too late, he already broke his car while going around the corner.
I’ve always hated that. I feel like I’m seeing it less and less on newer vehicles, though, so maybe manufacturers are also realizing that it’s stupid as hell.
Or maybe it’s just not worth the cost to have two different but mostly identical versions of a very expensive and highly integrated modern taillight housing for different markets.
I hope so. I dug up this old video I watched ages ago that articulates really well why they’re a bad idea.
They’ll likely give those front brake lights an amber color
It’s possible. Red really is only supposed to be on the back to indicate the rear of the vehicle.
It’s why on stretches of road where passing in oncoming lanes is legal, they tell you to turn on your headlights (daytime headlights section.) Its so that there is a distinguishing feature between the front and rear of the car.
The reason why I made my comment is because in the US some car manufacturers use the rear brake lights for the indicator lights too. Which is just stupid and dangerous and thankfully illegal in Europe.
It would be really stupid to have amber brake lights in the front. And given US car manufacturers track record, they’d be so stupid to repurpose the front indicator lights as front brake lights to cut costs.
Make it blue or green or any other color, but not amber or white.
The amber color should only be used for the indicator lights, and should be amber on the front, side and back of the car.
I don’t understand this at all. Why do I, as a person in front of a vehicle, care whether or not it’s braking?
for example, say you are waiting to make a left turn, it would be nice to know if oncoming cars are braking or not. if they are stopped and you see their brake lights turning off, you can judge if you should hurry up or not turn at all.
Say you’re a pedestrian and a car is coming toward you as you’re entering a crosswalk. Being able to see if they are braking or not could save your life.
If a car is braking it rides differently from one that isn’t. A car is normally rather level and leans “forward” when braking.
Besides that, YOU SHOULDNT GET IN FRONT OF ANYTHING YOU ARENT SURE IS STOPPING. If it’s moving fast enough that you need this, you shouldn’t be trying to get in front anyways.
YOU SHOULDNT GET IN FRONT OF ANYTHING YOU ARENT SURE IS STOPPING
This, exactly. This “plan” sounds terrible to me.
No, I’m not braking to turn at the intersection you’re sitting in. I’m turning into a driveway just past that intersection. If you pull in front of the green light the government says I have to have on my vehicle, I’m going to t-bone you.
For normal people, yes. This is to prevent accidents.
Again, if you’re too stupid to make sure the multiton hunk of metal is coming to a stop by all the other obvious visual markers, including watching it’s speed compared to stationary objects like signs and lamp posts, then this won’t do shit. People need more aweness of their surroundings, not a bunch of lights and horns because people won’t pay attention.
You enter the road when it’s safe, not jump in and play frogger with lights hoping to get across.
Yup, this is a moronic idea.
Ah. I see. They are emitting a green light, so I know they’re braking, and it’s OK to cross.
But, it turns out that they’re planning on turning into a driveway past the intersection, and not into the intersection I am crossing.
That’s OK. I can check “impersonate a hood ornament” off my bucket list.
We already have this problem with turn signals: there are circumstances where it would be confusing and dangerous to use them in the manner prescribed by law, and to avoid dangerous ambiguity, they should actually be used much later than the law specifies.
The key detail is that, like with rear brake lights, they extinguish when the foot is removed from the brake pedal. So it’s not so much the presence of the brake light, but the presence of an inactive brake light that would, serve as a warning that a car is about to start moving. This would be very helpful to drivers on a road when other drivers are pulling out too early from a side road or driveway. That little bit of extra warning is, in many situations, enough for you to pump the brakes, hit the horn, or both.
If anything I think they would have to use a green light that turns on when accelerating/not braking. It would be way more dangerous in the future when people are trained with “No green = braking” but older cars don’t have the light at all.
It’s important to consider how a transition like this would even work. I personally think this is a little too drastic of a change, and is incompatible with existing vehicles and habits.I get what you’re saying — so it’s about the subconscious awareness of the state change that happens after the driver decided to go, but before the car starts moving. I can see some amount of value in that.
I still can’t help but think it’s going to be interpreted by many as a sign that it’s safe to proceed and ignore the car rather than be prepared for any eventuality, though.
I agree that that would be a real danger, yes.
deleted by creator
Sounds like it can help oncoming traffic as well as traffic to either side of the vehicle
Yeah, the only thing I could think of is that I’m driving down a country road, and I see the front brake light ahead of me because someone stopped for a deer in the road or something.
Otherwise I cannot fathom what benefit it brings. Anything that ultimately becomes “if you see this light, it’s safe to [X] in front of this vehicle” is going to get people killed.
And the negative state of “the lack of this light means that the vehicle could be moving” is exactly what we have now.
Reading through the article, it seems like one scenario is that a vehicle stopped at an intersection might be about to pull out, endangering another vehicle about to cross? It seems like the thinking is, if you notice a front/side brake light stops being lit as you approach the intersection, it might indicate they’re about to accelerate - be cautious!
I’m not fully convinced either, it seems like a lot of the benefit they’re projecting is based on analysis of historical collisions, rather than any kind of experimental results. It sounds like the study is to justify expanding research to that sort of simulated experimentation, though - I’m curious what that kind of testing would find.
I feel that in my area the driving culture has become so toxic that there’s a better than average chance that indicating a lane change (which I always do) will lead to the vehicle in the lane you’re attempting to change into accelerating to prevent you from ‘getting in front of them.’
It’s so frustrating (and dangerous!). It seems that a lot of folks feel entitled to the road, or the patch of road in front of their car fro as long as the eye can see, and are willing to behave irrationally regarding it.I feel that telegraphing that your vehicle is slowing down (for any purpose) will lead to overconfidence or even willful misunderstanding by other drivers. A careful slow-down will turn to panic as they try to take advantage of the situation. I also think that drivers will focus on the vehicles too much, and will not focus on things like pedestrians or perhaps why your car is slowing down, and wind up contributing to the problem.
My main thoughts instantly come to someone in the opposing left turn lane, if they are not applying the brakes they are likely starting to turn and if they do it right in front of you, you have more of a heads up than just them starting to turn and can set yourself in a better position to hopefully stop in time. Driving is all about judgment calls and having more info quicker is important to those calls.
But isn’t that exactly the situation we’re in now? If there’s a car in the opposing left turn lane, they might start to turn in front of you.
The only thing the light does is say “right now, they’re braking”. It doesn’t say whether they’re moving or stationary any more than the headlights, and it doesn’t say anything about their intentions or whether it’s safe to enter the intersection.
Yeah, and then you have the distraction of people looking in the mirror because of lights behind them. Especially seeing lights behind you at night thinking it’s a police car
Definitely make it easier for people on crosswalks to start walking. Knowing that they are slowing down.
In order to be most effective it would need to be dynamic rather than a fixed on/off like rear brake lights. Stopping doesn’t mean stopped. So perhaps a progressive light bar that starts lighting up at 20mph and adds a light for each 5mph drop until the whole bar is lit indicating a full stop. That would give pedestrians a sense of rate of deceleration.
As a pedestrian this would be huge and make me feel so much safer.
Can I have indicators that are in the same place on all cars and not buried in the headlight? That’d be cool.
