Front Brake Lights Could Drastically Diminish Road Accident Rates
Technology
336
Beiträge
164
Kommentatoren
2
Aufrufe
-
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.
-
Good luck transporting a couch on a motorbike.
And the exact reason that you don't need to buy a truck to transport goods once in a blue moon
-
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?
-
Absolutely, but that doesn't solve the problem that's talked about here (seeing the turn signal from the other side of the vehicle). It might be clearer what the turn signal is, but if you look at the right side of a vehicle, you won't be able to see the left headlight, even when it's massive.
When am I ever looking at the side and needing to see the other side's turn signal? The best I can think of is (using right side driving) a car turning right into my lane of travel as I'm going straight, but I'll be a bit offset to the left and should be able to see the right headlight. If I can't, that means the car is angled to the right, making it obvious that they're turning.
-
BMWs need a speeding indication more than a braking one /s
Haha, funny enough, some BMWs have a feature where the speedometer reads 5 MPH higher than actual vehicle speed. Probably to try cutting down on speeding
-
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 thing is, you want the turn signal to turn on before the start of the turn, so other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists can react.
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.
-
How would you do that so it isn't ugly as hell and isn't prone to misunderstanding?
< and > for turns. X for brakes.
Honestly, we should focus on functionality rather than aesthetic.
-
How would that work? On the highway, a slight nudge on a straight means you'll cross a lane, meaning turn signals on.
A kilometer later, the exact same slight nudge could mean it's just a light turn in the road, meaning signals off.
Now you could mandate cameras in all vehicles, which analyze your driving and turn on the turn signals when it thinks you're making a turn. Now who's responsible in a false positive if someone else dodges you and crashes because you suddenly turned on the signals without turning? Except it wasn't you, but your car. Oh and also you made entry level cars 10k more expensive, making them way more inaccessible if you aren't rich.
it wouldn't indicate for slight turns only standard turns. Normal turns on the road may engage it but It's meant as a "hey this person is actively turning" or as a "this cars wheel is turned that way" so you know the direction it will go if it started moving
but honestly even if it did, it isn't hard to see "oh that car is on a curve obviously it's not turning"
-
< and > for turns. X for brakes.
Honestly, we should focus on functionality rather than aesthetic.
That doesn't answer the question. The question is how you would design it so you can look at the left side of a car, know that it's turning right and isn't prone to misunderstandings.
-
When am I ever looking at the side and needing to see the other side's turn signal? The best I can think of is (using right side driving) a car turning right into my lane of travel as I'm going straight, but I'll be a bit offset to the left and should be able to see the right headlight. If I can't, that means the car is angled to the right, making it obvious that they're turning.
Because this is what the discussion is about?
Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again.
-
Liknks or didn't happen
-
You all talk a big game, but I’ve been to about 20 countries so far in my life. Distributed all over the world. They ALL have traffic led by cars. I guess I haven’t been to Mumbai..
Your assumptions are wrong, and you live in fantasy. Get over it.
I’m not sure what your point is? I never said cars weren’t leading traffic. I think we’ve both kind of lost the plot here but my point was that cars aren’t a requirement to live. If they are in your city or area (outside of rural), then you should advocate for better transit and urban design.
Also note that I never said cars should be outright banned or anything of that sort
-
The combined indicator/brake light thing you guys do is fucking stupid, so there's a precedent.
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.
-
Accidents aren't isolated though, they will sort themselves out by hitting good drivers and people.
Well, around here "good drivers" can "read" the bad drivers' intent, and in a setting like a four way stop they can usually avoid getting hit by yielding, regardless of right of way circumstances.
-
Id love then to know when someone is slowing down to turn when I'm trying to pull out. So few use turn signals, and even those I don't really trust until the car is noticably getting slower.
That's actually another good use, a kind of passive turn signal - though if they're really turning you should be able to notice their reduced speed without a light - and drivers who start depending on the front brake light to read intent to turn might actually have more accidents instead of less.
Just yesterday I watched a car pull out into an intersection less than one car-length in front of a car driving straight through the intersection, slowly. I can't know what they were thinking, but I would guess they assumed that the slow car going straight was about to turn, then they quit paying attention and pulled out just in time for the collision to be un-avoidable.
-
That doesn't answer the question. The question is how you would design it so you can look at the left side of a car, know that it's turning right and isn't prone to misunderstandings.
Up and down arrows? Up is away from you and down is towards you.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
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.
