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.

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

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.

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.

< and > for turns. X for brakes.

Honestly, we should focus on functionality rather than aesthetic.

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"

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.

Because this is what the discussion is about?

Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again.

It was similar to: https://www.amazon.com/SoundAlert-Emergency-120-130dB-Hands-Free-Rebroadcast/dp/B08B3BXZ66

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

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.

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.

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.

Up and down arrows? Up is away from you and down is towards you.

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!

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.

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.

You're right about turn signals.

A lot of people have "target fixation" and telegraph their moves somewhat. I look at where the car is tracking in the lane and what their head is doing (if I can see it). Most people drift left or right on the highway before they change lanes, exit, or turn. It's no excuse for bad manners, but it helps.

Oh yea. I'll watch the wheels, their head, and if I can see them reposition their hands, I'll look for that.

I don't trust anyone when I'm on the road.

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.