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.
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.
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.
I see too many people treat a roundabout like a stop sign when it is clearly empty.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Once we have proper self driving cars none of these recent “innovations” like that or the speed limiting would matter.
Ideally self driving cars would also be without a steering wheel and just be half width with a single seat or two seats facing each other to reduce energy requirements. You could just develop this with a manhattan style project and test it in a single city banning all other private cars except delivery vehicles.
Might as well ignore all attainable goals that would benefit society in the short term in favor of sci-fi pipe dreams that are perpetually delayed as we endlessly run into stumbling blocks.
Forget solar/wind/geothermal/etc. development as well, fusion power could happen any day now so why bother with any of that comparatively inefficient junk?
I was having a very hard time seeing any possible benefit of a front brake light, since nobody accident prone ever looks in their mirrors.
I suppose in today’s world of automatic transmissions that move the car forward whenever the brakes are released, they might serve some purpose at a four-way stop adding information about immediate intent of the other parties, but even there… that’s more of a Darwinian situation where people who get into crashes at four way stops are sorting themselves out from the rest of reasonably competent drivers. If they’re going fast enough for injuries at a four way stop, they deserve what they get. If they get a minor fender bender - that’s a lesson to read the other traffic better next time.
I can’t trust a car even with its turn signal on unless I see it actually slow down because I see them misused too often. The lack of signalling though is the biggest problem. People who suddenly change lanes right in front of you without warning are the worst. Then you have people who force you to wait because they can’t be bothered to indicate if they are turning or going straight at intersections.
Also, don’t start signaling as you are turning. I see you turning so you are just indicating what I’m already seeing. Signal before you turn.
Is 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.
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.
Same when crossing the street in front of a car. I don’t cross unless I have a crosswalk light or I make eye contact with the driver.
The crosswalk light might help in the lawsuit after you are seriously injured or killed, if anyone submits video evidence at the trial.
I don’t trust anyone when I’m on the road.
And you shouldn’t. Everyone is equipped with a lethal weapon masquerading as personal transportation, where safety is predicated on mutually-assured-destruction and the presumption that everyone is a sane actor. Keep your head on a swivel and stay safe out there!
Some people don’t care about their cars at all. They will damage their own just to spite another driver.
I’ve driven big 30ft box trucks that are governed at 60mph and daily a 2 seater sports car. There is nothing worth fucking up my day just to win an argument on who gets to go first.
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.
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.
Can I have indicators that are in the same place on all cars and not buried in the headlight? That’d be cool.
Wouldn’t better driving education and testing work just as well, if not better?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 all 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
You are looking for war
Road rage 5000 initiate
These exist. I used to deliver pizza and one of my coworkers installed one of these on their car.
Liknks or didn’t happen
Yes, and an oil slick button that drops some oil on the road for the hard of hearing tail rider.
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.
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.
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.
Not selling tanks as cars could also help. Especially with fatality rates
People don’t even need car tbh. Motorbikes everywhere please. Zip zip, less traffic, everyone pays attention to road or falls and dies.
I live in Maine. Riding a motorcycle in the winter is not only highly unpleasant, it’s borderline suicidal.
I’m all for 2 wheeled transport where it works, but anywhere that gets snow for months out of each year it’s a non starter as a primary transportation mode
You would think killing off the stupid would improve the breed. But apparently the real world shows it does not. Besides, I ain’t riding a motorbike at -40 Celsius or Fahrenheit or in 30cm/12" of fresh snow or in a thunderstorm.
Yeah, no.
Those things are death traps and there’s a reason why they’re mostly prevalent in nations where people literally can’t afford anything safer.
That’s why I bought mine!
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
Good luck transporting a couch in a car
Like this?
I think personally I would go with this though
(/s cause it is probably needed)
I retract my statement, this looks perfectly safe and effective.
Rent a truck for cheap
Motorcycle rider here. Yes, families with children will rent a truck anytime they want to purchase groceries, and when it’s raining. It’s not practical.
This is a stupid thread.
Yeah no shit for families but for people that have the choice. Fuckin dumbass
Are you by chance from the US? Because other countries have sensible zoning laws and public transit, making cars for families not a necessity but a luxury. Where I live, nobody needs a car. Shopping is done by cargo bike or hand cart, family trips are taken by train or metro.
If you live in a stupid country tho people might depend on cars.
Great, where you live.
The maybe use public transport? If you REALLY need to use buy car - buy one.
Also: families were not mentioned before in this thread. Is driving around with your partner and 5 kids and a couch a daily occasion?
Lol, come here and use our public transport options before you speak. This entire thread is led by those laying wide-reaching proclamations while being unable to consider any situation other than their own.
So the answer would be to advocate for better public transport
The Wilcot solution was adopted by Morris for the 1933 range, except the cheapest car in the range, the Minor. In essence, on either side of the car, was a block of three lights looking very like a traffic light with red, amber and green elements. The idea was that the colour or combination of the colours, showing on one or both sides would guide adjacent traffic of the intentions of the Morris.
Combinations were more complex, inevitably, than just flashing orange lights. Ahead of a need to indicate, the driver would activate the system which would start with both left and right amber lights flashing, like modern hazard warning lights, meaning “Caution”, ahead of an indication being given.
The system was controlled by a knob inside the car, with a spring based plunger acting as a time control for any selection. To indicate turning right, the driver would then request the system to show red on the right and green on the left in a way that almost echoes nautical practice; bearing right was amber on the right and green on the left.
–
Morris threw a tantrum after the MoT approved the use of blinkers on rival Ford cars and vowed never to install them. The MoT ordered the Wicot “traffic robots” removed and so Lucas trafficators were used exclusively in the UK until Morris was sold to Pressed Metal Holdings in the 1950s (in Australia and Canada blinkers were required by law).
The thousands of unusable traffic robots were used in the foundation for a new factory in Cowley. Also used were used brake pads and used sump oil to keep the dust down.
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
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.
Yeah, just have an accelerometer that triggers them
Or just have it come on whenever you lift off the accelerator. I like how some cars flash the brake lights under hard braking as well. That should be more standard.
I think the flashing is actually when an assistive system triggers the break
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.
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.
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.
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.
Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again
Not sure if I read that correctly, but I don’t think this has ever been the case?
I mean when a car is coming at me from a cross street, I want to be able to tell if they’re turning or just an asshole not using their signal. On some cars, the turn signal is mounted so far to the side that if they’re approaching from my right and turning right onto the same street as me, I can’t see that turn signal. Sometimes combined with the roundness of the nose exacerbating the problem.
I think what he wants is the front turn signal to wrap around the front, so I can see the left signal from the right quarter.
I’m not aware that this is not the case, but I don’t know that I would have noticed if it was not.
I’m pretty sure most cars have a turn signal near the headlights, and one on the mirror or on the side for that use case, no?
Actually I think I remember watching a technology connections video about how card in the US can use the headlights as a turn signal, or something like that. I don’t think that’s allowed in Europe or the EU or whatever.
Isn’t that the case for pretty much everything? Newer cars alternate blinking their headlights and the signal indicator, and even cars w/ the turn signal on the side will have some light bleed through since it’s all one assembly. In the majority of cars, I can see their turn signals when they’re perpendicular to me. The larger issue is that most people in my area don’t bother to use their signals in the first place.
Yea, that’s part of why I don’t know for sure if they make cars the way the guy at the top of this thread is describing.
Same. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a car that can show me the signal on the opposite side of the car, but I have seen a lot of cars where I can see the indicator while stopped at an intersection and the car is perpendicular to me, since I have a little bit of angle to see the edge w/ the indicator.
99% of the time, it’s not an issue, and the other 1% of the time it doesn’t really matter if I can see the indicator (I.e. they’re already halfway turning, so they’re angled away from me).
Yes that’s all I want, to be able to see the indicator again. A lot of newer cars have moved them too far to the side of the vehicle.
I encounter this pretty often because a Boston area streets are terrible and the drivers are worse, so a visible indicator helps all drivers make traffic flow more smoothly.
i don’t think that was ever required in the US. it is elsewhere though.
Can’t speak to “required.” But I know it used to be done.
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.
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.
agreed, I don’t think the blinker switch should be removed, but a late indicator is better than no indicator.
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”
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.
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.
How would you do that so it isn’t ugly as hell
same way we do with lights now, design them attractively. It is not always successful and that’s on the manufacturers.
and isn’t prone to misunderstanding?
what about it is confusing? green = not coming at you so it’s okay to turn left (or whatever).
This wouldn’t really be helpful to those who are colorblind.
Somebody better tell traffic light designers
Red is always on top (at least in Europe) so even color blind people know what the signal is.
okay, pick a different color then. it’s a solvable problem.
It’s not that easy I think (and you had by far the best idea in this thread now).
Can’t make them red or orange, they’d be just turn signals.
Can’t make them green, that wouldn’t work for color blind people, and since you actually need the color for understanding what signal you get (unlike traffic lights) you actually have to make it work
And arguably you can’t really make them white, because you can’t see a white blinking light inside a headlight and couldn’t differentiate it from the back light. Same with light blue.
Which leaves darker shades of blue, which are really hard to see in daylight.
sliding light or arrows
How would that work? If you look from the side you suddenly don’t see anything again, or an arrow point forwards or backwards?
If you look from the front, current turn signals work for that already.
I’ve seen newer cars turn the headlight off while the turn indicator is on, so you get a sort of double-blink effect.
I don’t see any reason why we can’t just have the whole headlight blink yellow as well with the turn indicator. LEDs are everywhere and can handle changing colors really easily, so it’s not hard to require that for all new cars.
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.
Because this is what the discussion is about?
Personally I just want front turn signals to be visible from the opposite side again.
And I’m saying I can see them most of the time, and when I can’t, I don’t need to because their intention is obvious.
I’ve seen newer cars turn the headlight off while the turn indicator is on, so you get a sort of double-blink effect
Those are typically DRLs. Chrysler did this for a while in the 2000s-2010s (maybe still, idk), where the high beam - in DRL mode - turns off while the turn signal is doing it’s thing. Other manufacturers do this with dedicated DRLs, sometimes integrating the DRLs and turn signals into one multicolored unit (Kia Telluride, for example).
No manufacturer shuts off a headlight for a turn signal when the headlights are intentionally turned on (whether by light sensors at night, or by the driver).
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.
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.”
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.
BMW has implemented this in the US market for the past 20 years or so at least. Under heavy braking, additional brake lights turn on. I believe they call that Brake Force Display. I’m sure they’re not the only manufacturer to do this, too
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
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.
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
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.
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
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’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.
Thats more an issue of using the same lamp for rear lights and turn signal
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.
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. 😓
deleted by creator
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.
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.
