18 ms·

There's an even simpler, more effective way of checking blind spots: Actually turning ones head and looking over the shoulder. The "blind spot" doesn't exist w

There's an even simpler, more effective way of checking blind spots: Actually turning ones head and looking over the shoulder. The "blind spot" doesn't exist when drivers exercise proper caution and responsible driving behavior. Of course, expecting this of drivers is unrealistically utopian. Nevertheless, a "blind spot" is just another excuse for unsafe drivers.

tinbad 8y ago
This is an integral part of a driving exam in the Netherlands. You are drilled to look over the shoulder for literally every maneuver (lane switch, turn, etc.) and if you fail to do it even once during the driving exam you will get a fail. In other news: driving test in the US is a complete joke.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wcarron 8y ago
  In the US, this is also part of the driving exam. However, it is not an automatic failure on its own. I myself failed to do it once, on the test for turning right after crossing through a bicycle lane on my right. Every other maneuver, I checked over my shoulder. Felt bad because I used to commute via bicycle and it was...well, a little ironic that I messed up there of all places. Agreed, though. The US driving test is pathetic.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    The bike lane on the right scenario is just stupidity. In what other context is it permitted to turn right across another straight-ahead lane to the right? When I turn right and there is a bike lane to my right, I pull into the bike lane first so nobody can pass me.
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      Where else would you put it? If you put it on the left, then bikes are going to have to cross the car's path to get in/out of the bike lane. So either way, cars and bikes will be merging past each other. However, in California, cars are not supposed to "turn right across another straight-ahead lane to the right", they are supposed to merge safely into the bike lane and turn right from the bike lane, letting any bikes behind pass the car on the left. https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/ https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/
      - u801e 8y ago
        > Where else would you put it? Just have the cyclist ride in the right-most lane available for traffic. Then there are no crossing movements to deal with. Cars making a right turn will either be directly ahead of the cyclist or directly behind the cyclist.
        Johnny555 8y ago
        Does that really solve the problem of cars turning to the right in front of cyclists? Seems like the same motorist that would pass the cyclist in the bike lane and turn right in front of him, would also pass the cyclist in the roadway and turn right in front of him.
        u801e 8y ago
        In my experience, it does if one rides in a way to take up the entire lane. Many motorists don't perceive bike lanes as actual lanes of traffic they have to yield to when making turning movements. But they will do so for general purpose lanes.
  - brianpgordon 8y ago
    There's no such thing as a "US driving test." There's a separate driving test with separate standards for each one of the states and territories and DC.
    - wcarron 8y ago
      Do you not think I know this? Sometimes less precision for the sake of flowing conversation is worth it. HN can be absurdly pedantic some days.
      - brianpgordon 8y ago
        So why are you making a sweeping claim about all US drivers tests, given that you only took one of them? The one you took was clearly bad. The process I went through in Maryland is apparently one of the tougher ones. 30 classroom hours, 6 hours one-on-one with an instructor, 50 hours daytime driving with an older licensed driver, 10 hours nighttime driving, and then you can take the written and driving tests (which require you to parallel park). After that you can drive on your own but still can't have any non-adult passengers and can't drive past midnight or your license is suspended for a year. After 18 months of driving with no moving violations and no other criminal convictions, you finally get a real driver's license. The whole process takes a couple of years.
- oliveshell 8y ago
  For what it’s worth, it’s like that in much of the U.S. too— at least in my state (North Carolina), you’ll certainly fail the test if you change lanes without checking your blind spot. Driving tests vary state to state, though. And I agree with you that overall, driver education in the U.S. is woeful. I didn’t even have to parallel park for mine! Meanwhile Scandinavians have to prove they can recover from a slide to even get a license.
  - Loughla 8y ago
    I think it's about context. Scandinavians have snow and Ice, so it's more likely they'll skid. I never had to parallel park, either, for my test, but I also will never parallel park unless I travel 4+ hours away from my home. I did have to prove I could control/stop a skid on gravel, and make a decision on whether to pull onto the soft shoulder or pass or stop or whatever on a narrow lane. Because there is much gravel and huge machinery moving around here on back roads.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      >Scandinavians have snow and ice, so it's more likely they'll skid. A lot of the US has snow and ice too. Many areas of the south have considerable issues with poor traction. Heavy rainfall after a long dry spell typically disturbs the accumulated contamination on the road surface, creating a sudden and drastic reduction in friction. Dust deposited by desert winds can be almost as slippery as ice. The infrequency of these conditions mean they pose a particular hazard, because drivers lack experience in dealing with them.
  - mstade 8y ago
    > Meanwhile Scandinavians have to prove they can recover from a slide to even get a license. Not entirely accurate, at least not when I did it. You do have to go take the slide test, otherwise you're not actually eligible for even taking the driving test. The slide test isn't so much a test though, but more of a forced (albeit very fun) experience to get you to experience first hand what it's like to hit a patch of ice or pool of water and all of a sudden lose all traction. It used to be a way to teach people to simulate ABS brakes as well, but I think nowadays that might be less relevant since pretty any car has them. If you took the test in the summer time the sliding was simulated by some pretty interesting contraption that had wheels that would just point in whatever direction you where going, and at the instructors command would lift the car of the ground to remove traction. Somewhat like suddenly putting the car in a shopping cart at full speed. It's a lot of fun, when done in a controlled environment! I wonder if it's possible to retake this test every year or so. As it stands you have to renew the license every ten years, but you never have to take another test once you have it. You just send in a new photo basically. I can tell that I'm most likely a worse driver now than I used to be, at least in some situations, and I don't really keep up with changes in traffic regulations. (Signaling requirements in roundabouts have changed apparently, I had no idea.) Sometimes I think maybe we should have a mandated refresher course every few years, with another slide test refresher as well, just to keep up with things. Modern cars are basically sci-fi space ships now I feel, half the time I wonder if I'd even be able to drive with all the assistive technology that's in there..
- UI_at_80x24 8y ago
  Same in Canada (Ontario).
- mroche 8y ago
  > In other news: driving test in the US is a complete joke. Not in all places. It’s highly dependent on who’s proctoring the exam. Some tests are administered by police officers and those can be extremely strict. Other times you get seriously generous people, and that needs to be fixed. Someone I know was the last test of the day for a proctor and they drove over a curb on a turn and still passed. There were quite a few of us baffled by this. Location also depends on what gets tested. Here in MA pretty much everything gets tested (turn types, merging, all forms of parking, etc) whereas some neighboring states don’t test parallel parking. In the training program I was at, turning your head was repeatedly drilled-in in every driving/observation session. Making sure you mirrors were set up for optimal maximum coverage was also tested. There was no shortage of not-ending-well stories related to blind spots and not checking all sides repeatedly.
- baddox 8y ago
  Then again, in my US driving test I was penalized (I still passed the test) for not looking over my shoulder before one lane change. It was a two-lane one-way road with zero traffic. There's no way a car could've gotten there without me seeing it in my mirrors unless it had been dropped from the air into my blind spot. I'm definitely not still bitter.
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    In my California driver test, I was penalized for not looking over my shoulder dramatically enough (a slight head turn and a glance over my shoulder out the side window was not sufficient apparently) when switching into a left turn lane which was carved out of the median island and couldn’t possibly have had anyone driving up to the left.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    I've had plenty of moments in my 33 years as a driver where a vehicle dropped out of the sky and into my blind spot; they just do that! The problem is that your attention isn't riveted on the mirrors at all times. If you have been sternly monitoring the mirrors in the previous fraction of a minute, then such a hypothesis does hold. In road tests, you have to do everything by the book, though. They want to see that you've developed the habit of checking. The habit will save you that time when your don't-have-to-do-it hypothesis happens to have a flaw.
    - baddox 8y ago
      > The problem is that your attention isn't riveted on the mirrors at all times. Well, sure, no one is going to be perfect, but similarly, no one is going to always check over their shoulder. > In road tests, you have to do everything by the book, though. Of course. I expect proctors to do things by the book. That's easier and more consistent than trusting each proctor's judgment. My complaints about the test methodology were in jest, but I do think what I did was not in any way unsafe.
      - wahern 8y ago
- mariojv 8y ago
  In some states, yes. In Texas, I know of several people who didn't even have to take a practical driving test - just a written exam. There used to be an exemption from the practical driving test if you had a licensed parent teach their child under 18 to drive.
- lhorie 8y ago
  I did a driving test in Toronto and one in San Francisco. In Toronto, failing to shoulder check once wouldn't normally be an auto-fail in the same way that blowing a stop sign would, because most maneuvers are evaluated three times. If you fail to do it all three times, then that's a strike. In San Francisco, we only did a few turns and that was it. Not even any form of parking or three point turns.
- amatecha 8y ago
  Same here in BC, Canada, you will fail your road test if you don't shoulder-check on lane changes and even turns
- 8ytecoder 8y ago
  That's not true. My driving inspector watched for it and actually commended me at the end. There are also so many other things that he noticed and appreciated/warned me about that I see drivers not doing every single day - indicators, not switching lanes in an intersection (immediate fail), blocking an intersection, not cruising through bike lane, taking a right turn as close to the curb as possible, stop & look for pedestrians before turning right on red, look twice for pedestrians before making a turn and on and on. I don't see most drivers following any of it.
- paganel 8y ago
  > You are drilled to look over the shoulder for literally every maneuver (lane switch, turn, etc.) It's not the recommended practice in Romania, you're supposed to only rely on your side-mirrors and partly on your rear-view mirror without completely turning your head from the direction you're going (i.e. forward). I'd say that this is the better solution for Bucharest's streets, where there's a much bigger chance of a pedestrian suddenly hopping in front of your car from between two parked cars on the side of the road, and as such it's better for the driver to almost always be attentive at what's in front of the car compared to what's on his/her sides.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  I failed my (US) driver's test because, while I looked over my shoulder to check my blind spot, the proctor judged that the window was too fogged up for me to be able to see. Granted, I should have known better how to work the defrost function in the car.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
criley2 8y ago
Turning your head means not looking forward. You might think it is safe to operate a multi-ton death machine at death speeds while closing your eyes or looking backwards or whatever you're doing except looking forward. But it is not. Learn to use mirrors, so your peripheral vision remains on the most important thing: where you are going. "Turning your head" is an unsafe way to avoid having properly set mirrors. With properly set mirrors, one does not need to "turn your head" and stop looking where your car is going. Frankly, "Turning your head" is just another excuse for unsafe drivers. Eyes forward and on the road my friend!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wcarron 8y ago
  Turning your head is completely safe, with one caveat: Proper Following Distance. A quick, over-the-shoulder check is not dangerous at all if a driver gives the car in front proper following distance. Too many people follow WAY too closely, especially at highway speeds. Lastly, safe driving includes both actions. Step 1 is to check your mirrors (first rear, the side views). Step 2 is to quickly check over the shoulder. Step 3 is to make the maneuver. As a motorcyclist, I have to be vastly more aware and defensive than cagers, because a little fender-bender for drivers means injury and even death for riders. It is hammered into you, at any motorcycle safety course (by Moto Police no less, who spend all day riding motorcycles, every day) that you should always check over your shoulder before making lane changes, turns, etc. This is always done after you have already checked your mirrors.
  - justapassenger 8y ago
    What about debris falling off a car in front of you? Or driving on a city streets, with people randomly running onto the street? Proper following distance isn't universal remedy for not looking forward.
  - criley2 8y ago
    As a driver, my primary focus MUST be in the direction I travel. I am simply not responsible for what is occuring behind me or in lanes adjacent to me. When moving between lanes it's important to have no blind spots and to ensure safety before moving: which is what this article and anyone basically competent with mirrors does. It's rank irresponsibility for me to stop focusing on the direction in which I am operating a multi-ton death machine simply because I am afraid of trusting the equipment I have. As a motorcyclist, you should also know that being rear-ended by inattentive drivers is a huge and dangerous risk that is nearly impossible for you to prevent. While you can see and move out of the way of a bad lane change, it's vastly more difficult for you to see and move out of the way of a car that isn't stopping. This, and so many other reasons, are why it is so important for car drivers to NEVER LOSE ATTENTION TO THE FRONT. Ever, for any reason.
malkia 8y ago
I do this all the time (here in the US, Los Angeles), as my instructor back then told me to do so.
justtopost 8y ago
In newer cars, with huge pillars filled with airbags, this is no longer true.
UI_at_80x24 8y ago
I completely agree with you, but technology is encouraging us to 'rely' on it's helpful beeps, alerts, and flashes. Soon we will have trained an entire generation to 'drive-by-sensors' and not senses.
- LeoPanthera 8y ago
  > Soon we will have trained an entire generation to 'drive-by-sensors' and not senses. I honestly believe that driver safety will approve more rapidly when that happens than ever before. I trust silicon more than I trust meat.
  - wcarron 8y ago
    > I trust silicon more than I trust meat. I'm halfway onboard with you. The difference is in what I trust it to do. I trust meat more than silicon when meat is driving attentively and safely. There are many drivers out there with fantastic control of their vehicle, especially in bad situations. The other half is that I don't trust meat to actually drive attentively and safely. I trust silicon to actually drive safely, unlike people.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      Sensors need to prove themselves, but I'm optimistic that senors will soon be better. I have one set of eyes looking in one direction (whatever my field of view is, lets assume 90 degrees for discussion). I can never look two directions at once, but in fact I need to be looking all 4 at once. If I allow enough margin of safety I can get by since danger general is coming from at most two predictable directions but there are situations where one of the other direction has a danger that I can't predict. (for example: right turns where I look left for the danger of cars coming and miss the pedestrian trying to cross from the right - since pedestrians are rare a the intersections I drive nobody expects them)
    - danjayh 8y ago
      I use my adaptive cruise control to prevent tailgating. Any time I find myself getting annoyed with a slow jerk blocking the left lane, I force myself to turn it on to make sure that I don't subconsciously creep up on his butt (because I know that's a thing that I sometimes do). ... I have also taken my owners manual's advice on the use of the high-beam flasher ... it calls it a 'flash to pass' ... so now I give a little blink of the brights after setting the cruise. Probably safer, but sometimes I fear that it may induce road rage.
mywittyname 8y ago
This is not an effective way of checking your blind spot. Unless you have a convertible or lean your head out of the window, the C-pillar will still block your vision. You have to properly configure your side mirror in order to eliminate blind spots in most cars. With a side mirror configured like in the article, you can see everything beside you by sweeping your head just a few inches. This works extremely well, even in a car like a modern Camaro, which has little mirrors, slit windows, enormous b-pillars and a door sill that's higher than most peoples' shoulders. Using your technique in a car like this will not work for anyone under 6'4 -- which is why so many people complain about the Camaro having visibility of a tank. They use the wrong, old fashion way of checking over your shoulder, rather than relying on properly configured mirrors, which is what I do and have no complaints about side visibility.
- gpmcadam 8y ago
  This is not true at all. When changing lanes, scan from over your shoulder, to your side mirror and you get complete coverage. When first setting off, scan from I’ve done shoulder, through to the side mirror, to the front screen, up to the main mirror, out to the other side mirror and finally over the other shoulder to check all around the vehicle before setting off safely. Source: recently learned to drive in the UK and this is how the instructor taught me and is standard teaching here
- wcarron 8y ago
  I don't think using such a poor design as a standard example of visibility is fair. Most cars have a far greater range of vision than the camaro, seeing as it's a low-seated, low-slung, small-windowed muscle coupe. Also, a Camaro doesn't have B-Pillars the way a sedan or crossover does. I suppose they technically may be B-Pillars, but their rear (whether they are considered B or C) pillars are placed where a traditional C-Pillar goes in a 4-door vehicle. Additionally, as I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, checking over your shoulder should always be done in conjuction with checking your mirrors. Mirrors first, head check 2nd. Checking over your shoulder is a tried and true method of verifying that the space to the side and rear of your vehicle is clear. It is safe and effective.
CharlesW 8y ago
> There's an even simpler, more effective way of checking blind spots: Actually turning ones head and looking over the shoulder. Properly adjusting your mirrors doesn't mean that you never turn your head and look over your shoulder, but that you don't have to do it nearly as often. That's good, because physically turning your head is an incredibly slow and risky operation when compared to a glance.
- wcarron 8y ago
  Physically turning your head in __not__ a risky operation if a driver has given proper following distance to the vehicle in front. Turning to look over your shoulder is only dangerous if you are driving dangerously by following too closely or at an excessive speed difference between your vehicle and surrounding traffic. My personal rule of thumb is at least 1 car length for every 10mph I'm traveling at, so at 70mph >= 7 car lengths between me and the vehicle in front of me.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    The rule by the books is not car lengths, but two seconds. Easier to measure seconds, and cars are difference sizes so less arbitrary. 2 seconds tends to be just slightly longer than your rule. Those who study human reaction times figure that from the time something happens, you notice and you get your foot physically moved to the brake and push hard enough to make a difference 1.75 seconds have passed. Thus 2 seconds is a minimum.
    - opencl 8y ago
      The one car length per 10mph rule barely gives you one second of following distance, assuming a car length is about 15 feet.
    - wcarron 8y ago
      True, the rule is measured in seconds. But, I can't accurately measure time without distance. If a car passes a pole at time = 0 at ~ 60mph, I will be a certain distance behind the car if I pass the pole 2 seconds later, traveling at approximately the same speed. I find it a little easier to use distance to maintain this over time, because I can always see how far ahead of me the car is, but to measure by time takes landmarks and it's much harder to get a real accurate time measurement. In any case, I tend to err a little on the high side regarding distance for this reason.
kazinator 8y ago
The article doesn't claim that you can adjust your mirrors such that shoulder checking is not required. Quote: With the mirrors adjusted properly, a shoulder check to change lanes becomes more of a "shoulder peek", meaning you don't have to turn your head so far. That means your peripheral vision will still provide a view in front of you - no "blind spot" in front of you either, meaning less chance of rear-ending a vehicle that has suddenly stopped. Note that no matter where you turn your head, you have blind spots, caused by the roof pillars of the vehicle. You also can't see a portion of the ground around your vehicle; that's also blind spots. Blind spots are real; they are not just excuses.
- dbt00 8y ago
  Lean forward and "sweep" the region parallel to the back half of the car with the side view mirror.
mianos 8y ago
As an ex motorcyclist I would never make any sort of turn without a glance over my shoulder. You make a mistake on a bike you die. That makes for some good training. I always think everyone should spend a little time in such a vulnerable situation when they learn.
- wcarron 8y ago
  Current motorcyclist here! Same shit, man. Mirrors first, then head check. Saved my ass many times so far. I wish people had to get a license for a moped/motorcycle before a license for a car. It would make the roads a lot safer, I think.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
aidenn0 8y ago
And then you crash into the car in front of you that slams on the brakes. In my experience looking over the shoulder for a sufficient length to context switch what I'm seeing robs me of about 1/2 a second of my reaction time to things coming from in front of me. Adjusting the mirrors correctly is far safer IMO.
jpallen 8y ago
I drive a van, and that absolutely has a blind spot on the far side from the driver, no matter what I do with my head. The problem is that there are no rear passenger side windows to look through, and you can't see into the blind spot through the front passenger window. A blind spot mirror helps partially, but it's disconcerting driving with a known blind spot.
mbrameld 8y ago
Using the method the article describes, you still have to turn your head to check beside you but you don't have to turn it so far as to look over your shoulder. The method in the article doesn't eliminate the blind spot, just puts it in a place that's easier to see.
gowld 8y ago
If you look straight ahead, there is a blind spot in your vision. To see things in your blind spot, you need to move your eyes. It's biology, not an excuse. If you look into your car mirrors, there is a blind spot in your vision. To see things in your blind spot, you need to move your head (since you can't move your mirror "eyes" every time you look). It's physics, not an excuse.
dominotw 8y ago
My car has blindspot detection lights on the mirror. I don't do this most of the time now.
- kazinator 8y ago
  You must not be relying on warning system as a substitute for looking. For one thing, if one day it stopped working for some reason, how would you know? How well does it actually work when it works as designed? The one bearing the responsibility is you, not that warning device.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    yea manual says this "The driver is responsible for driving safely. Always be sure to check the surroundings with your eyes when changing lanes or reversing the vehicle. The system is designed to assist the driver to change lanes or reverse safely by monitoring the rear and side areas of the vehicle. However, you cannot rely on this system alone in assuring the safety during a lane change or reversing. Overconfi- dence in this system could result in an accident and lead to serious injury or death. Since the system operation has various limitations, the flashing or illumination of the BSD/RCTA approach indicator light may be delayed or it may not operate at all even when a vehicle is present in a neighboring lane or approach- ing from either side. The driver is responsible for paying attention to the rear and side areas of the vehicle."
- danjayh 8y ago
  BLIS is a supplement to proper situational awareness & manual checking, not a replacement. These systems can and do fault, especially in heavy snow and sometimes rain.
danjayh 8y ago
Take a look at some of the late-model cars with gigantic A, B, and/or C pillars -- in many of these, head-checks are not as effective as in older cars. The Cadillac ELR, Nissan Leaf, Infiniti QX80, Lexus GS F, etc. All have gigantic C pillars and/or headrests that block rearward visibility, which results in blind spots the size of Texas if you rely on head-checks. Now take a look at some older cars, maybe a 2012 Ford Escape. Awesome visibility. The dual pushes for improved structural rigidity and strength (small overlap crash tests, anyone?) and swoopier designs are causing many new cars to move in the wrong direction on visibility.
agumonkey 8y ago
I hate this so much. Parallel focus between front and back is super confusing if not entirely dangerous. I'm gonna cover my interior with mirrors. It should be standard.
FPGAhacker 8y ago
I advocate turning your head and looking, but it’s not safe to take your eyes off the car ahead of you in Seattle traffic many times. When traffic is both fast and heavy and with the potential to completely stop fast enough to engage abs, randomly, every few miles, anything you can do to shorten the quick look the better. I have done this with my mirrors for a year or so and it’s been a big help. I still dart a glance when I feel safe enough, but there are times when it isn’t safe. I am careful to give a blink on my signal before moving over and I try to change at a speed where if I’ve made a mistake, someone has time to dodge or honk.
- sys_64738 8y ago
  This description suggests that it's not safe to change lanes in such traffic.
  - FPGAhacker 8y ago
    This is true. Accidents everyday.
- Noumenon72 8y ago
  I haven't driven in such heavy traffic, but you do everyone a favor if you can leave enough following distance not to have to brake so hard. It leaves a traffic shock wave that makes people slam on their brakes behind you, and starts a jam. If you can drop back just a little, you can maintain a more steady speed, which increases throughput for the road. Plus, longer-lived brakes.
jyriand 8y ago
Looking over the shoulder seems like a dangerous move to me, given that a car that is driving in front of me might break at the same moment I'm looking out of the side window. Also, it somehow seems little bit disorienting. But maybe if I would get used to it, it wouldn't seem so weird and scary.
- ShinTakuya 8y ago
  Simple solution to this one too: don't drive so close to the person in front of you that a 500ms peek would put you in danger of collision. The only time a peek would put you in the danger you describe is if you're tailgating or exceptionally slow at peeking.

tinbad 8y ago

This is an integral part of a driving exam in the Netherlands. You are drilled to look over the shoulder for literally every maneuver (lane switch, turn, etc.) and if you fail to do it even once during the driving exam you will get a fail. In other news: driving test in the US is a complete joke.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wcarron 8y ago
In the US, this is also part of the driving exam. However, it is not an automatic failure on its own. I myself failed to do it once, on the test for turning right after crossing through a bicycle lane on my right. Every other maneuver, I checked over my shoulder. Felt bad because I used to commute via bicycle and it was...well, a little ironic that I messed up there of all places. Agreed, though. The US driving test is pathetic.
- ams6110 8y ago
  The bike lane on the right scenario is just stupidity. In what other context is it permitted to turn right across another straight-ahead lane to the right? When I turn right and there is a bike lane to my right, I pull into the bike lane first so nobody can pass me.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    Where else would you put it? If you put it on the left, then bikes are going to have to cross the car's path to get in/out of the bike lane. So either way, cars and bikes will be merging past each other. However, in California, cars are not supposed to "turn right across another straight-ahead lane to the right", they are supposed to merge safely into the bike lane and turn right from the bike lane, letting any bikes behind pass the car on the left. https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/ https://sfbike.org/news/bike-lanes-and-right-turns/
    - u801e 8y ago
      > Where else would you put it? Just have the cyclist ride in the right-most lane available for traffic. Then there are no crossing movements to deal with. Cars making a right turn will either be directly ahead of the cyclist or directly behind the cyclist.
      - Johnny555 8y ago
        Does that really solve the problem of cars turning to the right in front of cyclists? Seems like the same motorist that would pass the cyclist in the bike lane and turn right in front of him, would also pass the cyclist in the roadway and turn right in front of him.
        u801e 8y ago
        In my experience, it does if one rides in a way to take up the entire lane. Many motorists don't perceive bike lanes as actual lanes of traffic they have to yield to when making turning movements. But they will do so for general purpose lanes.
- brianpgordon 8y ago
  There's no such thing as a "US driving test." There's a separate driving test with separate standards for each one of the states and territories and DC.
  - wcarron 8y ago
    Do you not think I know this? Sometimes less precision for the sake of flowing conversation is worth it. HN can be absurdly pedantic some days.
    - brianpgordon 8y ago
      So why are you making a sweeping claim about all US drivers tests, given that you only took one of them? The one you took was clearly bad. The process I went through in Maryland is apparently one of the tougher ones. 30 classroom hours, 6 hours one-on-one with an instructor, 50 hours daytime driving with an older licensed driver, 10 hours nighttime driving, and then you can take the written and driving tests (which require you to parallel park). After that you can drive on your own but still can't have any non-adult passengers and can't drive past midnight or your license is suspended for a year. After 18 months of driving with no moving violations and no other criminal convictions, you finally get a real driver's license. The whole process takes a couple of years.
oliveshell 8y ago
For what it’s worth, it’s like that in much of the U.S. too— at least in my state (North Carolina), you’ll certainly fail the test if you change lanes without checking your blind spot. Driving tests vary state to state, though. And I agree with you that overall, driver education in the U.S. is woeful. I didn’t even have to parallel park for mine! Meanwhile Scandinavians have to prove they can recover from a slide to even get a license.
- Loughla 8y ago
  I think it's about context. Scandinavians have snow and Ice, so it's more likely they'll skid. I never had to parallel park, either, for my test, but I also will never parallel park unless I travel 4+ hours away from my home. I did have to prove I could control/stop a skid on gravel, and make a decision on whether to pull onto the soft shoulder or pass or stop or whatever on a narrow lane. Because there is much gravel and huge machinery moving around here on back roads.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    >Scandinavians have snow and ice, so it's more likely they'll skid. A lot of the US has snow and ice too. Many areas of the south have considerable issues with poor traction. Heavy rainfall after a long dry spell typically disturbs the accumulated contamination on the road surface, creating a sudden and drastic reduction in friction. Dust deposited by desert winds can be almost as slippery as ice. The infrequency of these conditions mean they pose a particular hazard, because drivers lack experience in dealing with them.
- mstade 8y ago
  > Meanwhile Scandinavians have to prove they can recover from a slide to even get a license. Not entirely accurate, at least not when I did it. You do have to go take the slide test, otherwise you're not actually eligible for even taking the driving test. The slide test isn't so much a test though, but more of a forced (albeit very fun) experience to get you to experience first hand what it's like to hit a patch of ice or pool of water and all of a sudden lose all traction. It used to be a way to teach people to simulate ABS brakes as well, but I think nowadays that might be less relevant since pretty any car has them. If you took the test in the summer time the sliding was simulated by some pretty interesting contraption that had wheels that would just point in whatever direction you where going, and at the instructors command would lift the car of the ground to remove traction. Somewhat like suddenly putting the car in a shopping cart at full speed. It's a lot of fun, when done in a controlled environment! I wonder if it's possible to retake this test every year or so. As it stands you have to renew the license every ten years, but you never have to take another test once you have it. You just send in a new photo basically. I can tell that I'm most likely a worse driver now than I used to be, at least in some situations, and I don't really keep up with changes in traffic regulations. (Signaling requirements in roundabouts have changed apparently, I had no idea.) Sometimes I think maybe we should have a mandated refresher course every few years, with another slide test refresher as well, just to keep up with things. Modern cars are basically sci-fi space ships now I feel, half the time I wonder if I'd even be able to drive with all the assistive technology that's in there..
UI_at_80x24 8y ago
Same in Canada (Ontario).
mroche 8y ago
> In other news: driving test in the US is a complete joke. Not in all places. It’s highly dependent on who’s proctoring the exam. Some tests are administered by police officers and those can be extremely strict. Other times you get seriously generous people, and that needs to be fixed. Someone I know was the last test of the day for a proctor and they drove over a curb on a turn and still passed. There were quite a few of us baffled by this. Location also depends on what gets tested. Here in MA pretty much everything gets tested (turn types, merging, all forms of parking, etc) whereas some neighboring states don’t test parallel parking. In the training program I was at, turning your head was repeatedly drilled-in in every driving/observation session. Making sure you mirrors were set up for optimal maximum coverage was also tested. There was no shortage of not-ending-well stories related to blind spots and not checking all sides repeatedly.
baddox 8y ago
Then again, in my US driving test I was penalized (I still passed the test) for not looking over my shoulder before one lane change. It was a two-lane one-way road with zero traffic. There's no way a car could've gotten there without me seeing it in my mirrors unless it had been dropped from the air into my blind spot. I'm definitely not still bitter.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  In my California driver test, I was penalized for not looking over my shoulder dramatically enough (a slight head turn and a glance over my shoulder out the side window was not sufficient apparently) when switching into a left turn lane which was carved out of the median island and couldn’t possibly have had anyone driving up to the left.
- kazinator 8y ago
  I've had plenty of moments in my 33 years as a driver where a vehicle dropped out of the sky and into my blind spot; they just do that! The problem is that your attention isn't riveted on the mirrors at all times. If you have been sternly monitoring the mirrors in the previous fraction of a minute, then such a hypothesis does hold. In road tests, you have to do everything by the book, though. They want to see that you've developed the habit of checking. The habit will save you that time when your don't-have-to-do-it hypothesis happens to have a flaw.
  - baddox 8y ago
    > The problem is that your attention isn't riveted on the mirrors at all times. Well, sure, no one is going to be perfect, but similarly, no one is going to always check over their shoulder. > In road tests, you have to do everything by the book, though. Of course. I expect proctors to do things by the book. That's easier and more consistent than trusting each proctor's judgment. My complaints about the test methodology were in jest, but I do think what I did was not in any way unsafe.
    - wahern 8y ago
mariojv 8y ago
In some states, yes. In Texas, I know of several people who didn't even have to take a practical driving test - just a written exam. There used to be an exemption from the practical driving test if you had a licensed parent teach their child under 18 to drive.
lhorie 8y ago
I did a driving test in Toronto and one in San Francisco. In Toronto, failing to shoulder check once wouldn't normally be an auto-fail in the same way that blowing a stop sign would, because most maneuvers are evaluated three times. If you fail to do it all three times, then that's a strike. In San Francisco, we only did a few turns and that was it. Not even any form of parking or three point turns.
amatecha 8y ago
Same here in BC, Canada, you will fail your road test if you don't shoulder-check on lane changes and even turns
8ytecoder 8y ago
That's not true. My driving inspector watched for it and actually commended me at the end. There are also so many other things that he noticed and appreciated/warned me about that I see drivers not doing every single day - indicators, not switching lanes in an intersection (immediate fail), blocking an intersection, not cruising through bike lane, taking a right turn as close to the curb as possible, stop & look for pedestrians before turning right on red, look twice for pedestrians before making a turn and on and on. I don't see most drivers following any of it.
paganel 8y ago
> You are drilled to look over the shoulder for literally every maneuver (lane switch, turn, etc.) It's not the recommended practice in Romania, you're supposed to only rely on your side-mirrors and partly on your rear-view mirror without completely turning your head from the direction you're going (i.e. forward). I'd say that this is the better solution for Bucharest's streets, where there's a much bigger chance of a pedestrian suddenly hopping in front of your car from between two parked cars on the side of the road, and as such it's better for the driver to almost always be attentive at what's in front of the car compared to what's on his/her sides.
InitialLastName 8y ago
I failed my (US) driver's test because, while I looked over my shoulder to check my blind spot, the proctor judged that the window was too fogged up for me to be able to see. Granted, I should have known better how to work the defrost function in the car.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

criley2 8y ago

Turning your head means not looking forward. You might think it is safe to operate a multi-ton death machine at death speeds while closing your eyes or looking backwards or whatever you're doing except looking forward. But it is not. Learn to use mirrors, so your peripheral vision remains on the most important thing: where you are going. "Turning your head" is an unsafe way to avoid having properly set mirrors. With properly set mirrors, one does not need to "turn your head" and stop looking where your car is going. Frankly, "Turning your head" is just another excuse for unsafe drivers. Eyes forward and on the road my friend!

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wcarron 8y ago
Turning your head is completely safe, with one caveat: Proper Following Distance. A quick, over-the-shoulder check is not dangerous at all if a driver gives the car in front proper following distance. Too many people follow WAY too closely, especially at highway speeds. Lastly, safe driving includes both actions. Step 1 is to check your mirrors (first rear, the side views). Step 2 is to quickly check over the shoulder. Step 3 is to make the maneuver. As a motorcyclist, I have to be vastly more aware and defensive than cagers, because a little fender-bender for drivers means injury and even death for riders. It is hammered into you, at any motorcycle safety course (by Moto Police no less, who spend all day riding motorcycles, every day) that you should always check over your shoulder before making lane changes, turns, etc. This is always done after you have already checked your mirrors.
- justapassenger 8y ago
  What about debris falling off a car in front of you? Or driving on a city streets, with people randomly running onto the street? Proper following distance isn't universal remedy for not looking forward.
- criley2 8y ago
  As a driver, my primary focus MUST be in the direction I travel. I am simply not responsible for what is occuring behind me or in lanes adjacent to me. When moving between lanes it's important to have no blind spots and to ensure safety before moving: which is what this article and anyone basically competent with mirrors does. It's rank irresponsibility for me to stop focusing on the direction in which I am operating a multi-ton death machine simply because I am afraid of trusting the equipment I have. As a motorcyclist, you should also know that being rear-ended by inattentive drivers is a huge and dangerous risk that is nearly impossible for you to prevent. While you can see and move out of the way of a bad lane change, it's vastly more difficult for you to see and move out of the way of a car that isn't stopping. This, and so many other reasons, are why it is so important for car drivers to NEVER LOSE ATTENTION TO THE FRONT. Ever, for any reason.

malkia 8y ago

I do this all the time (here in the US, Los Angeles), as my instructor back then told me to do so.

justtopost 8y ago

In newer cars, with huge pillars filled with airbags, this is no longer true.

UI_at_80x24 8y ago

I completely agree with you, but technology is encouraging us to 'rely' on it's helpful beeps, alerts, and flashes. Soon we will have trained an entire generation to 'drive-by-sensors' and not senses.

LeoPanthera 8y ago
> Soon we will have trained an entire generation to 'drive-by-sensors' and not senses. I honestly believe that driver safety will approve more rapidly when that happens than ever before. I trust silicon more than I trust meat.
- wcarron 8y ago
  > I trust silicon more than I trust meat. I'm halfway onboard with you. The difference is in what I trust it to do. I trust meat more than silicon when meat is driving attentively and safely. There are many drivers out there with fantastic control of their vehicle, especially in bad situations. The other half is that I don't trust meat to actually drive attentively and safely. I trust silicon to actually drive safely, unlike people.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Sensors need to prove themselves, but I'm optimistic that senors will soon be better. I have one set of eyes looking in one direction (whatever my field of view is, lets assume 90 degrees for discussion). I can never look two directions at once, but in fact I need to be looking all 4 at once. If I allow enough margin of safety I can get by since danger general is coming from at most two predictable directions but there are situations where one of the other direction has a danger that I can't predict. (for example: right turns where I look left for the danger of cars coming and miss the pedestrian trying to cross from the right - since pedestrians are rare a the intersections I drive nobody expects them)
  - danjayh 8y ago
    I use my adaptive cruise control to prevent tailgating. Any time I find myself getting annoyed with a slow jerk blocking the left lane, I force myself to turn it on to make sure that I don't subconsciously creep up on his butt (because I know that's a thing that I sometimes do). ... I have also taken my owners manual's advice on the use of the high-beam flasher ... it calls it a 'flash to pass' ... so now I give a little blink of the brights after setting the cruise. Probably safer, but sometimes I fear that it may induce road rage.

mywittyname 8y ago

This is not an effective way of checking your blind spot. Unless you have a convertible or lean your head out of the window, the C-pillar will still block your vision. You have to properly configure your side mirror in order to eliminate blind spots in most cars. With a side mirror configured like in the article, you can see everything beside you by sweeping your head just a few inches. This works extremely well, even in a car like a modern Camaro, which has little mirrors, slit windows, enormous b-pillars and a door sill that's higher than most peoples' shoulders. Using your technique in a car like this will not work for anyone under 6'4 -- which is why so many people complain about the Camaro having visibility of a tank. They use the wrong, old fashion way of checking over your shoulder, rather than relying on properly configured mirrors, which is what I do and have no complaints about side visibility.

gpmcadam 8y ago
This is not true at all. When changing lanes, scan from over your shoulder, to your side mirror and you get complete coverage. When first setting off, scan from I’ve done shoulder, through to the side mirror, to the front screen, up to the main mirror, out to the other side mirror and finally over the other shoulder to check all around the vehicle before setting off safely. Source: recently learned to drive in the UK and this is how the instructor taught me and is standard teaching here
wcarron 8y ago
I don't think using such a poor design as a standard example of visibility is fair. Most cars have a far greater range of vision than the camaro, seeing as it's a low-seated, low-slung, small-windowed muscle coupe. Also, a Camaro doesn't have B-Pillars the way a sedan or crossover does. I suppose they technically may be B-Pillars, but their rear (whether they are considered B or C) pillars are placed where a traditional C-Pillar goes in a 4-door vehicle. Additionally, as I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, checking over your shoulder should always be done in conjuction with checking your mirrors. Mirrors first, head check 2nd. Checking over your shoulder is a tried and true method of verifying that the space to the side and rear of your vehicle is clear. It is safe and effective.

CharlesW 8y ago

> There's an even simpler, more effective way of checking blind spots: Actually turning ones head and looking over the shoulder. Properly adjusting your mirrors doesn't mean that you never turn your head and look over your shoulder, but that you don't have to do it nearly as often. That's good, because physically turning your head is an incredibly slow and risky operation when compared to a glance.

wcarron 8y ago
Physically turning your head in __not__ a risky operation if a driver has given proper following distance to the vehicle in front. Turning to look over your shoulder is only dangerous if you are driving dangerously by following too closely or at an excessive speed difference between your vehicle and surrounding traffic. My personal rule of thumb is at least 1 car length for every 10mph I'm traveling at, so at 70mph >= 7 car lengths between me and the vehicle in front of me.
- bluGill 8y ago
  The rule by the books is not car lengths, but two seconds. Easier to measure seconds, and cars are difference sizes so less arbitrary. 2 seconds tends to be just slightly longer than your rule. Those who study human reaction times figure that from the time something happens, you notice and you get your foot physically moved to the brake and push hard enough to make a difference 1.75 seconds have passed. Thus 2 seconds is a minimum.
  - opencl 8y ago
    The one car length per 10mph rule barely gives you one second of following distance, assuming a car length is about 15 feet.
  - wcarron 8y ago
    True, the rule is measured in seconds. But, I can't accurately measure time without distance. If a car passes a pole at time = 0 at ~ 60mph, I will be a certain distance behind the car if I pass the pole 2 seconds later, traveling at approximately the same speed. I find it a little easier to use distance to maintain this over time, because I can always see how far ahead of me the car is, but to measure by time takes landmarks and it's much harder to get a real accurate time measurement. In any case, I tend to err a little on the high side regarding distance for this reason.

kazinator 8y ago

The article doesn't claim that you can adjust your mirrors such that shoulder checking is not required. Quote: With the mirrors adjusted properly, a shoulder check to change lanes becomes more of a "shoulder peek", meaning you don't have to turn your head so far. That means your peripheral vision will still provide a view in front of you - no "blind spot" in front of you either, meaning less chance of rear-ending a vehicle that has suddenly stopped. Note that no matter where you turn your head, you have blind spots, caused by the roof pillars of the vehicle. You also can't see a portion of the ground around your vehicle; that's also blind spots. Blind spots are real; they are not just excuses.

dbt00 8y ago
Lean forward and "sweep" the region parallel to the back half of the car with the side view mirror.

mianos 8y ago

As an ex motorcyclist I would never make any sort of turn without a glance over my shoulder. You make a mistake on a bike you die. That makes for some good training. I always think everyone should spend a little time in such a vulnerable situation when they learn.

wcarron 8y ago
Current motorcyclist here! Same shit, man. Mirrors first, then head check. Saved my ass many times so far. I wish people had to get a license for a moped/motorcycle before a license for a car. It would make the roads a lot safer, I think.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

aidenn0 8y ago

And then you crash into the car in front of you that slams on the brakes. In my experience looking over the shoulder for a sufficient length to context switch what I'm seeing robs me of about 1/2 a second of my reaction time to things coming from in front of me. Adjusting the mirrors correctly is far safer IMO.

jpallen 8y ago

I drive a van, and that absolutely has a blind spot on the far side from the driver, no matter what I do with my head. The problem is that there are no rear passenger side windows to look through, and you can't see into the blind spot through the front passenger window. A blind spot mirror helps partially, but it's disconcerting driving with a known blind spot.

mbrameld 8y ago

Using the method the article describes, you still have to turn your head to check beside you but you don't have to turn it so far as to look over your shoulder. The method in the article doesn't eliminate the blind spot, just puts it in a place that's easier to see.

gowld 8y ago

If you look straight ahead, there is a blind spot in your vision. To see things in your blind spot, you need to move your eyes. It's biology, not an excuse. If you look into your car mirrors, there is a blind spot in your vision. To see things in your blind spot, you need to move your head (since you can't move your mirror "eyes" every time you look). It's physics, not an excuse.

dominotw 8y ago

My car has blindspot detection lights on the mirror. I don't do this most of the time now.

kazinator 8y ago
You must not be relying on warning system as a substitute for looking. For one thing, if one day it stopped working for some reason, how would you know? How well does it actually work when it works as designed? The one bearing the responsibility is you, not that warning device.
- dominotw 8y ago
  yea manual says this "The driver is responsible for driving safely. Always be sure to check the surroundings with your eyes when changing lanes or reversing the vehicle. The system is designed to assist the driver to change lanes or reverse safely by monitoring the rear and side areas of the vehicle. However, you cannot rely on this system alone in assuring the safety during a lane change or reversing. Overconfi- dence in this system could result in an accident and lead to serious injury or death. Since the system operation has various limitations, the flashing or illumination of the BSD/RCTA approach indicator light may be delayed or it may not operate at all even when a vehicle is present in a neighboring lane or approach- ing from either side. The driver is responsible for paying attention to the rear and side areas of the vehicle."
danjayh 8y ago
BLIS is a supplement to proper situational awareness & manual checking, not a replacement. These systems can and do fault, especially in heavy snow and sometimes rain.

danjayh 8y ago

Take a look at some of the late-model cars with gigantic A, B, and/or C pillars -- in many of these, head-checks are not as effective as in older cars. The Cadillac ELR, Nissan Leaf, Infiniti QX80, Lexus GS F, etc. All have gigantic C pillars and/or headrests that block rearward visibility, which results in blind spots the size of Texas if you rely on head-checks. Now take a look at some older cars, maybe a 2012 Ford Escape. Awesome visibility. The dual pushes for improved structural rigidity and strength (small overlap crash tests, anyone?) and swoopier designs are causing many new cars to move in the wrong direction on visibility.

agumonkey 8y ago

I hate this so much. Parallel focus between front and back is super confusing if not entirely dangerous. I'm gonna cover my interior with mirrors. It should be standard.

FPGAhacker 8y ago

I advocate turning your head and looking, but it’s not safe to take your eyes off the car ahead of you in Seattle traffic many times. When traffic is both fast and heavy and with the potential to completely stop fast enough to engage abs, randomly, every few miles, anything you can do to shorten the quick look the better. I have done this with my mirrors for a year or so and it’s been a big help. I still dart a glance when I feel safe enough, but there are times when it isn’t safe. I am careful to give a blink on my signal before moving over and I try to change at a speed where if I’ve made a mistake, someone has time to dodge or honk.

sys_64738 8y ago
This description suggests that it's not safe to change lanes in such traffic.
- FPGAhacker 8y ago
  This is true. Accidents everyday.
Noumenon72 8y ago
I haven't driven in such heavy traffic, but you do everyone a favor if you can leave enough following distance not to have to brake so hard. It leaves a traffic shock wave that makes people slam on their brakes behind you, and starts a jam. If you can drop back just a little, you can maintain a more steady speed, which increases throughput for the road. Plus, longer-lived brakes.

jyriand 8y ago

Looking over the shoulder seems like a dangerous move to me, given that a car that is driving in front of me might break at the same moment I'm looking out of the side window. Also, it somehow seems little bit disorienting. But maybe if I would get used to it, it wouldn't seem so weird and scary.

ShinTakuya 8y ago
Simple solution to this one too: don't drive so close to the person in front of you that a 500ms peek would put you in danger of collision. The only time a peek would put you in the danger you describe is if you're tailgating or exceptionally slow at peeking.