4 ms·

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 r

by 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
    > Well, sure, no one is going to be perfect, but similarly, no one is going to always check over their shoulder. Plenty of people do. I do. You make it a habit so it's not something you even think about. Or put another way, it's like brushing your teeth--it's something you do because not doing it makes you uncomfortable. (And as someone who had to develop the habit of brushing as an adult rather than being trained as a young child by attentive parents, I know it's possible to develop such habits belatedly.) I've found that in modern cars the B pillars are so far forward and wide that the value of the blind spot check is diminished. In my 2018 mid-sized SUV I have to stretch so far to see the blind spot that in heavy freeway traffic I feel like I'm taking my eyes off the road ahead for too far long. So I'm on the fence on the turning the head thing and suspect some day soon pervasive collision avoidance systems will definitively settle the matter, though I'm not sure I'll ever be able to break the habit myself. But it's definitely a mistake to think that it's not practical to consistently do something as simple as checking your blind spot. It's perhaps one of the few driving tasks that one can reasonably expect to perform with near perfect consistency, even during emergency situations like when you're tempted to veer to avoid a rapidly approaching road hazard.
    - baddox 8y ago
      > Plenty of people do. I do. What I mean is that "check your mirrors" and "look over your shoulder" are equally easy to follow. I didn't look over my shoulder because I had checked my mirrors and was extremely confident there was no car in my blind spot. I still have a rule that I follow all the time.
- AceyMan 8y ago
  >The problem is that your attention isn't riveted on the mirrors at all times. This is mitigated by what pilots call their "scan" or "flow" (I've heard both terms). Pilots follow a visual path around the instruments to ensure they refresh their awareness of critical values and system states (airspeed, ascent rate, engine parameters, etc.) at appropriate intervals¹. I argue that drivers should have a similar flow to maintain constant situational awareness, and side mirrors are a key element in such a pattern. I also have a pre-drive checklist that I call the "Six Ls" — Lights (obvi), Locks (obvi) , Levels (fuel, oil press, electrical supply, etc.), Laps (seat belts), Load (cargo secured?), Loud (radio down/pax calm). /Acey ¹—With automatic alerting in modern planes this arguably is not strictly needed, but pilots start in small, simple planes before moving up the tech stack and it's a good practice at any level.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    How much does the roster of what pilots are constantly scanning have to do with what is happening to the rear of the airplane's path of travel? Pilots don't have the problem of a child jumping into their path from between parked cars. They can fly blind in a complete fog, by instruments. In a car, your attention should be mostly toward the front. The rear action deserves attention, but not a lot; just a glance every few seconds. There are times in driving when what is happening rearward is very important and deserves a lot of attention; it's generally good to keep those to a minimum.
felipemnoa 8y ago
>>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. But if you don't check every single time, you will eventually make a mistake and hit another car. It is the same rationale about never pointing a gun at another person. Even if you are 100% sure that it is not loaded.
- baddox 8y ago
  > But if you don't check every single time, you will eventually make a mistake and hit another car. I don't really follow that logic. If I check every single that it's necessary to check, by definition that is adequate. Of course I'm not genuinely bothered that the driver test proctor scored me by-the-book, I'm sure that's much easier and more consistent for them and it probably rarely makes a difference between pass or fail. But I also don't think I was driving in any way unsafely in that instance.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    The rule is designed for humans who lack perfect judgment. If you aren't in that category, why are you driving an automobile?
    - baddox 8y ago
      That still doesn't make sense. Why does the rule "always look over your shoulder" work for imperfect humans, but the extremely similar rule "always check your mirrors" doesn't? Both rules obviously work when followed and don't work when not followed.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        No rule will prevent all collisions of automobiles driven by humans. There's no free lunch here. If you want to be safer, drive less. TFA is fun, but mostly because it pretends that cyclists don't exist. IRL, there is a trade-off between turned-head blind spot checks and hidden-pedestrian alertness. You weren't talking about that trade-off, though. You were assuming that you always keep perfect track of your mirrors. Safety experts are quite sure that you don't.

by baddox 8y ago

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
  > Well, sure, no one is going to be perfect, but similarly, no one is going to always check over their shoulder. Plenty of people do. I do. You make it a habit so it's not something you even think about. Or put another way, it's like brushing your teeth--it's something you do because not doing it makes you uncomfortable. (And as someone who had to develop the habit of brushing as an adult rather than being trained as a young child by attentive parents, I know it's possible to develop such habits belatedly.) I've found that in modern cars the B pillars are so far forward and wide that the value of the blind spot check is diminished. In my 2018 mid-sized SUV I have to stretch so far to see the blind spot that in heavy freeway traffic I feel like I'm taking my eyes off the road ahead for too far long. So I'm on the fence on the turning the head thing and suspect some day soon pervasive collision avoidance systems will definitively settle the matter, though I'm not sure I'll ever be able to break the habit myself. But it's definitely a mistake to think that it's not practical to consistently do something as simple as checking your blind spot. It's perhaps one of the few driving tasks that one can reasonably expect to perform with near perfect consistency, even during emergency situations like when you're tempted to veer to avoid a rapidly approaching road hazard.
  - baddox 8y ago
    > Plenty of people do. I do. What I mean is that "check your mirrors" and "look over your shoulder" are equally easy to follow. I didn't look over my shoulder because I had checked my mirrors and was extremely confident there was no car in my blind spot. I still have a rule that I follow all the time.
AceyMan 8y ago
>The problem is that your attention isn't riveted on the mirrors at all times. This is mitigated by what pilots call their "scan" or "flow" (I've heard both terms). Pilots follow a visual path around the instruments to ensure they refresh their awareness of critical values and system states (airspeed, ascent rate, engine parameters, etc.) at appropriate intervals¹. I argue that drivers should have a similar flow to maintain constant situational awareness, and side mirrors are a key element in such a pattern. I also have a pre-drive checklist that I call the "Six Ls" — Lights (obvi), Locks (obvi) , Levels (fuel, oil press, electrical supply, etc.), Laps (seat belts), Load (cargo secured?), Loud (radio down/pax calm). /Acey ¹—With automatic alerting in modern planes this arguably is not strictly needed, but pilots start in small, simple planes before moving up the tech stack and it's a good practice at any level.
- kazinator 8y ago
  How much does the roster of what pilots are constantly scanning have to do with what is happening to the rear of the airplane's path of travel? Pilots don't have the problem of a child jumping into their path from between parked cars. They can fly blind in a complete fog, by instruments. In a car, your attention should be mostly toward the front. The rear action deserves attention, but not a lot; just a glance every few seconds. There are times in driving when what is happening rearward is very important and deserves a lot of attention; it's generally good to keep those to a minimum.

felipemnoa 8y ago

>>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. But if you don't check every single time, you will eventually make a mistake and hit another car. It is the same rationale about never pointing a gun at another person. Even if you are 100% sure that it is not loaded.

baddox 8y ago
> But if you don't check every single time, you will eventually make a mistake and hit another car. I don't really follow that logic. If I check every single that it's necessary to check, by definition that is adequate. Of course I'm not genuinely bothered that the driver test proctor scored me by-the-book, I'm sure that's much easier and more consistent for them and it probably rarely makes a difference between pass or fail. But I also don't think I was driving in any way unsafely in that instance.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  The rule is designed for humans who lack perfect judgment. If you aren't in that category, why are you driving an automobile?
  - baddox 8y ago
    That still doesn't make sense. Why does the rule "always look over your shoulder" work for imperfect humans, but the extremely similar rule "always check your mirrors" doesn't? Both rules obviously work when followed and don't work when not followed.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      No rule will prevent all collisions of automobiles driven by humans. There's no free lunch here. If you want to be safer, drive less. TFA is fun, but mostly because it pretends that cyclists don't exist. IRL, there is a trade-off between turned-head blind spot checks and hidden-pedestrian alertness. You weren't talking about that trade-off, though. You were assuming that you always keep perfect track of your mirrors. Safety experts are quite sure that you don't.