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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
Here the ADAC offers a Fahrsicherheitstraining (safe driving training) which includes similar exercises (e.g. evading an obstacle while experiencing aquaplaning).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Checking is far more reliable.
In San Francisco, we only did a few turns and that was it. Not even any form of parking or three point turns.
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.
Granted, I should have known better how to work the defrost function in the car.
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.
Source: recently learned to drive in the UK and this is how the instructor taught me and is standard teaching here
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I give as much space as I possibly can in following distance without impeding traffic, but not less than 1cl/10mph.
For example, if someone merges in front of me at approximately 3 car lengths at 65mph, I'm not going to slam on my brakes to increase the gap, then gun it back up to speed. That's dangerous. I'm going to get off the throttle, maybe brake a bit, and let the gap grow out before reapplying power, which gives me reasonable protection without endangering me too much. This is also much more predictable for cars behind me, which again is safer.
Not every situation is in perfect compliance with the rules. My goal is to maximize my safety, predictability, and compliance without causing traffic problems for others. That's why it's a rule of thumb. It's not written in stone, but it's a good guideline to start.
It is a very risky operation if you drive in a congested city where pedestrians can hop in front of your car at any one moment. I think that is not the case in the US but in other parts of the world if you take your eyes off from the forward-going direction then you risk hitting someone who has just appeared in front of your car out of nowhere.
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.
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.
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.
Each year, cars become more and more insulated and isolated from the reality of driving, which is incredibly dangerous. Technology is exascerbating(sp?) this problem. As you say, driving via sensors rather than senses.
People must understand _what_ the car is doing in order to really know how to drive safely and competently. Lower-tech cars force people into this.
Why? I get that there is going to be a lot of missing sensors, but the automatic transmission is now so ubiquitous that it makes no sense to require you not to. I understand it's a nice additional skill, but in the modern era it in no way proves/disproves one's ability to function on the roadway. In fact, once these sensors all become as equally ubiquitous, there will be very little argument to be made against them as well. Might as well make an argument that you everyone should drive a Benz Patent Motor Car just to really "feel" the car.
It's not about some pretentious "feel" like porsche-bros espouse. It's about engagement and forming good habits so drivers are more self aware and self sufficient on the road.
I don't understand, they are still steering the craft, as well as adjusting it's speed. You haven't removed any of the important requirements for driving - being able to steer the vehicle and modify it's velocity. The ability to use a clutch and change gears simply compounds the difficulty of that exercise, it doesn't cause the driver to necessarily engage with the car in a way affects the drivers skill, it may have a higher skill floor, but it doesn't really make for a higher performance ceiling.
That was my point though. When driving a manual, your hands are either A) on the wheel, or B) one on wheel, other shifting gears. You can't really do much else. Maybe drink coffee if you're sitting in the same gear over distance, but in suburban traffic with stop lights and signs and turns, you can't afford to do much more than drive, shift, and execute maneuvers like lane changes, turns, etc.
There's far less opportunity to do things like text, read, rubberneck, etc. I.E. Devote more attention to what's happening outside.
It keeps you more focused on the car at lights and turns, but that might be a bad thing. I want to be focused on the cross traffic, not my engine.
A bad driver isn't thwarted by a stick shift. They'll do the bare minimum to keep the car on the road. These drivers are notoriously bad at selecting gears, so they usually solve that issue buying diesel-powered cars with a more forgiving power curve.
Additionally, manual cars are far more ubiquitous in the UK than they are in Canada (where I live now) and the US (at least, as far as I know). Because of this pretty much everyone learns on a manual car.
That's totally fine and totally fair. Manual cars do take additional skill to operate. My argument is that those skills don't make you a better driver overall. If you were to put a manual and automatic driver in an automatic car, the manual driver won't necessarily be the better driver by virtue of their being able to shift gears.
This hypothetical situation is part of the learning process. That is the point. People __learn__ to drive without the assists. Not to all of a sudden revoke a current drivers' ability to use them.
This would help educate drivers in their formative stage in order to reduce the number of "bad drivers" on the road later.
The only time a peek would put you in the danger you describe is if you're tailgating or exceptionally slow at peeking.
The method in the article doesn't eliminate the blind spot, just puts it in a place that's easier to see.
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.
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.
I'm gonna cover my interior with mirrors. It should be standard.
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.
"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."
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.
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!
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.
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.
Use all your mirrors, and consider a shoulder check when it’s not safe to rely on your mirrors alone – for example, to check any blind spot when reversing, moving off from the kerb, joining a motorway or leaving a roundabout.
It is physically impossible to achieve all-round visibility using only the mirrors. The coverage angle of your mirrors and your effective field of view do not sum to 360 degrees. You will have at least two blind spots to the side, two A-pillar blind spots to the front and in many cars additional rear blind spots.
Try it for yourself - sit in the driver seat of your car in a safe open space, then ask someone to slowly walk around the car in an outward spiral. It should become readily apparent that at certain angles and distances, they disappear from view entirely unless you turn your head.
In my car, I have properly set my mirrors and there is no functional blind spot. When a vehicle is leaving my rear view, it is entering the side view. There is no gap between these two events.
I'm always gobsmacked that the vast majority of drivers are literally incompetent at mirror use.
It's shocking that you would claim that it's impossible to not have a blind spot when this article and simple testing would prove you wrong.
I would urge you to try your OWN experiment AFTER reading this article, digesting it, and practicing it.