Hacker News Reader

I'd like to see drivers ed put more focus on personal judgements of safety, and less emphasis on following the law. A huge number of car crashes seem to happen because people are doing the speed limit during poor weather/road conditions. The presence of the speed limit makes many people feel entitled to go that speed, entitled to not be burdened with the responsibility of thinking for themselves. Driving at 65 mph through pea soup fog is insane, but I've seen tons of people do it. And presumably when they crash they blame the fog...

I know drivers ed courses tell people that the speed limit is the legal maximum, not minimum, but I don't think they do a good job of effectively getting this point across. With proper training, drivers should be able to evaluate the road and weather conditions and estimate a safe speed for themselves using their own judgement, without the aid of speed limits giving them hints. If it were up to me, drivers license tests would have the speedometer blinded to the driver during part of the test, and the driver would be graded on their ability to drive at a safe speed without it.

California Driver's Ed hammered this in. In california you can get a ticket for going the speed limit if it's foggy, raining, etc. I can't imagine getting pulled over for doing the speed limit anywhere else. I think most of the rest of the country (that i've experienced) has a belief that 90% of people go slower than the speed limit, and the rest are split between people that go the exact posted amount, and people that drive over the speed limit.

I've probably put about 800,000 miles on the road in my life, and i gotta say, "exact posted" is fairly rare, but most people are within 1% or so. you really only notice if you're in a factory stock car with stock tires and have GPS telling you your exact speed. Otherwise it feels like everyone is going faster or slower arbitrarily, when it's probably just mechanical. I think i have read more than a thousand times that manufacturers allow for slop in the speedometers, so long as it shows you going faster than your actual ground speed. up to 10% even.

it's 2022, 2023 almost. Why isn't the speedometer at least half GPS or otherwise corrected? BTW, the way to determine if your speedometer is correct is with the mile marker signs. you set your cruise control or foot to 60MPH and start timer/look at a watch/clock and you should hit the next mile marker at exactly 60 seconds. From what i've read, most cars will hit that up to 6 seconds later than they should.

interesting aside: toyota and ford cars from the late 80s early 90s with digital displays would cap out at like 85MPH but if you switched to KM/H it would allow readings above 85MPH. then again, my first ford was missing the little peg that stopped the analog dial from going past 85, and at one point i was pulled over at 3 AM on I-210 going "R" miles per hour. The Statie told me he was on an interchange, and didn't believe his eyes, because that ford was basically iron oxide and epoxy.

> And please don't bike across the crosswalk, walk your bike across it. Drivers cannot react fast enough to a bike darting across the road

You lost me there. Cyclist feel a lot safer biking across because they can react quicker.

I live in a place that went from having very few cyclists to a decent percentage of all commutes. Dealing with car traffic today is so much easier simply because car drivers have gotten used to cyclist and now pay attention. Most american cities are still at the stage where only risk takers cycle.

I know of two cyclists who died by suddenly darting across the crosswalk. In both cases the driver was exonerated because there was no way he could have reacted in time.

That's very sad to hear. I hope those intersections/crosswalks went through a redesign after this because this shouldn't happen.

Don't dart across the road in a bike. For the same reason moms tell their kids not to run across the road. Improving the markings won't help.

When I use the crosswalk, I stand expectantly next to it but off the road, and wait until the cars stop. Then I cross. I never run out into the street hoping cars see me in time.

Hoping other cars see you in time, especially if you dart in front of them, is just a bad strategy.

I'm not talking about markings, I'm talking about designing crossings so that pedestrians and cyclist don't have to watch out for turning cars and improving traffic lights so that pedestrians and cyclist don't feel the need to run red lights.

Here are two really good videos about this that talk about this:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSnSeyG74fw

> Cyclist feel a lot safer biking across

Feeling safer doesn't mean actual safety. For example, some cyclists feel safer riding facing traffic, but statistically, that's much more dangerous compared to riding in the same direction as traffic.

It matters when creating infrastructure for bikes though. If you put down a bike lane and nobody uses it, it's likely that the cyclist feel safer riding in the street.

Being predictable is good advice, but I don't think that's the point. The reality is you're never gonna get people to behave predictably 100% of the time. And even in a perfect world where everybody was acting predictably, accidents would probably still happen on the Hempstead Turnpike. The real issue is planning and designing roads in a way that's safe for everyone, not just cars.

Of course some don't behave predictably. That's why there are collisions. My advice still stands. If you don't want others to drive into you, behaving predictably greatly improves your odds.

Road use design aside, I do think this is a large contributor to US crashes. Driver education in the US is poor but should emphasize predictability and attempting to understand how other modes could use the road. But making it harder to get a license is an equity issue in a country this driving dependent so DLs remain easy to get.

> Driving at the same speed as the rest of the traffic is being predictable

This is easier said than done. There's a stretch of freeway between the Bay Bridge and Candlestick park where the speed limit is mostly 50 mph and a portion 55 mph. Nearly no one goes 50. They generally go 65-70. And yet, friends have gotten speeding tickets for going over 55. Those speeding tickets end up costing $2000-$3000 in increased car insurance over the years it takes to clear the points on your record.

I wish the CHP would patrol the area and get traffic to slow down. Or add cameras and fines. Or raise the speed limit to 65 if it's safe (probably not).

> Or raise the speed limit to 65 if it's safe (probably not).

The safest value for a speed limit is what 85% of the drivers would do anyway. If everyone goes 65-70, then it's definitely safe for the speed limit to be raised to at least 65. This is exactly what they should do, and if they can't for some political reason, the next best thing would be to basically not enforce the speed limit at all on that road anymore.

People will speed en masse if the speed limit is set too far below a reasonably safe speed.

I've seen that many times where a faster arterial gets suddenly set to 25.

This is arguably not true. We can look at the history of traffic accidents to see that, left to their own devices, drivers will drive faster than is safe. Laws, enforcement (cameras), and better road design (best), will get drivers to slow down.

Add cameras, but even more so add average-speed camera. They suck but are absurdly effective. They record your plate from two places and if you got there too fast it means you went over 50 and are fined.

I don't understand the reasons, but the use of average-speed cameras, and in fact, the entire practice of enforcing speed limits based on measuring time between two marked points on a road, is not just not used in California, but is outright illegal.

This is particularly depressing, because they work amazingly well, and seem far fairer than an arbitrary (or perhaps worse, discriminatory) choice, made by a handful of police, of targets to give de facto large penalties, after extra fees and insurance are considered, for a practice that everyone is doing.

With average speed cameras, you can exceed the speed limit, even significantly, for short moments when it's important to do so (eg, to avoid an accident, to pass someone safely, etc), because average, not instantaneous, speed is what matters. You can know with near certainty that you'll get a (comparatively minor, in many cases) penalty if you speed for significant periods of time. But traffic will also be going the speed limit, not 20mph faster as in California, because everyone knows this, and no one feels they won't get caught if they're just careful / friends with the police / etc.

Driving in average-speed-camera-heavy parts of Europe is quite pleasant by comparison to the madness in California.

I've never gotten a ticket for driving with the flow, even if the flow was speeding. Besides, I prioritize safety over the cost of a ticket. I'd fight a ticket for going with the flow.

If you're resolutely driving at 55, and the flow is 65-70, causing those cars to swerve around you, you are likely to get the ticket for creating a hazardous situation.

> I've never gotten a ticket for driving with the flow, even if the flow was speeding.

Is a ridiculous metric. I've never been mugged in DTLA has no barring on whether or not people get mugged in DTLA

You can not get a ticket for going the speed limit even if the flow is generally faster. You can easily get a ticket for going with the flow over the speed limit. A simple google will yield 1000s of results of people who've gotten one

"Don't be polite, be predictable"

During my time in school, two kids died in traffic. One decided to run across an arterial, the other swerved his bike to cross the road. I once ran into the street, luckily the driver was alert and stopped on a dime. He was furious, I was ashamed.

If a driver cannot react fast enough to someone on a crosswalk, then the driver is driving too fast. Cyclists don't throw themselves right in front of a moving car. It's a lot safer to cross on a crosswalk, even on a bike.

> If a driver cannot react fast enough to someone on a crosswalk, then the driver is driving too fast.

You can be going 25 and a cyclist veering into the crosswalk right in front of you is going to get hit. So will one appearing in the crosswalk where a parked truck on the side of the road is blocking the view to the right of the crosswalk. Those caused the fatal crashes I know of, and the drivers in both were not charged.

> Cyclists don't throw themselves right in front of a moving car.

Yes, they do.

> It's a lot safer to cross on a crosswalk, even on a bike.

The safe way to cross on a crosswalk is to wait expectantly until the traffic sees you and stops, and then cross. There is no other safe way.

Remember, you mom prolly told you not to run across the street, but walk. Same reason.

This is exactly what I tell people who like small cars. I've got a big truck. I can't necessarily see you. If you're driving a smaller car, be predictable. Don't cut in front of me or I'll end up crushing you.

To those of you driving in anything smaller than an SUV, signal before you turn. Don't cut across multiple lanes. I frequently see small cars and sedans think they can just cut in front of a space I leave.

Right of way won't matter once you're crushed metal.

Yup, it's not worth being dead right.

Here lays the body of William Jay,

who died maintaining his right of way.

He was right, so right, as he sped along,

but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

Unfortunately, letting the assholes win breeds a world full of assholes. I don't want to die and I'm not going to assert my right of way and risk my life, but, the laws need to be enforced else we get lawlessness and a world of whoever is most aggressive wins.

The nice thing about traffic is that safe driving can be enforced with proper infrastructure where unsafe driving feels unsafe. And that has the benefit of both forcing drivers to drive safely and keeping cyclists and pedestrians alive (since they no longer interact with drivers or only do it in ways that are better for everyone).

Not Just Bikes is a great YouTube channel explaining a lot of those concepts, usually by example in the Netherlands. Whereas in North America you have basically motorways going through residential and commercial landuse areas, which feel like, well, motorways and invite driving fast.

Yeah, well, you will encounter situations where you are right but still need to take action to avoid an accident.

After all, when you make a mistake while driving, you'll appreciate the other guy helping to avoid the collision.

Alternatively, you could, you know, NOT drive a death machine, and expect the peons to get out of your way.

Just follow the rules. If you drive a small car, just think of yourself like you are a bicycle to me. If you ride a bicycle, read up to the top of the thread.

You are the one supposed to keep in mind that smaller cars, cyclists and pedestrians are there. You are responsible for their safety.

If you hit someone in smaller car, because you did not seen them, it is your fault.

Sure, in the same sense that you're responsible for cyclists and pedestrians in a smaller car, but I don't see you guys saying anything to people talking about that earlier in the thread.

Actually the article this thread is based upon is all about a small, red Camry hitting a young child with a bike. Folks might just not want to belabour the point.

FWIW I agree with the other commenter -- YOU are responsible for your behavior on the road. Driving a larger vehicle means more responsibility. I don't care if the USA has collectively decided that murdering someone with your vehicle is fine: even if small cars and bicycles don't always behave safely around you, you should drive slower or give more distance to avoid murdering people since you chose to drive a huge vehicle.

That person literally finished by:

> Right of way won't matter once you're crushed metal.

while arguing that small cars and everyone else should actively count in his lack of visibility and lack of care into their behavior.

We react to this driver and not to small car drivers, because those did not shown such a huge lack of care about safety of everyone else. I argue that if your car makes you hit someone with right of way because you did not seen him, that car should be banned or you should be banned from driving.

It's not about right of way. It's about being safe. I realize this because I drive defensively. If you can't drive according to the rules, don't drive.

Stay safe out there.

If you are hit and crippled/killed, being dead right is of no use to you. Transferring responsibility for your safety onto others is a very bad idea.

I can follow the rules every day of my life and still get murdered by selfish people like you, and you'll walk away without a scratch. And then you'll somehow find a way to make it my fault.

Following the rules isn't enough. Being an active participate in your own safety is just common sense.

For example, once the traffic in front of me came to a sudden stop. I braked hard, and stopped in time. I looked in my rear view mirror, and realized the guy behind me wasn't going to stop in time, so I pulled off onto the shoulder as fast as possible. That guy rear ended the car in front.

The damage was minimal, nobody was hurt, as my pulling aside gave him an extra few feet to slow down.

I've avoided other accidents even though I was totally in the right and the other guy was totally in the wrong. I just don't understand the attitude of no problem, it's the other guy's fault if he hits me.

Yep, this is exactly why I recommend everybody I know to buy the biggest, largest car you can buy. The outcome of vehicular collisions is based almost entirely on who has more mass and energy, and you might as well set yourself to win. Sure, big cars cost more to operate-- but $150 fill-ups are nothing compared to a lifetime of chronic pain and injury.

This in a nutshell is the difference between American driver's ed and traffic laws, and places like Germany.

Despite the stark difference in optics, traffic in the US feels more like Lord of the Flies than, say, Pakistan. You're literally describing the law of the jungle.

Where does this entitled attitude come from? You just expect everyone to scurry out of your way so you don't blindly crush us?

If your vehicle is so large that you can't see other road users properly, that's your fault. You chose to buy it and drive it. You are selfishly externalizing the costs of your preference onto all other road users. If you hit and kill someone because they were doing ordinary road things and you couldn't see them because of your gigantic A-pillar blindspot or your grotesquely oversized front grille, then that is your fault and you are a murderer.

Like, it just amazes me that you can type these words: "I've got a big truck, I can't necessarily see you", and think the problem is with everyone else. Fuck you and fuck your big truck.

Too much distracted driving, and too little enforcement of existing rules for me to care. Every day, I see other road users take calls, record videos, all behind the wheel: why should I give a shit? My options are either to remain frustrated with the world, or simply adopt societal norms and drive my Chevy Tahoe stress free :)