You must log in or register to comment.
What about parallel parking or just readjusting while parking in general?
Just throw on the hazard lights. Double turn signals, do whatever you want.
You don’t use a turn signal when parallel parking?
I do use the blinkers to show that I’m backing in, but I would still have to turn the wheel to reposition.
My blinkers would go right, then left, then right again, and maybe left once more if I’m parking facing towards the top of a hill.
Honestly, why doesn’t your car automatically engage the turn signal after the wheel turns more than a certain number of degrees from center?
Some new MG cars do this, but it’s super annoying because the tolerance level set by them is super low. It engages with the slightest turn, much lesser than a lane shift also, and it confuses drivers behind you. If you’re taking a uturn, if you do a wider arch for a second, the guy behind you thinks you’re going the other way and have suddenly changed your mind. While parking it’s a nightmare as it keeps going on left and right every second. People behind me must think I’m an asshole. It’s a good idea, but really badly implemented by them. But then again they’re not really selling a car. They’re selling a mid range android tablet with a car accessory attached.
Because then it would turn on when driving on a windy road
My city has started putting in a lot of these figure-8-shaped double roundabouts at overpass entries/exits. Automatic signals would be real fun there, it’d look like Christmas every day.
Well for one, it should turn on before your turn. Two, roads sometimes bend without an actual turn.
Because you’re supposed to signal before you start turning, not when it’s already obvious that you’re turning.
Make me your leader and I will solve all problems big and small.
If you brake check, the car will eject you through the sunroof. If you don’t have a sunroof, you do now.
How would the car know the difference between that and breaking for an emergency?
I don’t know, that’s someone else’s job. I’m just the idea guy.
Always puzzled me, let’s say the dude behind failed the check and hit your car, what the hell did you gain from this?
- The front of the car has a lot more expensive stuff to damage.
- The back car is usually called at fault so has a lower chance of changing this
- I knew an asshole who kept his trailer hitch in, just so he could potentially do more damage when brake checking someone
At least in the US, a lot of fault hinges on rear impact. Not worth a damn, however, with how many dashcams people have now. These idiots still try though.
Fun fact, in a lot of states even if they slam the brakes if you hit them you are still at fault. You should have been at a safe following distance, and no one knows what that actually means. People will argue that a distance of less than 2 seconds is totally fine and safe because they do it all the time. But a safe following distance means that at your current speed of travel if the car in front of you came to an impossibly instantaneous stop you should have time to notice and stop without hitting them.
At freeway speeds this is a minimum of 4 seconds following distance in dry condition. As in when the back of their car passes a sign that you should be able to start counting Mississippi’s and not reach that sign with the front of your car for at least 4 Mississippi’s
Now, if they come up from behind you swerve over and then instantly slam on the brakes obviously you’re fine(if you have a dash cam) there was nothing you could have done, but if you have just been riding their ass and then they slam on the brakes? You’re totally a fault as far as the law in many states is concerned
Oooh, I didn’t understand what you were talking about until the last paragraph. I always thought “brake checking” was a specific move when you change lanes in front of the car and slam on the brakes, just a type of road rage. So, when you said that you’d be at fault if you hit them in the rear, I was really confused.
On the other hand, if you “ride their ass” and they check you, that’s completely fine in my book. Personally, I always keep the safe distance and it makes me really nervous when someone follows up close as I like to be in control of the road situation around me. An animal could run onto the road, something could fall out of a nearby truck etc. I mean, what is the person behind going to do? Anyways, I don’t usually check them, but rather slow down gradually so they also have to, and then speed up. They usually get mad, but if you’re going to drive like a dick, expect someone to react.
This isn’t true, if they can stop at an impossibly fast speed, why can’t you? Let’s say they stop in 3 seconds, that means their brakes can get them from 65 to 0 in 3 seconds. If you’re 2 seconds behind them, you have 5 seconds to stop. If you react within 2 seconds, you should be able to stop in 3 seconds. The only reason you would not be able to, is if you didn’t do maintenance on your brakes,
There’s almost no person in the world who can’t react in 2 seconds.
What if they slam into a truck at highway speeds? Instantly they’ve gone ftom 100km/h to 0, and you have to stop your car before you slam into them. How much space do you need between you in this scenario?
With 2 seconds worth of space, you have about 55 meters between you, and a normal reaction time would be about 250ms, which leaves you 1.75 seconds and 48 meters to come to a complete stop. And hopefully the person behind you reacts accordingly and doesn’t slam into you as well.
This is the answer, and is exactly what happens when you see those accidents involving like 6 Plus cars. Too many people riding way too close together at high speeds and none of them were able to stop in time when the first car suddenly stopped
That’s exactly the mechanism being exploited, yes.
It’s their fault, so life insurance pays up.
Even so, it’s still a huge waste of time to get it covered and lose your car for days or weeks
Car companies cry in bankrupt
If you need other cars to use turn signals you shouldn’t be driving.
Get off the road, asshole.
Because people are supposed to have the psychic ability to predict what the driver in front of them is going to do?
Yeah it’s really not hard to read what a car is going to do. It’s clear that many people cannot do it and to that end should not be driving.
Cars are not animals, they don’t have subtle body movements that you could read. If you can see what the car is doing, it is already too late. The idea of turn signals is that you let other drivers know in advance. Even if they are “stupid” and can’t “read” your car. Even if you are stupid and you are doing something really stupid, signals give people around you time to notice you and avoid you. We drive to get from point A to point B, and different rules and mechanisms are there to make the whole process safer. Go feel superiority somewhere else.
In the majority of cases you can anticipate what other drivers are doing based of subtle changes in speed or lane position. If someone is slowing and moving further to one side of the lane than they have been, it’s a pretty good indication they are preparing to turn.
It would be nice if people could explicitly signal that by using their indicators, but most people are fairly predictable, and the subtle movements are there if you watch for long enough.
What a silly thing to say. Crashes don’t happen the majority of the time. It’s the minority of cases that are the problem.
By majority it’s 100%, physics exists and the time required to maneuver in being capable of turning or lane changing is plenty to clearly signal what it will do. The reality is that if you need turn signals you are bad at driving and should not drive. Most humans are not capable and cars should not be how the majority of people get around.
Why exactly do you think cars have turn signals? Was it on a whim? Did people think it looked nice?
I bet your car insurance is astronomical
It’s really funny to watch people cope with the reality that they are not skilled at using a car. People should not drive cars, cars killed tens of thousands of people.
Ok Beemer.
Texas would come to a grinding halt.
No more swerving to avoid children.
Problem solved.!
Swerving is a little different than turning 90 degrees. I don’t know how the car would know, but…
AI of course, the solution to everything these days.
Looking at what Tesla’s accomplished, that will definitely run over the kid.
Yeah but it’ll run over the kid with its CAMERAS and NO OTHER SENSORS. Just like
drunk maniacshuman drivers with their real bigbrains and real eyes.Not before handing control back to the driver a fraction of a second before impact.
My car makes it slightly difficult to change lanes if I don’t signal, some resistance on the steering wheel and a warning beep beep beep that I’m “drifting.” There are some terrible roads around here that confuse the sensors so I do a bit of steering wheel arm wrestling now and then just to keep going straight.
I hate all that. Bro I hate of my mouse sensor has angle snapping, prediction, acceleration, or smoothing.
I loathe the concept of electronic throttle bodies and anything after 2005 has them. I don’t want my car to get to think about it after I press the throttle. Air now! Goddamn asthmatic cars. I don’t even want a manual transmission.
That is why I turned lane assist off after a dozen false positives that felt like the car was going to steer me into danger with no benefits.
Parking assist got turned off when parking in a garage set off a cacophony.
How strong is the lane assist in your car? If I was weak enough to even be bothered by the lane assist in my car, I’d figure it was time to stop driving. It certainly has never come close to overriding my steering.
The wheel jerking makes me think that I’m losing control and is extremely distracting.
It isn’t about losing tug of war, it is about losing focus.
Ever drive on a construction zone where they’ve started to rip up pavement and half the lane is an inch higher than the other half? Ever change lanes into that lane, and feel the steering fight you or lurch as you cross that lip?
The problem isn’t the strength needed to overcome the lane assist. It’s easy to fight it. The problem comes when you know you are well centered in the lane. But, all the sudden, you’re being pushed left or right, and you have to quickly determine whether you’re feeling uneven pavement. Or maybe a tie rod end or a ball joint has some slop in it. Maybe the power steering pump is leaking and running dry. Or, maybe the fucking lane assist thinks a strip of tar in the middle of the lane is a lane marker, and it wants me to cross the centerline.
The problem isn’t whether or not I can take it in a fair fight. The problem is that it throws a punch.
Well, that’s kind of what I’m saying. That’s insane. In my truck I wouldn’t even describe the lane assist as a nudge. It’s just barely enough to be perceivable. Certainly nothing that’s going to make me question anything other than if I’m over the line.
Different cars have different levels of pushing back. My in laws’ Subaru twisted hard like bumping a curb while my Honda was a slight bit of resistance.
You’ve become conditioned to consider a “nudge” to be lane assist helpfully pushing on the steering wheel, to move you toward the center of the lane. Your muscle memory reacts to such a nudge by accepting it, allowing it.
30 years of driving has conditioned me to consider a “nudge” to be an indication that something is pushing on the car, moving me away from where I intend to be. My muscle memory reacts to such a nudge by immediately arresting that push and reversing it.
No, I haven’t been conditioned into anything. 38 years of driving taught me to be able to tell what is happening because I’m aware of the road. I know I didn’t just drive off the edge of the road, because I know where the road is and I know where my tires are.
I’ve had lane assist in my truck for 2 years and I learned what it feels like. However, it’s clear that different manufacturers implemented it differently. All I can say is, it appears Honda got it right.
In my experience, lane assist is pretty good on the highways, and actively terrible everywhere else.
The only “feature” I hated more than lane assist was hill start assist. Chirped my tires, or stalled completely, on every fucking hill.
Do you have trouble staying in your lane on the highway?
That’s the easiest place to stay in a lane.
Lane assist seems to agree with you. It is only able to do its job on the highway. Elsewhere, it actively seeks head-on collisions.
Its job is apparently making up for lazy people who can’t pay attention to the multi ton vehicle they are driving.
It was when I was holding leftmost lane position passing a semi and it beeped and tried to steer me into said semi that I decided it can fuck off for ever lol
It does that on highways with cyclist too
Well of course, nobody elses life matters really! /s
Star Trek should be required viewing for all world leaders.
That type of person will arrive at the conclusion “see, it’s okay to do eugenics and have nuclear wars, since humanity will turn out okay anyways”.
That sounds like it would be a good idea, but there is a strange but significant cadre of right-wing Star Trek fans. I think they just pay attention to the pew pew space battles and ignore everything else or something.
Even worse, I’ve run into fans who think the Terrans had the right idea.
Considering the Terran Empire ended up being conquered, this tracks with them idolizing other losers, like Nazis and the Confederacy.
IMO conservatives are either Klingons, Ferengi, or deluded enough to think they’d be chosen to join the Q Continuum. And Libertarians think they’re Romulans or Cardassians but aren’t actually that organized or clever.
Khan-accerationists?
I can’t help bit notice all these “debate me” chuds talk exactly like Gene Roddenberry’s writting style. Why does every conversation or discussion devlove into “the logic of your argument” “you misunderstood the logic of what i am saying”.
I honestly see why. While I love star trek, it has a very strong power structure “with the right people in power”, as if power itself wouldn’t corrupt people. The admirals may not always be right in the beginning but they accept their wrongs and have no bad intentions and the heroes are always celebrated by the establishment.
This can be understood as “this is the perfect world where even authorities are good” or as “I told you, authorities are the good guys”. I, as a left libertarian, prefer Farscape (and still watch every star trek show)
I, as a left libertarian, would probably end up in the Maquis
What’'s left liberterian even means?
Anarchist or anarchist adjacent
They’re the OG libertarians. The right explicitly stole the term and celebrated doing so.
In short, they’re a branch of anarchism.
So neo liberal economic is just a right wing spinoff of libertarianism?
I wouldn’t call it a spinoff but rather a ripoff. There might be few parallels but basically left Libertarians are against all hierarchies, including the state. Right Libertarian are against the state and want to build state like structures but privatized.
Exactly! The TOS/TNG era are “benevolent authoritarianism” and conservatives, of course, see themselves as the good guys. “If things only went our way, our society would be perfect, just like Star Trek!”
I think Edington said it best. Paraphrasing, “[The Federation] are even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You’re more insidious you assimilate people I think they don’t even know.”
I never thought of it that way, but you do have a point. I still think it’s more pew pew than anything else though.
Steve Shives (I hope I got the spelling correct) made a video why conservatives like star trek and a part of it is they see it as stories of other worlds and by doing so ignore all the allegorical implications. “A planet where people have the false gender assigned to them at birth? How truly alien!”
And to be fair: escapism is a legitimate goal of scifi and media in general. You watch scifi to enter a different world, for at least an hour a week be free of all your problems in the here and now.
Sure, but I still genuinely believe the Gospel of Picard would have a net positive effect. Far moreso than the bible, which a good portion already have read.
You would be screwed if your bulb goes out.
The turn signal mechanism would still work even if the bulb was out.
This is still not really workable, but that wouldn’t be the problem.
Does it though? I had a truck in the 90s and the signal seemed to be a circuit. So, when my rear left signal went out, the front left didn’t work either.
New cars don’t use bulbs.
Of course, they use blinker fluid
Considering I see some people mentioning stuff like swerving to avoid obstacles or temporary construction lanes not to mention curvey roads so I propose what about automatic turn signals that activate when it detects the driver trying to turn without signaling
I like this idea but with a twist. If you manually activate the turn signal before turning, you’re good to go. If you fail to activate, a big lightboard on the back of your car lights up saying “I forgot to signal” and then they automatically turn on anyway. Now we have shame in play. Some people are immune to shame though, so you get, let’s say, 2 of these a day, or 4 a week, or whatever, for free to account for the unexpected. If you exceed that you have to take an online remedial training class. If you get dinged again within one year you have to take an in-person class. 3 times in a year and every time thereafter, and you get points on your license. After 5 or 6 times you’d lose your license. This way normal people in abnormal circumstances aren’t impacted, and the bad drivers slowly get escalated into either doing it right or losing the privilege to drive.
Turn signals need to telegraph what you are planning to do, not show what you’re in the process of doing.
In the book version of Hitchhiker’s guide to Galaxy highly advanced elevators are given limited precognition in order to proactively be on the floor and open just as someone wanting to use an elevator arrives. So maybe in some highly advanced future where we inexplicably still use cars our turn signals can see a few seconds into the future and turn themselves on before we turn.
Ah, but instead they would use that to shove an advertisement into your eyeballs as you walk around a corner.
Sadly true
Because, and I have no idea why so many people don’t get this, you’re supposed to signal you’re going to turn, then slow down, then turn. That’s how you safely let anyone behind you know you’re going to do that.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve almost rear-ended someone because they weren’t using their turn signals until they had already started turning. You might as well not use them at all for all the good that does.
Which is why it’s an incredibly dumb idea. It’s not actually possible. But it would make the world a better place.
Because, and I have no idea why so many people don’t get this, you’re supposed to signal you’re going to turn, then slow down, then turn. That’s how you safely let anyone behind you know you’re going to do that.
Damn right. I was taught to give a minimum 3 blinks before turning. That also gives you time to look around for other vehicles/pedestrians before committing to the turn.
Yes, but also don’t turn them on until the last car that was passing you is slightly in front of you, too many people that turn them on while you’re still a bit behind, potentially in their blind spot, which can make you think they didn’t see you and maybe even swerve as a reflex.
lol. imagine being a 30,000lb vehicle and some dingdong in a rush swerves in front of you with their 2,000 lb vehicle (because getting in your lane early is an ancient, lost courtesy) and decelerates by 30mph over the course of three seconds to pull into mcdonalds, setting off several of your vehicle’s alert systems and automatically registering you for a performance review from your manager in addition to elevating your heart rate substantially
A few days ago I ran out to get a few things, and this car ahead of me is going 20Km/h below the 50 limit for 5 minutes, then comes to a dead stop in an intersection, starts slowly turning and then puts on their blinker. Honked at them for being a fucking dumbass and they just wave me off like I’m the asshole
God I fucking hate how easy it is to get and keep a license. Enforcement needs to be much stricter because there are far too many morons on the road.
I live in a country were, without exaggeration, 90%+ of drivers don’t use turn indicators or do it last minute unless is for their own benefit (for example they’d turning left and need to cross the opposite lane in).
If it’s for the safety of others, especially pedestrians, forget about it.
I just so happen to have lived 2 decades abroad, one of which in Northern Europe, so this crap (and the trying to bully pedestrians on zebra crossings) gets on my nerves big time.
i want to live in a world where only those who truly have no other option choose to drive, and even a minor mistake in traffic immediately costs you your license and you have to re-take it from scratch.
It’s insane to just let anyone drive a multi-ton vehicle capable of going 120+ km/h for personal transport, if people are going to do so they damn well better do so carefully.
even a minor mistake in traffic immediately costs you your license
Well that’s dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while. Just say you want to eliminate all cars and be done with it. No human being could meet that standard, because even the best drivers make a minor mistake once in a while. Won’t even get into reacting to an emergency where you have a split second to decide what to do. We are not omniscient robots.
lmao someone took it personally
i want to live in a world where only those who truly have no other option choose to drive
That’s how you get terrible drivers. Meanwhile those who like driving will care about doing it more safely then those who are forced to drive.
Large [multi-lane] highway curves.
Computers are stupid. A"I" is stupid. Humans are smart. Trust humans.
Slight disagreement:
This will give assholes who thinks a turn signal gives them the right of way more ammo to be jackasses in traffic.
They’re already assholes though at least this way we know what they’re doing.
I’m thinking more likely accidents are going to occur when people try to avoid road hazards or go around corners and they don’t remember to turn on their turn signal and the car just goes straight and barrels into something…or someone.
What about just needing to steer along a windy road?
If you own a house with nobody living in it, you gotta pay rent to the state each month for the privilege of keeping it empty.
They do this in India. You’re allowed 2 homes, 3rd onwards you have to pay Income tax for deemed rent received if it’s empty.
You do, it’s called property taxes.
No, like market rate for the property. Everyone pays property tax, regardless of whether the property is vacant or occupied.
My dad inherited my grandma’s ancient house recently and is practically forced to find a way to remodel it to be rentable because there is a imputed rental value tax where I’m from.
What’s the alternative, just leave it empty?
I would think it could also be acceptable to transfer ownership to a relative who doesn’t already own a home. It just seems like a waste to have a house with nobody living in it while so many people are unhoused.
But they mean specifically a vacancy tax. So anyone who owned vacant property would have a large additional payment or get it rented
I don’t see this working. Not only the property owners would transfer this cost to your monthly payments, the government would need an enormous bureaucracy to actually control and enforce this law. I don’t believe this is technically possible to achieve.
They pass on a tax that doesn’t apply if you’re renting it?
Eventually somebody will rent it, and the monthly price will be higher to recoup the tax.
After a while, it’s just part of the cost.
Not much of an expense imo. Like giving a speeding ticket to a billionaire, it doesn’t actually mean much if you’re rich enough.
Id rather make the initial purchase cost extraordinarily expensive after buying more than two houses. Third house is 5x the cost. Fourth house is 50x the cost. Nobody needs four houses so it’s a fuck you tax.
deleted by creator
And at scale it will eat into investor returns, making holding them empty a less profitable endeavor. They would suddenly go from having a neutral MRR asset turned into a negative MRR if they choose not to rent out. You can bet your sweet bippy that the bean counters are going to notice the difference and argue to sell or rent them to cut the expenses.
It’s not just another cost of doing business though, it’s specifically a cost of not doing business.
So imagine someone has been buying up homes to rent them. Market rate for rent is $1000 and they own 1000 units (just to make the math easy). That means they would profit $1 million every month with every unit filled, and lose $1 million every month for leaving every unit empty.
Now imagine they have half the units filled, so they are getting $0 each month. They could try and raise the rent over market rate to cover the cost, but that would make it harder to fill the empty units and encourage their tenants to leave. If they lower the rent a bit though, they could fill the empty units and erase the cost entirely. Now imagine every landlord is in this dilemma; it puts the pressure onto them to appeal to prospective tenants. They could even increase profit by housing people for free, just filling units with the homeless to reduce costs.
If they don’t change behavior and just eat the cost, then that’s more money for the state to invest in housing programs.
Any and all type of marketing completely banned.
Yes please
I think you should be allowed one sign on the building itself and a listing in some sort of directory and that’s it.
Yea as much as we hate marketing it’s necessary to some degree for us to even know that things exist. How do you think new medications for yet untreated diseases get spread? Those companies pay a ton in marketing to get the meds out into the world and in the hands of doctors. Lots more people would be dying of stuff we have the cure for if they couldn’t advertise meds.
Directories for specific products would be good though. If I need a kitchen gadget I can go to a directory of kitchen or food goods and look around. Between that and word of mouth we would be covered.
you get one research paper too but the sample size of the study should be in the title.
Is reading the abstract at the very beginning really that much of a burden?
