There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

n3cr0 ,

Judging by the heading, most people driving at night must be blind and speeding. Just keeps your eyes open and drive responsibly!

notepass ,

As much as I like the anti-car think, this really shouldn’t be blamed completely on cars. Especially in the US, pedestrian infrastructure in general is lacking. This includes thinks like sidewalks, but also proper lighting at places where people could be (See the sample image of a petrol station in the article, why are there no lights there?).

Additionaly, a lot of people dress dark with no reflection surfaces whatsoever (And some ciclelysts are insane enough to go without light at night). Try wearing stuff with some build-in reflectors at night. It does not need to be an ugly big yellow patch for that. I own a backpack with nicely worked in reflectory surfaces which makes me highly visible at night.

Ofc there is also a component to the Cars and drivers here, but if thermal cameras are the first solution someone can come up with, maybe the start needs to be somewhere else.

Overall: If I can see someone jaywalking on the autobahn about 800m in front of me while going 180kph and can react to that, the cities and villages in the US should probably have something similar in lighting and overall road elsetup.

grue ,

Especially in the US, pedestrian infrastructure in general is lacking.

“Pedestrian infrastructure” is really car infrastructure, because it’s designed for the benefit of cars to get pedestrians out of the way.

By all rights, the entire street has been “pedestrian infrastructure” for thousands of years.

LemmyIsFantastic ,

Clearly you’ve never met some assholes on bikes.

justJanne ,

How is someone using the road to get to work, school or the grocery store automatically an asshole just because they use a bicycle instead of an SUV or a horse-drawn carriage? Don’t they have the same right to use a lane of the road as you do?

(Not talking about lycra-wearing racing-bike cyclists using the road as gym here)

notepass ,

The part that is shared with cars is, yes. Still doesn’t mean that it should be shit. This problem is there because it does suck. The US is a stand out in regards to non-car safety in a bad way. Trying to blame it on cars only is stupid. Demand better infrastructure, not even more bloat on cars.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

I know I am part of the problem, but the number of people walking around in dark colors and dark jackets at night baffles me. Bonus points if they are jaywalking because they have the right of way.

Combine that with spending any time after sunset either partially blind from super bright LEDs or fully blind from high beams and yeah. Constantly having to drive defensively and try to spot potential hazards a mile ahead in the brief window of just being partially blinded.

So I am all for some thermals I can glance at

My genuine favorite is a motorcyclist who lives out near my ex. Lights off more often than not and he has jet black leathers and helmet and bike

Pxtl ,
@Pxtl@lemmy.ca avatar

If you cannot drive safely around pedestrians in normal street clothes, you should not be driving. You are the one bringing a lethal machine into the equation, they’re just out living.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

Then please enlighten me as to how you manipulate the laws of physics to increase the reflectivity of clothing while your night vision is impaired by all the headlights at face level angles too far to the left?

Defensive driving is acknowledging problems and trying to mitigate them. Stupidity is pretending there isn’t one

justJanne ,

The law says, regardless of the speed limit, you need to be driving slow enough to react to someone suddenly stepping on the road. If you can’t do that while driving at the speed limit, you’ll just have to drive slower.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

Ah. So you don’t have a magic secret but will still smugly pretend you do.

That seems safe

justJanne ,

Slow. Down. That’s all there is to it.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

I guess people angrily speeding past and honking means they would hit the ninjas, so… kudos.

Unless they just get angry and blast high beams into my rear mirrors even more.

Don’t disrupt the flow of traffic

justJanne ,

The speed limit isn’t a suggested speed, it’s an absolute maximum (excluding motorways with a minimum of 60km/h). If the road is frozen over you can’t drive the speed limit either, the same applies when it’s slippery due to rain or leaves or when the lights are off.

You always need to be able to react to sudden movement, no matter if it’s a pedestrian crossing the street, a motorist leaving their own driveway or even a trash can rolling into the road. It should be in your own best interest to avoid accidents.

The entitled attitude you ascribe to the overtaking drivers but also display yourself is just going to cause problems for everyone. Trying to shave a few seconds off of your commute by speeding in dark areas isn’t going to get you home any faster, all you’re doing is increasing your own stress level and risking someone’s life.

A little bit of respect on the road would go a long way to improve everyone’s experience on the road.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

Ignoring the massive disruption that going below the speed limit causes and the increased aggression it instills in other drivers who understand how to follow the rules of the road:

A sedan is, on average, 1302 kg according to a random quora page. 45 miles per hour is approximately 20.116 meters per second. So about 26.191 newton seconds. People aren’t surviving that.

So unless you are battling entitlement by going thirty miles under the speed limit (which will probably still squish a person but I am too lazy to math it), all you are doing is antagonizing everyone around you while filling yourself with a false sense of security.

Seriously, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, take a defensive driving course. Defensive driving is about learning to anticipate the drivers around you and how to minimize the chance of a collision. Which is not the law you learned in driver’s Ed. It makes you a much safer driver and will probably lower your insurance premium.

That means driving in a way that doesn’t anger everyone around you and knowing when you actually need to slow down and when doing so won’t help

justJanne ,

First off, city streets are by law limited to 50km/h (30mph) in Germany unless the road is physically blocked off from pedestrian access and is designated a motorway. And even that speed is only allowed for major thoroughfares, most city streets are limited to 30km/h (18mph), and many cities are currently arguing for banning 50km/h on city streets entirely.

Streets faster than that need to be physically separated, well-lit, need to have an additional lane or frequent additional locations to park broken down vehicles and need significant setbacks so you can see potential obstructions entering the road early enough to brake in time.

So what I’m taking from this is that the road design where you live is dangerous and substandard.

Now, to the personal appeal:

I did take a defensive driving course before I even started driver’s ed, and it was actually the reason I decided not to get a car. Nowadays I do everything — including weekly grocery runs — by bicycle instead.

The average speed in cities is 15-20km/h, primarily caused due to traffic jams and waiting times at stoplights. I can achieve or beat those speeds on a bicycle just as well, without the stakes being as high. If I make a mistake as a driver, it’s going to cost lives. If I make a mistake as a bicyclist, no one’s going to die. And considering the environmental footprint as well as the monetary costs in terms of road tax, fuel prices and maintenance, it’s definitely worth it.

Even if sometimes, people try to kill me by overtaking me far too close while speeding.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

Ah. So you are uneducated, inexperienced, and live in a completely different environment but will still insist you are correct.

Is there an American milkman anywhere nearby? Because he totally knocked your Mom up. Like, I know people who traced their ancestry back to the American revolutionary war who are less American than you

justJanne ,

“completely different environment”, ah, since when is Lemmy US-only?

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

This is a topic about safety features being considered for us cars because of us conditions.

I would make a snide comment about reading comprehension but I genuinely am concerned for you at this point.

LemmyIsFantastic ,

Not how that shit works. At all.

First, throwing out generic legal advice is dumb. It’s not consistent in any way. Second, in most states and countries you’d have to prove negligence. You absolutely will not and should not be held responsible if some idiot runs out between two cars and gets hit while you are following the law.

justJanne ,

Actually, in EU countries the law explicitly says you have to drive slow enough to react to unexpected changes on the road. If you as a driver hit something or someone, you are automatically at fault because you violated that law. There is an incredibly high burden of proof required to not be at fault as a driver.

But that’s usually not an issue, because road planners are only allowed to set speed limits that are low enough that drivers can actually react to unexpected changes. Which is why e.g. the Autobahn has a separate lane for broken down vehicles and significant setbacks and green areas to both sides of the road so you can see from a long distance away if something is in the road.

LemmyIsFantastic ,

👌👍

nevemsenki ,

The law says, regardless of the speed limit, you need to be driving slow enough to react to someone suddenly stepping on the road. If you can’t do that while driving at the speed limit, you’ll just have to drive slower.

Taken literally, that means that since you won’t be able to stop if someone steps just in front of your vehicle, you should never drive faster than ~10kmph. Which can be a valid interpretation, but I doubt it’s going to be a widely accepted one. For example at least where I live, if someone steps in front a vehicle within breaking distance driving at the speed of the road’s legal limit, both pedestrian and driver will share responsibility (the exact ratios being determined by the exact situation).

justJanne ,

If you actually think about it, it’s absolutely makes sense. The Autobahn has additional stopping lanes for broken down cars and several meters of grass to each side, which means you can safely drive hundreds of kilometers an hour while still being able to see obstructions early enough to brake in time.

Slower motorways have smaller setbacks, but still enough to keep their speeds.

City streets where you can’t see people entering the road in time to brake usually have relatively low speed limits to reduce the braking distance as well as the damage caused by a collision.

But if the visibility or braking distance are affected due to weather or broken streetlamps, it’s up to you to slow down accordingly. But even for situations like that traffic planners usually add additional signs, it’s common to see roads with signs that say


<span style="color:#323232;">/❄️
</span><span style="color:#323232;">(60)
</span>

to warn people to drive slower when the road is freezing or signs that say


<span style="color:#323232;">/🦌
</span><span style="color:#323232;">(50)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">[400m]
</span>

to warn of crossing animals in the next 400m and set a lower speed limit.

The same obviously applies when it’s not crossing deer but crossing pedestrians.

paultimate14 ,

Drive slower, or walk yourself if you can’t see well enough to drive.

brunofin ,

Sure but people can be a little more sensible to think not to dress as a fucking ninja at night and expect to be seen?

BearOfaTime ,

You clearly have never driven at night.

Edit: Also, the idiot wearing dark clothes walking into a road at night will still be just as dead whether the driver is considered culpable or not.

As a motorcyclist of 30+ years, this is a rule you either learn early or pay the price.

tiramichu ,

A pedantic point from me here, but it’s not ‘jaywalking’ if you have the right of way. It’s only jaywalking if it’s against regulations.

Still endangering yourself to trust drivers to stop at night I agree, right of way or not.

grue ,

“Jaywalking” is propaganda, not a legitimate thing.

lemann ,

Do people still get fined for jaywalking in the likes of NY?

kautau ,

Sure, but, as to be expected, it’s more of an avenue for racial profiling than anything else

nyc.streetsblog.org/…/jaywalking-while-black-fina…

nevemsenki ,

It’s pretty real where I live. Pedestrians can get fined if they are being actively dangerous with it (eg stepping out from behind obstruction without making sure it’s safe to do so), and the fault can be actually theirs if they cross outside a “safe” location.

BradleyUffner ,

Just because its origin was from propaganda doesn’t make it not real. There are actual laws against Jay Walking, you can be charged and fined for it.

BearOfaTime ,

With good reason - predictability.

Pxtl ,
@Pxtl@lemmy.ca avatar

AFAIK the law here in Ontario is that pedestrians can cross mid-block on a non-controlled-access-highway (ie a regular road not expressway) as long as any oncoming vehicles have plentiful space to safely come to a complete stop. You only lose the right-of-way as a pedestrian if you’re doing something that forces drivers to make emergency manoeuvres.

Case ,

I nearly killed a group of people one night.

Full on slamming of brakes and trying to not have another sort of accident.

Roughly 3am, a major major highway, and a group of people decides to dash across.

Dark clothing. Crossed between where any lights were.

Everyone involved was very lucky in that moment.

brunofin ,

I wanted to bring this up, I’m glad others also see it. (Or rather don’t? :p)

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

I know I am part of the problem, but the number of people walking around in dark colors and dark jackets at night baffles me. Bonus points if they are jaywalking because they have the right of way.

Combine that with spending any time after sunset either partially blind from super bright LEDs or fully blind from high beams and yeah. Constantly having to drive defensively and try to spot potential hazards a mile ahead in the brief window of just being partially blinded.

So I am all for some thermals I can glance at

Capricorn_Geriatric ,

Bonus points if they are jaywalking because they have the right of way.

What does this even mean?

CmdrShepard ,

It means someone isn’t using a crosswalk but still has the right of way by virtue of being a pedestrian.

NuXCOM_90Percent ,

Yeah. Maybe it is different where others live but it is incredibly common for people to just say “fuck it” because they know others will stop or swerve. Happens in cars and on foot

grue ,

It means he’s confused and has fallen for the automakers’ propaganda.

Kissaki ,

In IIHS’ latest tests of car headlight systems, fewer than half (43%) earned a good rating. […] “Vehicles that earn a good rating for visibility in our tests have 23% fewer nighttime pedestrian crashes than those that rate poor.”

That’s a lot of room for improvement without new technology.

WhatAmLemmy ,

It’s the kind of thing you assume would have been empirically tested and have minimum safety regulations, instead of the wild variability we see from dimly lit up close to blinding pulsar from alpha centauri.

JohnEdwa ,

There is a minimum and regulations, in the US IIRC the legal range is between 500 and 3000 lumens. And it results in exactly what you describe.

BearOfaTime ,

Exactly.

We need to have regs targeting specific performance metrics based on testing.

CmdrShepard ,

Europe actually has incredible adaptive headlight technology that AFAIK was illegal in the US up until very recently. It’ll be great to see this rolled out here as it’s better for everyone.

NTNU ,

Do we? I think they’re really annoying, blinding the shit outta me, then finally adjusting correctly just right before we pass each other.

BearOfaTime ,

We have the tech, what needs to improve are regulations based on performance instead of tech.

That would leave room for innovative design that achieves the performance requirements.

Ookami38 ,

I’m curious what their “good” rating entails. Hopefully not just brighter lights, that just makes oncoming traffic blind. That could end up being more dangerous overall, even if it’s not the car with “good” headlights doing the killing. Realistically, if you’re going to walk at night somewhere there are cars, wear a light, high vis vest, reflectors, SOMETHING.

WTFBBQ ,

I do a lot of night driving and haven’t killed anyone.

I don’t need a thermal camera to pay attention to the road in front of me. Drive to the conditions.

TheGrandNagus ,

This is so fucking stupid because you can apply it to literally any safety standard.

I do a lot of driving and have never needed a seatbelt.

I do a lot of driving and I’ve never needed ABS.

I do a lot of driving and I’ve never needed disc brakes.

I do a lot of driving and I’ve never needed modern headlights.

I do a lot of driving and I’ve never needed a properly developed crash structure.

And of course it’s not just driving:

I don’t wear a hardhat or any other protective gear for my job. It’s never done me any harm.

Etc.

Pedestrians and cyclists in the dark can be almost impossible to see until you’re very close, if they’re wearing dark clothes. It’s not a bad thing to be able to see them better.

custard_swollower ,

This is so fucking stupid because you can apply it to literally any safety standard.

And then you write something exactly opposite.

OP writes about “drive to the conditions” which is like… Your responsibility as the driver. If you can’t react to people on the road, slow down.

And you write about being recless.

TheGrandNagus ,

And then you write something exactly opposite.

No I didn’t. What I proceeded to write lines up 100% with what I said prior.

OP writes about “drive to the conditions” which is like… Your responsibility as the driver. If you can’t react to people on the road, slow down.

Having no safety standards and leaving everything to “just do what you think is right” is a recipe for disaster.

I can’t even believe this needs to be explained.

custard_swollower ,

It’s not about not using safety standards.

It’s about learning how to drive in a way that you won’t put anyone else in danger.

Safety fearures are only a tool, you are the person who controls a 2000 pound vehicles that can kill others, so drive responsibly.

TheGrandNagus ,

It’s exactly about that.

Oh you’re saying I shouldn’t run people over???

Obviously you should drive responsibly. Where did I say otherwise?

Shitting on better safety protocols is idiotic. You can’t just rely on 100% of people to behave flawlessly at all times. That’s why we have seatbelts and crash structures and ABS, etc etc.

BustlingChungus ,

Oh good, anything to help me kill more at night!

Brkdncr ,

Anyone remember those Cadillacs that had thermal night vision?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •