• yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Always puzzled me, let’s say the dude behind failed the check and hit your car, what the hell did you gain from this?

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Aux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Imagine a kid runs out on the road suddenly… What a dumb fucking idea!

    • oxomoxo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The smarter version of this idea is the turn signal comes on automatically in the direction you turn.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not. The point of a turning signal is to give a warning to fellow drivers in advance. Turning it on right when you’re turning is way too late. Just learn to drive properly for fucks sake!

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Now that would make about 95% of all BMW drivers wonder why their steering is broken…

  • 58008@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Instantaneous, lifelong driving bans for any driver who is found to be texting or intoxicated behind the wheel.

    • Persen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I respectfully disagree. People, who depend on cars for their job would lose the license and their job, making them drink more.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You spectacularly missed the point of DUI law. Society couldn’t give two shits if someone is drinking themselves to an early grave. It’s when they endanger other people that it becomes an issue. That’s why it’s driving under the influence, not existing.

        Many countries will judge a DUI induced kill a murder, because the person who chooses to drink and drive knows that killing someone is a probable outcome and chose to do it anyway.

      • stormeuh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Agreed, and I respectfully disagree with everyone else replying to you.

        Relying on your car for your job is a much wider criterion than driving as your job. In car-centric places like the US (outside of the big cities) that’s probably 99% of the population. Couple that with the piss poor social safety net and losing your license literally means starvation.

        This still doesn’t mean I endorse or agree with people driving distracted in any way. If revoking someone’s license meant removing them from the road but not destroying their life, I would do that in a heartbeat.

  • Ydna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have a GM vehicle with lane tracking, and this is actually kinda how it works! The steering wheel will mildly fight you unless you activate the signal, then BAM you merge right over. It reminds me of an AT-field

  • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Two-lane, no-passing, winding mountain road: “it’s showtime” 😎

    Everyone: flies straight off the cliff