Traffic Safety

These are great ideas.

Why not forward them to : Home | U.S. Department of Transportation

Where I live the DOT has started replacing some 3- and 4-way stops with roundabouts. I think they're great. They wouldn't replace all stop signs, of course, but they help a lot.

They're common in other parts of the world, like the UK. Some parts of the US have had them for a while. They're very convenient once you get used to them - though it really doesn't take very long.

The first time I encountered one I was driving in Ireland, which drives on the left (or 'wrong' side to us). So I had an OMG moment for a second, but I kept moving along, merged, made my 270 degree circuit and exited onto the proper road. Really no big deal.

As for driving in low visibility conditions, some car companies are already making an optional radar (or sonar?) system for detecting stopped or slowed traffic. I could see auto insurance companies offering a discounted premium in parts of the country where fog is common. There may still be a human factors issue on how it is best implemented.

Going the "wrong" way round a roundabout (as I do when driving in Continental Europe) is also interesting the first couple of times. I think France has finally woken up to the fact that giving way to those entering the roundabout is sheer madness.

There are situations when roundabouts aren't so useful - when the majority of traffic flows in one direction, making entering the roundabout from another direction nigh on impossible. Generally, though, they're a good thing.

We have lots of unmarked crossroads in the UK, generally in rural areas, where no-one has to stop and no-one, or everyone, has right of way.

Hi Crabtree,

I agree with you. The inappropriate road-user behavior can be pretty much summed up in one word; impatience.

I think you should also add 'incompetence' to that list.

Have we the birth of a new acronym here?

The British Parliament sometimes say "The Aye's have it!"

In this case we have two "I's" = "Impatient Incompetence", so again the "I's" have it!!!

How about not with light but a beacon that works like radar. Alerts you when objects are within a certain distance.

Bright light would only serve to blind the driver of the car with the beacon because Fog reflects light back at you. That is why they tell you to drive with low beams only. The lights on serve so others can see you more than it does for you to be able to see.

What really irks me is the people that drive in the fog with their lights off. Those are people begging to get themselves killed.

There are (in the UK) plenty of laws already, the problem is, they are not enforced.
Texting whilst driving is self evidently 'driving without due care and attention' or 'dangerous driving' and should be prosecuted as such.
The public here seems to think using a mobile phone whilst driving is acceptable. It needs either draconian enforcement or a groundswell of public opinion (and action, like blasting your horn at any drivers using the phone) to change this.
Del

I assure you, no matter how bad it is in the UK, Germany is worse for people driving using a cell phone......the fines are twice what a cheap Bluetooth headset costs......but still nobody buys them, even seeming "clever" people....

The beacon on the school bus get your attention. It is there to protect our children. If every car had them we would soon not even notice them. Some people would think they give them added safety and leave them on. Lot good that will do are children.

The pile ups on are highways is not due to weather but bad driving habits.

As the others have commented on they also have gone to turn roundabouts or circles here where there have been high levels of accidents. Stop sign work as they are. All your indicator will do is let some people push thru them faster not really paying attention to all cars at intersection.

On cell phone use and texting. If you only make it a penalty if involved in an accident how is that preventative. Allot of people would convince themselves that they wouldn't have an accident using a cell phone while driving. Even with the law in place here I see them still using them. Law doesn't go far enough. Why is the driver of a private passenger car better then the commercial drivers. Nation wide they if the phone is in reach of them can be cited for it.

First of all, thanks to all for the response to the topic(s).

I didn't meant to imply in the first part of my post that all accidents were due to poor visibility. I was looking for a solution to accidents that were a result of poor visibility.

As far as what someone replied about them causing a distraction, I would have to say that a driver could be stopped for driving with the beacon on if it wasn't a warranted situation. I was even thinking that they could be controlled automatically by a sensor of some kind (something for the engineers). Anyway it seemed to be a pretty good idea. I know I've been in conditions like these, and they scare the crap out of you because you feel that if you don't keep moving, you're going to be struck from behind, yet you can't see 5 feet in front of you. All I know is these accidents keep happening, and these device could even be retro-fitted without much expense.

The round-about thing might be nice if it's built during new development, but I was looking for something better with what we have now. And something cost effective as well. I wouldn't even think they'd have to manufacture new signs at all. Just start taping the edges, or possibly mount clips where appropriate.

And the texting while driving issue has been big topic for some time now. It's just that I don't see how they can enforce this new law without a lot of problems. Besides, I've already stated how I feel about the intrusion of privacy. I was thinking to take the step that someone mentioned above of honking their horn at other drivers to a higher level, and maybe setup a new hotline number that could be dialed(something like 711) when another driver wanted to report a violation. I was mainly concerned with drunk driving at this point though. But it might be useful here as well. Although there would have to be a penalty for false reports I would imagine. Either way my feelings are let people look out for themselves. But this really isn't an issue for an engineering forum. Unless someone wants to talk about technical solutions to the problem I guess. The best one I can see is to incorperate the gps into the system to disable certain features. But what happens when you are a passenger.

Your ideas have very good merit. I like them all. One thing that may help is to automatically activate the 4-way flashers already installed. I use them whenever I run into a patch of fog and especially if there are blizzard like conditions. I am not sure what specific sensors would be required but I think the 4-way auto activate may be possible. If sensors are available, locate (photo?) sensors that can distinguish when headlights are on and they are not illuminating properly. Dayrun sensors could also be used and auto activate the 4-ways when fog or visibility is a percent of normal. No external flashing device like a school bus is required.

There are lots of reasons to use 4-ways and they are easily seen under most conditions. It just when you suddenly come upon that bridge that is fogged over on the freeway and traffic approaches it at 70 mph. You cross that bridge on a pure luck sometimes. Maybe they need the auto flashers on the bridge as a warning.

Do you guys in the States not have fog lights?

For times of poor visability, we have high intensity red lights on the rear of our cars - they are higher intensity than full beam headlights and so should be OFF in all other conditions - for use in fog. If the fog's that bad, then average speed will drop.

At accidents or hold ups, it is the accepted norm here in the UK to hit the hazard lights (both sets of indicator lights flashing together) as soon as you see the tail end of the queue. It warns those behind you that some rapid deceleration is needed.

I think that deals with most of your first two points.

As to blizzard conditions, I'm not sure whether a light would help, since it's likely to blind the person behind. Think about what happens when you try using full beam in a snowstorm - it actually reduces your forward visibility as the light reflects off the falling snow. Maybe if the lights were focussed downto the road, to reduce the dazzle factor? Or we could fit foghorns...[sorry]

Fog lights are often sold as an option and thus not a whole lot of cars have them. All cars are equipped with running lights for both day and night (night are brighter) and they come on automatically. Hazard lights are on all cars but are manually switched and used as you in England would use them. I like the rear fog light idea and they are not used here ( I am in Canada by the way so cannot speak for US laws).

The hazard lights are good to use in blizzard conditions and before auto headlights, I would often use them exclusively in heavy snow conditions. The hazard lights eliminated the mesmerizing effect of the snow. Perhaps a blue light like emergency vehicles or snow plows would provide better visibility. Instead of foghorns, maybe we need radar that can detect anything ahead. Foghorns are good on the river. I live on the St. Lawrence Seaway and sometimes they wake you up at night when it is foggy. They can scare the bejeezes out of you.

Thanks for the reply...I'm really surprised that you don't have fog lights. I'm pretty sure they're standard throughout Europe.

The foghorn was a bit of a joke....I was imagining the cacophony as all of them sounded together on the motorway!

I am not absolutely sure about this, but on some cars in Europe they are still only "Optional" extras.

They are not a requirement. (I am assuming we are talking about front fog lights, not the red rear ones which ARE mandated in Europe!)

I was talking about the rear ones...I too wasn't sure if the front ones are mandated, although they seem to be standard on most cars.

No, we do not have mandatory rear fog lights here in the states. That is one of the may differences in the automobile lighting legislation in different parts of the world.

I did drive a Volvo for a while that had the rear fog light. Of course most people here didn't know what it was, so they would signal me in all sorts of "helpful" ways when I used it in fog. Of course if we all had them people would figure out how to use them/understand them quickly enough.

Of course if we all had them people would figure out how to use them/understand them quickly enough.

I have no doubt about that! Just seems strange that we've had them for 20-30 years...LOL I'm sure there's stuff the US/Canada regard as standard that we don't have.

I work in the automotive world and so many other parts of legislation are converging that lights not seemed odd.

I think a lot of legislation is insurance driven. Hands free and no testing has been the law here for a while. We also have a no smoking with children under 16 in the car. A lot of RIDE (Rid Impaired Driving Everywhere)programs are used. They just set up road blocks and talk to drivers. If the driver had been drinking they could ask for a breath test. If the driver was over the limit or even near the limit they can take action. Near the limit can mean you park your car for 24 hours and walk home. It has been proven to be very successful and most people willingly comply. I think if California adopts some weird law, we are not too far behind.

Fog lights may be a symptom of good old English Fog. I think you have more fog than we would experience.

And yeah, I would love to hear a hundred foghorns on the freeway. That's would be a lot of bejeezes let loose.

Three or four stop signs at an intersection? CRAZY. In my part of the world there is just two on an intersection ( on either side of the same road ). This gives one road a straight through drive with all side streets controlled by either stop or give way signs. When the traffic density increases to the point where people on the side streets cannot enter the main drag a different control measure is used, such as roundabouts, lights or merging lanes.

This is not to say that we don't have accidents at these intersections. There are still people who will go through a stop sign, stop at a merge point or something else as equally stupid.

A vehicle that is already in a roundabout has the right of way over here.

'T' junctions are not signed as the through road has right of way.

Jim

Most of the stop signs in my area have an additional sign at the bottom either saying

4 Way Stop

or Cross Traffic Does NOT Stop.

Poor visibility and bad weather driving mandates you SLOW DOWN to an appropriate speed for the conditions. A little common sense here would stop far more accidents than any high intensity beacon. I'm frequently blinded by careless oncoming drivers using their "high" beams even in excellent driving conditions. I have to assume these drivers are ignorant, oblivious, or inattentive. The frightening aspect is the high percentage of these hazardous drivers.

Inattentive drivers will miss obvious stop signs. Those careless drivers (distracted by cell calls, texting, adjusting the radio, eating their lunch, etc.) will eventually miss some critical road sign and cause an accident.

I also dislike government intrusion into our personal space. However, the texting while driving laws are a necessary evil because there are so many distracted drivers that are either just too stupid or too oblivious to understand they are a significant road hazard.

You are trying to make the roads completely idiot (driver) proof. That will never happen since there will always be a bigger/better idiot. Here in the US, it would be FAR BETTER if some level of driver competency training would be mandatory before a driver license is granted. Right now, anyone can get a license with minimal effort and basically no competency training or testing. THAT is where we should concentrate any safety improvement efforts.

I like your stop sign idea. I've been confused more than once on who had a stop sign at an intersection. Same with "right turn on red" - who's got the green light? I'm not sure about the beacon idea. Maybe some sort of proximity warning device might be better, possibly based on a limited range radar.

I have no use for drivers that are yakking on their cell phones, or worse yet, texting. Unfortunately the laws against it have had the unfortunate side effect that some people continue the practice, holding the phone in their laps to avoid detection by passing policemen, thereby removing their eyes further from the road.

Texting while driving is becoming more commonly illegal.

There is a sever penalty if you are in an accident and you were texting and someone is killed. You go to prison for Voluntary Manslaughter.

That also applies to talking on a cell phone while driving. Talking on the cell phone, regardless if it's hands free, takes 85% of your brain away from the road. That is why you see so many people driving slow and oblivious to what is going on around them while talking on that stupid cell while driving. You are 23x more likely to get into an accident and while talking on a cell phone reduces your response time to equivelent of someone driving with a .08BAC.

Some might argue that they've seen Police driving while talking on a cell. Well Police officers are not above the forces of nature, the ones you see are stupid and shouldn't be wearing a badge because they are setting a bad example to the community.

I've often wondered aloud how talking on a cell phone is really any different than talking on a radio, i.e., a CB or VHF like the police use. So an officer talking on a cell phone, to me, is really not much different than an officer using his normal radio to talk to dispatch.

If we ban talking on cell phones and driving, shouldn't we also ban talking on radios and driving? As far as I know we don't use hands-free radios in police cars, school buses, taxis, etc. They all have hand held mics.

Something else that might irritate...officers also have laptops in their cars now which have replaced radios in most metropolitan areas. How is that different from texting...I think that would be much more distracting than just texting...now they have to use a touchpad and operate a keyboard as well.

It seems from some of the replies here that people might have the idea that I was talking about a steady bright light being used as a beacon. Just to be clear, I'm talking about installing a slowly blinking high intensity light on the roofs of the vehicles that would be activated in an emergency situation. I know that they are employed on aircraft because of the speeds that the travel, and because they are often obscured by clouds and it works for them. Otherwise there have been suggestions of some type of automatic sensing equipment. Something along those lines that might be an idea would be to install IR flashers and sensing equipment (no vision problems), but I would think that would be a lot more expensive and hard to get mandated.

The lights that you see on the top of school busses are very bright strobes. If that same light was installed at the hight of an automobile, they would be very distracting to anyone in the line of vision.

Rear fog lights are not mandated in the US. We do see them on most foreign made vehicles, though there are some with a single rear red fog light, and some with two of them. They are the same intensity as the brake lights that we have here, so drivers here do not understand them.

I would suggest that the emergency flashers have a separate switch position that would cause the lights to flash at a different pattern than the existing flasher does. Three short flashes, followed by an off cycle, and then repeated.

I do like the idea of automated activation though. US drivers would require years of education to learn otherwise.

LOL!!!

I like the idea of a different flash pattern. It's annoying to give way to a vehicle thinking its driver is indicating to come out, only to find that it's badly parked and the driver has put the hazard lights (both sets of indicators) on but you couldn't see the near side ones...

I think the regs here call for at least one rear fog light (you often see thesingle ones mounted symetrically with a single white reversing light). They are more intense thatn brake or full beam head lights.

Actually, to be legal in Europe, they use brake light bulbs in the rear fog lamps (the ones with a single filament) which are 21 watt if I remember correctly. They are bright and here they may only be used if the fog reduces visibility to 50 meters or less (and you may not legally exceed 50KMH either, but many do!!

Front headlights (forgetting for a moment different technologies that some are more efficient/brighter than others) are 55 watt if using the older type of bulbs.

The modern more efficient ones are probably using the same amount of watts (or similar!) and just doing slightly more with it. The gas discharge lamps are probably even more efficient.....

It would be interesting if someone could post the actual current usage from some of the more common headlight bulbs.

Cheers Andy. In the UK, we buy different lamps for brake or fog lights (at least on the cars I've owned/own. My comment on brightnesswas based on an (old) information film and observation that here they are definitely much brighter than brake lights.

When fog lights are on in clear conditions, and if the idiot designers have positioned them close to the brakes lights, it's really tricky to see the brake lights come on.

I believe there should be a requirement for a minimum distance between fog and brake lights. Function over prettiness, say I!!

On this side of the pond, all of the bulbs in the back of our cars seem to be 26 to 28 watt designs, regardless of where the vehicle is made. Although there are 50 watt designs available for that style of bulb, they never seem to be installed. That is why we don't know the difference between fog lights and brake lights. ( Martha, look at that a$$#ole. He must be riding with his foot on the brake.)

And another thing, since fog lights here are only on the more pricey vehicles, it is necessary to drive around with them on 24/7, so all will know I am driving a rich man's car. Heck, if you can drink warm beer, we can drive with our fog lights on on the way to the beach.

I do believe the perceived difference is that there is a better reflector in the rear fogs.....

In Europe most brake and Rear fogs use a BA15 12 volt 21 watt bulb with a single bottom contact. Though some cars combine a parking filament in the same bulb of 5 watts I believe, probably to save space....

These have two contacts at the bottom and are often placed in the holder wrongly turned 180°, so you end up with a 21 watt parking light and a 5 watt brake light.....I am sure it causes accidents.....its as good as having no brake light on that side....

LEDs are taking over so it is not true for all cars nowadays.....

I can give the current usage issue a shot.

H-1 bulbs are common in 55 watt. I have also seen them in 100 watt, and 130 watt.

H-2 bulbs available in 55 and 100 watt.

H-3 bulbs again common in 55 watt, also available in 100 watt.

H-4, or 9003 bulbs are standard here in 55/60 watt. Available in 80/100, I have seen 90/130.

9004 bulbs are standard in 45/65 watt, available in 55/100 and 80/100 also.

9005 bulbs are standard in 65 watt, available in 100 watt.

9006 bulbs are 55 watt standard, available in 80 watt.

9007 bulbs are standard in 55/65 watt, with 55/100 and 80/ 100 available.

HID, or gas discharge are all 35 watt, with the exception of a 50 watt HID that was offered on aftermarket driving light sold by KC Highlights a few years ago. I think they have stopped marketing them now.

The best of the LED spotlights that I have found are Trilliant, by Grote. They are 50 watt.

All of these # are based on 12 volt nominal system.

In Europe, the max you are allowed with the older bulbs is the 55/65 bulbs. There are illegal versions around with higher wattage, intended for farm machinery, but you can get fined.

I did not get fined when I tried them, but they were optically bad and the cut off was very poor indeed, giving opposing drivers a problem.

With non sealed beam lighting systems, is it not the lamp lens, or the reflector behind the smooth lenses that define the cut off point?

I believe it was H1 bulbs, they were just bad when you viewed them on one of the check systems, the cutoff was ragged and the dark area was too light.

The same reflector but with a quality bulb of the correct wattage was very good.

I put it down to a misplaced filament and over brightness, but I did not go any further than that......

I love this place - always an opportunity to learn!

Thanks bob and AG

My '57 Renault Fregate had Cibie headlights with the best cut off i have ever seen. You could point them at a wall and draw a line where they stopped; i'm talking about the height off the ground, 2'6'' if i remember right. They acheived this by 'hiding' the filament behind an angle iron bar probably 3mm and 5mm legs and 10mm wide.

I haven't seen anything as good since.

Jim

Cibie was always a quality lamp manufacturer. I have abandoned them because I was having reflectors tarnishing faster than I was happy with.