Mildly Infuriating
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
view the rest of the comments
I don't get it... What's wrong with it?
The turn signal to turn left looks like an arrow pointing to the right.
The bigger issue is that the US still alows Blinkers to be the same color as break lights. Just weird to me.
Actually, Us law/regulations require them to be amber or yellow.
But like with super-bright headlamps; manufacturers decided to ignore it because USDoT is pretty useless in that regard.
That's not correct. FMVSS 108, Table I-a, specifically allows rear turn signals to be amber or red. Front turn signals must be amber only.
I guess... It's still a big blinking light on either side of the car I hardly think it's going to confuse anyone
Have you seen the idiots out on the road these days?
However, as far as turn signals go, this is one of the less egregious designs. Car manufacturers are given too much leeway in what is allowed for such systems, like putting them between headlights or making them use the same circuits as the brake lights instead of a dedicated light.
Yeah, I could see it being an issue for some less-common type of indicator, but everyone who drives knows what a blinker looks like. Nobody would mistake it for anything other than the right hand turn signal.
Hell, I wouldn't even notice the shape of the light; all you need to notice while driving is the presence of a flashing light on the right side of the vehicle - if you're looking intently enough to notice the shape of the light, you're not paying enough attention to everything else on the road.
In the dark, with the other side obscured (or just broken), you don’t want the blinker to actively prompt you to come to a wrong conclusion.
It’s better to see a blinking light and think “I don’t see enough, gotta slow down” than see a blinking arrow and potentially not even realize it’s a turn signal.
If you're driving in the dark with someone whose entire taillight system is out to the point where you can't immediately tell if his blinker is on the left or the right, you need to hit the brakes and put as much distance between you and them as you can... Then get better headlights, because even in that situation you should still be able to see them pretty well just with your own lights.
Frequently, only a single bulb needs to be out for an entire side of the car to be dark.
Brakelights are only active while braking. A dark bodied car is difficult to see and a tail light being out is sufficient .
Blaming it on someone else’s headlights isn’t reasonable- and “better headlights”=brighter has caused significant problems on the other direction.
It’s a mild issue that could have been solved by a designer spending 30 seconds thinking about what they were designing. Or somebody in that design chain spending 30 seconds thinking about it.
Dude, if your headlights aren't enough to illuminate what's in front of you, then it's not that an upgrade would be too much, it's that an upgrade would get you to the bare minimum... You literally NEED to be able to see what else is on the road with you at ALL TIMES. You're complaining about the risk that a vaguely arrow-shaped blinker causes in the specific case where you literally can't see the car it's attached to. There's a much bigger risk there, and while it's not your fault, it's definitely something your vehicle needs to have the tools to deal with.
There have been times where I was driving near someone who forgot to turn their headlights on at night. But that's the thing - I knew they were there; I could see their car with the light from my headlights, and even in that dangerously-low vision, I could easy tell which side of their car a blinker came on from. Yes, I got off the road and waited a bit to make sure they weren't near me anymore, but even in the time that I had to drive with them, I had the tools to resolve the situation safely for me.
duuudeeee..... you realize, of course, that it's a least as much a question of alignment... and with a car in front of you you shouldn't be using floodlights; which is blinding everyone in front of you. Which is as likely to cause problems as not.
Further, dark colors on cars are inherently harder to see, lights or no.
Good for you. Doesn't mean the situation can't arise where it is a problem. Stop defending idiots that put cool-factor before functionality on something that's fundamentally meant as a safety feature. save the cool-factor for the union jack roof paint or something.
You think that headlights that can illuminate cars ahead of you are the equivalent to those shitty aftermarket LED floodlights? Really? If your car can't see a dark car on the road with its lights off, you're a much, MUCH bigger idiot than someone with a union jack blinker...
oh yes. I'm an idiot for recognizing that there are circumstances in which "ideal" does not apply.
Also define "ahead" of you? 30 feet? 100 feet? maybe 2,640 feet? Sorry. but you're failing to understand my point: THAT CIRCUMSTANCES AREN'T ALWAYS PERFECT. And when someone designes a critical SAFETY FEATURE they need to consider the non-ideal. 30 seconds of thought about what the fuck they were designing, or the designs that were undoubtedly submitted for approval could have prevented this. Instead, Mini Cooper elected to put "cool" before anything else.
and yes, that's at least mildly infuriating.
You're absolutely right that circumstances aren't always perfect... Which is exactly why you need a vehicle that can maximize safety in all situations. A union jack blinker is dumb, but if you're EVER in a situation where you can't tell what side of a car a blinker is going off on, you're in a situation where you need to pull off to the side of the road, turn off your car, and call for someone to pick you up.
I've driven for tens of thousands of hours in my lifetime so far, and I've never even been close to a situation like what you've described. Even in a snow squall or dense fog I've always been able to see where other nearby cars on the road are, and where their blinkers are. Not being able to do so goes well beyond "not ideal;" that's well past the line of too dangerous. And the fact that THAT is how extreme your scenario has to get before the union jack becomes a considerable issue shows how much more concerning your scenario is than that one.
Good for you. I'm so glad you're able to so confidently assert your moral superiority.
shit happens outside our control, so it's asininely stupid for a car manufacturer to design safety equipment with the expectation of everything always being "normal". it's an asshole move blaming other people for things being abnormal. I doubt very much that's an accurate assertion on your part, however, and even if it is, isn't true for everyone. In fact, it's probably far more reasonable to assume you're the exception.
and by the way, getting brighter lights (or angling your lights higher than they ought to be), actually decreases your visibility while driving in fog and snow. which is why fog lights are both dimmer and mounted low.
I'm not saying to get overly bright lights. I have no idea why you keep talking about overly bright lights. When I'm not driving for work, I drive a '94 corolla with stock headlights. But even with those, I can see dark obstacles that are way ahead of me on the road. I've encountered deer, turtles, pedestrians, and all sorts of random stuff that fell off of people's cars. There's so much on the road that needs to be illuminated, even if all the other cars have working lights. The fact that you can so nonchalantly bring up a scenario in which you can't even see another car, much less all the other stuff that might show up on the roads, makes me highly concerned for the state of your vehicle. That scenario is so insanely rare and dangerous that I can't understand how you can just throw it out there like it's no big deal.
It's NOT NORMAL to be unable to see a car on the road that's close enough to you where you need to see where their blinker are. Please, if you drive in that scenario often enough to bring it up like it's a realistic thing that someone could reasonably encounter more than once in a lifetime, bring your car to a mechanic before you cause a huge accident.
Now imagine it in, say, fog, or a storm, or any other low-visibility condition. You can see the vague outline of a car 20 feet ahead, and a blinking arrow pointing to the right, but not in line with where a right blinker should be.
If visibility was that low then you wouldn't even see an arrow. It would just look like a red blinking blob up ahead.
Multiple wrong. The brake light double as a turn signal, the signal colour itself being red, and the arrow pointing at different direction.
In a saner world, signal and brake light will always be separated and must be the colour of amber.
But that's just a US issue, right? Most other countries already require amber signal lights.
North America, actually
So you mean Canada has the same issue?
Yeah, possibly also Mexico but I can't quite recall
obligatory tech connections video on the topic
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
obligatory tech connections video on the topic
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Yes. I'm only learning this is unusual right now.
Yep.
I'm turning
-> <-
that way
It's the right turning light... In the shape of an arrow pointing left
How else would you know which car is turning right??
-> this guy! Lol