If you recognize that your in a blind spot, are you prevented from adjusting your position because you've pulled too far forward to actually place yourself in the blind spot?

I know I sometimes find myself in positions that I know well to avoid, but sometimes it takes a second for it to be realized. My favorite is being aligned next to a semi's trailer wheels. I will slow down to avoid sitting in that spot when moving, not during stop-n-go. So I understand it's sometimes obvious after the fact.

The problem happens when you're approaching an intersection together with a car coming from your right (or left if left-hand drive). When your speeds match up just right, you are practically invisible because you sit in the blind spot the entire time they're approaching.

You can accelerate or decelerate to solve the problem, or maybe do a little swerve. But you don't know when you're in the blind spot.

Another problem are cars merging onto the road from a stand-still. Driver looks left, sees empty road. Starts merging and whoops they just cut you off. You were hiding behind the pillar in the moment they looked. You can't know this happened until it's too late.

This is why as a car driver I always take one last look at the road while already starting to move but before blocking the road. Most drivers don't do this.

I'll sit in a blind spot on a motorcycle happily, if there's no other traffic. If there is, I pull forward next to the window instead.

Not to over analyze, but no matter if I'm on a bike or car I've always thought you shouldn't drive alongside or in the blindspot of another vehicle if you can avoid it (by a minute change in speed).

I'd rather be next to a car than behind a car, and ahead is always best. The issue arises when you don't speed (which I don't do).

What? Do you mean like way far ahead of them? So far, that you're not really in front of them?

How is that ever safer than being behind someone? You can control the following distance if you're behind someone. You can't make someone behind you pay attention or stop, and you can't make someone beside you not change lanes without looking. Why would you ever want to be in their direction of travel?

Seriously, please explain your logic on this. I'm flabbergasted.

Like, not even a little bit?

5 over, maximum. I did 10 over by accident once. Motorcycles are exponentially more dangerous at speed, and I like being alive.

> “I'll sit in a blind spot on a motorcycle happily, if there’s no other traffic…”

Because you believe the driver has no incentive to change lanes, and so there is low probability they will change lanes unexpectedly?

Because I can brake fast enough if they do change lanes. I tend to pass, but if we're going around the same speed it doesn't bother me.

The braking as an out because a bike can brake faster than the car always seemed odd to me because whatever car is behind you will also not be able to brake as fast.

You also have much more room as a bike. If I'm passing someone going uphill, and I don't have enough power to finish the pass on the hill, I have another 8 feet of lateral buffer versus a car before they would come dangerously close to me.

I'm not saying you should hang out next to cars all the time, but it's better than in a car, where you might have 3 feet of buffer.

A bike, generally, can't brake faster than a car, no?

Depends on the bike, but usually a little less stopping power at lower speeds. Above 45mph or so, it's a wash. Bigger bikes also stop slower.

It is the seemingly prevailing train of thought even if it isn't exactly accurate. But why should that stop it from being believed?

ABS on bikes has largely erased the difference.

Huh. I figure it the other way. If the traffic is light, then people think they're the only person on the road. I expect they will change lanes without thinking or looking (Like, _Why would someone be in my blind spot with all of this space?_)

Whereas, when there's heavier traffic, you can't help being in someone's blind spot. In this case, I will usually speed up to being at least next to them, so I'm sure they can see me, and then I'll let the driver pass me, so the last idea they have is, _I just passed that moto/where is that moto I just passed?_

Overall, being in someone's blind spot is by definition, risky. And it serves no purpose, and has a clear remedy. Whatever. Ride you ride.

Good luck. Keep your head up.

If there's no other traffic, why not avoid being near the car at all?

Interesting video, but I can't help but think the roadway is now worse. It's disjointed and there are two intersections instead of one. Why not install a red light or a roundabout?

Making it "worse" is the point. The practice is known as traffic calming road design – https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-...

For example: Many rural towns put a giant unnecessary corner on the road entering the town. Forcing you to slow down and obey the speed limit. Or the road splits in two just to go around a pretty sculpture someone decided to put in the middle of the road. Again to force you to slow down naturally.

> the roadway is now worse

Worse for whom? If it has the intended effect (and apparently it does), it's certainly not worse for the cyclists who were getting hurt.

> Why not install a red light or a roundabout?

Tom Scott explains the reasons for not installing traffic lights or speed bumps in the original video.

On top of those, if drivers are not even reducing their speed at the stop sign, what would make them do that for a red light?

I'm not sure how a roundabout is better for anyone than the staggered junction.

It's certainly worse for the cyclist on the main road, who would have to pay a lot more attention to a lot more places, and also reduce speed.

It's certainly worse for drivers on the main road, who lose their right-of-way.

It's unlikely to be (much?) better to the drivers on the side road, who still have to go through junctions - only this time they're between the road and the roundabout and vice-versa.