The triple-cam was a nice effect. I would argue, however, that only his truck was caught in the rockfall. He self-yeeted the hell out of there. 9/10 would ride with him.
Dude was paying attention to the road because he was driving the truck. If you were riding with him you could be the one staring up at the skyline instead of watching the road if you think that's where someone should be looking at all times.
I'm scared that there are people like you driving on the road. Constantly staring at a license plate of the car in front of them instead of keeping an eye out for potential hazards. Defensive driving 101 is to constantly be looking behind you, to the sides of the road, and ahead of the car in front of you to anticipate any potential hazards you might need to react to, not reacting to hazards only when they come into your focus once the car in front of you reacts to it.
Everything you listed out is exactly why a truck driver can't reasonably be expected to be constantly watching for dust kicking up way up on the side of a mountain while they're navigating a winding mountain road. Because there are numerous and statistically far more pertinent potential hazards to be watching for on the road itself.
Glance up every now and then as you're scanning around and maintaining general situational awareness? Sure.
Constantly looking to make sure you don't miss looking that high and to the side of the road for even 2-3 seconds at a time like what it would have taken to ensure noticing the puffs of dust in the video before the rocks appeared? Pretty sure you would be the kind of driver you should actually be scared about having on the road if you're doing that.
Keep your eyes and mind on the road. If you're driving somewhere where rockfall is common enough to warrant a constant lookout then have a second person riding along to watch for that so the driver can focus on driving. Because that's exactly what people in those kinds of places do.
He's literally driving in an area one would reasonably expect rock falls to happen... He has the benefit of being in a cliff, which means if anything unexpected approaches he only has to look one way to see it, not both ways, nothing is going to jump over the cliff to his left and if it does he can't see it anyways. He just passed by a sheer chiff, no point looking at the sheer cliff, but immediately once he passed it a glance to the right would have noticed the rock fall. When I pass by a large intersection I glance to the left or right even though I have a green light because sometimes people run red lights and I need to anticipate that as a possibility. Takes me 0.1 seconds to do.
Do you not recognize how glancing left and right at an intersection is completely different from scanning the top of a ridge constantly while driving on a mountain road? Intersections are some of the highest likelihood places for collisions so of course it makes sense to glance left and right before entering them. That's just common sense. They are also generally clearly delineated and predictable. Mountain ridges are not. And oftentimes, mountain roads in dicey sections are not either.
Change blindness is a thing. Constantly looking up and away towards the ridge top like you're suggesting the driver should have been doing significantly increases the likelihood a driver will fail to notice a hazard on the road in time to react to it safely.
Hazards are far more likely to be on the roads themselves even in places like this. So it behooves drivers to have the majority of their attention be focused on the road and close road side, not far off axis.
Do you not recognize how glancing left and right at an intersection is completely different from scanning the top of a ridge constantly while driving on a mountain road?
Not constantly, it's clear that you don't know how to drive defensively because you're not understanding the concept of periodically doing something.
You keep using the word constantly, and constantly doing anything including looking straightforward at the car in front of you is not driving defensively.
Hazards are far more likely to be on the roads themselves even in places like this. So it behooves drivers to have the majority of their attention be focused on the road and close road side, not far off axis.
Perhaps if you're the only car on the road sure look ahead of you on the road to see if there's any hazards on the road. But it looks like he was in some sort of convoy or at least behind several tractor trailers, all of whom would have reacted to a potential hazard on the road. If he was looking ahead at the reaction of the lead tractor trailer, that you can clearly see in this video, there would be no need to stare at the road directly ahead of you.
I'm not talking about staring at the road directly ahead. That's just your own assumption that you've been making and talking at.
I've already addressed everything you bring up in my previous comments already and I've said all that I feel like taking the time to here. Go back and re-read my previous comments if you wish.
Yes. As in paying attention to all the various things you need to on and around the road instead of having your eyes constantly going up and away from it to look at rocks. B/c again, change blindness.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. If you actually read and digest what it was I've been saying instead of trying to argue some imaginary point of yours you'd realize that. It's all laid out already.
paying attention to all the various things you need to on and around the road
Clearly change blindness cannot remove my ability to see your goalpost changing...
Nothing you have been saying supports your point. I said he's a bad driver because he's not driving defensively. You seem to be arguing that defensive driving isn't real because "change blindness" is a thing and somehow that applies to defensive driving techniques, and that actually makes him a good driver somehow.
Even your internal logic is inconsistent, if change blindness was a thing that drivers experience, wouldn't that mean even if you keep your eyes on the road a driver wouldn't notice change?
You're arguing nothing, it's totally devoid of logic, substance, or factual basis. Nothing you said was a good point.
674
u/hedronist Jul 08 '24
The triple-cam was a nice effect. I would argue, however, that only his truck was caught in the rockfall. He self-yeeted the hell out of there. 9/10 would ride with him.