27 ms·

A Type of Road Junction that Kills Cyclists

569 points by thebent 9y ago

peterburkimsher 9y ago
I posted this 2 days ago, but for some reason it didn't make it to the front page like yours. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16094431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16094431
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Unless there's a significant discussion in a previous submission, this sort of comment isn't particularly useful. HN's collective choice in what to promote / demote is exceptionally fickle and happenstance. Rather like success in the SV start-up world. In both cases, backing a winner is generally more rewarding than doubling down on an attempt which, through no fault of its own, has failed. HN also periodically give a second chance to submissions deemed high quality. So you've got that option as well.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    submissions had different titles
civileng1982 9y ago
Really disappointed at the solution.
- metaphor 9y ago
  Care to explain your reason(s) for disappointment, and/or posit a sensible alternative for consideration?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Forcing drivers to make left turns just to stay on the same road is a recipe for more car accidents. The proble could be resolved simply by putting up a stop light.
    - matte_black 9y ago
      If the goal is to maintain speed through the intersection they could have built a bridge to overlap the other road.
      - Spivak 9y ago
        I get that the author wanted a cheap solution but this is really the correct approach. A gradual bridge/tunnel with two slip lanes would accommodate everyone, including the people that want to blow though the intersection. All the solutions like, 'let's find a way to force cars to slow down' are just going to make auto drivers have even more resentment toward cyclists.
        jschwartzi 9y ago
        You make it sound like resentment is something to be avoided. Drivers don't own the road simply because they drive. They need to share it with the other tax payers. Frankly I'm tired of having to accommodate the apparently frail emotions of someone who has chosen to aim 2000 pounds of metal at my person.
      - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
        This is in the New Forest National Park. You can’t just go constructing massive structures because drivers are too lazy to read signs.
        matte_black 9y ago
        As the body count begins to rise we’ll see how much that really matters.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Did you not read the article? There was no solution except to throw one’s hands in the air and proclaim human error.
    - metaphor 9y ago
      Did you not read the parent's remark? My comment was directed towards discussion of article's proposed solution, not resolution.
      - matte_black 9y ago
        That’s one way to interpret it, but given the disappointment that was expressed I’d assume it was a reference to “solution” of writing the problem off as human error for which nothing can be done. Until the op clarifies what they meant, both our comments are equally valid or invalid.
        metaphor 9y ago
        To be sure, there's a nice and bold sub-section of the article titled A Simple Solution which I (perhaps naively) presumed the parent was referring to--further reinforced (in my mind) by a username which subtly suggested specialization in traffic engineering.
        matte_black 9y ago
        It would seem odd to be disappointed with a solution that wasn’t actually implemented.
        metaphor 9y ago
        To the contrary, I often experience such disappoints during design reviews in my day job. I think we both can agree that the discussion has clearly digressed into unconstructive pedantry territory.
matte_black 9y ago
Wow, after all these years I finally learned the name of this phenomenon, constant bearing decreasing range. I recall a scene in the movie Sin City where two cars crash and the camera was moving in CBDR to the perpendicular car as it zoomed into the impact site. I thought it was a cool shot. Also I’ve almost hit pedestrians several times when they were obscured by my A pillar. Sometimes I wonder if I would have actually hit them if anyone would have believed I didn’t see them, now I know the proper term to describe the cause of such an accident.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  My first exposure came from a relation of Werner von Braun witnessing a V2 launch or test. In one of the rare instances where von Braun did care where they come down,[1] he observed that the bearing to the rocket was constant -- that is, its course would bring it directly to his location. He avoided death by diving into a ditch, if I recall. I think the story was told by Arthur C. Clarke. I'd later encounter the concept in sailing training. ________________________________ Notes: 1. Allusion: Tom Lehrer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio
- jmts 9y ago
  > Sometimes I wonder if I would have actually hit them if anyone would have believed I didn’t see them As a daily motorcyclist that also drives a car, I'm uncomfortably aware of how much of your vision the A-pillar obscures. Not to mention the passenger side one, the B-pillars, and seating. That said, it is as much my responsibility (or any road user, or pedestrian) not to put myself into a dangerous position as much as it is for you to do your best to keep an eye out.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    It seems to be worse in newer cars. Most cars I've driven have been older models, pre-2000, every time I have to drive a new car, I'm always surprised at how bad the visibility is, they all have tiny rear windows and massive A pillars. I used to own an old Datsun truck from the 1980s and the A-pillar blindspot was tiny because it had small, vertical A-pillars. A-pillars are a lot thicker and a lot more angled in newer cars. This study [1] (from 2001) here goes into some details about A-pillar blindspots and how newer cars have worse visibility. I'm sure in the 17 years since the study was performed, cars have only gotten worse. [1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.884.49&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.884...
u801e 9y ago
Why does this junction not have a roundabout? Would having one there reduce the chances for a crash by forcing vehicles to reduce their speed when approaching the intersection?
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Another comment explained how the UK hates stop signs, but yes, a roundabout would be a great and very British/European solution that would probably be very effective.
  - jasonmaydie 9y ago
    I still don't understand this comment. A stop sign a simple 100$ fix to the problem but we hate stop signs so...
    - u801e 9y ago
      Why should it be necessary to always have to come to a complete stop before yielding to traffic on the intersecting roadway? A stop sign doesn't prevent one from failing to yield to traffic even after coming to a complete stop.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  It looks like a rural road. I don't think that roundabouts are common on rural roads.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  They are both relatively minor roads: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8679527,-1.4498025,7589m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8679527,-1.4498025,7589m/dat...
temp-dude-87844 9y ago
There's a lot of math in this article about blind spots and car pillars and whatnot, but a Google Maps Street View appears to show the terrain and brush blocking the view on approach [1][2], making all of this math largely moot. That the drivers in question didn't even so much as slow down for this approach is beyond reckless, aside from the other lawbreaking that followed. The 'Give Way' sign is idiotic, put a Stop sign on the other, flatter road, or make it a 4-way stop. The drivers causing accidents were blowing through the intersection, and shame on the wording of the law that they were able to weasel out of harsher punishment. Altering the roadway geometry, either as proposed, or more drastically with a roundabout, is a brute-force solution on this country road when other societal measures don't suffice, but it seems that there's plenty of room to enact other changes before you dig up the road. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8638239,-1.4511249,3a,75y,269.62h,66.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgp5ZPCZzLXnphyQnR_xhww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8638239,-1.4511249,3a,75y,26... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8634141,-1.452595,3a,75y,269.9h,68.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZFSqQto6dDxulLvfKmzH6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8634141,-1.452595,3a,75y,269...
- bdamm 9y ago
  Indeed, a stop sign would solve this, wouldn’t it? Simplist & cheapest solution first. The point about the geometry is that it doesn’t matter at which point the driver can see over the hill and brush; they still won’t see the cyclist.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The UK hates stop signs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#United_Kingdom
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ajmurmann 9y ago
      I thought only the US loved stop signs.
ams6110 9y ago
First rule of cycling: assume drivers don't see you.
- JonahBraun 9y ago
  In the article, the author explains that from the cyclists orientation, the car approaches from 94 degrees.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Doesn't matter. If you're cycling and you see a moving car, assume the driver doesn't see you. Never cross the path of a moving car even if you have the right of way or a green light etc. When you approach a junction, your head needs to be on a swivel constantly looking left and right and you need to be prepared to stop even if you have the right of way. This pretty much goes for motorcyclists as well. I'm not blaming the cyclists here, but the reality is that when you are cycling it doesn't matter whose fault it is if a car hits you. You're still dead.
    - recursive 9y ago
      If you read the article, then you'd know that the cyclist probably did not see the car at all.
      - jmts 9y ago
        The cyclist may not see the car if they stare blindly into the distance in front of them. GP is making the point that the cyclist should be aware of their surroundings, and taking precautions accordingly. This includes looking for approaching traffic down the length of a side road on approach to an intersection. While I don't discount that there may be freak scenarios, as a motorcyclist I agree. If I don't see a car, a pedestrian, a bird, a kangaroo, a log on the road, I go to hospital. It's as much my responsibility to ensure my own safety as anyone else's.
    - DavidSJ 9y ago
      The rule I generally follow as a pedestrian is that the object with greater linear momentum has the right of way.
bdamm 9y ago
Good write-up about a phenomenon I’d never expect to matter in a car. In aircraft it is the norm for mid-air collisions to occur this way. For example, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706 but there are many others. Aircraft in the US now have autonomous transponders broadcasting their location to each other. The author overlooks this fact since the “pilot training” to avoid this problem actually does not work very well. The pilot training is to take advantage of services that can alert you to other traffic, such as Air Traffic Control.
- Zak 9y ago
  > The author overlooks this fact since the “pilot training” to avoid this problem actually does not work very well. This is critical in the context of the author claiming that drivers should be expected to recognize the risk in this situation. Pilots are required to undergo significantly more training and expected to be much more methodical about operating their vehicles than drivers. In spite of all that, they're not very good at watching for this kind of scenario either. Instead, a combination of air traffic control, transponder-based traffic warning systems and the fact that air traffic is vastly more sparse than road traffic make collisions between aircraft rare events. If a particular intersection design causes collisions, the primary fault should be considered to be with the intersection rather than the drivers.
  - pdelbarba 9y ago
    IIRC CBDR is not really in the FAA PPL curriculum at all. I only recall a quick mention from my CFI when I went through it. It's much more heavily emphasized to military pilots as missiles are designed to predict an impact point and fly towards that rather than the aircraft (lead pursuit) so pilots are trained to determine if a missile is maintaining guidance towards them by seeing if it appears stationary in space.
SamReidHughes 9y ago
A vehicle doesn't have to be obscured by the pillar for you not to notice it. If you're both moving at a constant speed, anything on a collision course will have the same bearing and appear relatively motionless. If you look left and right, your eyes might saccade right past the target.
- wahern 9y ago
  I think I found this link from another HN post. In any event, "A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads" discusses this: If you get to a junction and move your head right and left to look for oncoming traffic, you need to understand that you cannot guarantee that you have seen approaching traffic. It is entirely possible for our eyes to ‘jump over’ an oncoming vehicle during one of the saccades. The smaller (and specifically, the narrower) the vehicle, the greater the chance that it could fall within a saccade. You are not being inattentive, you are physically incapable of seeing anything during a saccade. Remember the ‘Think Bike!’ adverts, where a driver pulls out into the path of a motorcycle? I am convinced that it is the phenomena of saccades and fixations that is most likely to lead to this sort of accident. From http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pdf http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pd...
gklitt 9y ago
The conclusion of the article reminds me of the idea behind blameless postmortems for system outages. Human mistakes are inevitable, and it's our responsibility to design resilient systems that acknowledge that simple fact. While software engineering is an immature discipline in many ways, blameless postmortems seem like a counterexample -- they're a well-known best practice in software that don't seem as common in some other fields.
- viraptor 9y ago
  I think blameless post mortem works where you can take time and improve in the future. A more established process from the 80s coming from Toshiba is 5 whys, which is not exactly blameless (you do end up finding the issue), but the blame is usually on the process that needs fixing. The accident in that case is just the initial step and educating the drivers to notice the cyclist would not end up as the solution. Which I do like: people will keep making mistakes - either stop them or make the mistake obvious before it leads to the accident - punishing that driver may make us feel better but it won't improve the situation.
- alphaalpha101 9y ago
  Blameless postmortems are good to do at the systemic level, but not a legal one It's ultimately the responsibility of road users (drivers, cyclists, whatever) to keep themselves and others safe.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Most vehicle collisions are not blameless though. They are caused by inattentive people; I've almost been hit multiple times by people either on their cell phone, or chatting with a passenger in their vehicle. Other times drivers are purposely driving with a priority on agressivenss over safety. If we ever get to a state of zero traffic fatalities then maybe blameless post-mortems would make sense. But there's too much blatantly bad behavior occuring. It would be as if a pilot crashed buzzing the control tower. Clearly a human operator was being reckless and deserves punishment.
  - underwater 9y ago
csours 9y ago
Unrelated, a few days ago I was thinking about this intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5075019,-96.3308952,243m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5075019,-96.3308952,243m/dat... Traffic on Hwy 164 does not stop, Hwy 39 does stop. However Hwy 39 has yield lanes that can be used to enter 164 via a right turn, and only slowing down, and not coming to a complete stop. A few years ago there was a lot of gas drilling in the area, and the trucks working the drilling sites would use the yield lanes - to turn left! This made me pretty mad, until I thought about it for a while. In a big truck you would not be able to see traffic from both directions, so they used the yield lane to 'square up' to traffic. --- When you design your User Experience, consider the human. Humans slip up[0], momentarily forgetting to do the right thing. If your design becomes dangerous due to a slip, it is the worst kind of design. You see this kind of design on older industrial equipment - for instance presses without safeguards. Managers back then would make the same comment you regularly see on articles like this: 'All you have to do is pay attention, and it's safe.' This is, frankly, stupid. If all it takes for a system to become unsafe is a momentary lapse in judgement, then the system is unsafe. Manufacturers learned this via lawsuits (both for in-plant and user injuries) and now there are strict safety standards. In the case of this unsafe intersection, responsibility is diffuse - it is split between driver, cyclist, local government, and the original contractor. In a controlled environment like a hospital or manufacturing plant, you can measure near-misses as proxies for dangerous events. At a rural intersection, who would measure near-misses? An individual cyclist may have a near-miss and comment on it to her friends; would any drivers ever hear about it? Would the government ever hear about it? Would anyone care? 0. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-human-computer-interaction/human-error-slips-and-mistakes https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-gloss... --- To improve your perception in situations like this, you can add two tools - 1. Always take your foot off the gas and cover the brake when going through intersections. This naturally slows you down a bit, and if there is an issue you are in position to stop. 2. Owl bob your head from time to time. It sounds stupid, but it moves you out of your blind spots, and also clears saccadic masking - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking
- jessaustin 9y ago
  A few years ago there was a lot of gas drilling in the area... Haha I zoomed the map view out a bit: you're not kidding! That's a lot of drill sites!
rwbcxrz 9y ago
As a driver, I do my best to slow down a bit at any intersection, but particularly ones like this. Unfortunately, that tends to frustrate anyone driving behind me, sometimes to the point that they’ll try to overtake me (illegally) before the intersection. In my mind, better traffic engineering is the best solution, but that seems unlikely, at least in the US. I’d imagine that the article’s suggested changes would cost more to build, even for new construction. To compound the issue, I get the feeling that most drivers would prefer it if cyclists weren’t allowed to ride on public roads.
- wffurr 9y ago
  Slowing down an intersections like you describe really ought to be the minimum standard of attentiveness required on the part of drivers, but instead, as you point out, many drivers are far too impatient for that. Traffic engineering combined with a different legal standard that places greater liability on the driver for exercising due caution would go a long way towards fixing this, and hopefully doing something about the mass carnage on the world's roadways.
djsumdog 9y ago
I know most comments indicate that even without the maths, the rolling geography would seem to block the view, and that the best solution would be a 4-way stop, a roundabout or the split road suggestion in the article. But going back to the a-pillar, Volvo did have a concept design with a see through a-pillar. I'm not sure why it never made it to market. I'm guessing it didn't pass their safety requirements? http://www.dangar.com/brochure12.htm http://www.dangar.com/brochure12.htm
- azernik 9y ago
  Judging from the considerations evinced in this article, pillar strength and thus rollover safety do seem to be limiting factors: https://www.redbook.com.au/car-news/toyota/toyota-patents-transparent-pillars-invention-108558?csn_tnet=true https://www.redbook.com.au/car-news/toyota/toyota-patents-tr... It also indicates, however, that the industry is putting real development effort into solving the problem, whether through clever optics like Toyota's efforts, or cameras and screens like Jaguar's concept.
  - anonymfus 9y ago
    May be it would be possible to improve rollover safety by putting additional pillars inside the car, for example between chair backs?
  - caf 9y ago
    I would have thought you could build an open truss pillar that was as strong as a solid one.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    Seems like a negative Fresnel lens in the lower corner of the windshield would suffice. I've had trouble with the A-pillar in my 2015 Prius; I may try this.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  A 4 way stop is unnecessary, simply requiring one direction to stop would work fine. In New Zealand, with rural grid roads, they usually have 2 way stops (or give-way/yields) which will alternate, so you get priority at one intersection, then stop/give way at the next, and so on.
giardini 9y ago
A few speed bumps at the intersection would slow drivers. Speed bumps are cheap and effective. You can lay several in series to encourage drivers to slow. It would be a shame not to use them in such an instance, where lives might be saved.
- iamnotlarry 9y ago
  Speed bumps have proven to be undesirable tools in many situations. For instance, it is often the case that motorists will increase their speed after a speed bump to make up for the time lost because of the speed bump.
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    Then put in a speed bump, followed by a speed camera. The speed bump ensures people aren't being "entrapped" by a hidden camera.
  - larkeith 9y ago
    In this situation it's fairly irrelevant, as it would serve to slow down drivers approaching and within the intersection - a few mph faster afterwards is far less likely to come with a butcher's bill than continued high-speed crossings of the intersection.
- astura 9y ago
  Don't speed bumps make plowing difficult?
- justjash 9y ago
  I have seen it done similarly with sets of rumble strips as you approach an intersection in the middle of nowhere. No idea how effective they are at slowing people down, but generally the noise/vibration makes you at least a little bit more alert.
ztjio 9y ago
We have a few intersections like this near me, and as a cyclist I can assure you that you really don't see anything. It's crazy. But luckily they are all traffic controlled with full on signals so there's no ambiguity about what one should be doing.
Declanomous 9y ago
>We must note that there are two parts to the definition of dangerous driving. Firstly the standard of driving must be “far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver”, and secondly it must be “obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous”. The longer I use the road in any function (cycling, driving, walking, etc), the more I am convinced that the vast majority of people are not competent drivers. So if one is interpreting the guidelines as whether an average person could have made the mistake, then they will surely come to an incorrect conclusion, as the average person is absolutely terrible at driving. I'm reasonable good at controlling my car and I'm fairly aware of what is going on around me. I never drive distracted or drunk, and I follow all of the rules of the road. However, I don't consider myself a particularly good driver. I am lucky thus far that none of the mistakes I've made have resulted in harm to anyone. My skill in handling the car and my general attentiveness have prevented accidents (or perhaps even deaths), but there have been plenty of times where I've had near misses due to human error. I've often wondered whether other people are fundamentally more competent drivers; whether they had a trait that I lacked. The more rides I take with other people, the more I am convinced that most people are fundamentally terrible drivers. Human nature and human perception are not suited for driving. It is nearly impossible to be a competent driver, regardless of how much care you take. Some of the worst drivers I know are the most careful. They diligently check every mirror and every blind spot before making a move, yet do so at such a slow pace that all the information they gathered when they checked each of the prior locations is irrelevant. Their caution can only go so far, as they eventually need to move to reach their destination, and at a certain point their hesitance is a danger to others, as massive differentials in speed one of the biggest hazards in driving. Humans are just astoundingly incompetent drivers on all levels. Most people I know can't even adjust their mirrors so they can be used without moving their head substantially. How can a person be a competent driver if they have deprived themselves of easy access to what is happening next to their vehicle or behind it. According to the World Health Organization, traffic deaths are the 10th leading cause of death in the world. There is no more likely 'accidental' cause of death than a car accident; each of the nine causes of death more common than car accidents are diseases. In 2013, 1.4 million people died from road traffic accidents, and 54 million people were injured. I love driving. I love the open road, and the freedom that comes with it, but the truth of the matter is that people are terrible at driving. The sooner we have an alternative to people driving cars, the better.
dav 9y ago
I find myself with a somewhat similar problem, if not as dangerous, at four way stops often in San Francisco. When coming to a stop at an intersection where the slopes of the roads involved match certain configurations, most commonly on a road that has descended a slope to meet the intersection, my rear view mirror almost perfectly obscures the space that a car stopped at the road to my right occupies. I glance left, glance right, and see nothing, then suddenly stop short after starting to proceed as the movement reveals a vehicle that was there all along.
subroutine 9y ago
Could it also have something to do with the wild horses hanging out at the intersection: https://goo.gl/qTSZWJ https://goo.gl/qTSZWJ Perhaps they are not 'wild', I'm just not used to seeing horses near a roadway, without a fence between us. Is this a common thing in England?
- angle_eyes 9y ago
  It's not common throughout the country, but the roads in question are within the New Forest where there are a large number of ponies and other animals roaming free .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest#Ponies,_cattle,_pigs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest#Ponies,_cattle,_pig...
  - nicktelford 9y ago
    It's also worth noting that while wild, New Forest animals are very comfortable around people and cars, to the degree that they're often wandering around in village centres, standing in the middle of the road etc. If you go camping there, you should expect ponies to wander in to your campsite, especially if you leave food out. I've had one poking its head in to our tent before. They basically have total right of way, and they know it.
- wingerlang 9y ago
  There's a stable right next to the intersection https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8609001,-1.4574099,254a,35y,278.82h,45.02t/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8609001,-1.4574099,254a,35...
bagels 9y ago
Thinking back to all of the times I've been hit or almost hit on a bicycle, visibility hasn't been a problem. I think by far, the most common was the 'right hook', where the driver passes on the left, and makes a right turn in to a driveway. After that were various intentional murder attempts, such as the taxi driver that honked at me, drove around me, and then tried to brake check me.
pfarnsworth 9y ago
I have a Honda Fit and I find the exact same problem when I’m driving in areas with a lot of pedestrians, especially San Francisco. The pillar is especially wide in the Fit and I’ve almost hit several pedestrians because their walking speed exactly coincides with the speed of my car and they get blocked by the exact same pillar so I never see them. It has happened about 6 times so now whenever I drive in areas with pedestrians I move my head right in the middle of the car so that my view is no longer obstructed.
DaveInTucson 9y ago
Basic rule of the road: if you haven't made eye contact with someone, you should assume they haven't seen you and don't know you're there. I mean, they could improve the intersection by making it a full stop, but educating bicyclists not to ride out in front of somebody who will hit you if they don't slow down seems like a good step too.
- emj 9y ago
  No the basic rule is ALWAYS have enough safety marginals so you can handle the unsuspected. What you are saying is just a round about way to tell bicyclists to always yield for cars. It also has no support if you look at statistics, around here the overwheliming majority of accidents between drivers and bicylists are caused by car/bus/van/truck drivers (70%-85% depending on the situation).
- dajonker 9y ago
  That is indeed the most valuable advice you can give any cyclist. You are very vulnerable and surrounded by fast traveling boxes of death. Don't assume anyone cares about you.
- upofadown 9y ago
  In other words: the innocent victims of bad driving should just be more careful... Your comment does bring up something interesting. These days, due to sharply sloped front windows (aerodynamic efficiency) and smoked glass rear windows (where allowed) it is almost impossible to even see a driver of an approaching car, much less make eye contact with them. A unintended consequence of what might seem to be two unrelated things.
  - DaveInTucson 9y ago
    I wondered if I would be accused of victim blaming. I'm just suggesting better education is probably a useful avenue to improve the situation.
    - upofadown 9y ago
Svip 9y ago
I feel a lot of commenters are simply focusing on what signs can do or what sort of junction to build, rather than focus on the fact that on high speed primary country roads, bicycles shouldn't be sharing the road with the cars. In Denmark, a lot of high speed roads (excluding motorways, of course) out in the country have separate dual-way bicycle lanes near it but not attached to it. (Example: https://i.imgur.com/dS6jqXS.jpg https://i.imgur.com/dS6jqXS.jpg) That way, the cyclists can cross the side roads on their own accord, where they are more visible and have their own junction with the side road. Additional, one can set up a traffic light that only turns red for the cars when a cyclist is crossing (i.e. activated by a button). Furthermore, one might consider signage that warns drivers about cyclists in the junction: https://i.imgur.com/CX6SJdW.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CX6SJdW.jpg Also, a way to reduce speed of the motorists without putting in stop signs would be to add chicanes just before the junction, so they are forced to slow down. Plus, as I've mentioned before (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15977162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15977162), I also think it is because UK drivers don't really have enough training with how to deal with bicycles and the fact that they are also participants on the road.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  The drivers shouldn't be punished for bad design of the road. A separate bike road should be constructed.
  - Svip 9y ago
    Indeed. The main type of accident involving cyclists in Denmark are so called 'right turn accidents', where a lorry turning right at a junction hits a cyclists because they are in their blind spot. This obviously happens exclusively in cities. The media has made a big deal about how tragic it is for the cyclists - which it is, but much less about how tragic it is for the driver. Remember, it's not like drivers want to hit cyclists or other soft traffic participants. That's why I propose a separate bike road, even if it is quite an expensive undertaking. But it will make all the road users feel safe. Or -- at least -- safer.
    - 9y ago
trhway 9y ago
>With this design, no longer would it be reasonably possible for any driver to simply blow through the junction. Drivers would have to come almost to a stop. just put a good bump there, or a couple.
GarvielLoken 9y ago
Road Junctions don't kill people, people kill people.
rbrbr 9y ago
Build cars with the driver seat on the left then. All this discussion over an obvious flaw which removed would solve the problem.
tbihl 9y ago
It's interesting that they were so focused on CBDR, but then totally dropped the ball when it was time to extend the analogy to overtaking (where you assume to be overtaking if you are >22.5° abaft the other vessel's beam, which is not the case at a 94° angle.)
Scarblac 9y ago
This type of "Shared Space" junction in a rural area in the Netherlands is an interesting solution: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.093333,6.2410165,255a,35y,328.48h,44.92t/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@53.093333,6.2410165,255a,35y,32... Several bad accidents happened here before this was implemented, none since 2009 when it was. Note that there are distinct paths for bicycles next to the roads, but that's standard. There are no signs, no rules, but the roads can't be taken in a straight line anymore and it's certainly suggested that the junction is a pedestrian area. Drivers get confused which grabs their attention and makes them slow down.
- pas 9y ago
  > no signs Wow. I thought there must be at least one sign saying "shared space". But apparently not :o > no rules So cops can't ticket you if you cause an accident? I guess the rules are just the basic driving rules. Give way to people coming from your right, and anyone who goes straight has some advantage. But since this is basically an unmarked roundabout (drivers are supposed to keep to the right), that rules probably doesn't apply.
  - Scarblac 9y ago
    I meant no special rules for this kind of setup, its precise status is quite undefined, it's certainly not a roundabout. In the Netherlands if a motorized vehicle is in an accident with a weaker traffic participant (pedestrian or bicyclists) they are automatically liable anyway, that doesn't change. So you're left with give way to the right and don't hit each other, yes.
andybak 9y ago
For reference: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8632384,-1.4532871,3a,90y,161.23h,75.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swMw3UmSj5XheUtniJfifAg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwMw3UmSj5XheUtniJfifAg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.36434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8632384,-1.4532871,3a,90y,...
_0ffh 9y ago
Relevant link: http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pdf http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pd... "A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads" explains the same thing, and more. Plus, it gives practical tips on how to mitigate these problems.
Vinnl 9y ago
> The truly contemptible human error is not in a single person carelessly failing to see. It (...) is in our incessant support of a system which cries “human error” as an excuse to do nothing, rather than as a stimulus to understand that error in order to create a solution. Interestingly, I've seen parallels at work, when doing retrospectives: "this didn't go well mostly due to human error (slacking, forgetting, etc.), so the lesson for next time is to just do that better." Instead, I'd prefer us to be looking for a way to prevent human error to cause problems in the future. But I guess the reason for us often not doing that is probably because it's too much effort compared to the perceived benefit - and that's probably true most of the time.
imglorp 9y ago
This is also of high interest to motorcyclists who even have a name for the phenomena: SMIDSY (Sorry, Mate I Didn't See You). OP was focused on the A pillar and some other effects, while this excellent video goes a little further into some perception psychology about camouflage and how we perceive moving objects across backgrounds. You can ignore the motorcycle stuff but the explanation is enlightening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU
billfruit 9y ago
Does cyclists count as pedestrians, and if so is entitled to ride on the opposite direction as follow ed by vehicular traffic.That is if cars drive on the left, then cyclists ride on the right, as do pedestrians?
moonbug22 9y ago
Traffic lights and roundabouts.
f4rker 9y ago
The world is not, nor will ever be perfect. It is up to us cyclist to take our safety into our own hands. Don't end up dead just because you "had the right" to be on the road. source : full time cyclist for 5+ years
jiri 9y ago
Driver should be moving his/her head slightly to eliminate this phenomena, to change angles of view. Very useful when approaching difficult situation in a moving car. One has to anticipate these effects and try to disturb linearity in movement by changing your car speed non-linearly to alter viewing angles in some situations. These approaches together it will help driver to much better asses other objects speed and direction of movement and generally it improve one situation awareness. This is something you can do about it if you dont want to wait for all crossroads to be rebuilt ;-)
pmarreck 9y ago
Why can't they just add stop signs to the east-west route? That way the north-south can keep right-of-way and the threat of collision is eliminated
tahw 9y ago
I understand the geometry in this situation and its impact, but if you're on a bicycle and you don't come to a complete stop at an intersection with potentially 40mph cross-traffic, you're going to have a bad time no matter what the angle is.
killjoywashere 9y ago
I got hit by a car, as a cyclist, in exactly this kind of intersection. Got a Bankart repair on my left shoulder as a reward, but also got the motivation to go to medical school. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Incidentally, as a sailor, I totally get the constant bearing decreasing range problem. That phrase still sends shivers down my spine. I can't tell you how many times I've thought about what's on the other side the front pillars.

569 points by thebent 9y ago

I posted this 2 days ago, but for some reason it didn't make it to the front page like yours. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16094431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16094431

dredmorbius 9y ago
Unless there's a significant discussion in a previous submission, this sort of comment isn't particularly useful. HN's collective choice in what to promote / demote is exceptionally fickle and happenstance. Rather like success in the SV start-up world. In both cases, backing a winner is generally more rewarding than doubling down on an attempt which, through no fault of its own, has failed. HN also periodically give a second chance to submissions deemed high quality. So you've got that option as well.
- user5994461 9y ago
  submissions had different titles

civileng1982 9y ago

Really disappointed at the solution.

metaphor 9y ago
Care to explain your reason(s) for disappointment, and/or posit a sensible alternative for consideration?
- rayiner 9y ago
  Forcing drivers to make left turns just to stay on the same road is a recipe for more car accidents. The proble could be resolved simply by putting up a stop light.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    If the goal is to maintain speed through the intersection they could have built a bridge to overlap the other road.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      I get that the author wanted a cheap solution but this is really the correct approach. A gradual bridge/tunnel with two slip lanes would accommodate everyone, including the people that want to blow though the intersection. All the solutions like, 'let's find a way to force cars to slow down' are just going to make auto drivers have even more resentment toward cyclists.
      - jschwartzi 9y ago
        You make it sound like resentment is something to be avoided. Drivers don't own the road simply because they drive. They need to share it with the other tax payers. Frankly I'm tired of having to accommodate the apparently frail emotions of someone who has chosen to aim 2000 pounds of metal at my person.
    - Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
      This is in the New Forest National Park. You can’t just go constructing massive structures because drivers are too lazy to read signs.
      - matte_black 9y ago
        As the body count begins to rise we’ll see how much that really matters.
- matte_black 9y ago
  Did you not read the article? There was no solution except to throw one’s hands in the air and proclaim human error.
  - metaphor 9y ago
    Did you not read the parent's remark? My comment was directed towards discussion of article's proposed solution, not resolution.
    - matte_black 9y ago
      That’s one way to interpret it, but given the disappointment that was expressed I’d assume it was a reference to “solution” of writing the problem off as human error for which nothing can be done. Until the op clarifies what they meant, both our comments are equally valid or invalid.
      - metaphor 9y ago
        To be sure, there's a nice and bold sub-section of the article titled A Simple Solution which I (perhaps naively) presumed the parent was referring to--further reinforced (in my mind) by a username which subtly suggested specialization in traffic engineering.
        matte_black 9y ago
        It would seem odd to be disappointed with a solution that wasn’t actually implemented.
        metaphor 9y ago
        To the contrary, I often experience such disappoints during design reviews in my day job. I think we both can agree that the discussion has clearly digressed into unconstructive pedantry territory.

matte_black 9y ago

Wow, after all these years I finally learned the name of this phenomenon, constant bearing decreasing range. I recall a scene in the movie Sin City where two cars crash and the camera was moving in CBDR to the perpendicular car as it zoomed into the impact site. I thought it was a cool shot. Also I’ve almost hit pedestrians several times when they were obscured by my A pillar. Sometimes I wonder if I would have actually hit them if anyone would have believed I didn’t see them, now I know the proper term to describe the cause of such an accident.

dredmorbius 9y ago
My first exposure came from a relation of Werner von Braun witnessing a V2 launch or test. In one of the rare instances where von Braun did care where they come down,[1] he observed that the bearing to the rocket was constant -- that is, its course would bring it directly to his location. He avoided death by diving into a ditch, if I recall. I think the story was told by Arthur C. Clarke. I'd later encounter the concept in sailing training. ________________________________ Notes: 1. Allusion: Tom Lehrer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio
jmts 9y ago
> Sometimes I wonder if I would have actually hit them if anyone would have believed I didn’t see them As a daily motorcyclist that also drives a car, I'm uncomfortably aware of how much of your vision the A-pillar obscures. Not to mention the passenger side one, the B-pillars, and seating. That said, it is as much my responsibility (or any road user, or pedestrian) not to put myself into a dangerous position as much as it is for you to do your best to keep an eye out.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  It seems to be worse in newer cars. Most cars I've driven have been older models, pre-2000, every time I have to drive a new car, I'm always surprised at how bad the visibility is, they all have tiny rear windows and massive A pillars. I used to own an old Datsun truck from the 1980s and the A-pillar blindspot was tiny because it had small, vertical A-pillars. A-pillars are a lot thicker and a lot more angled in newer cars. This study [1] (from 2001) here goes into some details about A-pillar blindspots and how newer cars have worse visibility. I'm sure in the 17 years since the study was performed, cars have only gotten worse. [1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.884.49&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.884...

u801e 9y ago

Why does this junction not have a roundabout? Would having one there reduce the chances for a crash by forcing vehicles to reduce their speed when approaching the intersection?

djsumdog 9y ago
Another comment explained how the UK hates stop signs, but yes, a roundabout would be a great and very British/European solution that would probably be very effective.
- jasonmaydie 9y ago
  I still don't understand this comment. A stop sign a simple 100$ fix to the problem but we hate stop signs so...
  - u801e 9y ago
    Why should it be necessary to always have to come to a complete stop before yielding to traffic on the intersecting roadway? A stop sign doesn't prevent one from failing to yield to traffic even after coming to a complete stop.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
It looks like a rural road. I don't think that roundabouts are common on rural roads.
maxerickson 9y ago
They are both relatively minor roads: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8679527,-1.4498025,7589m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8679527,-1.4498025,7589m/dat...

temp-dude-87844 9y ago

There's a lot of math in this article about blind spots and car pillars and whatnot, but a Google Maps Street View appears to show the terrain and brush blocking the view on approach [1][2], making all of this math largely moot. That the drivers in question didn't even so much as slow down for this approach is beyond reckless, aside from the other lawbreaking that followed. The 'Give Way' sign is idiotic, put a Stop sign on the other, flatter road, or make it a 4-way stop. The drivers causing accidents were blowing through the intersection, and shame on the wording of the law that they were able to weasel out of harsher punishment. Altering the roadway geometry, either as proposed, or more drastically with a roundabout, is a brute-force solution on this country road when other societal measures don't suffice, but it seems that there's plenty of room to enact other changes before you dig up the road. [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8638239,-1.4511249,3a,75y,269.62h,66.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgp5ZPCZzLXnphyQnR_xhww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8638239,-1.4511249,3a,75y,26... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8634141,-1.452595,3a,75y,269.9h,68.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZFSqQto6dDxulLvfKmzH6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8634141,-1.452595,3a,75y,269...

bdamm 9y ago
Indeed, a stop sign would solve this, wouldn’t it? Simplist & cheapest solution first. The point about the geometry is that it doesn’t matter at which point the driver can see over the hill and brush; they still won’t see the cyclist.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The UK hates stop signs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#United_Kingdom
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajmurmann 9y ago
    I thought only the US loved stop signs.

ams6110 9y ago

First rule of cycling: assume drivers don't see you.

JonahBraun 9y ago
In the article, the author explains that from the cyclists orientation, the car approaches from 94 degrees.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Doesn't matter. If you're cycling and you see a moving car, assume the driver doesn't see you. Never cross the path of a moving car even if you have the right of way or a green light etc. When you approach a junction, your head needs to be on a swivel constantly looking left and right and you need to be prepared to stop even if you have the right of way. This pretty much goes for motorcyclists as well. I'm not blaming the cyclists here, but the reality is that when you are cycling it doesn't matter whose fault it is if a car hits you. You're still dead.
  - recursive 9y ago
    If you read the article, then you'd know that the cyclist probably did not see the car at all.
    - jmts 9y ago
      The cyclist may not see the car if they stare blindly into the distance in front of them. GP is making the point that the cyclist should be aware of their surroundings, and taking precautions accordingly. This includes looking for approaching traffic down the length of a side road on approach to an intersection. While I don't discount that there may be freak scenarios, as a motorcyclist I agree. If I don't see a car, a pedestrian, a bird, a kangaroo, a log on the road, I go to hospital. It's as much my responsibility to ensure my own safety as anyone else's.
  - DavidSJ 9y ago
    The rule I generally follow as a pedestrian is that the object with greater linear momentum has the right of way.

bdamm 9y ago

Good write-up about a phenomenon I’d never expect to matter in a car. In aircraft it is the norm for mid-air collisions to occur this way. For example, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706 but there are many others. Aircraft in the US now have autonomous transponders broadcasting their location to each other. The author overlooks this fact since the “pilot training” to avoid this problem actually does not work very well. The pilot training is to take advantage of services that can alert you to other traffic, such as Air Traffic Control.

Zak 9y ago
> The author overlooks this fact since the “pilot training” to avoid this problem actually does not work very well. This is critical in the context of the author claiming that drivers should be expected to recognize the risk in this situation. Pilots are required to undergo significantly more training and expected to be much more methodical about operating their vehicles than drivers. In spite of all that, they're not very good at watching for this kind of scenario either. Instead, a combination of air traffic control, transponder-based traffic warning systems and the fact that air traffic is vastly more sparse than road traffic make collisions between aircraft rare events. If a particular intersection design causes collisions, the primary fault should be considered to be with the intersection rather than the drivers.
- pdelbarba 9y ago
  IIRC CBDR is not really in the FAA PPL curriculum at all. I only recall a quick mention from my CFI when I went through it. It's much more heavily emphasized to military pilots as missiles are designed to predict an impact point and fly towards that rather than the aircraft (lead pursuit) so pilots are trained to determine if a missile is maintaining guidance towards them by seeing if it appears stationary in space.

SamReidHughes 9y ago

A vehicle doesn't have to be obscured by the pillar for you not to notice it. If you're both moving at a constant speed, anything on a collision course will have the same bearing and appear relatively motionless. If you look left and right, your eyes might saccade right past the target.

wahern 9y ago
I think I found this link from another HN post. In any event, "A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads" discusses this: If you get to a junction and move your head right and left to look for oncoming traffic, you need to understand that you cannot guarantee that you have seen approaching traffic. It is entirely possible for our eyes to ‘jump over’ an oncoming vehicle during one of the saccades. The smaller (and specifically, the narrower) the vehicle, the greater the chance that it could fall within a saccade. You are not being inattentive, you are physically incapable of seeing anything during a saccade. Remember the ‘Think Bike!’ adverts, where a driver pulls out into the path of a motorcycle? I am convinced that it is the phenomena of saccades and fixations that is most likely to lead to this sort of accident. From http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pdf http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pd...

gklitt 9y ago

The conclusion of the article reminds me of the idea behind blameless postmortems for system outages. Human mistakes are inevitable, and it's our responsibility to design resilient systems that acknowledge that simple fact. While software engineering is an immature discipline in many ways, blameless postmortems seem like a counterexample -- they're a well-known best practice in software that don't seem as common in some other fields.

viraptor 9y ago
I think blameless post mortem works where you can take time and improve in the future. A more established process from the 80s coming from Toshiba is 5 whys, which is not exactly blameless (you do end up finding the issue), but the blame is usually on the process that needs fixing. The accident in that case is just the initial step and educating the drivers to notice the cyclist would not end up as the solution. Which I do like: people will keep making mistakes - either stop them or make the mistake obvious before it leads to the accident - punishing that driver may make us feel better but it won't improve the situation.
alphaalpha101 9y ago
Blameless postmortems are good to do at the systemic level, but not a legal one It's ultimately the responsibility of road users (drivers, cyclists, whatever) to keep themselves and others safe.
jdavis703 9y ago
Most vehicle collisions are not blameless though. They are caused by inattentive people; I've almost been hit multiple times by people either on their cell phone, or chatting with a passenger in their vehicle. Other times drivers are purposely driving with a priority on agressivenss over safety. If we ever get to a state of zero traffic fatalities then maybe blameless post-mortems would make sense. But there's too much blatantly bad behavior occuring. It would be as if a pilot crashed buzzing the control tower. Clearly a human operator was being reckless and deserves punishment.
- underwater 9y ago

csours 9y ago

Unrelated, a few days ago I was thinking about this intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5075019,-96.3308952,243m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5075019,-96.3308952,243m/dat... Traffic on Hwy 164 does not stop, Hwy 39 does stop. However Hwy 39 has yield lanes that can be used to enter 164 via a right turn, and only slowing down, and not coming to a complete stop. A few years ago there was a lot of gas drilling in the area, and the trucks working the drilling sites would use the yield lanes - to turn left! This made me pretty mad, until I thought about it for a while. In a big truck you would not be able to see traffic from both directions, so they used the yield lane to 'square up' to traffic. --- When you design your User Experience, consider the human. Humans slip up[0], momentarily forgetting to do the right thing. If your design becomes dangerous due to a slip, it is the worst kind of design. You see this kind of design on older industrial equipment - for instance presses without safeguards. Managers back then would make the same comment you regularly see on articles like this: 'All you have to do is pay attention, and it's safe.' This is, frankly, stupid. If all it takes for a system to become unsafe is a momentary lapse in judgement, then the system is unsafe. Manufacturers learned this via lawsuits (both for in-plant and user injuries) and now there are strict safety standards. In the case of this unsafe intersection, responsibility is diffuse - it is split between driver, cyclist, local government, and the original contractor. In a controlled environment like a hospital or manufacturing plant, you can measure near-misses as proxies for dangerous events. At a rural intersection, who would measure near-misses? An individual cyclist may have a near-miss and comment on it to her friends; would any drivers ever hear about it? Would the government ever hear about it? Would anyone care? 0. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-human-computer-interaction/human-error-slips-and-mistakes https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-gloss... --- To improve your perception in situations like this, you can add two tools - 1. Always take your foot off the gas and cover the brake when going through intersections. This naturally slows you down a bit, and if there is an issue you are in position to stop. 2. Owl bob your head from time to time. It sounds stupid, but it moves you out of your blind spots, and also clears saccadic masking - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking

jessaustin 9y ago
A few years ago there was a lot of gas drilling in the area... Haha I zoomed the map view out a bit: you're not kidding! That's a lot of drill sites!

rwbcxrz 9y ago

As a driver, I do my best to slow down a bit at any intersection, but particularly ones like this. Unfortunately, that tends to frustrate anyone driving behind me, sometimes to the point that they’ll try to overtake me (illegally) before the intersection. In my mind, better traffic engineering is the best solution, but that seems unlikely, at least in the US. I’d imagine that the article’s suggested changes would cost more to build, even for new construction. To compound the issue, I get the feeling that most drivers would prefer it if cyclists weren’t allowed to ride on public roads.

wffurr 9y ago
Slowing down an intersections like you describe really ought to be the minimum standard of attentiveness required on the part of drivers, but instead, as you point out, many drivers are far too impatient for that. Traffic engineering combined with a different legal standard that places greater liability on the driver for exercising due caution would go a long way towards fixing this, and hopefully doing something about the mass carnage on the world's roadways.

djsumdog 9y ago

I know most comments indicate that even without the maths, the rolling geography would seem to block the view, and that the best solution would be a 4-way stop, a roundabout or the split road suggestion in the article. But going back to the a-pillar, Volvo did have a concept design with a see through a-pillar. I'm not sure why it never made it to market. I'm guessing it didn't pass their safety requirements? http://www.dangar.com/brochure12.htm http://www.dangar.com/brochure12.htm

azernik 9y ago
Judging from the considerations evinced in this article, pillar strength and thus rollover safety do seem to be limiting factors: https://www.redbook.com.au/car-news/toyota/toyota-patents-transparent-pillars-invention-108558?csn_tnet=true https://www.redbook.com.au/car-news/toyota/toyota-patents-tr... It also indicates, however, that the industry is putting real development effort into solving the problem, whether through clever optics like Toyota's efforts, or cameras and screens like Jaguar's concept.
- anonymfus 9y ago
  May be it would be possible to improve rollover safety by putting additional pillars inside the car, for example between chair backs?
- caf 9y ago
  I would have thought you could build an open truss pillar that was as strong as a solid one.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  Seems like a negative Fresnel lens in the lower corner of the windshield would suffice. I've had trouble with the A-pillar in my 2015 Prius; I may try this.
toomanybeersies 9y ago
A 4 way stop is unnecessary, simply requiring one direction to stop would work fine. In New Zealand, with rural grid roads, they usually have 2 way stops (or give-way/yields) which will alternate, so you get priority at one intersection, then stop/give way at the next, and so on.

giardini 9y ago

A few speed bumps at the intersection would slow drivers. Speed bumps are cheap and effective. You can lay several in series to encourage drivers to slow. It would be a shame not to use them in such an instance, where lives might be saved.

iamnotlarry 9y ago
Speed bumps have proven to be undesirable tools in many situations. For instance, it is often the case that motorists will increase their speed after a speed bump to make up for the time lost because of the speed bump.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Then put in a speed bump, followed by a speed camera. The speed bump ensures people aren't being "entrapped" by a hidden camera.
- larkeith 9y ago
  In this situation it's fairly irrelevant, as it would serve to slow down drivers approaching and within the intersection - a few mph faster afterwards is far less likely to come with a butcher's bill than continued high-speed crossings of the intersection.
astura 9y ago
Don't speed bumps make plowing difficult?
justjash 9y ago
I have seen it done similarly with sets of rumble strips as you approach an intersection in the middle of nowhere. No idea how effective they are at slowing people down, but generally the noise/vibration makes you at least a little bit more alert.

ztjio 9y ago

We have a few intersections like this near me, and as a cyclist I can assure you that you really don't see anything. It's crazy. But luckily they are all traffic controlled with full on signals so there's no ambiguity about what one should be doing.

Declanomous 9y ago

>We must note that there are two parts to the definition of dangerous driving. Firstly the standard of driving must be “far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver”, and secondly it must be “obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous”. The longer I use the road in any function (cycling, driving, walking, etc), the more I am convinced that the vast majority of people are not competent drivers. So if one is interpreting the guidelines as whether an average person could have made the mistake, then they will surely come to an incorrect conclusion, as the average person is absolutely terrible at driving. I'm reasonable good at controlling my car and I'm fairly aware of what is going on around me. I never drive distracted or drunk, and I follow all of the rules of the road. However, I don't consider myself a particularly good driver. I am lucky thus far that none of the mistakes I've made have resulted in harm to anyone. My skill in handling the car and my general attentiveness have prevented accidents (or perhaps even deaths), but there have been plenty of times where I've had near misses due to human error. I've often wondered whether other people are fundamentally more competent drivers; whether they had a trait that I lacked. The more rides I take with other people, the more I am convinced that most people are fundamentally terrible drivers. Human nature and human perception are not suited for driving. It is nearly impossible to be a competent driver, regardless of how much care you take. Some of the worst drivers I know are the most careful. They diligently check every mirror and every blind spot before making a move, yet do so at such a slow pace that all the information they gathered when they checked each of the prior locations is irrelevant. Their caution can only go so far, as they eventually need to move to reach their destination, and at a certain point their hesitance is a danger to others, as massive differentials in speed one of the biggest hazards in driving. Humans are just astoundingly incompetent drivers on all levels. Most people I know can't even adjust their mirrors so they can be used without moving their head substantially. How can a person be a competent driver if they have deprived themselves of easy access to what is happening next to their vehicle or behind it. According to the World Health Organization, traffic deaths are the 10th leading cause of death in the world. There is no more likely 'accidental' cause of death than a car accident; each of the nine causes of death more common than car accidents are diseases. In 2013, 1.4 million people died from road traffic accidents, and 54 million people were injured. I love driving. I love the open road, and the freedom that comes with it, but the truth of the matter is that people are terrible at driving. The sooner we have an alternative to people driving cars, the better.

dav 9y ago

I find myself with a somewhat similar problem, if not as dangerous, at four way stops often in San Francisco. When coming to a stop at an intersection where the slopes of the roads involved match certain configurations, most commonly on a road that has descended a slope to meet the intersection, my rear view mirror almost perfectly obscures the space that a car stopped at the road to my right occupies. I glance left, glance right, and see nothing, then suddenly stop short after starting to proceed as the movement reveals a vehicle that was there all along.

subroutine 9y ago

Could it also have something to do with the wild horses hanging out at the intersection: https://goo.gl/qTSZWJ https://goo.gl/qTSZWJ Perhaps they are not 'wild', I'm just not used to seeing horses near a roadway, without a fence between us. Is this a common thing in England?

angle_eyes 9y ago
It's not common throughout the country, but the roads in question are within the New Forest where there are a large number of ponies and other animals roaming free .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest#Ponies,_cattle,_pigs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest#Ponies,_cattle,_pig...
- nicktelford 9y ago
  It's also worth noting that while wild, New Forest animals are very comfortable around people and cars, to the degree that they're often wandering around in village centres, standing in the middle of the road etc. If you go camping there, you should expect ponies to wander in to your campsite, especially if you leave food out. I've had one poking its head in to our tent before. They basically have total right of way, and they know it.
wingerlang 9y ago
There's a stable right next to the intersection https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8609001,-1.4574099,254a,35y,278.82h,45.02t/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8609001,-1.4574099,254a,35...

bagels 9y ago

Thinking back to all of the times I've been hit or almost hit on a bicycle, visibility hasn't been a problem. I think by far, the most common was the 'right hook', where the driver passes on the left, and makes a right turn in to a driveway. After that were various intentional murder attempts, such as the taxi driver that honked at me, drove around me, and then tried to brake check me.

pfarnsworth 9y ago

I have a Honda Fit and I find the exact same problem when I’m driving in areas with a lot of pedestrians, especially San Francisco. The pillar is especially wide in the Fit and I’ve almost hit several pedestrians because their walking speed exactly coincides with the speed of my car and they get blocked by the exact same pillar so I never see them. It has happened about 6 times so now whenever I drive in areas with pedestrians I move my head right in the middle of the car so that my view is no longer obstructed.

DaveInTucson 9y ago

Basic rule of the road: if you haven't made eye contact with someone, you should assume they haven't seen you and don't know you're there. I mean, they could improve the intersection by making it a full stop, but educating bicyclists not to ride out in front of somebody who will hit you if they don't slow down seems like a good step too.

emj 9y ago
No the basic rule is ALWAYS have enough safety marginals so you can handle the unsuspected. What you are saying is just a round about way to tell bicyclists to always yield for cars. It also has no support if you look at statistics, around here the overwheliming majority of accidents between drivers and bicylists are caused by car/bus/van/truck drivers (70%-85% depending on the situation).
dajonker 9y ago
That is indeed the most valuable advice you can give any cyclist. You are very vulnerable and surrounded by fast traveling boxes of death. Don't assume anyone cares about you.
upofadown 9y ago
In other words: the innocent victims of bad driving should just be more careful... Your comment does bring up something interesting. These days, due to sharply sloped front windows (aerodynamic efficiency) and smoked glass rear windows (where allowed) it is almost impossible to even see a driver of an approaching car, much less make eye contact with them. A unintended consequence of what might seem to be two unrelated things.
- DaveInTucson 9y ago
  I wondered if I would be accused of victim blaming. I'm just suggesting better education is probably a useful avenue to improve the situation.
  - upofadown 9y ago

Svip 9y ago

I feel a lot of commenters are simply focusing on what signs can do or what sort of junction to build, rather than focus on the fact that on high speed primary country roads, bicycles shouldn't be sharing the road with the cars. In Denmark, a lot of high speed roads (excluding motorways, of course) out in the country have separate dual-way bicycle lanes near it but not attached to it. (Example: https://i.imgur.com/dS6jqXS.jpg https://i.imgur.com/dS6jqXS.jpg) That way, the cyclists can cross the side roads on their own accord, where they are more visible and have their own junction with the side road. Additional, one can set up a traffic light that only turns red for the cars when a cyclist is crossing (i.e. activated by a button). Furthermore, one might consider signage that warns drivers about cyclists in the junction: https://i.imgur.com/CX6SJdW.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CX6SJdW.jpg Also, a way to reduce speed of the motorists without putting in stop signs would be to add chicanes just before the junction, so they are forced to slow down. Plus, as I've mentioned before (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15977162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15977162), I also think it is because UK drivers don't really have enough training with how to deal with bicycles and the fact that they are also participants on the road.

TomMarius 9y ago
The drivers shouldn't be punished for bad design of the road. A separate bike road should be constructed.
- Svip 9y ago
  Indeed. The main type of accident involving cyclists in Denmark are so called 'right turn accidents', where a lorry turning right at a junction hits a cyclists because they are in their blind spot. This obviously happens exclusively in cities. The media has made a big deal about how tragic it is for the cyclists - which it is, but much less about how tragic it is for the driver. Remember, it's not like drivers want to hit cyclists or other soft traffic participants. That's why I propose a separate bike road, even if it is quite an expensive undertaking. But it will make all the road users feel safe. Or -- at least -- safer.
  - 9y ago

trhway 9y ago

>With this design, no longer would it be reasonably possible for any driver to simply blow through the junction. Drivers would have to come almost to a stop. just put a good bump there, or a couple.

GarvielLoken 9y ago

Road Junctions don't kill people, people kill people.

rbrbr 9y ago

Build cars with the driver seat on the left then. All this discussion over an obvious flaw which removed would solve the problem.

tbihl 9y ago

It's interesting that they were so focused on CBDR, but then totally dropped the ball when it was time to extend the analogy to overtaking (where you assume to be overtaking if you are >22.5° abaft the other vessel's beam, which is not the case at a 94° angle.)

Scarblac 9y ago

This type of "Shared Space" junction in a rural area in the Netherlands is an interesting solution: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.093333,6.2410165,255a,35y,328.48h,44.92t/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@53.093333,6.2410165,255a,35y,32... Several bad accidents happened here before this was implemented, none since 2009 when it was. Note that there are distinct paths for bicycles next to the roads, but that's standard. There are no signs, no rules, but the roads can't be taken in a straight line anymore and it's certainly suggested that the junction is a pedestrian area. Drivers get confused which grabs their attention and makes them slow down.

pas 9y ago
> no signs Wow. I thought there must be at least one sign saying "shared space". But apparently not :o > no rules So cops can't ticket you if you cause an accident? I guess the rules are just the basic driving rules. Give way to people coming from your right, and anyone who goes straight has some advantage. But since this is basically an unmarked roundabout (drivers are supposed to keep to the right), that rules probably doesn't apply.
- Scarblac 9y ago
  I meant no special rules for this kind of setup, its precise status is quite undefined, it's certainly not a roundabout. In the Netherlands if a motorized vehicle is in an accident with a weaker traffic participant (pedestrian or bicyclists) they are automatically liable anyway, that doesn't change. So you're left with give way to the right and don't hit each other, yes.

andybak 9y ago

For reference: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8632384,-1.4532871,3a,90y,161.23h,75.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swMw3UmSj5XheUtniJfifAg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwMw3UmSj5XheUtniJfifAg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.36434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8632384,-1.4532871,3a,90y,...

_0ffh 9y ago

Relevant link: http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pdf http://www.slobc.org/safety/documents/road-survival-guide.pd... "A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads" explains the same thing, and more. Plus, it gives practical tips on how to mitigate these problems.

Vinnl 9y ago

> The truly contemptible human error is not in a single person carelessly failing to see. It (...) is in our incessant support of a system which cries “human error” as an excuse to do nothing, rather than as a stimulus to understand that error in order to create a solution. Interestingly, I've seen parallels at work, when doing retrospectives: "this didn't go well mostly due to human error (slacking, forgetting, etc.), so the lesson for next time is to just do that better." Instead, I'd prefer us to be looking for a way to prevent human error to cause problems in the future. But I guess the reason for us often not doing that is probably because it's too much effort compared to the perceived benefit - and that's probably true most of the time.

imglorp 9y ago

This is also of high interest to motorcyclists who even have a name for the phenomena: SMIDSY (Sorry, Mate I Didn't See You). OP was focused on the A pillar and some other effects, while this excellent video goes a little further into some perception psychology about camouflage and how we perceive moving objects across backgrounds. You can ignore the motorcycle stuff but the explanation is enlightening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU

billfruit 9y ago

Does cyclists count as pedestrians, and if so is entitled to ride on the opposite direction as follow ed by vehicular traffic.That is if cars drive on the left, then cyclists ride on the right, as do pedestrians?

moonbug22 9y ago

Traffic lights and roundabouts.

f4rker 9y ago

The world is not, nor will ever be perfect. It is up to us cyclist to take our safety into our own hands. Don't end up dead just because you "had the right" to be on the road. source : full time cyclist for 5+ years

jiri 9y ago

Driver should be moving his/her head slightly to eliminate this phenomena, to change angles of view. Very useful when approaching difficult situation in a moving car. One has to anticipate these effects and try to disturb linearity in movement by changing your car speed non-linearly to alter viewing angles in some situations. These approaches together it will help driver to much better asses other objects speed and direction of movement and generally it improve one situation awareness. This is something you can do about it if you dont want to wait for all crossroads to be rebuilt ;-)

pmarreck 9y ago

Why can't they just add stop signs to the east-west route? That way the north-south can keep right-of-way and the threat of collision is eliminated

tahw 9y ago

I understand the geometry in this situation and its impact, but if you're on a bicycle and you don't come to a complete stop at an intersection with potentially 40mph cross-traffic, you're going to have a bad time no matter what the angle is.

killjoywashere 9y ago

I got hit by a car, as a cyclist, in exactly this kind of intersection. Got a Bankart repair on my left shoulder as a reward, but also got the motivation to go to medical school. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Incidentally, as a sailor, I totally get the constant bearing decreasing range problem. That phrase still sends shivers down my spine. I can't tell you how many times I've thought about what's on the other side the front pillars.