4 ms·

> 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 unco

by 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...
- korethr 9y ago
  It sounds like what happens in every other instance of engineering: trade-offs. Emphasise performance in one metric -- preventing roof collapse and preserving the integrity of the passenger compartment in this case -- and it can come at the cost of other metrics (here, visibility). I don't think vehicle engineers are deliberately making cars hard to see out of, but I do think it's possible that those setting the policy which drives A-pillar thickness don't realize such is making cars less safe from a visibility perspective.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    The cynic in me says that it's a liability thing. Manufacturers are more likely to be liable if you roll your car and the roof caves in, killing you. Manufacturers are less likely to be found liable if you couldn't see through your A-pillar and hit a cyclist, as apparently proven by the article. It's very hard to point the finger at the driver for their roof caving in, there's nothing the driver can do to stop that from happening. But there's plenty a driver could do to avoid trouble from blindspots.
- usrusr 9y ago
  Airbags and crash test results are sales material, likelihood of running over a pedestrian is not. The incentives favor occupant safety over general safety.
- bllguo 9y ago
  There has to be a solution where we can remove the A-pillars entirely and have a single unbroken window. I know it doesn't mean much, but I would pay significantly for that, for peace of mind and safety.
Gibbon1 9y ago
My Prius has an airbag in the A pillar. What I find slightly terrifying is when you are turning you can get the same effect with a walking pedestrian. I'd frankly rather trade a thinner A pillar for a lower likelihood of clocking a pedestrian.

by jmts 9y ago

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...

korethr 9y ago
It sounds like what happens in every other instance of engineering: trade-offs. Emphasise performance in one metric -- preventing roof collapse and preserving the integrity of the passenger compartment in this case -- and it can come at the cost of other metrics (here, visibility). I don't think vehicle engineers are deliberately making cars hard to see out of, but I do think it's possible that those setting the policy which drives A-pillar thickness don't realize such is making cars less safe from a visibility perspective.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  The cynic in me says that it's a liability thing. Manufacturers are more likely to be liable if you roll your car and the roof caves in, killing you. Manufacturers are less likely to be found liable if you couldn't see through your A-pillar and hit a cyclist, as apparently proven by the article. It's very hard to point the finger at the driver for their roof caving in, there's nothing the driver can do to stop that from happening. But there's plenty a driver could do to avoid trouble from blindspots.
usrusr 9y ago
Airbags and crash test results are sales material, likelihood of running over a pedestrian is not. The incentives favor occupant safety over general safety.
bllguo 9y ago
There has to be a solution where we can remove the A-pillars entirely and have a single unbroken window. I know it doesn't mean much, but I would pay significantly for that, for peace of mind and safety.

Gibbon1 9y ago

My Prius has an airbag in the A pillar. What I find slightly terrifying is when you are turning you can get the same effect with a walking pedestrian. I'd frankly rather trade a thinner A pillar for a lower likelihood of clocking a pedestrian.