10 ms·

The closest calls I've ever had with pedestrians were on left turns. IMO the problem with modern cars is the airbags in the A-pillar. The pillars have gotten

The closest calls I've ever had with pedestrians were on left turns. IMO the problem with modern cars is the airbags in the A-pillar. The pillars have gotten so wide that you have to consciously bob your head around back and forth (like a fighter pilot, of course...) to look around both sides of it. Otherwise people can easily vanish into that blind spot. I think a lot of people just forget that there's a big blind spot there because they're used to just looking on either side and inferring what's not visible -- which is usually fine with something as big as a car. But on a left turn, a pedestrian walking the same direction you are driving can be completely hidden as you turn because their motion will be synchronized with the blind spot.

wonnage 5y ago
This was one of the worst adjustments for me coming from an old car. I think driver testing should be updated to account for it - looking around the pillar should be as mandatory as the shoulder blind spot check when changing lanes/turning.
ozgune 5y ago
I've been driving in the US for 16 years. The "left turn on green" is still the most non-intuitive part about driving here. As a driver, when you have a green light, you need to pay attention to giving priority to incoming traffic and pedestrians crossing the street, while also maintaining your calm with cars lining up behind you. It's way more intuitive that when you have a green, you can go.
- worker767424 5y ago
  Adding a blinking yellow left arrow could help.
  - Skunkleton 5y ago
    "blinking yellow left arrow" is the same thing as not having a protected turn at all.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Not quite. Yellow blinking left arrows are always for a protected left turn lane. So when blinking, it does become more like an unprotected 'turn left on green' type of light, but you don't have the straight-through traffic coming up behind you, since you're on a dedicated turn lane. And the yellow flashing arrow is usually timed so that it happens at the safest time to make an unprotected left.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Not always. There are mixed lanes that also have arrow lights from the turns.
        rootusrootus 5y ago
        That's fair. Not anywhere in my state. But road design isn't 100% consistent across the US.
    - worker767424 5y ago
      But it cues your brain that it might not be safe to turn left.
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    this is a change that's already rolling out nation-wide
  - kelnos 5y ago
    That's a little confusing, though, isn't it? A blinking regular yellow light means "you have the right of way, but proceed with caution". But this blinking left arrow would mean "you don't have the right of way, so proceed with caution". The distinction may sound subtle, but is quite large.
- itronitron 5y ago
  In a few US cities they have what is called a 'lag left' where the left turn lane gets a green left arrow for several seconds after the straight lanes turn red. This has the benefit of having left turns occur when pedestrians should not be crossing the side street at the cost of some spectacular head on collisions when drivers run the red light.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    There are some intersections like this in my city, but I've seen some drivers blow straight through the red light in the straight lanes because, presumably, they are barely paying attention but see a green light in their peripheral.
  - usefulcat 5y ago
    I have seen that quite often (green arrow after red for straight lanes) and had assumed that was pretty common, but I don't really know for sure. Regarding collisions due to people running red lights: at least when waiting to turn left chances are very good that you will see the oncoming vehicle since you're already pointed towards them. That seems much better than being first in line at an intersection when the light turns green; in that case anyone running the light may well be coming from the side. I lived in Dallas for a few years and after a few near misses I learned to always look before proceeding after the light turns green.
    - seoulmetro 5y ago
      You can fail a driving test in Australia if you don't look whilst being first at the lights on a green light cycle. Of course most drivers might do this for a week after getting their license then ignore it. Like a lot of good rules.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > at least when waiting to turn left chances are very good that you will see the oncoming vehicle since you're already pointed towards them. That's only true if there are no oncoming cars lined up to turn left in front of you. Even just one car waiting can obscure an oncoming car coming around them to run the light and crash into you as you turn.
- wccrawford 5y ago
  Stop lights will never be smart enough to tell you when you can "just go" until they're good enough to drive the cars for you, and then that choice will be taken from you anyhow. Drivers must always pay attention to what's going on around them. Trying to simplify their decisions will just end up with more people getting hurt as drivers claim they had the right because the light said so.
  - abfan1127 5y ago
    simplifying decisions can also lead to extremely inefficient traffic patterns.
  - interstice 5y ago
    Other countries have a green arrow and here we also have a system where the green arrow goes blank when pedestrians are allowed to cross aka ‘give way’. Not that it stops pedestrians crossing whenever they like or people running reds, but it does take some of the stress out of driving.
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    Here's a link to some traffic light systems that you can trust most of the time. But nothing is perfect, so you're still required to pay attention yourself too, of course. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knbVWXzL4-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knbVWXzL4-4
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I agree. Left turns on green are an invention that works great in rural American small towns where traffic volume is low. Most of the places I've lived transition to protected signals as the density of the area goes up, but sometimes it can take years for the funds to be allocated, and in that time it can become a pretty confusing intersection. In a proper city I think they make no sense at all.
  - tafda 5y ago
    Not everyone would call Los Angeles a proper city, but it's dense and there are very few protected left turns. As thrilling as passing against oncoming traffic on a two lane road.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Disagree. Left turns on green are a compromise that prevents people from going through the green 50yd past the intersection and banging a u-turn, which is exactly what they'll start doing if you don't let them turn left at the intersection but do let them legally turn left into businesses and whatnot across the street. Divided roads mostly don't need left on green since they mostly have dedicated turn lanes.
- stevbov 5y ago
  This is for California, not sure about other states: Note that whether you have a solid green or a green arrow matters. A solid green means you can turn left, but you might have cross traffic. A green arrow means you're protected and as long as other people are obeying traffic signals, you shouldn't run into other people. Lots of drivers don't understand this. Lots of drivers also don't understand a red right arrow (as opposed to a red solid circle) means you cannot turn right on red. Most "no right on red" intersections have both the arrow and a sign (and many drivers ignore both).
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    This varies somewhat based on locality. In Oregon, for example, there is no special significance to a red right turn arrow. If a right turn on red is not permitted, there will be a sign.
  - echelon 5y ago
    > Note that whether you have a solid green or a green arrow matters. A solid green means you can turn left, but you might have cross traffic. A green arrow means you're protected and as long as other people are obeying traffic signals, you shouldn't run into other people. This is the same in the southeast, and I assume the rest of the US. Recently "flashing yellow" [1,2,3] has been introduced to mean left turns must yield to right of way traffic. These are gradually replacing solid green signals. [1] https://www.txdot.gov/driver/signs-and-signals/flashing-yellow-arrows.html https://www.txdot.gov/driver/signs-and-signals/flashing-yell... [2] https://durhamnc.gov/1140/Flashing-Left-Turn-Arrow-Information https://durhamnc.gov/1140/Flashing-Left-Turn-Arrow-Informati... [3] https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/TrafficSignalsManagement/Documents/Flashing%20Yellow%20Arrow%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/TrafficSignalsManagement/... (PDF)
    - GatorD42 5y ago
      This is confusing, generally a blinking yellow when going straight means slow down but you have right of way. A blinking left yellow would be different from a normal blinking yellow.
lmilcin 5y ago
> I think a lot of people just forget that there's a big blind spot (...) Honestly, I think most people just don't care. If they cared but forgotten they would be doing some other obvious things like slowing down when they drive close to parked cars or setting their mirrors to cover around the car as well as possible. But that is not what I observe. I see almost all drivers to drive fast inches from parked cars and I can see the driver's face in their side mirror when in car behind them -- clear indication that they have side mirrors set to the road behind the car rather than cover huge blind spot on the side of the car.
- Toutouxc 5y ago
  > side mirrors set to the road behind the car rather than cover huge blind spot on the side of the car I don't know about you, but I have my side mirrors set so I see the side of my car at the inner edge, which is vital when parking, and the shape and geometry of the mirror dictates the FOV I get from it.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    Unfortunately, this is wrong (objectively, not subjectively). Even more unfortunately this is how everybody is taught to drive. I don't know how the exam looks in Czech Republic but here in Poland there is a lot of backing and the driving teachers set mirrors this way to make it easier for learners to pass the exam. Side mirrors are designed to fill the blind spot on the side of your car. If you see the side of your car your side mirror mostly sees the same thing that your rear view mirror. You don't need three mirrors to show you what's behind your car. The correct way to set the side mirror is to imagine the cone of the rear view mirror and the cone of your peripheral vision and point your side mirror directly between those cones. I set my side mirrors so that they point outwards a tiny bit but if I move my head to the side I can see the side of my car. In my car this is enough to close my blind spot but still enough to observe the side of my car while parking. I almost always park with my back first because I don't have stereoscopic vision and it is easier for me to judge distances when parking with back of my car first. And I don't have any problem -- I just move my head to the left or to the right as needed. When you park you can move your car as slow as you need and stop if you need more time. But when you drive at highway speeds you may not have that much time and this is when you need to be able to observe around your car in a split second without moving your head. I noticed when I almost smashed into a car in my blindspot. I started reading and I found that I have been using mirrors the wrong way entire time. Here, I found an example link for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/lskpl/lpt_how_to_adjust_car_mirrors_to_remove_the_blind/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/lskpl/lpt_how_... I can tell you it takes a little bit of effort to adjust to new mirror position. You can get used to moving your head during parking (looks silly but you can park just fine). But you will thank me the first time you merge, especially at an angle and see how easy it is since you are seeing EVERYTHING with your mirrors and your peripheral vision, without needing to move your head.
bo1024 5y ago
Yes -- as a runner it is extremely common for me to be hidden by the A pillar and almost run over. These are extremely clear-cut situations, e.g. someone rolls up to a stop sign as I'm entering an intersection. When the car doesn't come to a complete stop, it's easy for a moving pedestrian to stay in the blind spot as both objects move. I watch the whole time and never see their face.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  I think the “problem” is your running. I’m an ex-runner, ex-skateboarder (knees gave up) and my close calls were always when moving at high speed. Drivers are expecting we’ll be a dawdling pedestrian moving at 2-3 MPH, when in fact we could easily be doing 10MPH or faster. We have street-grade LIDAR everywhere these days (at least in SF). I don’t understand why they can’t make “smart intersections” that flash drivers a warning when pedestrians are predicted to be crossing.
  - rodgerd 5y ago
    You have a higher opinion of people than I do. I've had someone threaten to kill me because he was trying to barge through a zebra crossing while I was on it, and he felt the need to get out of his car and have a go in person because I was, you know, blocking his car. People know. They don't care. They'd rather kill someone than slow down.
    - notacoward 5y ago
      It's not uncommon for drivers to get a big shot of adrenaline after a near miss, and turn that into anger instead of reflecting on their own actions. Sad commentary on human nature, I guess.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I'm not sure that comment really addresses the high speed crosswalk entry concerns. Sure there are some people out there who behave like your story, but not that many (and should be addressed by losing their license). Even with the right of way, it's in a pedestrian's best interest to slowly enter the crosswalk and check to make sure the vehicles are yielding. Some states make it illegal to run into traffic or cross while distracted (phone use). So yes, people driving should be going slow enough to avoid someone running into traffic. But then the runner should also slow to safely evaluate and cross.
matsemann 5y ago
Sounds to me like cars shouldn't be allowed to drive where pedestrians travel, if they can't really avoid driving people over. Edit: This Tom Scott video shows how a cyclist can be perfectly occluded by the A-pillar while both are moving https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU?t=55 https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU?t=55
- ars 5y ago
  It's hard enough being a pedestrian, let's not make it harder by limiting where people are allowed to cross (only intersections with dedicated left turn signals). If you meant limit the cars, obviously that'll never happen, so I assumed the more realistic interpretation.
  - matsemann 5y ago
    I meant limit cars, yes. Not that I think it will happen in the US very soon, it's designed around them. As a European, the concept of jaywalking is so bizarre. Cities are for people, not cars. You can ban people from highways, but shouldn't ban them from walking in their own neighborhood.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Cars don't drive themselves, they are driven by people. The same people who are also pedestrians at times. The solution is not to try and ban cars, any more than it makes sense to ban pedestrians. The solution is to design the roads for multiple modes of transportation so everyone can get where they need to go.
      - matsemann 5y ago
        And well designed cities don't need much car usage. Thus my point about removing them. Not really just banning them, but making them obsolete by having better options.
        rootusrootus 5y ago
itronitron 5y ago
Same here, most recent close call was about a month ago despite being fully aware of the blind spot but not expecting someone to be crossing on a 'don't walk' signal. 'A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads' has some very good information on this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17900759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17900759
worker767424 5y ago
For me, it's actually the rear view mirror. I can miss a car at a 4 way stop because of it.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  For sure, I've had a few cars like that. Sometimes I could make it better by pushing the mirror up to the limit of travel (while it can still be aimed to see the road behind you). That puts it pretty close to the roof on some cars, reducing the impact of the blind spot. But it's not always doable on every model of car.
theluketaylor 5y ago
Modern A-pillar thickness has become a real problem. My biggest fear when driving my modern cars is losing track of a pedestrian, especially in the A-pillar. It's likely time for legislation on the field of view offered by modern A-pillars as many of the thickest pillars are to use lower grade steel to save costs while still meeting rollover and crush requirements. More expensive high strength steel and more compact airbags can bring A-pillar widths back into safer territory. I'm a lot less safe driving my vintage car around, but there isn't any chance I'll miss a pedestrian since the greenhouse is so great. Ottawa, Ontario just published a guide to building protected intersections: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/protectedintersection_dg_en.pdf https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/protectedi... A lot of these changes are not particularly expensive and can have a huge impact on safety by limiting how much time a pedestrian is vulnerable and forcing cars to fully turn so pedestrians are in direct vision rather than peripheral. For higher speed intersections we should be using a lot more roundabouts and things like diverging diamond to eliminate conflict between different travel modes and keep traffic flowing in a single direction.
- mdasen 5y ago
  I think one of the big things hidden in here is that auto makers are allowed to and incentivized to optimize for the safety of the passengers inside the vehicle and not pedestrians outside the vehicle. Modern cars have a huge lack of visibility. They've removed a lot of the glass so that they can get sturdier frames. However, that makes it harder for them to see pedestrians. I'd also note it makes it harder for cars behind to see the context of the road as well. I love being behind an old car. I can see straight through its rear window and out the front and see what is going on. I can anticipate stuff that I wouldn't be able to anticipate if I'm behind a newer vehicle where I can't see through the vehicle. I'd also note that the increasing size of vehicles is presenting a multi-faceted problem. 1) Higher hoods mean impacting pedestrians higher up putting the force into their internal organs and heads. 2) Higher hoods mean that your body will be pushed to the ground where the car can run over you and cause head injuries rather than being hit in the knees and flung onto the hood of the car where you are less likely to have as severe injuries. 3) Taller vehicles mean that drivers can't see what is going on as much. A 5'3" (average woman) pedestrian can be hidden behind a 6' vehicle while their head would bob above a 4'6" vehicle. A cyclist may be riding at 5'5", but they'll be completely obscured behind a 6' vehicle. If you're trying to make a left turn, oncoming traffic may be obscuring pedestrians and cyclists today in a way that it didn't in years past. I definitely get worrying about losing a pedestrian in an A-pillar. I find that cars are also often losing pedestrians behind other vehicles - vehicles that are tall enough to obscure pedestrians. We've allowed and encouraged auto makers to optimize for passenger safety. That's meant that they've removed the great greenhouse that provided good visibility and replaced it with more structure and airbags.
kirse 5y ago
In the motorcycling world oncoming left vehicles are basically the "Jesus take the wheel" scenario. Go left to avoid them and you're potentially in oncoming traffic, go right and you're trying to negotiate a developing mess with a driver who realizes they've made a mistake, or lastly attempt to brake and you might dump the bike or end up underneath a vehicle. A couple things I do when coming to intersections is almost always cover the brake, flash hi-beams if I think someone is about to take an aggressive jump, or sometimes point an index finger at the oncoming driver to catch their attention. You'd be surprised how many people subconsciously register that they're being pointed at and it gets them to consciously snap into focus. Somewhat related -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling
- somewhereoutth 5y ago
  Interesting. On my bicycle I sometimes point to where a car should stop when I have priority on a roundabout and am about to exit crossing over where they would enter. Seems to work.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > In the motorcycling world oncoming left vehicles are basically the "Jesus take the wheel" scenario. Years ago I nearly creamed a motorcycle after looking pretty much directly at him. The angles we were converging at meant that he basically disappeared into the background because there was no relative motion. Probably scared the crap out of him, and it certainly scared the crap out of me. That was when I started moving my head back and forth coming up to an intersection where I'm going to turn, because it introduces enough of a perspective change to make a moving motorcycle stick out. It's exactly the situation described in the fighter pilot article. The human brain is amazingly good at stitching together what appears to be a complete scene while actually losing pretty sizable chunks of it all the time. The other times I have close calls were 100% coincident with having a full car of passengers. I think we only have a certain amount of bandwidth, and taking up a bunch of it with noise reduces what's left to devote to vision. I also turn down the radio when I'm coming up to an unfamiliar area, or a situation that is obviously going to be complex to navigate.
bartread 5y ago
> IMO the problem with modern cars is the airbags in the A-pillar. The pillars have gotten so wide that you have to consciously bob your head around back and forth (like a fighter pilot, of course...) to look around both sides of it. Exactly this problem caused me to nearly kill someone the other night as I turned right around a roundabout (I live in the UK: we drive on the left, driver is on the right of the car). Nearly nailed a guy crossing the road as I came off it because he was hidden by the A-pillar. Fortunately my girlfriend, in the passenger seat, spotted him and yelled, otherwise he'd have been toast. The car has collision avoidance functionality but it didn't spot the guy either. So, yeah, airbags or not, I am not a fan of thick, heavy A-pillars, and especially because you can't rely on the car's "smarts" to bail you out if you do fail to spot something that's obscured by them.
necovek 5y ago
One of the things I noticed is that as "smaller" participants in traffic get faster, it gets exponentially harder to account for them. Eg. runners are harder to see because you need to be watching a much wider angle that is more likely to be obscured by something or other. Bicycles even more so. If you are not starting from a stop, my solution to avoid any close calls has always been to hover my foot over the brake on top of making my turns as perpendicular as possible (there are other reasons to do that too: I see cars tilt into the oncoming traffic lane, which slows oncoming traffic down and delays their left turn, making for fewer cars passing at that traffic light and increasing congestion). If there's any potential a pedestrian (think a small child or a short person) is obscured by any other object (a car, a street corner...), slow down even further even if you've got right of way.
chrisseaton 5y ago
I don't get why North Americans have people crossing at the same time as cars are turning. In the UK almost all junctions have either people crossing, or cars turning, but not both at the same time. Seems a super obvious idea when you write it out.
- kleiba 5y ago
  And make car drivers wait for precious seconds?? Heresy!
- tgb 5y ago
  It substantially increases pedestrian wait times though. In a grid city if I'm headed north east, I opportunistically take north or east, whichever is available. So I have no wait time at all for most of my journey, until the part when I have to go only north (say). A grid makes this the typical situation and placing a wait at every light makes the journey very tedious. It also slows down cars, of course. I'm sure this is the main reason it's not done - whether it's worth the risk, I'm not sure.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    Here in the NL, all turns are protected with a middle island for pedestrians. You hardly have to wait to cross a busy intersection on foot, at least to get halfway across.
- namdnay 5y ago
  I guess it's more efficient, because at a four-way intersection in the north-american system there are always pedestrians and cars crossing. Whereas in the standard european system, either cars going left are stopped in a dedicated lane, or pedestrians are waiting for the cars that are going left to finish. obviously that efficiency comes at the cost of a higher mortality :(
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    I would have thought the UK way was more efficient because you can cross diagonally? In the US system you have to wait for two sets of lights to cross diagonally.
e40 5y ago
It's not just that. The number of times I've made eye contact with a left turner and they still pulled into the oncoming traffic lane is uncountable (for 25 years I talked to/from work each day, 3-6 miles). What's really annoying about this: they almost always get angry at me when they miscalculate the time it takes for me to walk (I'm faster than most) across the street and a car is coming the opposite direction. I've had people yell the f-word and other things to be also uncountable times, in this situation. We have a very car-centric culture.
golem14 5y ago
Maybe we should put a screen on the inside of the a column, so it appears transparent...
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  I like it, now add "forward vision screens" with cameras down either side of the car and 50cm up off the roof. That way, when stuck in slow traffic, I can look for oncoming traffic before turning out at all. Maybe car driving will be the "killer app" for AR.
sangnoir 5y ago
> which is usually fine with something as big as a car I had a couple of near-misses at the same spot, with cars hidden behind the A-pillar. The intersection is prone to Constant Angular Velocity approaches - probably as a result of speed limits and layout. Witnessing a whole car appear out of nowhere is something, let me tell you! Fortunately, I had enough time to break on both occasions as I was facing a yield sign. I now have a head-bobbing habit, and haven't experienced surprises since.
pandaman 5y ago
While A-pillars are indeed too wide and can create a dangerous situation, in my experience the main problem in LA, at least, is that too many drivers have a habit of looking in the direction opposite to the turn while making a turn. Even if there had been a seamless glass bubble cabin, humans don't have wide enough field of view to see anything over their shoulder while looking over the opposite shoulder. I used to walk to work in LA and was amazed how many people do this. Could be the same in other cities but I've not been walking much elsewhere.

wonnage 5y ago

This was one of the worst adjustments for me coming from an old car. I think driver testing should be updated to account for it - looking around the pillar should be as mandatory as the shoulder blind spot check when changing lanes/turning.

ozgune 5y ago

I've been driving in the US for 16 years. The "left turn on green" is still the most non-intuitive part about driving here. As a driver, when you have a green light, you need to pay attention to giving priority to incoming traffic and pedestrians crossing the street, while also maintaining your calm with cars lining up behind you. It's way more intuitive that when you have a green, you can go.

worker767424 5y ago
Adding a blinking yellow left arrow could help.
- Skunkleton 5y ago
  "blinking yellow left arrow" is the same thing as not having a protected turn at all.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Not quite. Yellow blinking left arrows are always for a protected left turn lane. So when blinking, it does become more like an unprotected 'turn left on green' type of light, but you don't have the straight-through traffic coming up behind you, since you're on a dedicated turn lane. And the yellow flashing arrow is usually timed so that it happens at the safest time to make an unprotected left.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Not always. There are mixed lanes that also have arrow lights from the turns.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        That's fair. Not anywhere in my state. But road design isn't 100% consistent across the US.
  - worker767424 5y ago
    But it cues your brain that it might not be safe to turn left.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  this is a change that's already rolling out nation-wide
- kelnos 5y ago
  That's a little confusing, though, isn't it? A blinking regular yellow light means "you have the right of way, but proceed with caution". But this blinking left arrow would mean "you don't have the right of way, so proceed with caution". The distinction may sound subtle, but is quite large.
itronitron 5y ago
In a few US cities they have what is called a 'lag left' where the left turn lane gets a green left arrow for several seconds after the straight lanes turn red. This has the benefit of having left turns occur when pedestrians should not be crossing the side street at the cost of some spectacular head on collisions when drivers run the red light.
- kube-system 5y ago
  There are some intersections like this in my city, but I've seen some drivers blow straight through the red light in the straight lanes because, presumably, they are barely paying attention but see a green light in their peripheral.
- usefulcat 5y ago
  I have seen that quite often (green arrow after red for straight lanes) and had assumed that was pretty common, but I don't really know for sure. Regarding collisions due to people running red lights: at least when waiting to turn left chances are very good that you will see the oncoming vehicle since you're already pointed towards them. That seems much better than being first in line at an intersection when the light turns green; in that case anyone running the light may well be coming from the side. I lived in Dallas for a few years and after a few near misses I learned to always look before proceeding after the light turns green.
  - seoulmetro 5y ago
    You can fail a driving test in Australia if you don't look whilst being first at the lights on a green light cycle. Of course most drivers might do this for a week after getting their license then ignore it. Like a lot of good rules.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > at least when waiting to turn left chances are very good that you will see the oncoming vehicle since you're already pointed towards them. That's only true if there are no oncoming cars lined up to turn left in front of you. Even just one car waiting can obscure an oncoming car coming around them to run the light and crash into you as you turn.
wccrawford 5y ago
Stop lights will never be smart enough to tell you when you can "just go" until they're good enough to drive the cars for you, and then that choice will be taken from you anyhow. Drivers must always pay attention to what's going on around them. Trying to simplify their decisions will just end up with more people getting hurt as drivers claim they had the right because the light said so.
- abfan1127 5y ago
  simplifying decisions can also lead to extremely inefficient traffic patterns.
- interstice 5y ago
  Other countries have a green arrow and here we also have a system where the green arrow goes blank when pedestrians are allowed to cross aka ‘give way’. Not that it stops pedestrians crossing whenever they like or people running reds, but it does take some of the stress out of driving.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  Here's a link to some traffic light systems that you can trust most of the time. But nothing is perfect, so you're still required to pay attention yourself too, of course. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knbVWXzL4-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knbVWXzL4-4
rootusrootus 5y ago
I agree. Left turns on green are an invention that works great in rural American small towns where traffic volume is low. Most of the places I've lived transition to protected signals as the density of the area goes up, but sometimes it can take years for the funds to be allocated, and in that time it can become a pretty confusing intersection. In a proper city I think they make no sense at all.
- tafda 5y ago
  Not everyone would call Los Angeles a proper city, but it's dense and there are very few protected left turns. As thrilling as passing against oncoming traffic on a two lane road.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Disagree. Left turns on green are a compromise that prevents people from going through the green 50yd past the intersection and banging a u-turn, which is exactly what they'll start doing if you don't let them turn left at the intersection but do let them legally turn left into businesses and whatnot across the street. Divided roads mostly don't need left on green since they mostly have dedicated turn lanes.
stevbov 5y ago
This is for California, not sure about other states: Note that whether you have a solid green or a green arrow matters. A solid green means you can turn left, but you might have cross traffic. A green arrow means you're protected and as long as other people are obeying traffic signals, you shouldn't run into other people. Lots of drivers don't understand this. Lots of drivers also don't understand a red right arrow (as opposed to a red solid circle) means you cannot turn right on red. Most "no right on red" intersections have both the arrow and a sign (and many drivers ignore both).
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  This varies somewhat based on locality. In Oregon, for example, there is no special significance to a red right turn arrow. If a right turn on red is not permitted, there will be a sign.
- echelon 5y ago
  > Note that whether you have a solid green or a green arrow matters. A solid green means you can turn left, but you might have cross traffic. A green arrow means you're protected and as long as other people are obeying traffic signals, you shouldn't run into other people. This is the same in the southeast, and I assume the rest of the US. Recently "flashing yellow" [1,2,3] has been introduced to mean left turns must yield to right of way traffic. These are gradually replacing solid green signals. [1] https://www.txdot.gov/driver/signs-and-signals/flashing-yellow-arrows.html https://www.txdot.gov/driver/signs-and-signals/flashing-yell... [2] https://durhamnc.gov/1140/Flashing-Left-Turn-Arrow-Information https://durhamnc.gov/1140/Flashing-Left-Turn-Arrow-Informati... [3] https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/TrafficSignalsManagement/Documents/Flashing%20Yellow%20Arrow%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/TrafficSignalsManagement/... (PDF)
  - GatorD42 5y ago
    This is confusing, generally a blinking yellow when going straight means slow down but you have right of way. A blinking left yellow would be different from a normal blinking yellow.

lmilcin 5y ago

> I think a lot of people just forget that there's a big blind spot (...) Honestly, I think most people just don't care. If they cared but forgotten they would be doing some other obvious things like slowing down when they drive close to parked cars or setting their mirrors to cover around the car as well as possible. But that is not what I observe. I see almost all drivers to drive fast inches from parked cars and I can see the driver's face in their side mirror when in car behind them -- clear indication that they have side mirrors set to the road behind the car rather than cover huge blind spot on the side of the car.

Toutouxc 5y ago
> side mirrors set to the road behind the car rather than cover huge blind spot on the side of the car I don't know about you, but I have my side mirrors set so I see the side of my car at the inner edge, which is vital when parking, and the shape and geometry of the mirror dictates the FOV I get from it.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Unfortunately, this is wrong (objectively, not subjectively). Even more unfortunately this is how everybody is taught to drive. I don't know how the exam looks in Czech Republic but here in Poland there is a lot of backing and the driving teachers set mirrors this way to make it easier for learners to pass the exam. Side mirrors are designed to fill the blind spot on the side of your car. If you see the side of your car your side mirror mostly sees the same thing that your rear view mirror. You don't need three mirrors to show you what's behind your car. The correct way to set the side mirror is to imagine the cone of the rear view mirror and the cone of your peripheral vision and point your side mirror directly between those cones. I set my side mirrors so that they point outwards a tiny bit but if I move my head to the side I can see the side of my car. In my car this is enough to close my blind spot but still enough to observe the side of my car while parking. I almost always park with my back first because I don't have stereoscopic vision and it is easier for me to judge distances when parking with back of my car first. And I don't have any problem -- I just move my head to the left or to the right as needed. When you park you can move your car as slow as you need and stop if you need more time. But when you drive at highway speeds you may not have that much time and this is when you need to be able to observe around your car in a split second without moving your head. I noticed when I almost smashed into a car in my blindspot. I started reading and I found that I have been using mirrors the wrong way entire time. Here, I found an example link for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/lskpl/lpt_how_to_adjust_car_mirrors_to_remove_the_blind/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/lskpl/lpt_how_... I can tell you it takes a little bit of effort to adjust to new mirror position. You can get used to moving your head during parking (looks silly but you can park just fine). But you will thank me the first time you merge, especially at an angle and see how easy it is since you are seeing EVERYTHING with your mirrors and your peripheral vision, without needing to move your head.

bo1024 5y ago

Yes -- as a runner it is extremely common for me to be hidden by the A pillar and almost run over. These are extremely clear-cut situations, e.g. someone rolls up to a stop sign as I'm entering an intersection. When the car doesn't come to a complete stop, it's easy for a moving pedestrian to stay in the blind spot as both objects move. I watch the whole time and never see their face.

jdavis703 5y ago
I think the “problem” is your running. I’m an ex-runner, ex-skateboarder (knees gave up) and my close calls were always when moving at high speed. Drivers are expecting we’ll be a dawdling pedestrian moving at 2-3 MPH, when in fact we could easily be doing 10MPH or faster. We have street-grade LIDAR everywhere these days (at least in SF). I don’t understand why they can’t make “smart intersections” that flash drivers a warning when pedestrians are predicted to be crossing.
- rodgerd 5y ago
  You have a higher opinion of people than I do. I've had someone threaten to kill me because he was trying to barge through a zebra crossing while I was on it, and he felt the need to get out of his car and have a go in person because I was, you know, blocking his car. People know. They don't care. They'd rather kill someone than slow down.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    It's not uncommon for drivers to get a big shot of adrenaline after a near miss, and turn that into anger instead of reflecting on their own actions. Sad commentary on human nature, I guess.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I'm not sure that comment really addresses the high speed crosswalk entry concerns. Sure there are some people out there who behave like your story, but not that many (and should be addressed by losing their license). Even with the right of way, it's in a pedestrian's best interest to slowly enter the crosswalk and check to make sure the vehicles are yielding. Some states make it illegal to run into traffic or cross while distracted (phone use). So yes, people driving should be going slow enough to avoid someone running into traffic. But then the runner should also slow to safely evaluate and cross.

matsemann 5y ago

Sounds to me like cars shouldn't be allowed to drive where pedestrians travel, if they can't really avoid driving people over. Edit: This Tom Scott video shows how a cyclist can be perfectly occluded by the A-pillar while both are moving https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU?t=55 https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU?t=55

ars 5y ago
It's hard enough being a pedestrian, let's not make it harder by limiting where people are allowed to cross (only intersections with dedicated left turn signals). If you meant limit the cars, obviously that'll never happen, so I assumed the more realistic interpretation.
- matsemann 5y ago
  I meant limit cars, yes. Not that I think it will happen in the US very soon, it's designed around them. As a European, the concept of jaywalking is so bizarre. Cities are for people, not cars. You can ban people from highways, but shouldn't ban them from walking in their own neighborhood.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Cars don't drive themselves, they are driven by people. The same people who are also pedestrians at times. The solution is not to try and ban cars, any more than it makes sense to ban pedestrians. The solution is to design the roads for multiple modes of transportation so everyone can get where they need to go.
    - matsemann 5y ago
      And well designed cities don't need much car usage. Thus my point about removing them. Not really just banning them, but making them obsolete by having better options.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago

itronitron 5y ago

Same here, most recent close call was about a month ago despite being fully aware of the blind spot but not expecting someone to be crossing on a 'don't walk' signal. 'A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads' has some very good information on this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17900759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17900759

worker767424 5y ago

For me, it's actually the rear view mirror. I can miss a car at a 4 way stop because of it.

rootusrootus 5y ago
For sure, I've had a few cars like that. Sometimes I could make it better by pushing the mirror up to the limit of travel (while it can still be aimed to see the road behind you). That puts it pretty close to the roof on some cars, reducing the impact of the blind spot. But it's not always doable on every model of car.

theluketaylor 5y ago

Modern A-pillar thickness has become a real problem. My biggest fear when driving my modern cars is losing track of a pedestrian, especially in the A-pillar. It's likely time for legislation on the field of view offered by modern A-pillars as many of the thickest pillars are to use lower grade steel to save costs while still meeting rollover and crush requirements. More expensive high strength steel and more compact airbags can bring A-pillar widths back into safer territory. I'm a lot less safe driving my vintage car around, but there isn't any chance I'll miss a pedestrian since the greenhouse is so great. Ottawa, Ontario just published a guide to building protected intersections: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/protectedintersection_dg_en.pdf https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/protectedi... A lot of these changes are not particularly expensive and can have a huge impact on safety by limiting how much time a pedestrian is vulnerable and forcing cars to fully turn so pedestrians are in direct vision rather than peripheral. For higher speed intersections we should be using a lot more roundabouts and things like diverging diamond to eliminate conflict between different travel modes and keep traffic flowing in a single direction.

mdasen 5y ago
I think one of the big things hidden in here is that auto makers are allowed to and incentivized to optimize for the safety of the passengers inside the vehicle and not pedestrians outside the vehicle. Modern cars have a huge lack of visibility. They've removed a lot of the glass so that they can get sturdier frames. However, that makes it harder for them to see pedestrians. I'd also note it makes it harder for cars behind to see the context of the road as well. I love being behind an old car. I can see straight through its rear window and out the front and see what is going on. I can anticipate stuff that I wouldn't be able to anticipate if I'm behind a newer vehicle where I can't see through the vehicle. I'd also note that the increasing size of vehicles is presenting a multi-faceted problem. 1) Higher hoods mean impacting pedestrians higher up putting the force into their internal organs and heads. 2) Higher hoods mean that your body will be pushed to the ground where the car can run over you and cause head injuries rather than being hit in the knees and flung onto the hood of the car where you are less likely to have as severe injuries. 3) Taller vehicles mean that drivers can't see what is going on as much. A 5'3" (average woman) pedestrian can be hidden behind a 6' vehicle while their head would bob above a 4'6" vehicle. A cyclist may be riding at 5'5", but they'll be completely obscured behind a 6' vehicle. If you're trying to make a left turn, oncoming traffic may be obscuring pedestrians and cyclists today in a way that it didn't in years past. I definitely get worrying about losing a pedestrian in an A-pillar. I find that cars are also often losing pedestrians behind other vehicles - vehicles that are tall enough to obscure pedestrians. We've allowed and encouraged auto makers to optimize for passenger safety. That's meant that they've removed the great greenhouse that provided good visibility and replaced it with more structure and airbags.

kirse 5y ago

In the motorcycling world oncoming left vehicles are basically the "Jesus take the wheel" scenario. Go left to avoid them and you're potentially in oncoming traffic, go right and you're trying to negotiate a developing mess with a driver who realizes they've made a mistake, or lastly attempt to brake and you might dump the bike or end up underneath a vehicle. A couple things I do when coming to intersections is almost always cover the brake, flash hi-beams if I think someone is about to take an aggressive jump, or sometimes point an index finger at the oncoming driver to catch their attention. You'd be surprised how many people subconsciously register that they're being pointed at and it gets them to consciously snap into focus. Somewhat related -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling

somewhereoutth 5y ago
Interesting. On my bicycle I sometimes point to where a car should stop when I have priority on a roundabout and am about to exit crossing over where they would enter. Seems to work.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> In the motorcycling world oncoming left vehicles are basically the "Jesus take the wheel" scenario. Years ago I nearly creamed a motorcycle after looking pretty much directly at him. The angles we were converging at meant that he basically disappeared into the background because there was no relative motion. Probably scared the crap out of him, and it certainly scared the crap out of me. That was when I started moving my head back and forth coming up to an intersection where I'm going to turn, because it introduces enough of a perspective change to make a moving motorcycle stick out. It's exactly the situation described in the fighter pilot article. The human brain is amazingly good at stitching together what appears to be a complete scene while actually losing pretty sizable chunks of it all the time. The other times I have close calls were 100% coincident with having a full car of passengers. I think we only have a certain amount of bandwidth, and taking up a bunch of it with noise reduces what's left to devote to vision. I also turn down the radio when I'm coming up to an unfamiliar area, or a situation that is obviously going to be complex to navigate.

bartread 5y ago

> IMO the problem with modern cars is the airbags in the A-pillar. The pillars have gotten so wide that you have to consciously bob your head around back and forth (like a fighter pilot, of course...) to look around both sides of it. Exactly this problem caused me to nearly kill someone the other night as I turned right around a roundabout (I live in the UK: we drive on the left, driver is on the right of the car). Nearly nailed a guy crossing the road as I came off it because he was hidden by the A-pillar. Fortunately my girlfriend, in the passenger seat, spotted him and yelled, otherwise he'd have been toast. The car has collision avoidance functionality but it didn't spot the guy either. So, yeah, airbags or not, I am not a fan of thick, heavy A-pillars, and especially because you can't rely on the car's "smarts" to bail you out if you do fail to spot something that's obscured by them.

necovek 5y ago

One of the things I noticed is that as "smaller" participants in traffic get faster, it gets exponentially harder to account for them. Eg. runners are harder to see because you need to be watching a much wider angle that is more likely to be obscured by something or other. Bicycles even more so. If you are not starting from a stop, my solution to avoid any close calls has always been to hover my foot over the brake on top of making my turns as perpendicular as possible (there are other reasons to do that too: I see cars tilt into the oncoming traffic lane, which slows oncoming traffic down and delays their left turn, making for fewer cars passing at that traffic light and increasing congestion). If there's any potential a pedestrian (think a small child or a short person) is obscured by any other object (a car, a street corner...), slow down even further even if you've got right of way.

chrisseaton 5y ago

I don't get why North Americans have people crossing at the same time as cars are turning. In the UK almost all junctions have either people crossing, or cars turning, but not both at the same time. Seems a super obvious idea when you write it out.

kleiba 5y ago
And make car drivers wait for precious seconds?? Heresy!
tgb 5y ago
It substantially increases pedestrian wait times though. In a grid city if I'm headed north east, I opportunistically take north or east, whichever is available. So I have no wait time at all for most of my journey, until the part when I have to go only north (say). A grid makes this the typical situation and placing a wait at every light makes the journey very tedious. It also slows down cars, of course. I'm sure this is the main reason it's not done - whether it's worth the risk, I'm not sure.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  Here in the NL, all turns are protected with a middle island for pedestrians. You hardly have to wait to cross a busy intersection on foot, at least to get halfway across.
namdnay 5y ago
I guess it's more efficient, because at a four-way intersection in the north-american system there are always pedestrians and cars crossing. Whereas in the standard european system, either cars going left are stopped in a dedicated lane, or pedestrians are waiting for the cars that are going left to finish. obviously that efficiency comes at the cost of a higher mortality :(
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I would have thought the UK way was more efficient because you can cross diagonally? In the US system you have to wait for two sets of lights to cross diagonally.

e40 5y ago

It's not just that. The number of times I've made eye contact with a left turner and they still pulled into the oncoming traffic lane is uncountable (for 25 years I talked to/from work each day, 3-6 miles). What's really annoying about this: they almost always get angry at me when they miscalculate the time it takes for me to walk (I'm faster than most) across the street and a car is coming the opposite direction. I've had people yell the f-word and other things to be also uncountable times, in this situation. We have a very car-centric culture.

golem14 5y ago

Maybe we should put a screen on the inside of the a column, so it appears transparent...

_carbyau_ 5y ago
I like it, now add "forward vision screens" with cameras down either side of the car and 50cm up off the roof. That way, when stuck in slow traffic, I can look for oncoming traffic before turning out at all. Maybe car driving will be the "killer app" for AR.

sangnoir 5y ago

> which is usually fine with something as big as a car I had a couple of near-misses at the same spot, with cars hidden behind the A-pillar. The intersection is prone to Constant Angular Velocity approaches - probably as a result of speed limits and layout. Witnessing a whole car appear out of nowhere is something, let me tell you! Fortunately, I had enough time to break on both occasions as I was facing a yield sign. I now have a head-bobbing habit, and haven't experienced surprises since.

pandaman 5y ago

While A-pillars are indeed too wide and can create a dangerous situation, in my experience the main problem in LA, at least, is that too many drivers have a habit of looking in the direction opposite to the turn while making a turn. Even if there had been a seamless glass bubble cabin, humans don't have wide enough field of view to see anything over their shoulder while looking over the opposite shoulder. I used to walk to work in LA and was amazed how many people do this. Could be the same in other cities but I've not been walking much elsewhere.