3 ms·

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

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.
- Glawen 5y ago
  Definitely not in Europe, EuroNCAP added a pedestrian test a few years ago, and the test forced automakers to change their design for pedestrians in mind. https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
  - pde3 5y ago
    In addition to tests, I wonder if anyone has thought about a risk pool where car manufacturers pay in (or are paid out) according to whether their vehicles cause more or fewer pedestrian & cyclist fatalities. That would give them a clean incentive to optimise for reducing risk to others...
    - HappySweeney 5y ago
      I really like this idea, if not just to raise the price of BMWs.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >We've allowed and encouraged auto makers to optimize for passenger safety. Well we've outlawed all the other options and they're not gonna just pack it in and go out of business so what else would they do? The automakers are in this[1] situation. [1] https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/6e/76e2389d-3598-5751-98dc-7f8a2a996054/50b8e07da3061.preview-699.jpg?crop=699%2C393%2C0%2C75&resize=699%2C393&order=crop%2Cresize https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette... They'd be happy to build 75mpg tin cans for the consenting adults who want them but the amount of hand wringing that would cause (were it even legal in any practical sense) would start a fire. I'm already imagining the Frontline intro now "Mrs Soandso's son was driving one of these when he rear ended a semi trailer..."
  - i_am_proteus 5y ago
    There exist legal 75mpg tin cans for consenting adults, only they have two wheels rather than four, and the rider gets wet when it rains and sweats when it's hot.

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.

Glawen 5y ago
Definitely not in Europe, EuroNCAP added a pedestrian test a few years ago, and the test forced automakers to change their design for pedestrians in mind. https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
- pde3 5y ago
  In addition to tests, I wonder if anyone has thought about a risk pool where car manufacturers pay in (or are paid out) according to whether their vehicles cause more or fewer pedestrian & cyclist fatalities. That would give them a clean incentive to optimise for reducing risk to others...
  - HappySweeney 5y ago
    I really like this idea, if not just to raise the price of BMWs.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>We've allowed and encouraged auto makers to optimize for passenger safety. Well we've outlawed all the other options and they're not gonna just pack it in and go out of business so what else would they do? The automakers are in this[1] situation. [1] https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/6e/76e2389d-3598-5751-98dc-7f8a2a996054/50b8e07da3061.preview-699.jpg?crop=699%2C393%2C0%2C75&resize=699%2C393&order=crop%2Cresize https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette... They'd be happy to build 75mpg tin cans for the consenting adults who want them but the amount of hand wringing that would cause (were it even legal in any practical sense) would start a fire. I'm already imagining the Frontline intro now "Mrs Soandso's son was driving one of these when he rear ended a semi trailer..."
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  There exist legal 75mpg tin cans for consenting adults, only they have two wheels rather than four, and the rider gets wet when it rains and sweats when it's hot.