5 ms·

There’s a lot of evidence that larger vehicles are massive threats to pedestrians. I’m not sure what the evidence for huge A-pillars as a threat is, but if it’

There’s a lot of evidence that larger vehicles are massive threats to pedestrians. I’m not sure what the evidence for huge A-pillars as a threat is, but if it’s worse than larger vehicles it does not in any way change the fact that larger vehicles are indeed a massive threat.

datameta 3y ago
Quite literally in part due to mass.
jtriangle 3y ago
Huge A-pillars are a threat because of the blind spot they create, specifically while turning right. All roof pillars have increased in size in order for the occupants to survive rollover crashes, but the side effect is blind spots. Further compounded by interior trim containing airbags and audio gear.
- xethos 3y ago
  > All roof pillars have increased in size in order for the occupants to survive rollover crashes And they've had to get bigger to be stronger, and need to be stronger due to increased size and weight of modern vehicles. I'm not saying it's not an issue. But I am saying "Thanks, Obama" for the CAFE regulations passed under him that pushed OEMs to make larger and larger vehicles - because a larger footprint leads to less stringent fuel consumption requirements.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    Nice try there with the FUD. The CAFE regulations favoring trucks and SUVs have been around since the 1970s. The Obama era regulations extended those rules to heavy-duty trucks and commercial vehicles, which were not previously subject to fuel economy rules.
    - xethos 3y ago
      Note that I specifically called out footprint From [0] (first) or wikipedia [1] (second), if you prefer. From mobile, so I hope you'll pardon any formatting issues > In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are. A car such as the Honda Fit, with its footprint of 40 square feet, has to achieve 61 mpg CAFE, or 43 mpg IRL by 2025 to comply with regulations. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a full-size truck like the Ford F-150, with a footprint of 75 square feet, only needs to hit 30 mpg CAFE, or 23 mpg IRL, by the same timeframe. > Starting in 2011, the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint, a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle's wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cutoff values.[9] CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint [0] https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/ https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-co... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_econo...
Swizec 3y ago
Here's a video about an intersection that had to be redesigned due to A-pillars. Vehicles approaching from opposite ends could hide in each other's blind spots and crash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgpE6wjF30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgpE6wjF30 As a motorcyclist, I hide in people's A-pillar blind spots all the time. It's quite unnerving.
- BitwiseFool 3y ago
  Interesting video, but I can't help but think the roadway is now worse. It's disjointed and there are two intersections instead of one. Why not install a red light or a roundabout?
  - Swizec 3y ago
    Making it "worse" is the point. The practice is known as traffic calming road design – https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/designing-streets-people/designing-for-motorists/traffic-calming-strategies/ https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-... For example: Many rural towns put a giant unnecessary corner on the road entering the town. Forcing you to slow down and obey the speed limit. Or the road splits in two just to go around a pretty sculpture someone decided to put in the middle of the road. Again to force you to slow down naturally.
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    > the roadway is now worse Worse for whom? If it has the intended effect (and apparently it does), it's certainly not worse for the cyclists who were getting hurt. > Why not install a red light or a roundabout? Tom Scott explains the reasons for not installing traffic lights or speed bumps in the original video. On top of those, if drivers are not even reducing their speed at the stop sign, what would make them do that for a red light? I'm not sure how a roundabout is better for anyone than the staggered junction. It's certainly worse for the cyclist on the main road, who would have to pay a lot more attention to a lot more places, and also reduce speed. It's certainly worse for drivers on the main road, who lose their right-of-way. It's unlikely to be (much?) better to the drivers on the side road, who still have to go through junctions - only this time they're between the road and the roundabout and vice-versa.

datameta 3y ago

Quite literally in part due to mass.

jtriangle 3y ago

Huge A-pillars are a threat because of the blind spot they create, specifically while turning right. All roof pillars have increased in size in order for the occupants to survive rollover crashes, but the side effect is blind spots. Further compounded by interior trim containing airbags and audio gear.

xethos 3y ago
> All roof pillars have increased in size in order for the occupants to survive rollover crashes And they've had to get bigger to be stronger, and need to be stronger due to increased size and weight of modern vehicles. I'm not saying it's not an issue. But I am saying "Thanks, Obama" for the CAFE regulations passed under him that pushed OEMs to make larger and larger vehicles - because a larger footprint leads to less stringent fuel consumption requirements.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  Nice try there with the FUD. The CAFE regulations favoring trucks and SUVs have been around since the 1970s. The Obama era regulations extended those rules to heavy-duty trucks and commercial vehicles, which were not previously subject to fuel economy rules.
  - xethos 3y ago
    Note that I specifically called out footprint From [0] (first) or wikipedia [1] (second), if you prefer. From mobile, so I hope you'll pardon any formatting issues > In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are. A car such as the Honda Fit, with its footprint of 40 square feet, has to achieve 61 mpg CAFE, or 43 mpg IRL by 2025 to comply with regulations. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a full-size truck like the Ford F-150, with a footprint of 75 square feet, only needs to hit 30 mpg CAFE, or 23 mpg IRL, by the same timeframe. > Starting in 2011, the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint, a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle's wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cutoff values.[9] CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint [0] https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-station-wagons/ https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-co... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_econo...

Swizec 3y ago

Here's a video about an intersection that had to be redesigned due to A-pillars. Vehicles approaching from opposite ends could hide in each other's blind spots and crash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgpE6wjF30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpgpE6wjF30 As a motorcyclist, I hide in people's A-pillar blind spots all the time. It's quite unnerving.

BitwiseFool 3y ago
Interesting video, but I can't help but think the roadway is now worse. It's disjointed and there are two intersections instead of one. Why not install a red light or a roundabout?
- Swizec 3y ago
  Making it "worse" is the point. The practice is known as traffic calming road design – https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/designing-streets-people/designing-for-motorists/traffic-calming-strategies/ https://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-... For example: Many rural towns put a giant unnecessary corner on the road entering the town. Forcing you to slow down and obey the speed limit. Or the road splits in two just to go around a pretty sculpture someone decided to put in the middle of the road. Again to force you to slow down naturally.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  > the roadway is now worse Worse for whom? If it has the intended effect (and apparently it does), it's certainly not worse for the cyclists who were getting hurt. > Why not install a red light or a roundabout? Tom Scott explains the reasons for not installing traffic lights or speed bumps in the original video. On top of those, if drivers are not even reducing their speed at the stop sign, what would make them do that for a red light? I'm not sure how a roundabout is better for anyone than the staggered junction. It's certainly worse for the cyclist on the main road, who would have to pay a lot more attention to a lot more places, and also reduce speed. It's certainly worse for drivers on the main road, who lose their right-of-way. It's unlikely to be (much?) better to the drivers on the side road, who still have to go through junctions - only this time they're between the road and the roundabout and vice-versa.