Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootusrootus | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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/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.

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.

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-expla...

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...

I really like this idea, if not just to raise the price of BMWs.

>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...

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..."

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.

>>>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

My understanding is that the reason soooo many modern vehicles have such high beltlines and flat front snouts is because of pedestrian safety regs.

https://www.hotcars.com/why-pedestrian-safety-ruining-car-de...

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.

> 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.

There is also a phenomenon where drivers (car and truck) just forget about motorcycles coming their way. They see it, they register it's there but then just... forget about it.

Imagine a car wants to turn and waits and a line of cars pass with a motorcycle at the end, then it's extremely dangerous for the motorcyclist. Because our brains interpret dangers relative to us, it sometimes just filters out the not-so-dangerous things. The motorcycle is relatively harmless to a car or truck thus drivers sometimes filter it out as if it doesn't exist.

What happens then is the car driver just waits for the cars to pass and then begins to turn while the motorcycle is still coming up, often resulting in a crash.

There is an easy fix, though: just say "motorcycle" out loud when this situation occures. It's really as easy as that.

> The angles we were converging at meant that he basically disappeared into the background because there was no relative motion.

This effect is demonstrated in this video about a particularly dangerous crossing in the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU

Yikes, just 15 seconds into the video, a car absolutely blows through the stop sign.

Yeah its terrifying. As he says "They are reckless & can see the main road is clear", blind spots are scary.

I wonder if it's at least partially because in the UK stop signs are pretty much non existent. I have only ever seen a handful in my life and people don't have this ingrained understanding that you absolutely have to stop at them and look around before moving - it's just a weirdly shaped give way sign to them.

It is a test failure if you do not stop the car and put on your handbrake in the UK. It is made quite clear what you are supposed to do.

People just can't be bothered to actually stop.

Yes, of course, but I think we have to acknowledge that it's a very uncommon sign in the UK, and the fact that you almost never come across it in your day to day driving might make you numb to it - and in like the car in the video, just blow right past it. Maybe someone who interacts with Stop signs every day and has to obey them on a regular basis wouldn't have done that.

I don't know of course, this is pure speculation

They're typically only used in situations where you actually do need to stop in order to adequately see what's coming. In the last city I lived in, there was one single stop sign, and we used to say that it was there just so that learner drivers could be taken past it and tested on it. Now I live in a small village and there is a genuine blind junction with historic buildings right down to the pavement, and there's a very appropriate stop sign there.

Yeah that's terrifying. He didn't mention a roundabout, seems like that would probably be about the best solution there to me.

He mentioned that curving the two sides of the stop-signed road so that they don't meet the main road at the same point anymore is an option, but it would cost £100,000, and there was local conservatism & conservation at play that would nix even that fairly simple idea. A roundabout would cost a lot more and create more change/disruption, so I'm sure that's even less likely to happen, and thus not even worth mentioning.

First comment on the video mentions that the road is gong to be fixed. There are probably a bunch of similar roads with the same problem but not the same publicity that aren't getting fixed though.

This also happens in aircraft. Blind spot and the angle caused this 2019 crash in Alaska. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT1omo5jBqs

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.

As a motorcyclist I can confirm. Left turning vehicles are enemy number 1. But all SMIDSY's (sorry mate, didn't see you) are extremely dangerous. He's video that talks about how saccades play a role - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0

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.

Adding a blinking yellow left arrow could help.

"blinking yellow left arrow" is the same thing as not having a protected turn at all.

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.

But it cues your brain that it might not be safe to turn left.

this is a change that's already rolling out nation-wide

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Arizona is like that.

NYC and a few pedestrian heavy areas have actually started doing the reverse; delayed lefts.

The idea is that pedestrians, cars, etc. get a headstart so that by the time the left is legal, any people or vehicles crossing will squarely be in the middle instead of to the side where they could be blocked by a pillar.

I think you and the person above you are talking about the same thing.

They're different things.

the parent comment is describing a scenario in which

straight (including pedestrians have green) -> straight gets red -> left gets green.

in NYC's LPIs, this is

all directions have red -> pedestrians get green -> straight + left get green with pedestrians

Not even just lefts; in SF now most[0] lights will show a pedestrian walk sign around 5 seconds before any light in that direction switches from red to green. So pedestrians will have a chance to make themselves seen before cars do anything.

It's also useful if you're a pedestrian going in the perpendicular direction. If your light turns yellow, you still have another 10 seconds to get across (5 seconds for the yellow->red transition, and then another 5 seconds before the opposing light turns green). Granted, this isn't universal (see below), so you still need to pay attention and sometimes hustle across.

[0] Weird that it's not all, but I still see many that turn simultaneously still.

Lefts in drive_on_right jurisdictions are privileged because they cross lanes of traffic. Privileged means they have to have priority on signal change - start and stop. In driver's Ed, it is taught that the first queued vehicle making a left turn can take it even though a light may have just turned to red when the opposing traffic has stopped. Similarly, a left turn signal is activated before the through signal to allow any queued left to turn and provide a gap to the traffic behind it to turn to any right lane if additional cars become queued in front unable to make the left turn. Further, drivers cannot be expected to keep track of and attempt to predict the movements of a crowd of people, only avoid hitting obstacles in their direction of motion. If any pedestrian cannot get across in 5 seconds, then a change to green on the parallel vehicle traffic lane could be mistaken as absolution from liability. The point is to reduce confusion. At crosswalks, pedestrians really only have one rule: Don't run out in front of a car, making it impossible for the driver to stop in time. Any start "delay" along with accelerated stop should occur on the pedestrian signal as people do not move in single file "lanes", but rather as a group that is able to handle a decreased queue elimination time with the expectation that the duration of the parallel through green is long enough for all queued pedestrians to cross.

> Privileged means they have to have priority on signal change - start and stop

Citation needed. Traffic laws vary widely based on the jurisdiction.

> If any pedestrian cannot get across in 5 seconds, then a change to green on the parallel vehicle traffic lane could be mistaken as absolution from liability.

No, if you hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk and they have the green, the driver would be at fault in a jurisdiction like NYC.

In Norway, you Are never allowed to enter the intersection on a red light. If you want to turn left, you move into the intersection when the light turns green, then stop if needed. At that point the light doesn’t matter to you anymore, and you proceed once the way is clear. With heavy traffic in the opposite direction, that often means after the light turns red.

Thats pretty much the same situation as over here, in Austria. Police is perfectly fine if you drive out of an intersection when it is red. But driving into it when it is red, can incur a HEFTY fine.

Also: A arrow on the signal means you can just go, a full blob means you have to be careful about other traffic.

So we have a few intersections where left turns are on a different timer, where ONLY the left turning traffic goes. Usually before the head on traffic gets green. Or where the arrow extends it for the left turning traffic, so they still are allowed to drive into the intersection when straight on wouldn't.

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.

simplifying decisions can also lead to extremely inefficient traffic patterns.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

> 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-yell...

[2] https://durhamnc.gov/1140/Flashing-Left-Turn-Arrow-Informati...

[3] https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/TrafficSignalsManagement/... (PDF)

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.

Yeah, it should probably be a blinking red arrow in order to be consistent. I'm sure some committee decided that wasn't different enough from normal red arrow

isn't flashing red a fail-safe triggered when the light controls fail that should be treated as a stop sign?

In practice that might work, but it's also a conflicting signal.

Blinking red would be a stop and proceed when safe sign. There’s no reason for each car to stop for a lot of these unprotected left turns.

> Lots of drivers don't understand this.

Not sure I believe this. Obviously it's a fuzzy statement but I don't think I've ever once in my life seen someone blatantly ignore oncoming traffic due to having an unprotected left signal.

Any one driver's experience is necessarily extremely limited, a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of all miles driven or traffic lights stopped at. You not having seen that happen should not be expected to be representative at all.

I have seen that happen, though fortunately there was enough time for both drivers to avoid a crash.

I've always thought the differences between the solid light and arrow was too minor for the average driver. I mean, look at the skills of the average driver.

In Washington state unprotected lefts weren't legal maneuvers for quite a while. They were introduced gradually starting at intersections where it would be a traffic benefit, for signaling the state adopted a blinking yellow arrow that then goes solid to signify the 'almost over' meaning of a typical yellow light.

One thing common in Texas is red light + green arrow to indicate a protected left/right turn. I suspect it's a lot easier to parse quickly for most people than green circle vs green arrow.

Is it? I see people sitting stopped at green arrows all the time because the red stop light takes priority in their mind. Presenting clearly contradictory signals at the same time can't be the best option.

Yeah honestly I'm not sure how would I take that. Maybe expect it to be a malfunctioning light? When presented with both 'stop' and 'go' you can bet I'm not going unless I explicitly verify that nothing is coming.

Really? The grandparent says it's common in Texas, but in my experience it's pretty common in all of the US (at least in urban and suburban areas), and shouldn't be surprising or odd to anyone who's learned to drive in the US or has been driving here more than a few months.

But I agree with you that you should verify that no one is coming in that case; that's sound advice for most all situations, really.

It may be a kneejerk reaction combined with me being very rurally located for work for these past 4 years, I think there are 3 traffic lights within a 45 minute drive and none of them will show red and green at the same time except in separate lanes when straight is red and left has a green.

The protected left should be the middle yellow with an associated cutout for the left arrow inside the light, with the normal through yellow turning on both the green and yellow left turn arrow, but likely way too many years of convention to make the change.

Are you referring to the traffic signals that have five options? That is, going clockwise starting at bottom left: green arrow, yellow arrow, standard red light, standard yellow light, standard green light

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8MXdKQHddMk/maxresdefault.jpg

I've lived in multiple states including California, and this is the first I've heard of red right turn arrows meaning no right on red. Good to know.

I believe I've also seen red right turn arrows in Pennsylvania, but they don't have any special meaning there. But I couldn't say for sure.

Huh, interesting. I've also lived in multiple states including California, and I've always understood a right turn arrow to mean no turn on red.

I wonder where the driver education here is breaking down.

Learned to drive (a long time ago) in PA and now live in CO. You’re right it’s all weird.

In PA, red arrow is just a regular red light that happens to be in a turn-only lane. All laws are the same as normal red light, the lane marking restrict your movement.

In CO, red arrow means stop and no turn on red regardless of lane markings.

Just about all traffic control laws are standardized federally except lights. That feels like the most important one to reduce confusion.

> a red right arrow ... means you cannot turn right on red

This varies a lot by state. Several allow turning (after a stop) on a red arrow. Some even allow turning left on a red arrow, if it's onto a one-way street.

https://driversprep.com/red-arrows-permit-practice-test/

That's seems unnecessarily confusing. Why even bother with the red arrow at all then? I guess it could be useful in cases where the straight-through traffic is green, but you want right-turning traffic to stop before turning, but is that common? Or even a useful thing? Like, I feel like if you've set things up that way, maybe the intersection is just designed poorly.

It is definitely confusing. In Washington state, right red arrow does not prohibit turning on red. I learned this after people started beeping at me to go at such an intersection. And yes, that intersection (Queen Anne and Mercer in Seattle) is confusing and poorly designed.

MA allows right on red arrow after stop (absent a sign to the contrary). There are intersections where right on red is prohibited to protect a pedestrian walk phase that’s aligned with the green for straight ahead traffic.

I don't think I've seen many intersections with red arrows unless there is a dedicated turn lane, where green yellow and red are all arrows. If it's a right turn in a right on red jurisdiction, without a sign expressing no right on red, why would red arrow be different than red circle?

> 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.

This is logical. But, I've seen firsthand in Quebec (the city of Sherbrooke) where that's not the case. A driver may have a green arrow at the SAME TIME that a pedestrian has a walk signal. And in St. Thomas USVI I've seen opposing traffic have conflicting signals too (green arrow at same time oncoming traffic has green to go straight!)

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Every time I get into a discussion like this, I feel like I meet a bunch of people who have only ever lived in very dense urban environments. Even in medium cities (using Portland, Oregon as a convenient example), cars make sense. The density just isn't there to support eliminating cars except for a few blocks in the densest area of downtown.

I think this highlights the best path forward. Large-but-not-Manhattan cities should eliminate cars in the densest areas of their downtown, where it makes sense. Jersey City did this in their downtown area, and it seems to be going well.

As people who want to live without cars move to the downtown zone, the area adapts to meet their needs (in terms of the types of stores etc). If the policy proves popular, the city has the option of spreading the "car-less" zone as the dense urban core grows. Similar to suburban sprawl, but inverted, I suppose.

I grew up in a city of 2500 people, with vast distances. Of course people used cars for much, and no public transport. But the city centre was designed such that you parked your care one place, and then walked between all the stores. No having to drive through a big parking lot and crossing a street to get to the next store. I lived about 2km away from school, and biked, skied or walked every day, since it was designed a path for that. That path/road was completely separated from any roads cars would travel. So very safe. No one I know of got driven by cars to school.

Ironically, those making it unsafe for kids to walk to school, are parents driving their kids being short on time.

Point being, I have not only ever lived in dense urban environments. Secondly, that even those non-dense are perfectly viable to make safe for humans, and use less cars.

And I wonder how deliveries (especially furniture), emergency vehicles, and people with disabilities are impacted.

The first two aren't cars, so that's easy. You don't need to absolutely eliminate vehicles. For disabilities it's more complicated but at the very least you've already cut 90% of traffic.

People are addicted to cars and will never consider using anything else if you let them. In Australia this is true also. I have never owned a car here, lived in 4 different cities. Never needed a car. But most others think they need to.

I grew up in a country town. No car = no life.

Now I live in Melbourne. We use the car very little but would never be without one. I have too many friends in the country and without a car you aren't getting to them without hassle and $. And so the balance of convenience vs cost means we keep the car.

There's much more to most countries than just cities, and completely changing traffic rules entirely when going into car-hostile territory will continue to cause suburbia and CBD's to exit city cores.

The US need to look at German or Dutch traffic regulations and road constructions. Optimized in an almost perfect form for both motorised vehicles and pedestrians. But I guess that's never gonna happen

Or we could actually test people. The drivers test is a joke here. Most "accidents" are really the result of someone making a bad choice - to look at their phone, to exceed safe speeds, to run a red light (impatience is probably the biggest in my opinion), etc.

Where I live, getting a driver's license takes a long time, money and involves lots of training. Still have many problems. Maybe the average driver is a bit better here, but what's needed is a systematic change. Can't rely on people behaving better, they never will. Design stuff better instead.

Systemic change could be good, but depends what it actually is.

The original suggestion was complete segregation of pedestrians and cars, which isn't completely feasible (only in relatively small areas and with exceptions).

You know that a car that is on the road has a person in it. Calling a motorist a car is objectifying that person and not recognizing their needs and existence. I'm all for nice pedestrian areas of cities, but the power of cities is allowing people to be able to meet and interact with lots of other people. Cars lets people do that better than any other device we have invented yet. Go where you want, when you want and can carry literally a ton of passengers and cargo, if desired. We just need to make cars work better, not ban them.

I think American pro and anti-car people should join together and support a massive tunneling project for major cities that would reduce traffic congestion by allowing cars, busses and trains to run in them. Convert the huge interstate highways in cities into low speed, one lane roads, separated bike lanes, and strip parks with pedestrian paths. Getting all that high speed traffic underground would be great. We should do that for an infrastructure bill instead of the one we got. Some actual new infrastructure that would help people out tremendously on the scale of the interstate highway system.

And I would agree, jaywalking being illegal is not so great (but it's not illegal on the small roads where peoples' houses are generally).

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.

And make car drivers wait for precious seconds?? Heresy!

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.

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.

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 :(

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.

> 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.

We have this in the US as well, but only at more-busy intersections that warrant a dedicated left-turn signal arrow. Pedestrians who could get hit by left-turning cars are given a don't-walk sign while the left arrow is green.

We do have this. We have this all over the country! But either nobody knows about it, or they ignore it.

When the "WALK" sign turns to a flashing "DONT WALK" (or their equivalent symbols) pedestrians are not supposed to enter the intersection.

Pedestrians already in the intersection can safely complete their crossing, but if you're on the sidewalk, you aren't supposed to step into the crosswalk.

It's basically the yellow light for pedestrians.

This is 100% completely ignored everywhere that I have been. Especially in big cities.

Hmmm but I thought a car is usually allowed to cross the pedestrian crossing, especially if turning right, even when the pedestrians are on WALK?

The car is supposed to yield to pedestrian traffic. Which usually means slowly inching towards the walkers in an intimidating manner if they don’t hurry it up.

This doesn't stop vehicles in an unprotected left turning and creaming pedestrians. Unless the signal also has a red turn arrow.

> When the "WALK" sign turns to a flashing "DONT WALK" (or their equivalent symbols) pedestrians are not supposed to enter the intersection.

This is no longer true in San Francisco (and possibly CA as a whole?). Pedestrians are allowed to enter the intersection when the don't-walk sign is already flashing, as long as they are out by the time it goes solid (in practice this means you usually will only do this if the flashing don't-walk sign is accompanied by a countdown timer). I believe this law change happened at the beginning of 2020.

As someone who is a consummate jaywalker, I love this, though I do think it's questionable from a safety perspective. Then again, is it? If someone is already moving in the intersection when the light turns green, oncoming traffic should be able to easily see the person. And they'll just be starting to accelerate from a stop, so (with the exception of idiots with high-perf engines who just need to show them off all the time) the cars will be moving pretty slowly. They can stop again just as quickly if they need to, and pedestrians still have a good amount of time to get out of the intersection.

This "already moving in the intersection" phenomenon is (I believe) what drives a semi-recent light timing change: the pedestrian signals at many intersections now transition to "walk" about 5 seconds before the drivers in that direction transition from red to green. This gives time for pedestrians to get into the intersection and be seen, before drivers start making left and right turns into the crosswalks.

> In the UK almost all junctions have either people crossing, or cars turning, but not both at the same time.

This sounds super strange from a continental European standard as well. Do you mean that cars and pedestrians are never crossing these intersections at the same time?

In any case, the UK also has at least a few cities where pedestrians often have no dedicated signal and are (in these junctions) left to fend for themselves while crossing due to the lack of signals and lack of priority. I don’t understand that situation at all.

> Do you mean that cars and pedestrians are never crossing these intersections at the same time?

Well yeah... because that'd be dangerous if they went at the same time wouldn't it?

No. Have you visited cities in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, etc.? Most larger intersections have several crossings (1-2 on each side) that are signaled appropriately to allow pedestrians, cars, and often trams and/or bicycles simultaneous but separate right-of-way.

In my experience, it’s nearly always clear to everyone where they can go while moving traffic around quite efficiently. The UK system seems to either keep pedestrians entirely separate or throw them into the deep end with car-prioritized signaling.

(However, the latter may only be in the city I’m in at the moment, as I at least haven’t seen this in London.)

Seems bonkers to me to have people and cars in the same space at the same time.

You mention right of way but it's no comfort to me that I have right of way over a car when the car is trying to push through or running me over!

> Seems bonkers to me to have people and cars in the same space at the same time.

That seems pretty unavoidable to me, considering we put sidewalks right next to roads. As a pedestrian, I don't want to wait for both directions of traffic to have their turns to cross before I get mine. Though it can be handy if I need to cross diagonally.

Pedestrians in the UK need to wait until all traffic are red, then they can cross the junction (even diagonally).

This is indeed different from continental Europe, as a pedestrian I kinda preferred the system in the UK, but you could wait quite a long time.

This is sort of the case in the US at some crossings. Crossings where there is a separate signal for left turns will turn on the don't-walk sign on that side when the left-turn signal is green.

Occasionally I do see intersections where there is a signal phase where car traffic is red in both directions, and pedestrians get the walk signal in all directions (which is extra handy if you need to go diagonally across the intersection). But these are pretty rare.

Most intersections don't have left-turn signals at all for cars, so yes, there will be pedestrians crossing when cars are turning. And I guess for right turns it's nearly always the case that pedestrians are crossing when cars are turning.

It's not great, but I think there's a trade off to be made. As a frequent pedestrian in a city, I don't want to have to wait until both directions of cars have their turn before I can cross. I get that the current situation does increase the risk to me, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. (But I also jaywalk through don't-walk signs all the time if traffic is clear, so perhaps I'm not the best person to make this judgment.)

> I don't get why North Americans have people crossing at the same time as cars are turning.

Its the same in Australia as well, the cars wait for pedestrians and then proceed with the turn till the light is green for them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Most drivers are just dumb. I’ve had two guys and one gal threaten to fight me over the last 10ish years, but many, many more close calls.

Case in point, I had a guy who nearly killed me on a dark, rainy night. He circled around to apologize (pro tip to drivers: don’t do this, I thought he was coming back to fight or shoot me since I let a few profane words slip).

"Most drivers are just dumb."

This sounds like an extreme stereotype.

This is why I practically never run within ten feet of a car's front at intersections. If they've stopped, made eye contact, and nodded or waved me on, then maybe. At least once a week, I encounter a driver who almost certainly would have hit me if I hadn't followed this rule.

One counter-intuitive result is that I cross more often against the "walk" light than with it. If I have the walk light, it usually means the cars next to me also have a green light (which is kind of insane really). Some of them will be turning, and they're far more likely to do so without looking than someone turning at a red. The A-pillar visibility issue also affects them more. It's generally safer to wait for a red light and look for a suitable gap in the cross traffic (plus right turners).

Also, a pox on anybody who tucks a crosswalk fifteen to twenty feet down the smaller street. Yes, it's further out of traffic, but it's also further out of where any driver might be looking. I will always stay in a direct line (and pay close attention to traffic) rather than take the extra steps to destroy my own safety.

The best trick is to avoid running anywhere near cars at all. Find a nice track. Of course, don't drive there, cycle there or use a scooter. What's the point if you are making the world unsafe for others.

Generally better on the joints to avoid asphalt and concrete anyways.

> Find a nice track.

Get used to the idea that not everyone lives in the same circumstances as you. The closest tracks to me are at schools, 1-2km away, and reserved for use by the students during prime outdoor-activity hours. That's probably better than for a lot of people, and even then it's nowhere near an equivalent option.

Oh yeah, also we have real winters here. Streets are plowed. Tracks aren't.

> cycle there

Hardly better. Car/bike interactions are no picnic either, and I'm also tired of cyclists thinking they're better than pedestrians somehow. It's just not so. In this case I suspect they're even worse for safety, adding yet another mismatched speed and cutting into everyone's margin of error by a greater amount. I don't see anything good or honorable about discouraging people from a healthy activity - running on streets and/or sidewalks - that can be done safely if one takes appropriate care.

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.

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

> 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.

> 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.

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_...

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.

Those figures at the top show a view pointed much more at the car than a sliver. I'm not sure how much I can interpret from this beyond the general idea. What are the actual viewing angles in a real car?

Also why not make the mirrors capture a slightly wider field so you can have the best of both...?

Thanks to another commenter I found better pic of correct mirror placement: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/road-safety/14154...

The rear and side mirrors overlap but only further behind the car and side mirrors don't show the road far behind you at all.

> Also why not make the mirrors capture a slightly wider field so you can have the best of both...?

Probably because it would require either much larger mirrors or much more curved (and thus making things even smaller than they already are).

There are cars with much larger mirrors. If you notice, in most countries cars/trucks that don't have rear window (and thus no rear view mirror) are required to have larger side mirrors that can also cover the road behind the truck.

Though trucks have other visibility problems that come mostly from the fact of just how high the driver sits.

If that's the correct mirror placement, then adjusting it to barely see your own car is less than five degrees off. If that's a dealbreaker than I'd say it's definitely worth the slight mirror size increase or slight magnification change to make the field of view five degrees wider.

Do following exercise.

Park parallel to a road with slow traffic.

Observe cars coming from behind you as they transition from rear view mirror to side mirror to your peripheral vision.

Make your own decision on what is right or not (it is your safety anyway).

I prefer to have two small blind spots that can't fit a cyclist in either of them than one larger that can fit a small car.

> I prefer to have two small blind spots that can't fit a cyclist in either of them than one larger that can fit a small car.

And I'd rather have only one small blind spot, while being better able to judge where things in my side mirror are relative to my car. And this wouldn't require a big change to the mirror, only a quite small one, if that diagram is accurate. Also, the field of view shouldn't be so narrow that a 4 degree tilt makes a blind spot too big (my head moves more than that all the time!).

If you can see your car at the inner edge you have the mirror set incorrectly.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjus...

In my automobiles even with side mirrors set correctly there is still a small blind spot but it's much much less. I thoroughly suggest you try this technique.

For parking you can easily move your head over to adjust the angle the mirror and once again see behind for backing up.

You altered the meaning of their statement by cutting off the defining portion of it so you could go off about something completely different, they're clearly talking about the blind spot formed by the A-pillar, which isn't really a matter of "caring".

And to top it off your point doesn't make sense...

> 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.

a) Your mirrors are supposed to be pointed at the road behind you, not showing you the side of your car.

b) How are you able to tell what their mirrors are pointed at from the outside? Every car has different mounting points for the mirrors, the magnification and FOV can vary, the person's seating position can significantly vary, etc.

Yes, I am still talk about that blind spot.

What I mean is that people don't care for other blind spots or risk of kids running from behind a car.

It means they haven't "forgot" about the A-pillar blind spot. They just don't care.

> a) Your mirrors are supposed to be pointed at the road behind you, not showing you the side of your car.

Now, they do not. The rear view mirror is supposed to be pointed at the road behind you. Side mirrors serve vital function of filling your blindspot formed between the cone of rear view mirror and your peripheral vision.

This is different in a truck. In a truck you don't have rear view mirror and so your side mirrors actually need to point at the road behind. But you will also notice they are much larger for that reason.

Here in Poland it is illegal to drive your car with the vision through the rear view mirror obstructed. That only makes sense if the side mirrors are not supposed to cover the road behind you.

> b) How are you able to tell what their mirrors are pointed at from the outside?

How to tell without offending you... it is called physics.

The mirror works reversibly. If I can see their face in their mirror it means they can see my face in the mirror -- a face in the car directly behind their car.

> Here in Poland it is illegal to drive your car with the vision from the rear view mirror obstructed. That only makes sense if the side mirrors are not supposed to cover same angles as rear view mirror.

It's physically impossible for your side mirrors to show exactly what your rear view mirror does (since there's a whole car in the way...), so no matter how your side mirrors are adjusted, your rear view mirror is serving a function and shouldn't be obscured.

And the mirrors work the opposite of how you think:

If you point your side mirrors and your rear mirror at the road behind you, they will show you different views, not the same: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/road-safety/14154...

If you point your side mirror so they show you the side of your car, they will show you an overlapping view of what your rear view mirror does on top of significantly reducing what you see on either side of your car: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/road-safety/14154...

In the EU the driver's side mirror is allowed to be convex which is all the more reason to not waste a large portion of the view on looking at the side of your car. There should be just barely any of your car visible in your driver side mirror

In the haste to prove your (obviously invalid) point you even forgot to read the article from which the image you have linked.

The image you linked is actually an example of incorrect mirror setup (and even has the word "incorrect" in the file name).

Here is the link to the parent article which you conveniently (or hastily) skipped: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/168258-eliminatin...

Here is the excerpt describing the image which you have linked:

"Anyway, people have a variety of opinions regarding how to best adjust their mirrors, and almost all of them are wrong. Why are they wrong? They’re wrong because they intentionally create blind spots for the sake of making sure drivers can see things that are entirely irrelevant. Most road users have their ORVMs adjusted like below"

Here is the link to the correct mirror placement:

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/road-safety/14154...

I'm not sure you can read English.

I linked to TWO PICTURES, the first is the CORRECT way with mirrors facing the ROAD, the second is the WRONG WAY mirrors NOT FACING THE ROAD.

If you have eyes, working eyes, look at both pictures. Which picture has the mirrors facing the road, and which picture has the mirrors facing the car? (Hint: Your wrong way is shown in the incorrect picture, where the mirror is facing the car)

You can't even see I posted TWO links and you have the audacity to call my point invalid and claim I'm conveniently skipping things, maybe pick up some reading glasses to go with your newfound reading skills before you reply.

How To Set Your Side Mirrors:

1. Put your head against the side window.

2. Adjust the mirror so that you can (just barely) not see the side of your car.

3. Put your head above the centre console.

4. Ditto for the right mirror.

This is how the mirrors are designed to function, right from their very invention. You will have no/minimal blind spots. Yes, you can not see your car in the mirrors. That is okay: you do not need to see your own car, you need to see other cars.

That is exactly the procedure I am using.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com