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.
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.
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.
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.
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-co...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_econo...
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.
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.
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.
I know I sometimes find myself in positions that I know well to avoid, but sometimes it takes a second for it to be realized. My favorite is being aligned next to a semi's trailer wheels. I will slow down to avoid sitting in that spot when moving, not during stop-n-go. So I understand it's sometimes obvious after the fact.
Because you believe the driver has no incentive to change lanes, and so there is low probability they will change lanes unexpectedly?
I'm not saying you should hang out next to cars all the time, but it's better than in a car, where you might have 3 feet of buffer.
Whereas, when there's heavier traffic, you can't help being in someone's blind spot. In this case, I will usually speed up to being at least next to them, so I'm sure they can see me, and then I'll let the driver pass me, so the last idea they have is, _I just passed that moto/where is that moto I just passed?_
Overall, being in someone's blind spot is by definition, risky. And it serves no purpose, and has a clear remedy. Whatever. Ride you ride.
Good luck. Keep your head up.
How is that ever safer than being behind someone? You can control the following distance if you're behind someone. You can't make someone behind you pay attention or stop, and you can't make someone beside you not change lanes without looking. Why would you ever want to be in their direction of travel?
Seriously, please explain your logic on this. I'm flabbergasted.
You can accelerate or decelerate to solve the problem, or maybe do a little swerve. But you don't know when you're in the blind spot.
Another problem are cars merging onto the road from a stand-still. Driver looks left, sees empty road. Starts merging and whoops they just cut you off. You were hiding behind the pillar in the moment they looked. You can't know this happened until it's too late.
This is why as a car driver I always take one last look at the road while already starting to move but before blocking the road. Most drivers don't do this.