> Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them.

Those pedestrians do have the right of way; you need to have another look at the Highway Code.

This is such a British response.

Obviously that's what the law says, yes. But if they hop into someone's blind spot, it won't matter to their family much that they were in the right.

It will matter to you when you’re sentenced, though.

Speaking as a fellow immigrant, your attitude is what gives immigrants a bad name worldwide.

Well the onus is obviously on a driver to make sure they see what they need to see. And that they drive a vehicle that allows them to see things.

That doesn't mean the pedestrians should not be careful...

Yes, I agree with both of those statements. If you read the original statement before the "tut tut" response, you will note that I was only suggesting the A pillars introduce dangerous blind spots. I understand how that could be confused on other platforms, but I expected folks on HN to extend the benefit of the doubt that posters are not generally oblivious to the law. So the conversation derailed.

You led with "people just hop right out onto zebra crossings expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them." I think framing it this way was a mistake and the cause of your frustration. People in zebra crossings do have the right of way, regardless of whether they hopped there or what there expectations are, full stop.

Your point about modern A pillars is right on the money.

Yes, that's right. The folks in this thread just got really worked up thinking that I disagreed with that point, which distracted from my message which was about the A pillar.

You chose to buy the car with the big blind spots. You’re responsible for checking your blind spots, by moving your head as necessary. This is part of the driving test.

Your poor consumer choices do not absolve you of your responsibilities and obligations.

I think I've just lost 10 IQ points in this thread.

YES! OF COURSE. I SAID IT'S A LIABILITY. I AM SHARING INFORMATION, PERHAPS TO AFFECT FUTURE CONSUMER CHOICE.

the sad thing, in a way, is that the law entitles the pedestrian here but doesn't protect them. One could make an argument that cars which take the "visual" away from the driver should simply be illegal. Why can they even be sold ?

(ok ... trying to be pointy. As a rarely-driver and not-car-owner I do not feel much sympathy for drivers-of-hazards; because you can't care since you drive a car that makes it impossible to care means others should "do your job" ? That's victim inversion)

> Those A pillars are MASSIVE liabilities in the UK where people just hop right out onto "zebra crossings" expecting the right-of-way to be yielded to them.

They're also just MASSIVE.

I keep hearing about how "SUVs" are dangerous for pedestrians because you can't see them, but I've got a far better view out the front of my elderly Range Rover than I do in for example the nice little Kia Niro EVs or Renault Zoes we had at work.

Modern cars have so much crap with sensors hanging off the middle of the windscreen you basically can't see anything that's not immediately in front of the driver, and then they have these huge thick door pillars that block the rest.

I move my neck, head, and eyes to look around the A pillar in my vehicle to verify I don’t hit anybody. Yes, every time I start moving forward and there’s a pedestrian crossing in front of me.

I suggest doing the same thing unless your cervical vertebrae are fused together. If that’s the case, I understand your concern.

Yes, obviously this is what is required.

> and there’s a pedestrian crossing in front of me

This is wrong. You have to do it every time because the pedestrian is in your blind spot.

I like Teslas Forward Collision Warning system which alerts me if it sees the obstacle such as car, a corner, or pedestrian on a path.

there is also Active collision avoidance that will adjust vehicle if it senses a car on the nearby lane about to hit my side

I think these safety systems need to be mandatory

There have been several studies showing driver assistance systems cause a psychological shift that leads to drivers not paying attention. I guess we have to ask ourselves if we want to encourage people to pay attention while driving, or just leave it up to the latest vibe-coded OTA update Tesla's pushing out.

I'm glad backup cameras are mandatory, though.

Nothing that cant be solved with another sensor inside cabin )))

Kafka was way ahead of his time when he wrote Der Bau!

> I think these safety systems need to be mandatory

Why do you think that?

Because its cheaper to install these systems (a simple sensor and a chip), than try to resurrect dead pedestrians

because there are a lot of externalities resulting from car crashes, the burden for which is not paid by the driver, manufacturer, or even their insurer.

Have you considered looking out of the windscreen once in a while?

How many crashes do you think these prevent?

40k deaths per year in the US. A million a year worldwide. A world war worth of deaths every decade.

Can’t see if there are pedestrians at the crossing? Slow down

It's not a speed issue. They're in a blind spot. Your brain tells you that you can see everything, but it's incorrect.

My experiences have been under slow circumstances only. And that makes sense because the individual "lingers" in the blind spot (and perhaps matches your speed) if you're going slow. If you were going fast, the blind spot would be moving much faster and you would see them.

Not being able to see is a blind spot issue. Not slowing down because of it is… something else. Irresponsible is the most polite I can come up with.

My experiences have been at around 5mph. Again, it's not speed.

If you watch the video in the post you will understand. The person is just invisible to the driver and they're travelling around the same very low speed.