all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 17 points 4 months ago

the reinforced a-pillar doesn't even make the 'top 10' of what the 'problems' are with traffic and vehicles in the u.s.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Two eyes both with different perspectives help make it look thinner. A proper driver will check behind it, and a shitty driver won't notice the pedestrian even if their car has no pillars at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago

    Somewhere in between your "proper" driver and your "shitty" driver is the average driver, who is substantially more likely to fail to see things when they have a giant blind spot right there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    Yeah, the previous pillars were look-aroundable with binocolar vision, but these create a definite blind spot.

    Edit: Why the downvotes? Previous A pillar was much thinner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    The issue here is the massive intersection. That angle is only obscured in large intersections like that

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    What if you (wait for it) moved your head?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, you definitely don't ever see these in cars from non-American manufacturers, or cars outside of the US.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    It days deaths per 100000 people which I assume is population. The US is very car centric would have more cars on road per person so more chances on accident for similar population. There's probably a study out there that shows it with a smaller gap I guess. A graph of pedestrian and cyclists deaths would be even more interesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    It's not even that the pillars have to be that thick. The government regulations just say "the pillar must be this strong", and the auto manufacturers figured they'd save money by making the pillars thicker so that they can use weaker material. And then wrap it in extra plastics because of "aesthetics."

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    The government regulations just say "the pillar must be this strong"

    Not really. I don't think there exists a standard that directly dictates a-pillar length. In fact, they have to hire large teams of engineers to decide how thick it must be. It's a very challenging question - one that is solved via engineering and design and cannot be solved wholesale via a blanket regulation.

    What the government does regulate is roof crushing resistance and a side-impact system that accommodates curtain airbags. The engineers have to balance these requirements with ensuring fitment for airbags, wire looms, and cushioning. The "a-pillar useless plastic aesthetics" being called out in this thread are far from useless. The a-pillar is one of the things a driver is most likely to bonk their head on. The engineers have to strategically place padding inside these pillars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    There is a way to solve this problem, using a webcam and a small projector.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxlNkIwqGb4

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Isn't that a Honda? Looks like a fit.

  • source