Topic: Favouring style over outward visibility has to stop.

[Noto]

The author who took that picture noted that the kids, being moving targets, were indeed hidden as he moved (a measure of "perfect [unfortunate] timing") - so I reject (respectfully):

at that point of the picture, the children are hidden... one second earlier, they would have been clear in the windshield... one second later, clean in your side window... if you want to go back further, ten seconds, when the driver should be checking to see if that is the road they will be turning on, the kids would be on the sidewalk ahead, moving towards the crosswalk.

...and you seem to agree:

also, there are exceptions to every rule of course... a person walking at a rate of speed that keeps them in a blind spot say... it happens. that's why they are accidents, not "on purposes".

...but the point of my posting this thread is to reduce the likelihood of "accidents".  Everything's an assessment of risk.  If a risk can be reduced, even by 10%, it's valuable.  If some manufacturers are able to reduce the thickness of the A-pillars, then it's not a question of technology or capacity within regulations for safety equipment (roof strength or airbags): it's a question of effort.  I am of the opinion that the effort has fallen to the wayside in favour of making prettier designs, and I think that has to stop.

it's not always easy and we all make mistakes, but i was taught to always be looking at "the big picture"...
[snip]
that is what every driver should do. if you can't, then you aren't respecting driving enough or maybe just don't have the awareness to drive a high speed projectile.

Absofuckinglutely.  ...but remember, not everyone gives the same number of sh!ts about pedestrians as we do.

[rrocket]

I'm guessing it's because it's a lesser of two evils things. Far more people are killed in car wrecks than a run over by cars.

So occupant safety wins.

[HeliDriver]

... If some manufacturers are able to reduce the thickness of the A-pillars, then it's not a question of technology or capacity within regulations for safety equipment (roof strength or airbags): it's a question of effort.  I am of the opinion that the effort has fallen to the wayside in favour of making prettier designs, and I think that has to stop.

You still think manufacturers use huge A-pillars because they’re prettier?

It’s about $$$, not styling.

[HeliDriver]

^^ I’m sure No-san will disagree that they’re all doing their “best.” Some have likely chosen to spend extra on high-strength steel and such to meet the new requirements while keeping the A-pillars as slim as possible, while others have chosen not to.

Reminds of when the pedestrian-impact regulations were first proposed. We all know how the hood requirements have wrecked the styling of most new cars (looking at you, bulbous snout Mustang  ), but I was optimistic that it wouldn’t happen to all of them.

I’d read an article from one designer who said they could meet the new regs by installing pyrotechnic devices under the hood: you could keep it low for styling, then as soon as a trigger in the bumper detected an impact, the hood would pop up a few inches to get the required clearance.

But of course, that is extra $$$. As far as I know, no manufacturer actually ever used that design in practice. Everyone just went for the cheaper and uglier solution.

[Allen]

...but the point of my posting this thread is to reduce the likelihood of "accidents".  Everything's an assessment of risk.  If a risk can be reduced, even by 10%, it's valuable.  If some manufacturers are able to reduce the thickness of the A-pillars, then it's not a question of technology or capacity within regulations for safety equipment (roof strength or airbags): it's a question of effort.  I am of the opinion that the effort has fallen to the wayside in favour of making prettier designs, and I think that has to stop.

No-san if you want to reduce the number  accidents we need to remove the folks from the road or stop licensing people not properly qualified  to drive... I will give you 2 examples from my family...

my uncle is 99 and still drives even after losing sight in one eye ... I thought when he got a detached retina 4 years ago he would not be allowed to drive anymore, nope perfectly legal no issues. I have tried to get him to stop but his view is as long as they give him a license he is going to drive.. luckily he lives in Kingston where the traffic is not as bad, but he drives the 401 regularly  to visit his girlfriend in Peterborough.. she has called me and says she won't drive with him anymore, none of us can convince him to stop.   This man should not be driving.

My 90 year old mother drove up to about 5 years ago.. I took her for her last licence renewal prior to that, it was a shock how easy  it is to maintain your license... they have a special place for seniors to do there renewal , want to see a scary bunch of folks who still drive, almost everyone there had a walker or a cane and were brought by someone else... there is no written or driving test, they have there vision checked watch a couple of movies and the only thing they test them for is dementia by getting them to draw the hands of a clock for a time they give them....  bingo bang-go bong-go your licensed for another 5 years .

[Noto]

^^ I’m sure No-san will disagree that they’re all doing their “best.” Some have likely chosen to spend extra on high-strength steel and such to meet the new requirements while keeping the A-pillars as slim as possible, while others have chosen not to.

No-san if you want to reduce the number  accidents we need to remove the folks from the road or stop licensing people not properly qualified  to drive...

I've advocated time and time again that driving is a privilege, not a right, but it doesn't matter.

A multifaceted approach would be better than a single effort.  Some people properly able to drive make mistakes/momentary lapses of judgment - the point isn't to get them off the road, it's to lessen the likelihood of incidents occurring.  In the same way that "remov[ing] the folks from the road", etc. would bring about a reduction (theoretically) in traffic incidents, so, too, would increasing outward visibility in vehicle designs.

[Gurgie]

my uncle is 99 and still drives even after losing sight in one eye ... .. luckily he lives in Kingston where the traffic is not as bad, but he drives the 401 regularly  to visit his girlfriend in Peterborough..

I think he deserves a trophy still though for this part!!    Player at 99!!! 

[tooscoops]

*wrote this like an hour ago and had to leave the computer...*

yeah, i touched on that as well in my verbal diarrhea rocket. agree on that. a pedestrian is less likely to die, so not the priority.

no-san... just think about this.. the guy obviously knew they were there (or why take the picture) and actually TOOK THE PICTURE!!! he is a part of the issues... what he did is illegal and while visually demonstrates his point, sure doesn't back it up when you actually look deeper.

basically, i fight your main stance because i want a car that looks good and is safe for me. the shape of the pillar is more for the occupant safety, shape/fuel economy, looks, THEN the lest obstruction possible. i'm fine with that level of priority.

like child rearing, i prepare the child for the world, not the world for the child... we should prepare the driver for the car, not the car for the driver. don't gloss over peoples inability to perform certain tasks by "correcting" something to perpetuate their shortcoming. if it is that bad of a design, sales should be affected and the car won't be an issue. likely the design is only marginally worse than others, so it will continue.

meh is all i can say really!

[Fobroader]

*wrote this like an hour ago and had to leave the computer...*

yeah, i touched on that as well in my verbal diarrhea rocket. agree on that. a pedestrian is less likely to die, so not the priority.

no-san... just think about this.. the guy obviously knew they were there (or why take the picture) and actually TOOK THE PICTURE!!! he is a part of the issues... what he did is illegal and while visually demonstrates his point, sure doesn't back it up when you actually look deeper.

basically, i fight your main stance because i want a car that looks good and is safe for me. the shape of the pillar is more for the occupant safety, shape/fuel economy, looks, THEN the lest obstruction possible. i'm fine with that level of priority.

like child rearing, i prepare the child for the world, not the world for the child... we should prepare the driver for the car, not the car for the driver. don't gloss over peoples inability to perform certain tasks by "correcting" something to perpetuate their shortcoming. if it is that bad of a design, sales should be affected and the car won't be an issue. likely the design is only marginally worse than others, so it will continue.

meh is all i can say really!

Yeah, cars crashing into each other/solid objects happens a lot more often than into people.

[HeliDriver]

*wrote this like an hour ago and had to leave the computer...*

yeah, i touched on that as well in my verbal diarrhea rocket. agree on that. a pedestrian is less likely to die, so not the priority.

no-san... just think about this.. the guy obviously knew they were there (or why take the picture) and actually TOOK THE PICTURE!!! he is a part of the issues... what he did is illegal and while visually demonstrates his point, sure doesn't back it up when you actually look deeper.

basically, i fight your main stance because i want a car that looks good and is safe for me. the shape of the pillar is more for the occupant safety, shape/fuel economy, looks, THEN the lest obstruction possible. i'm fine with that level of priority.

like child rearing, i prepare the child for the world, not the world for the child... we should prepare the driver for the car, not the car for the driver. don't gloss over peoples inability to perform certain tasks by "correcting" something to perpetuate their shortcoming. if it is that bad of a design, sales should be affected and the car won't be an issue. likely the design is only marginally worse than others, so it will continue.

meh is all i can say really!

It was a set up photo for the purpose of the article. He even says it was his own kids in the picture (okay, not in the picture.)

[Noto]

basically, i fight your main stance because i want a car that looks good and is safe for me. the shape of the pillar is more for the occupant safety, shape/fuel economy, looks, THEN the lest obstruction possible. i'm fine with that level of priority.

First,



I always think very well of you - so no part of this is against you, personally

I accept your position.  I think it's a reasonable one.  I merely think that the issues need not be mutually-exclusive; that is, I think we can have high occupant safety, shape/fuel economy, looks, and minimal A-pillars.

[tooscoops]

true... peace!

once cars are autonomous and have every driver, occupant and pedestrian safety device... all this will be null and void anyways!

they'll figure out something...

[Solstice2006]

true... peace!

once cars are autonomous and have every driver, occupant and pedestrian safety device... all this will be null and void anyways!

they'll figure out something...

Scottie, beam me up!

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Reminds of when the pedestrian-impact regulations were first proposed. We all know how the hood requirements have wrecked the styling of most new cars (looking at you, bulbous snout Mustang  ), but I was optimistic that it wouldn’t happen to all of them.

I’d read an article from one designer who said they could meet the new regs by installing pyrotechnic devices under the hood: you could keep it low for styling, then as soon as a trigger in the bumper detected an impact, the hood would pop up a few inches to get the required clearance.

But of course, that is extra $$$. As far as I know, no manufacturer actually ever used that design in practice. Everyone just went for the cheaper and uglier solution.

I think Jag used that system (XK8? F-Type?) but I don't think anyone else has. At least not that I remember. 

[dkaz]

*wrote this like an hour ago and had to leave the computer...*

yeah, i touched on that as well in my verbal diarrhea rocket. agree on that. a pedestrian is less likely to die, so not the priority.

no-san... just think about this.. the guy obviously knew they were there (or why take the picture) and actually TOOK THE PICTURE!!! he is a part of the issues... what he did is illegal and while visually demonstrates his point, sure doesn't back it up when you actually look deeper.

basically, i fight your main stance because i want a car that looks good and is safe for me. the shape of the pillar is more for the occupant safety, shape/fuel economy, looks, THEN the lest obstruction possible. i'm fine with that level of priority.

like child rearing, i prepare the child for the world, not the world for the child... we should prepare the driver for the car, not the car for the driver. don't gloss over peoples inability to perform certain tasks by "correcting" something to perpetuate their shortcoming. if it is that bad of a design, sales should be affected and the car won't be an issue. likely the design is only marginally worse than others, so it will continue.

meh is all i can say really!

Preach!

[Noto]

I’d read an article from one designer who said they could meet the new regs by installing pyrotechnic devices under the hood: you could keep it low for styling, then as soon as a trigger in the bumper detected an impact, the hood would pop up a few inches to get the required clearance.

I think Jag used that system (XK8? F-Type?) but I don't think anyone else has. At least not that I remember.

Volvo...


Jag


Infiniti


Dare I post it...Buick


2018 Lexus LC


MB


Genesis (in development)


I'm sure there are others.

[HeliDriver]

^^ Neat to know. Thanks.

[rrocket]

I’d read an article from one designer who said they could meet the new regs by installing pyrotechnic devices under the hood: you could keep it low for styling, then as soon as a trigger in the bumper detected an impact, the hood would pop up a few inches to get the required clearance.

Lexus has used a hood pop up system for pedestrians for a number of years now..