[piker]

Of course it would! That's the whole point.

People shouldn't enter the road until it's clear they've been seen.

I'm not sure what you're missing here guy.

I've said the A bar is a liability because of the blind spot it introduces.

Your response was that the person in the road has the right of way. This is known.

Somehow I give immigrants a bad name because I acknowledge that it is difficult to manage people who assert their right-of-way into blind spots.

It's called a blind spot for a reason. How can one yield to something they by definition don't see?

[331c8c71]

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...

[piker]

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.

[alamortsubite]

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.

[piker]

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.

[cjs_ac]

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.

[piker]

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.

[fch42]

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)