Algorithm did the same for me. I watch Tom video and then the algorithm brought me to this. That is some clever stuff.

Same! 👏

algorithm also brought me here.

Algorithm brought me here too :)

All praise the Algorithm. \[T]/

The roads still have to connect to each other so what do you suggest otherwise?

@@garymitchell5899 step off dude they literally said they liked it

Gary Mitchell, two first names for a name. Worry about that predicament buddy.

Would be great if city's Would actually use it for planing.

@@CHMichael As a planner, Cities Skylines would probably not be super useful for this type of job, there is more specialised, sophisticated and accurate software available for that. That said, I belive Cities Skylines has been trialed for public consultation and very early concept testing in the past

that’s actually really great to hear

The solution was that drivers should obey the rules of the road. There was no need to waste £500k.

​@@nigelarmstrong252its not the cyclists fault though, so we shouldn't make them pay with their lives when we know lifesaving solutions

@@nigelarmstrong252 most intelligent Tory voter

@@rossmacrae749 Explain your remark.

​@@nigelarmstrong252Several human lives cost more than that in lost taxes alone, even if you do not care about those lives.​

I used to shake my head at these types of videos with the attitude that everyone should just have your attitude and everything would be fine. After all, *I* operate as if I'm invisible and *I've* never been hit by a car or hit a pedestrian due to my vigilance! Everyone else should just be vigilant like me and that will solve the problem! I think the finer point is that it doesn't have to be that way, and we should strive for an environment that fosters safety in its design, rather than putting all of the onus on the humans using that environment.

@@Matt-sl1wg I'm not saying this is how everyone should have to be on the roads, I'm saying that I have to be like that, because during my job I exist in an environment which is inherently hostile to bikers, and I voluntarily spend more time on the road than a commuter would. Kinda like precautions with radiation. If you are only exposed to a little every once in a while, it isn't much of an issue, but if you are constantly have to be in there to do your job, you ought to do something about it.

@@vale.antoni I get that, your comment was just the first that I could add to because it most closely resembled my own attitude when navigating public roadways. It would be very easy for people to look at your post and carry on while holding on to my old feelings about these things. So thought I'd add to your thoughts with some expansion on why that isn't enough.

@@vale.antoni But you can't ride that way because you will be reacting unnaturally which is very dangerous. It sounds like you're a beginner so please take more time to learn road craft, that is the best way to stay safe.

@@garymitchell5899 Not a beginner at all. In the last 4 years I clocked in over 10 000 km on my bike, half of that was in the city, other half on A-roads. Edit: During which I only suffered 2 accidents that caused notable damage, and just one of those was my mistake (T-boned a car after failing to yield in time, bent my front wheel beyond repair, for about $50). The other was a mechanical fault, and there was no other road user involved (I got a few road rashes)

That'd be cool! I'd watch it.

Yes😂

Certainly an idea for the Tom Scott plus channel!

Does that mean Tom Scott assessing Ashley Neal?!😆

Yeah, Tom Scott and Scott the Woz would both be pretty epic ngl

But we can still see in this video some car cutting the corner in the opposite lane. Disrespectful drivers will always find a way to misbehave.

@@christianbarnay2499 Well of course, there will always be some sub-percent amount of idiots. But overall the situation was clearly improved, so that's all fine.

@@katier9725 Of course it's an improvement. But my point is that we tend to rely too much on technical and design solutions to circumvent idiocy. And we never address the actual problem. So the idiots are still there. And they are reinforced in their bad attitude because we tell them as a society that they don't need to make any effort to improve as we are ready to spend the time and money to come up with solutions. Over the time this is resulting in progressively more people being fed up with always being the ones to make the effort. And ultimately deciding that being the idiot with impunity is the right position. So instead of fighting idiocy we are encouraging it.

@@christianbarnay2499 Well what IS the actual problem then?

@@katier9725 Lack of sanctions for people who break the law daily and put lives in danger. Fines, revoked licensed. Just applying the law.

the danger is stupid people blowing through signs........ not the roads. i know its hard to understand i learned repitition seems to help. Stupid people are the danger.... stupid people. 4 way stops for ALL. hard to get hit in that situation. yet morons ignore signs do what they want and cry when shit happens. survival of the fittest.

But the ppl who ignored the stop sign are still out there driving around like lunatics.

but I don't like change

​@@seeharvesterok?

but the plan was already in place to change the intersection?

Most of that £500k will have been siphoned off in little brown envelopes & off shore transfers to suits that have never picked up a shovel or know the smell of fresh tarmac like the men that actually did the graft! Wonder what they were paid?

@@lpgibbo7463 i mean if you think about either renting/owning the equipment, number of people that need to be paid, administrative costs, design, material cost (asphalt/gravel), ripping up the previous stretch of road, etc im honestly surprised that it wasnt more

@@bigzigtv706 and no one in government or local council (I know some of these people) EVER owns or is associated with any of the companies that supply those eh? From the plant machinery to the agency staff, these people have their grubby little fingers in ALL THE PIES. It's rife & to think otherwise is very naive.

@@lpgibbo7463 While you're right about corruption being rife, it's probable that most of the money went to the job. Laying a road requires digging deep into the ground, to lay the several layers of various materials necessary to ensure the road withstands the pounding of traffic. It's an expensive process, which is why it costing only £1/2 million is a surprise.

@@lpgibbo7463 rubbish. there's very little of that type of corruption in the UK - it's too easy to get caught. Anything going on would be far more subtle and more at the framework contract stage; but still highly unlikely in a case like this. When you think of all the works needed to build a sectiob of road from scratch, I'm surprised it wasn't more tbh.

I get you as a fellow rider/cyclist/car user, but a crash can be lethal for a cyclist at 10mph and stopping distance is terrible even that slowly in the wrong conditions. Blaming the victim is a bit of a dick move all things considered.

As a biker both types I hate going out always in the back of my mind that an idiot is near me

@@zbf5h89ftb yeah, I might have been a bit forward with my previous comment to be fair. Thanks for pointing it out.

@@dang2651 You are the type that insists on your rites.

@@Igbon5 And you apparently are the kind who cannot spell "rights"

They probably had like a doodle of what they might do from 5 years before and counted that lol

Remember: Tom Scott's videos are recorded a few weeks in advance. I wouldn't actually be surprised if they were all "Oh bollocks! Tom Scott's been 'round at the cyclist-killing junction and it's going to go on KZfaq and we'll be a stockinglaugh! Pull out the plans to how to fix it, rush it into planning so it looks like we were already starting work on it before he uploaded the video."

did you pay attention to the video? the plans for altering the intersections were around before tom uploaded it. knowing Tom, he probably figured out they were gonna change it so he made a quick vid about it. Tom's always rifling through public records and blueprints.

@@r3stl3ss did you pay attention to the comment you replied to?

Very cool that rich people can just unilaterally decide to perpetuate social murder if it suits their finances.

@@r3stl3ss Hello! just reminding you, 10 months ago you made this stupid comment

​@@r3stl3ssyou wanna comment on a person you don't *think* watched all 4 minutes of a video, but you can't be bothered to finish reading the 60 words they clearly wrote out? How embarrassing 😬😂 I know it's been 10 months, but you should still be embarrassed about it

Was it really "shocking" tho? Or did we all know that's how it is, and were just saddened to see it caught on video so blatantly?

@@Matt-sl1wg No, really shocking. We, I, expect that drivers don't really stop at stop signs. But usually you brake and look carefully, because a stop sign means more danger of overlooking traffic and collisions. You have to stop legally, but even if you don't stop, make damn sure that there is nothing in the way! Oh and I forgot: Be prepared to stop immediately! That's the reason why at most you roll at low speeds. These drivers just didn't have the speed to step on their brakes. That's what's shocking to me. Not the fact, that they didn't stop, but the fact that they COULDN'T stop, even if there was something there.

@@Matt-sl1wg I live here and did the same as everyone, if it looked clear you dove straight across without stopping. And who wouldn't It is a completely open junction you can see everywhere, (bar where your A post is) and that is where the problem was.

@@anticat900 Lots of people think it's perfectly ok to ignore the rules as long as they don't see anything dangerous. The problem with that kind of self-serving thinking is that plenty of accidents happen because a driver didn't notice something. That might even be the #1 cause of accidents. This is especially true for drivers not noticing pedestrians.

@@DemPilafian Hello i don't believe I'm a fast or bad driver. I just did at this junction what likely 99% of people would do. I was unaware of this junctions unusual characteristics like everyone else and would just see it clear for a mile left and right so why would you stop?

From what you are saying, there should actually be a seperate cyclepath. Improves safety even more

@@Stompy1984 The cycle path would still need to cross the road somewhere. That's just moving the problem a few steps away. My take is that there is well known impunity for speeding and ignoring the stop sign. A police squad randomly coming to the place and distributing fines and license suspensions for shifts of a couple hours should rapidly reduce the incivility while helping refill the budget and reduce taxes.

It's amazing that people can have a driving license and not have the slightest clue about the fact that the huge post that is constantly in they field of view is constantly hiding things from them. Any country that delivers driving licenses without making sure the candidate has acquired that kind of basic obvious understanding is a road safety failure.

yes I would hope spending $500k is better than putting up a sign

To be fair the problem was that people *don't* look at the sign

@@andrewd8026 if they had a good design in the first place, they won't need to spend 500k

​@@Adhimaska Well they at least learned of a good design to consider using in the future from this so they don't have as many expensive fixes. But when has beuracracy and the government truly been efficient anywhere.

@@Adhimaska If you go and have a look at Tom Scott's video, he clearly shows the origins of this junction, and has nothing to do with "good design" of the roads.

Don’t need a degree to work this issue out, just a good understanding of roads and driving habits

Infrastructure changes can go a long way.

It's so frustrating how many people want to just blame those involved and call it day. The aviation industry learnt this lesson decades ago - pilots are still human, they still make mistakes, they still have off days but aircraft have fewer and fewer crew but the industry is safer than ever, and probably the safest in the world- which is staggering given the potential. How? Systematic changes and wholistic investigations that seek to do more than just hold somebody responsible.

@@hermand we call it human factors. The first step is accepting that everyone has bad days, the second step is designing the environment to mitigate the effects of someone having a bad day. Especially if multiple someones have had a bad day in the same scenario

@@miniaturesteamnick We do ;)

It is up to the pedestrians to look out for themselves. A driver cant do it 100% of the time. Like backing out a driveway or parking spot it can be really difficult to see someone walking behind you.

Well, this design probably reduces the risk dramatically, as traffic on the minor road actually has to slow down. Which is why, as early as the 1970's, this design has been adopted as the standard intersection design in Denmark. Obviously, not all is rotten in that state...

We still have the issue in t-sections that if a car tries to overtake a lorry, a side road car might not see car and try to cross road in opposite direction of lorry and the see the overtaking car in frontal crash. Don't know how that can be solved without a roundabout or lights. I never overtake lorry's if there is a sideroad access 🤓

The American fear of roundabouts and love for deadly huge cars certainly contribute to the insane pedestrian fatalities in a country so car dependent that basically nobody walks.

Apparently theres still an issue just a couple minutes before this junction

@@MaticTheProto There are roundabouts in the US, but they almost always contain lights and stop signs as well.

Yeah blows my mind too! I religiously stop at stop signs

The poor road design was essentially teaching them that there's no need to stop. Visibility is excellent, except the unknown blind spot, and it's a quiet road. On most occasions your way will be clear, so you get used to not having to stop. Humans are crap and will do the wrong thing if at all possible. That's why good road design is important.

​@@ColinBroderickMaths Blowing a stop sign in the US can be hundreds in fines and months of license suspension. You'd think it'd be worse in the UK... We still have idiots that blow through stop signs but we have even more idiots that misjudge turns. Intersections like how they changed it are notorious in the US FOR causing accidents.

@@Jmvesey In Spain if you miss an stop it's just about a 100$ fine and 4 points less in your licence. We have up to 15 points. Almost everyone sadly don't make a complete stop

Hard to miss, easy to ginore...

If it saves one life, it is money well spent.

@@zloychechen5150 I just learned about this junction just right now through this video. I bet you 100 quid it will save more than one life, judging from Tom Scott's video cut-in how drivers absolutely ignore the stop signs.

No it is not money well spent. Typical councils allowing themselves to be fleeced because its not their money.

@@Stringer13ell lmao you're wrong and it's been done. Cope and seethe.

@@Stringer13ell It what way is a council doing it's job not money well spent? This is literally what the money is for.

Whole cars can be hidden in them, moreso with newer cars as the A-pillar has gotten larger for crash safety.

If you are riding a bicycle or in my case Motorcycles car drivers suffer from Inattentional Blindness. This a phenomenon where a person looks straight at you but doesn't see you. This is why they pull out in front of you. happens all the time..

@@brianperry Yeah especially if the biker blends into the background because of their slow speed, position in the road (further out from the kerb the side of the biker is visible as well as front so a larger visible surface area) or the relative background.

Yes. Two weeks after passing my police advanced driving course at Hendon with a Class 1 I ran into a cyclist at a roundabout in Peterborough because I hadn’t appreciated this problem. She was only bruised as it was at walking speed only but it scared the bejesus out of me (and her). Now I’m a driving instructor I spend a lot of time on this issue and go to several junctions where the A -pillar obscures the whole road.

@@dickyr3295 It is worrying isn't it? After my accident, when I learned that it was probably a failure to observe the A post blind spot, I realised how easy this is to miss & that I could very easily have made the same mistake when driving.

Also: most people have absolutely no idea neither as to the fact that this blind spot actually exists (in virtually any car) nor as to how massive it actually is.

@@ilyapetoushkoff8362 you'd never realized how big the blind spot is until you've drive a car in 120km/h thru those A shaped 4-road junctions

@@ilyapetoushkoff8362 Isn't that part of any driving course and wouldn't the person in your driving test check that you're checking blindspots by moving your head?

@@mothgru Judging by the amount of bad drivers there are in the UK... obviously not. (at least not often enough)

When I cycle I always assume cars do not see me. So if a car approach a crossing like that I would slow down and let them cross before me even if I have the right of way. Even if a car has stopped I would not assume that sees me and would not start driving just when I am crossing. Having the right of way is of little usage in a hospital bed or six feet under. You will not lose a lot of speed or time if you plan ahead because just slowing down a bit will separate you, even if it does better safe than sorry.

I grew up in a house where the driveway exited to a chicane, built as a traffic calming solution. They could've made it a bend but made it an S curve (or actually Z). Many, many close calls but since cars have to slow down and pay attention to the tricky chicane.. they are going much slower than if it was just a normal bend. To one way there is 2km of straight and then some 700m more to the other way.. It is like someone looked at it on the map and made the obvious discovery: cars would not stick to the speed limit if it was just 2km of straight and easy smooth bend... A lot of cars and mopeds did end up on the opposite neighbors fence.. so many that he didn't even repair it after each collision. It is the 2km straight that caused it, they dropped speed limits there and there has not been a single accident in a decade. On our side there is a bike&pedestrian path, the trees between us and the road did get a few hits but much less than the neighbors nice fence.

Wow, this is the first time I hear that a county voluntarily, without having caused it by a project of theirs, and without a previous fatal accident, spends money on someone's private driveway! Actually, they did a favor to many people, and you, being the most frequently endangered. I really appreciate your county and what it did!

@@skayt35 My father was VERY active in the local politics of the city and the county. He supported the democrats at the city level and the republicans at the county level. Playing both sides of the coin so to speak. I am sure he pulled some strings and called in some markers to make it happen. Not saying it was a shady deal, but it just didn't happen from the "goodness" in their hearts

@@valuedhumanoid6574 ok NOW I can relate to politics from where I live 😅

We just had the road by our house rerouted for safety too! It happened about a month ago and I’ve been here 34 years, but I love the change. It used to be at the top of a hill of a 4 lane, 45mph road and people got hit all the time, including a cyclist who was killed.

This I will try this evening :D Maybe just w/o the slip lanes because they create yet another point of potential conflict between relatively high speed traffic and pedestrians. Drivers will look for oncoming traffic that they'll have to merge into after the slip lane but usually not for pedestrians and cyclists who might be coming from the opposite direction ;)

@@friddevonfrankenstein That is what crossing lights are for. The slip lanes can be stopped for pedestrians. Or you can build an over/underpass

If I ever have 4 roads intersecting in anything but low traffic residential zones I introduce a roundabout, when my traffic gets to busy I'll add a slip lane for left turns. But the best way to reduce traffic is a solid underground metro grid

@@julianlaresch6266 And put pedestrian paths EVERYWHERE. Overpasses, underpasses, segregating them so that they are two systems that interact only in residential and commercial neighborhoods.. Paths are super cheap, never gets congested, but does require anarchy, which can break things... And every intersection that can be is a T. Timed traffic lights so that one lane can go thru in each step and right hand turns are green on each step but one. There is also double-T intersection that uses a bridge.. You use the bridge for cars going straight, another road fits under it perpendicular again for those that go straight in that directions and then separate turning lanes split from the main road and curve to the other main road. Takes up only little space, easy to replace a busy X intersection in tightly packed area. It needs the traffic manager to set all the arrows so that they don't act stupid: the fastest way is not the shortest and it will gridlock if not set up just right.

I just started a city with T intersections on every major roads, + intersections are kept at a minimal and on low-usage residential roads only So far with only 10k cims and no public transport it's working well, my traffic flow is above 90% but we should see how it'll perform when it's >50k cims 😇

If you're relying on civil engineers to give you obvious advice like that there's no hope.

I have concluded that if you want people to do the correct thing you have to remove all other options. Expecting drivers to obey the signage and yield or even stop at an intersection is asking for failure. Forcing the driver to make two turns? That forces the correct behavior. Humans are dumb, just talk to one to see what I mean.

@@stevedixon921 Absolutely. Signs don't force a change in behavior. This does.

@@stevedixon921 I did talk to one once. And I agree with your conclusion. (That I actually passed the interview and got the job is just the conclusive icing on the conclusion cake. 😉)

@@stevedixon921 People stop at junctions all the time, the vast majority safely. Stop being a cheap smart arse on KZfaq and get out into the real world.

Reminds me of road design here in Mexico, we have speed bumps and little nubs to slow down cars everywhere and they force drivers to be at certain speeds (like hell i was even taught at driving school that speed limit signs are a suggestion more than anything, by law cops wont stop you unless you're about 20km/h over them)

There’s a reason that Mad Max is Australian

Ah yes, the Australian game of chicken. It's how we merge, too.

​@@chekoteI saw that documentary, too.

@@worldcomicsreview354What documentary are you guys referring to? I’m interested.

That is very interesting. Do you have a link or some examples?

I myself have investigated a few collisions (as a transport manager). If you do the job properly it can be very enlightening. Unfortunately, most company front line managers do lip service to an investigation & blame one or other driver for ease; ergo other factors are never addressed, ergo collisions of the same nature recur

@@hippophile Theres an original piece that set up the Tom Scott video on a magazine called Single Track. The title is "Ipley Cross | Why This Type Of Road Junction Will Keep Killing Cyclists". HTH

Yes. Two weeks after passing my police advanced driving course at Hendon with a Class 1 I ran into a cyclist at a roundabout in Peterborough because I hadn’t appreciated this problem. She was only bruised as it was at walking speed only but it scared the bejesus out of me (and her). Now I’m a driving instructor I spend a lot of time on this issue and go to several junctions where the A -pillar obscures the whole road.

@@hippophile - I would love to able to discuss many of these. However, sadly bound by confidentiality - even in retirement. Pity as I see lots of learning potential for others including former colleagues who did not always spot moving blind-spots. However, in some cases I was able to get significant changes made to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

In California, where I live, it is often a relic of old rights-of-way. It can be annoying to negotiate such intersections, but if it is safer the reason doesn't matter.

No it's more likely to be land ownership or topography. When these junctions were originally made nothing travelled beyond a few miles an hour so there was never a safety issue.

In my area there is a road that I always thought was silly it didn't go straight, I always wondered why it would curve round instead and just thought they wanted to keep the small patch of grass (lol) and now I know why too. lol

Out in farm country it's more common. Rolling through is almost mandatory everywhere else it seems though. I wish people took it seriously regardless.

Definitely the conditioning, I think. When I lived in the UK, I only knew of one stop sign and I got around quite a bit.

@@0Rookie0 People would take stop signs more seriously if they were used more judiciously. Though they should be eliminated almost entirely in my opinion.

The visibility is extremely good, and nine times out of ten there will be no one else in view, so people naturally get complacent. First they'll roll the stop. Then they'll slow down even less. Eventually they will stop slowing down at all, because they've never needed to before. The road conditions essentially teach drivers to do exactly the wrong thing. This is why proper road design is so important. Humans WILL do the wrong thing if given the chance.

Stop signs are rare in the UK, and are only really put up in places where accidents have happened. Similarly to speed cameras, which you can guarantee only exist where a fatal accident has occurred. Pop one or two down and give people lots of warning that they'll receive a hefty fine for speeding here, and most motorists will make themselves safe because they don't want to receive the fine. We call the idea "policing by consent" because people voluntarily police themselves instead of speeding by the camera and having to be policed by the police.

Roundabouts are ridiculously expense. A roundabout at the intersection of the A303 (yes, THAT A303) and A360 was remodelled from two to four lanes to improve traffic flow, it is now really scary to use as drivers take the opportunity to overtake and also come round at excessive speed, this 'improvement' cost £3M.

Why not just install a roundabout though

@@eaar When one road is a side road, and the other is a main highway with a speed limit of 110 kph, a roundabout is a really bad idea.

@@eaar I'm not trying to have a go at you specifically but as an Aussie, roundabouts aren't the silver bullet the internet seems to think they are. One of my most common drives involves a 2 lane roundabout which is actually a bit of a local accident hotspot as people struggle to work out how to best use it. If there's any traffic on any branch it's even worse. It'll be replaced by a diverging diamond which I'm not sure will actually make things easier. So many roads here outside of the major cities are 110km/h limited with trucks, cars and bikes having to drive for hours at a time between major towns. Many of the highways could not sustain roundabouts even if they wanted to as the highways run through small towns and often have a mix of local and express traffic. Many of these can be dual carriageway and divided by a median but others twist their way through the environment as undivided two-way roads with one lane each side.

@@martythemartian99 as an actual road safety engineer working in Australasia, roundabouts on 110km/h roads are actually a great idea unless the traffic volumes on the side roads are really, really low

@@georgelane6350 flying through a roundabout at 110 km/h is a great idea?

It's probably the self-same drivers that used to sail through without stopping.

Yeah I agree but it’s a shame that logic probably took a 100 years and needless death to work out a problem in 5 minutes on the tech board ..

@@Rogue-cg1rm When that junction was designed there were probably less cars around so was suitable at the time. Most likely followed existing horse and cart routes through the New Forest (lovely place by the way, highly recommended to all). I agree that death tolls shouldn't need to rise for improvements to be made and even a near miss should be enough to think "What can we do?". A road near to where I used to live had 5 deaths over a 6 year period which, apparently, didn't meet the local council threshold of more than 1 death per year on average to discuss improvements. A lot of campaigning and lobbying by local groups results in traffic calming being installed

@@smilerbob I think one of the keys here is the signage and lack of adherence to them .. stop and halt , solid white lines are completely ignored by idiots .. I have one such junction close to my workplace that is treated as if invisible because I think it’s in the middle of nowhere .. the A52 meets the A523 at Calton moor , is a regular route I use and if I am going southbound toward it the A52 is to my right and is regularly contravened by cars and trucks .. and as articulated Hgv myself at 44 tonne and legally allowed to travel at 50mph past this junction I have more than a few times had to slap my anchors on and I’m sure you will understand it ain’t easy and a little bit scary at times … good luck .

Probably "safely knew nobody was there". Visibility is pretty good; the previous issues were down to the angles of approach, and the fact that the roads were straight. Looking at the angles, I doubt the driver could have had any approaching traffic in their A-pillar blind spot. Also, no traffic approaches from the minor road after the car passes, thus confirming that there was no traffic for the driver to avoid. Remember that cutting corners doesn't just save you time; it also saves fuel and/or tyre wear, depending on what speed you choose to take the corner. Personally, I don't see an issue with cutting a corner like this if you can be 100% sure that it is safe to do so.

this is absolutely no shade to anyone, we are all human and doing our best! i don’t know what about it stuck in my mind so hard but this is basically the only thing i actually remember from driving school. The idea that I could hurt someone I couldn’t see was terrifying and I just ended up integrating a bit of sway into the movements I make to look around the car. I rarely if ever look with just my head, it‘s a full body motion (albeit somewhat subtle) every time and now I don’t even think about it. It particularly makes the over the shoulder lane change check much easier because you already have so little visibility that any additional visual info is imminently useful.

Modern cars have giant pilars and blind spots. It always used to annoy me on my Berlingo. If I look at the pilars on my 80's citroen Visa or Trabant, they are tiny, and there are almost no blind spots. Then again, should someone crash into me, or should I run into something I'm probably dead.

I actually missed two 15 yo twins bc of my car's huge A pillar. Police didn't believe me, but the lawyer did and thank god I only had to pay the lowest fee. Paranoia never ends with an a pillar of that size. But I hope I will never ever hit a person again and I really hope none of you has to experience that, be it as victim or driver.

they had minor injuries, I later asked them if I could do something for them and if they were okay, but the family told me to leave them alone, so I never heard from them again. Dunno if one of the girls has lasting injury..

Being a cyclist has made me a much better driver. I always lean forward now to check around the pillar; it's not always possible to see everything but it's so much better. It's amazing how poor visibility really is from a car when you're use to cycling everywhere. I'm not surprised that societies with much higher rates of cycling have much lower rates of cycling deaths--not only from better infrastructure and empathy but also just from being reminded that they can only see 80% of reality and they should operate accordingly.

I wonder if we can get American road authorities to learn such a simple lesson. I think they're starting to catch on, but they have a ways to go before they learn that signs aren't infrastructure

honestly always wondered why people are unable to ignore the curve of the road and the lines etc. i mean, i get that it drives better than cutting through the grass but just simple shapes and lines are enough to corral even the worst driver

Another important part of road safety is to enforce rules with fines and license suspensions. So that people keep on respecting the rules. This junction is a blatant demonstration that total impunity results in chaos. Even after the redesign you can still see cars overspeeding on the incoming road, flooring the breaks at the junction and cutting corners to gain just a couple seconds and then flooring the accelerator again to keep on overspeeding. You can create the best design you want. If you never enforce the rules, people will misuse your design and make it look like a complete failure.

The easiest option was the signs though?

Easiest thing would be people actually stopping at the stop sign. But the Brit’s have never been the smartest people 😂

I think an easier option to fix this would have been to change the visibility temporarily, e.g. with trees along the road, which forces the driver's mind to pay more attention, which usually results in lowered speeds. Another possible way would have been to widen the connection and put a divider between lanes. What they did was pointless expensive in my opinion.

@@defeqel6537 Or just add a speed bump 🤔

@@untheo or that, but that could affect winter maintenance (if that's a problem in the area)

Not just the A-pillar, either. In larger vehicles (I drive a bus), the large mirrors actually pose an additional blind-spot problem - something as big as a car can be right behind your mirror, which is unlikely to be significant in a car.

Hell, remove the car altogether and you still need your head on a swivel. Watch any motorcyclist approaching a junction, I don't think my head ever sits still with a helmet on

@@ukeleleEric scary the number of times a car (or single deck bus at the right angle) would appear from behind the mirror by moving my head, when I was a bus driver

I've been driving for 25 years now, and in that time the A pillars have gotten thicker and thicker. I can understand why, it's safer for the occupants of the car in case of a crash (and they usually stuff air bags into them too). However, it's clearly more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians. In my Prius, especially the A pillar on the driver's side blocks so much of the view (because it's closest), that I'm weaving my head left and right in every (city) left turn. That's not safe at all, because it only takes one unlucky time to forget it....

@@SolarWebsite Yes, completely agree. The A pillars are so big now and of course, as you say, the close proximity, though there was the idea a while ago of covering them with a display and a camera on the outside to see around it but I haven't heard anything about it since.

The shit environmentalists come up with. What a joke.

I imagine that was done so that if someone wasn't paying attention and wasn't used to the new layout that they would slow down in a raised dirt section instead of crashing down a foot into the grass. I don't see any biodiversity rationale in a hunk of dirt.

@@schmiddy8433 You'd be pleasantly shocked at the biodiversity in "just" a hunk of dirt! By preserving the mycelium and insects/microbes in that dirt, they keep a much richer soil and will keep that area much healthier than just stripping it away. It's pretty cool

@@itsdrgrandpa I know there's life in the dirt, but 'preserving biodiversity' by placing it in the exact spot the old road was is a rationale I don't believe.

@@schmiddy8433 that's okay, you don't have to believe it. You also don't seem to any relevant expertise (unless you're not mentioning it?) so i think it's worth considering that you're simply missing out on some info. No big deal either way 😊

pretty easy really. asphalt costs about 100quid/tonne. multiply that by the 50,000 tonnes of asphalt needed for the 50 meters of road, i.e. 1000 tonnes per meter, gives you 500K. simples innnit

@@simonleeofficial 90% of it will go into the mate of the locals councillor who approved it’s offshore bank account

@@simonleeofficial Nice, that's a lot of asphalt lol. It's nice to know that the bulk of the cost is it's down the cost of materials.

@@aeropherxd I’m quite certain that 1000 ton of asphalt per meter would be VERY visible lol. It would be a mountain of asphalt. So yeah the bulk of the cost is probably not in the material, but instead bureaucracy

@@simonleeofficial 1000 tonnes per metre of a tiny little road like that? Im pretty sure that would be some diamond density asphalt wouldnt it? Think about the weight of other things and the size of them … no way is a 1metre long*1metre deep*(however wide the road is) slab of asphalt weighing 1000 tonnes, way less than 100 tonnes probably and the depth of the asphalt below the surface of the road is probably a lot less than 1metre tbh

I'm sure it's something like for every 6 inches of extra lane width people will drive 10 mile a hr faster. It's also why they're replacing a lot of roads with shared spaces, because it makes the drivers more aware as they don't feel they have a natural right of way.

It indeed affects driver's behaviour. I have been in Germany recently and they have those curved roads a lot. The drivers there usually slow down and pay more attention to the road. They also don't have the time to "look at the mobile phone for few seconds", so it is even safer in that regards

Yes that's a good point. The US system is designed for cars not people ever since the 1920s-30s and some interesting political campaigns by motor companies, and they don't have a real difference between Streets (busy frontages, human activity, low perceived safe soeed) and Roads (inactive frontage, little human activity, high speeds). They get things known as Stroads, which have street frontages of businesses and shops, but road designs type , 4 6 or 8 lane widths, and road behaviour. So being on foot or a cycle is very risky. A solution is to disentangle streets and roads. There are a number of good vids about this on YT. One is "Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere)".

It's true of everyone in traffic that design influences behavior, it's just that for pedestrians and cyclists there is basically no risk of a fatal accident, or really any serious accident. In fact with those two groups we usually want to encourage the opposite, Stroads don't just encourage unsafe driving they also make pedestrians and cyclists uncomfortable and therefore people are less likely to use those methods of transport. The large amount of concrete makes Stroads really hot on sunny days which can be outright dangerous if you're not in an air conditioned vehicle, and obviously you can't air condition a bike or walking shoes. It essentially becomes a negative feedback loop where people are pushed into choosing the less safe method of transport overall and that choice leads to infrastructure not being designed to take anyone other than drivers into consideration. Plus they also contribute to the heat island effect which is a serious issue for many cities in the US.

You should visit Germany some time. They have this law about passing distance when overtaking cyclists. They mostly abide by it too! Cycling on 100 km/h roads is legal there and my perception is that it feels a lot safer than the 30 km/h road in the Netherlands... as long as there are no Dutch drivers on that German road.

You don't move your head to look around the A-Pillar? That's you're fault.

@@mrsleep0000 read that comment again, I was approaching a stop sign, you nonce. I'm not going to be jerkin my neck around like a bobble head to be coming to a stop. I was just noting that the timing was perfect and I never saw a full size van from behind my passenger a-pillar.

@@mrsleep0000 Most drivers don't, even then it doesn't completely prevent accidents. Also you used the wrong your.

Almost every time I'm in a parking lot I don't see a pedestrian cause of the large A pillars.

It's because of rollover safety and the extra airbags. Governments and the IIHS started testing roof strength so now they have to make thicker pillars to keep the roof from caving in, in a rollover.

The funny thing is that this sort of stuff happens a lot. It just doesn't get enough publicity.

People just need to be more responsible. None of this would be a problem if people obeyed street signs.

@@sirtaugs "Personal responsibility" didn't solve the problem here, did it? You don't solve problems by telling people to be better people, you solve problems by either holding them accountable (stiffer penalties) or, as seen here, making the problematic behavior impossible.

Tom is aware. Have a look at the description of his video. Link is in my description 👍

In the USA this isn't as much of a problem for a variety of reasons, and with our larger vehicles it causes additional problems. Try driving an overwidth load through that junction! Roads are built for their specific purpose and the needs are different in Europe than the USA.

you can't pave your way around natural selection, im afraid

@@r3stl3ss It's not natural selection, though. Natural selection means the weaker or less wary are killed, whereas in these accidents, it can be the less wary killing the sensible ones.

In case you didn't notice, they actualy tried to solve it before with signs and warnings. A stop sign is a sign. And apparently it didn't work

Not designs. Money. Taxpayer money because people won't follow the road signs. If they wanted to save lives and make money off of this, they would have simply parked a cop there and ticketed everybody that broke the law. Eventually people learn.

@@Turamwdd I agree. It's ineffective that people think car drivers have the right to step over any rules and you have to make the streets safer for *them*. No. You don't have to make streets safer for them, drivers have to learn how to drive safe first of all. But safe street design is also a great way because it works forever. Even if people don't learn

Every change that'll save lives, sooo... banning cars it is? ;-)

@@PetervdVeeken *Millions die as a result of our economy collapsing* "Haha oops :)"

Money Laundering

Probably a ridiculous amount of red tape to get through.

It really is expensive though. I know they're using asphalt and while I don't know the cost of it I did buy a 100kg bag of cement last week, it was 25 USD! Now consider the length, width, and depth of a road, pay the crew to level the terrain, the surveyors to mark the land, everything else... yeah it does make sense it'd cost that much. This is why governments have to be involved to make paved roads realities, only the wealthiest in the world would even be able to construct roads otherwise. I did find a calculator and did a lot of number fudging, but I'm guessing they used maybe 350 to 400 tons of asphalt to make the new road... according to the internet it might've cost 30k for that much, so yeah maybe 500,000 is a lot lol. Still though, you've got to pay all those people however many weeks, get the machinery out there, dig up the old road. You could do it for less, but would the road be smooth, would it stand the test of time... sometimes doing things right isn't cheap heh

Yeah, there were plenty of other, cheaper solutions, but I think they went with what they were sure would work, even if it cost more

Do an analysis video 😉

Hadn't thought of that, but of course the link back to the old viae romanae makes a lot of sense! Impressed by your pre-teen self's risk assessment acuity too! Did you grow up to become a civil engineer or safety inspector by any chance...? 😋

@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 I grew up to be a computer programmer. I'm very physics and mathematically minded.

Yep. And ironically a cyclist approaching the t-junction to turn right would be in the A-pillar blind spot of that driver. Starting to wonder if driving isn’t for everyone.

Same principle applies to navigation at sea. Regardless of right of way we all have responsibility for keeping a 'good lookout' and acting accordingly. If that means having to move your head to improve your view, then so be it. Shame it doesn't seem to be taught anymore judging by some of the comments.

on my drive home there's one bend that lines up exactly with my A pillar, I've previously lost something as large as a tractor! in it. Thankfully the road is just about wide enough but it's an O**** moment when it's suddenly in your drivers side window!

But they said bigger A pillars are safer! They'll protect you in the crash that they'll cause! Drivers can hardly be bothered to look for things they CAN see, how can we expect them to look for things they CAN'T see?

Last night when l was driving l noticed the moon was at a constant bearing so l was concerned about collision course. I made a U turn and l went back home for my own safety. Ok l know the exit…

I used to work for the Ministry of Defence, and know more about missiles than is healthy. Aiming to keep a constant bearing to the target is one way of ensuring you hit it.