Law #5: "Crash standards" that have steadily increased the width of the A pillars, at great cost to visibility. With the details and that picture of the intersection, I don't see how this couldn't have played a part.

I bob my head side to side when making turns, and even then I'm surprised how well those pillars are able to hide people.

Also FWIW in one of the news articles there the driver in the right most lane is quoted as saying they waved to the pedestrians to go. This was likely a contributing cause too, as people have a tendency to process "go ahead" from one party as if it reflects the whole situation. I've seen many near/crashes due to this phenomenon. (The pedestrians had the right of way and obviously they shouldn't have had to dodge oncoming traffic, but it would have helped)

One thing that I’ve noticed is that in the UK (and much of Europe), there aren’t nearly as many 4 way intersections where pedestrians need to cross. A lot of pedestrian crossings are in the middle of a straight road, where cars aren’t going to be turning. There are often also islands between the lanes, and significantly more road furniture more generally.

When I’m driving in the US, I feel like the roads are somewhat naked in comparison.

But they weren't. All turning traffic has to give right of way to pedestrian traffic, in all cases, unless there is a green arrow in for that turning direction.

There's no case where you can blindly turn at an intersection just because you have a green light.

I get what the author is saying in terms of bad intersection design, but ffs bad design does not absolve the driver of responsibility for what they are required to do at every intersection. If you are making a turn, and you can't see that the crossing is clear you slow down. If you can't see it because of a neighboring car, you slow down. If you can't see it because of the weather or time of day, you slow down. If you are turning, and you do not have a green arrow in the direction of your turn you do not have right of way.

Green light for people turning right while also providing a green light for pedestrians crossing that stream is common in the US, but also just begging to kill people. Frankly the same applies to "right on red".

SF does crosswalks at the same time as green lights, which I guess is to maintain higher throughput, but it makes both the ped and driver experience terrible.

I appreciate the article's focus at the conclusion that responsibility for system design of the intersection is ignored by the bureaucracy. At a meta-level, I would like to see a system where citizens can report unsafe intersections for a nominal fee (to limit spurious reports) and everyone reporting the intersection is paid out X dollars for every fatal crash. At some point, the liability for the intersection would get so high that the system might notice (particularly if individual compensation was affected).

Maybe making some modifications to a "pedestrian scramble" intersection and using those should be reconsidered.

I remember using these in downtown Toronto - they were fun and seemed to work pretty well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble

Most cities have poorly designed roads. This is one intersection, but I have plenty of other examples which could easily lead to accidents and fatalities:

1. 25mph narrow suburban street with pedestrian crossings in the middle of the block while cars are allowed to park all the way up to the crossing.

2. Protected bike lanes between sidewalk and street parking. Drivers absolutely cannot see bikes coming in at any point when they’re trying to turn.

3. Streets where one lane (next to the curb) turns into a street parking lane at night. Aka, you’re driving in a lane at night and a parked car appears out of nowhere.

There are many more examples in just my neighborhood, but a lot of times it feels people designing the cities have no experience as a user themselves. The best move here is for everyone on the streets to always be vigilant and never assume everyone else will be vigilant too.

> She doesn't have the judgment to look at a situation and size up the physical danger she's in or anticipate ways she could be hurt.

Half the problem is, when you are tiny in height, you cant see past parked cars, or get a proper sense of whats going on around you.

I think people with dwarfism can explain this better than me, but it might explain why kids like to sit on the shoulders of adults, they can see and take in much more, making understanding of risks easier!

Solution: outlaw pedestrianism entirely; require everyone to be surrounded by an armored pod at all times. let's make "outside" illegal. If we never encounter a natural environment, it can't hurt us, right?