Ottawa, Ontario just published a guide to building protected intersections: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/protectedi...
A lot of these changes are not particularly expensive and can have a huge impact on safety by limiting how much time a pedestrian is vulnerable and forcing cars to fully turn so pedestrians are in direct vision rather than peripheral.
For higher speed intersections we should be using a lot more roundabouts and things like diverging diamond to eliminate conflict between different travel modes and keep traffic flowing in a single direction.
Modern cars have a huge lack of visibility. They've removed a lot of the glass so that they can get sturdier frames. However, that makes it harder for them to see pedestrians.
I'd also note it makes it harder for cars behind to see the context of the road as well. I love being behind an old car. I can see straight through its rear window and out the front and see what is going on. I can anticipate stuff that I wouldn't be able to anticipate if I'm behind a newer vehicle where I can't see through the vehicle.
I'd also note that the increasing size of vehicles is presenting a multi-faceted problem. 1) Higher hoods mean impacting pedestrians higher up putting the force into their internal organs and heads. 2) Higher hoods mean that your body will be pushed to the ground where the car can run over you and cause head injuries rather than being hit in the knees and flung onto the hood of the car where you are less likely to have as severe injuries. 3) Taller vehicles mean that drivers can't see what is going on as much. A 5'3" (average woman) pedestrian can be hidden behind a 6' vehicle while their head would bob above a 4'6" vehicle. A cyclist may be riding at 5'5", but they'll be completely obscured behind a 6' vehicle. If you're trying to make a left turn, oncoming traffic may be obscuring pedestrians and cyclists today in a way that it didn't in years past.
I definitely get worrying about losing a pedestrian in an A-pillar. I find that cars are also often losing pedestrians behind other vehicles - vehicles that are tall enough to obscure pedestrians.
We've allowed and encouraged auto makers to optimize for passenger safety. That's meant that they've removed the great greenhouse that provided good visibility and replaced it with more structure and airbags.
Well we've outlawed all the other options and they're not gonna just pack it in and go out of business so what else would they do?
The automakers are in this[1] situation.
[1] https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette...
They'd be happy to build 75mpg tin cans for the consenting adults who want them but the amount of hand wringing that would cause (were it even legal in any practical sense) would start a fire. I'm already imagining the Frontline intro now "Mrs Soandso's son was driving one of these when he rear ended a semi trailer..."
My understanding is that the reason soooo many modern vehicles have such high beltlines and flat front snouts is because of pedestrian safety regs.
https://www.hotcars.com/why-pedestrian-safety-ruining-car-de...
Go left to avoid them and you're potentially in oncoming traffic, go right and you're trying to negotiate a developing mess with a driver who realizes they've made a mistake, or lastly attempt to brake and you might dump the bike or end up underneath a vehicle.
A couple things I do when coming to intersections is almost always cover the brake, flash hi-beams if I think someone is about to take an aggressive jump, or sometimes point an index finger at the oncoming driver to catch their attention. You'd be surprised how many people subconsciously register that they're being pointed at and it gets them to consciously snap into focus.
Somewhat related -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling
Years ago I nearly creamed a motorcycle after looking pretty much directly at him. The angles we were converging at meant that he basically disappeared into the background because there was no relative motion. Probably scared the crap out of him, and it certainly scared the crap out of me.
That was when I started moving my head back and forth coming up to an intersection where I'm going to turn, because it introduces enough of a perspective change to make a moving motorcycle stick out. It's exactly the situation described in the fighter pilot article. The human brain is amazingly good at stitching together what appears to be a complete scene while actually losing pretty sizable chunks of it all the time.
The other times I have close calls were 100% coincident with having a full car of passengers. I think we only have a certain amount of bandwidth, and taking up a bunch of it with noise reduces what's left to devote to vision. I also turn down the radio when I'm coming up to an unfamiliar area, or a situation that is obviously going to be complex to navigate.
This effect is demonstrated in this video about a particularly dangerous crossing in the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU
People just can't be bothered to actually stop.
I don't know of course, this is pure speculation
Imagine a car wants to turn and waits and a line of cars pass with a motorcycle at the end, then it's extremely dangerous for the motorcyclist. Because our brains interpret dangers relative to us, it sometimes just filters out the not-so-dangerous things. The motorcycle is relatively harmless to a car or truck thus drivers sometimes filter it out as if it doesn't exist.
What happens then is the car driver just waits for the cars to pass and then begins to turn while the motorcycle is still coming up, often resulting in a crash.
There is an easy fix, though: just say "motorcycle" out loud when this situation occures. It's really as easy as that.
As a driver, when you have a green light, you need to pay attention to giving priority to incoming traffic and pedestrians crossing the street, while also maintaining your calm with cars lining up behind you. It's way more intuitive that when you have a green, you can go.
The idea is that pedestrians, cars, etc. get a headstart so that by the time the left is legal, any people or vehicles crossing will squarely be in the middle instead of to the side where they could be blocked by a pillar.
It's also useful if you're a pedestrian going in the perpendicular direction. If your light turns yellow, you still have another 10 seconds to get across (5 seconds for the yellow->red transition, and then another 5 seconds before the opposing light turns green). Granted, this isn't universal (see below), so you still need to pay attention and sometimes hustle across.
[0] Weird that it's not all, but I still see many that turn simultaneously still.
Citation needed. Traffic laws vary widely based on the jurisdiction.
> If any pedestrian cannot get across in 5 seconds, then a change to green on the parallel vehicle traffic lane could be mistaken as absolution from liability.
No, if you hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk and they have the green, the driver would be at fault in a jurisdiction like NYC.
Also: A arrow on the signal means you can just go, a full blob means you have to be careful about other traffic.
So we have a few intersections where left turns are on a different timer, where ONLY the left turning traffic goes. Usually before the head on traffic gets green. Or where the arrow extends it for the left turning traffic, so they still are allowed to drive into the intersection when straight on wouldn't.
the parent comment is describing a scenario in which
straight (including pedestrians have green) -> straight gets red -> left gets green.
in NYC's LPIs, this is
all directions have red -> pedestrians get green -> straight + left get green with pedestrians
Regarding collisions due to people running red lights: at least when waiting to turn left chances are very good that you will see the oncoming vehicle since you're already pointed towards them.
That seems much better than being first in line at an intersection when the light turns green; in that case anyone running the light may well be coming from the side. I lived in Dallas for a few years and after a few near misses I learned to always look before proceeding after the light turns green.
Of course most drivers might do this for a week after getting their license then ignore it. Like a lot of good rules.
That's only true if there are no oncoming cars lined up to turn left in front of you. Even just one car waiting can obscure an oncoming car coming around them to run the light and crash into you as you turn.
Note that whether you have a solid green or a green arrow matters. A solid green means you can turn left, but you might have cross traffic. A green arrow means you're protected and as long as other people are obeying traffic signals, you shouldn't run into other people.
Lots of drivers don't understand this.
Lots of drivers also don't understand a red right arrow (as opposed to a red solid circle) means you cannot turn right on red. Most "no right on red" intersections have both the arrow and a sign (and many drivers ignore both).
In Washington state unprotected lefts weren't legal maneuvers for quite a while. They were introduced gradually starting at intersections where it would be a traffic benefit, for signaling the state adopted a blinking yellow arrow that then goes solid to signify the 'almost over' meaning of a typical yellow light.
But I agree with you that you should verify that no one is coming in that case; that's sound advice for most all situations, really.
This varies a lot by state. Several allow turning (after a stop) on a red arrow. Some even allow turning left on a red arrow, if it's onto a one-way street.
> Lots of drivers don't understand this.
This is logical. But, I've seen firsthand in Quebec (the city of Sherbrooke) where that's not the case. A driver may have a green arrow at the SAME TIME that a pedestrian has a walk signal. And in St. Thomas USVI I've seen opposing traffic have conflicting signals too (green arrow at same time oncoming traffic has green to go straight!)
I believe I've also seen red right turn arrows in Pennsylvania, but they don't have any special meaning there. But I couldn't say for sure.
I wonder where the driver education here is breaking down.
In PA, red arrow is just a regular red light that happens to be in a turn-only lane. All laws are the same as normal red light, the lane marking restrict your movement.
In CO, red arrow means stop and no turn on red regardless of lane markings.
Just about all traffic control laws are standardized federally except lights. That feels like the most important one to reduce confusion.
Not sure I believe this. Obviously it's a fuzzy statement but I don't think I've ever once in my life seen someone blatantly ignore oncoming traffic due to having an unprotected left signal.
I have seen that happen, though fortunately there was enough time for both drivers to avoid a crash.
This is the same in the southeast, and I assume the rest of the US.
Recently "flashing yellow" [1,2,3] has been introduced to mean left turns must yield to right of way traffic. These are gradually replacing solid green signals.
[1] https://www.txdot.gov/driver/signs-and-signals/flashing-yell...
[2] https://durhamnc.gov/1140/Flashing-Left-Turn-Arrow-Informati...
[3] https://www.penndot.gov/TravelInPA/TrafficSignalsManagement/... (PDF)
In practice that might work, but it's also a conflicting signal.
Divided roads mostly don't need left on green since they mostly have dedicated turn lanes.
Drivers must always pay attention to what's going on around them. Trying to simplify their decisions will just end up with more people getting hurt as drivers claim they had the right because the light said so.
Not that it stops pedestrians crossing whenever they like or people running reds, but it does take some of the stress out of driving.
Exactly this problem caused me to nearly kill someone the other night as I turned right around a roundabout (I live in the UK: we drive on the left, driver is on the right of the car). Nearly nailed a guy crossing the road as I came off it because he was hidden by the A-pillar. Fortunately my girlfriend, in the passenger seat, spotted him and yelled, otherwise he'd have been toast.
The car has collision avoidance functionality but it didn't spot the guy either. So, yeah, airbags or not, I am not a fan of thick, heavy A-pillars, and especially because you can't rely on the car's "smarts" to bail you out if you do fail to spot something that's obscured by them.
Edit: This Tom Scott video shows how a cyclist can be perfectly occluded by the A-pillar while both are moving https://youtu.be/SYeeTvitvFU?t=55
If you meant limit the cars, obviously that'll never happen, so I assumed the more realistic interpretation.
As a European, the concept of jaywalking is so bizarre. Cities are for people, not cars. You can ban people from highways, but shouldn't ban them from walking in their own neighborhood.
The original suggestion was complete segregation of pedestrians and cars, which isn't completely feasible (only in relatively small areas and with exceptions).
I think American pro and anti-car people should join together and support a massive tunneling project for major cities that would reduce traffic congestion by allowing cars, busses and trains to run in them. Convert the huge interstate highways in cities into low speed, one lane roads, separated bike lanes, and strip parks with pedestrian paths. Getting all that high speed traffic underground would be great. We should do that for an infrastructure bill instead of the one we got. Some actual new infrastructure that would help people out tremendously on the scale of the interstate highway system.
And I would agree, jaywalking being illegal is not so great (but it's not illegal on the small roads where peoples' houses are generally).
Ironically, those making it unsafe for kids to walk to school, are parents driving their kids being short on time.
Point being, I have not only ever lived in dense urban environments. Secondly, that even those non-dense are perfectly viable to make safe for humans, and use less cars.
As people who want to live without cars move to the downtown zone, the area adapts to meet their needs (in terms of the types of stores etc). If the policy proves popular, the city has the option of spreading the "car-less" zone as the dense urban core grows. Similar to suburban sprawl, but inverted, I suppose.
Now I live in Melbourne. We use the car very little but would never be without one. I have too many friends in the country and without a car you aren't getting to them without hassle and $. And so the balance of convenience vs cost means we keep the car.
In the UK almost all junctions have either people crossing, or cars turning, but not both at the same time.
Seems a super obvious idea when you write it out.
This sounds super strange from a continental European standard as well. Do you mean that cars and pedestrians are never crossing these intersections at the same time?
In any case, the UK also has at least a few cities where pedestrians often have no dedicated signal and are (in these junctions) left to fend for themselves while crossing due to the lack of signals and lack of priority. I don’t understand that situation at all.
This is indeed different from continental Europe, as a pedestrian I kinda preferred the system in the UK, but you could wait quite a long time.
Well yeah... because that'd be dangerous if they went at the same time wouldn't it?
In my experience, it’s nearly always clear to everyone where they can go while moving traffic around quite efficiently. The UK system seems to either keep pedestrians entirely separate or throw them into the deep end with car-prioritized signaling.
(However, the latter may only be in the city I’m in at the moment, as I at least haven’t seen this in London.)
You mention right of way but it's no comfort to me that I have right of way over a car when the car is trying to push through or running me over!
That seems pretty unavoidable to me, considering we put sidewalks right next to roads. As a pedestrian, I don't want to wait for both directions of traffic to have their turns to cross before I get mine. Though it can be handy if I need to cross diagonally.
Occasionally I do see intersections where there is a signal phase where car traffic is red in both directions, and pedestrians get the walk signal in all directions (which is extra handy if you need to go diagonally across the intersection). But these are pretty rare.
Most intersections don't have left-turn signals at all for cars, so yes, there will be pedestrians crossing when cars are turning. And I guess for right turns it's nearly always the case that pedestrians are crossing when cars are turning.
It's not great, but I think there's a trade off to be made. As a frequent pedestrian in a city, I don't want to have to wait until both directions of cars have their turn before I can cross. I get that the current situation does increase the risk to me, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. (But I also jaywalk through don't-walk signs all the time if traffic is clear, so perhaps I'm not the best person to make this judgment.)
obviously that efficiency comes at the cost of a higher mortality :(
We have this in the US as well, but only at more-busy intersections that warrant a dedicated left-turn signal arrow. Pedestrians who could get hit by left-turning cars are given a don't-walk sign while the left arrow is green.
When the "WALK" sign turns to a flashing "DONT WALK" (or their equivalent symbols) pedestrians are not supposed to enter the intersection.
Pedestrians already in the intersection can safely complete their crossing, but if you're on the sidewalk, you aren't supposed to step into the crosswalk.
It's basically the yellow light for pedestrians.
This is 100% completely ignored everywhere that I have been. Especially in big cities.
This is no longer true in San Francisco (and possibly CA as a whole?). Pedestrians are allowed to enter the intersection when the don't-walk sign is already flashing, as long as they are out by the time it goes solid (in practice this means you usually will only do this if the flashing don't-walk sign is accompanied by a countdown timer). I believe this law change happened at the beginning of 2020.
As someone who is a consummate jaywalker, I love this, though I do think it's questionable from a safety perspective. Then again, is it? If someone is already moving in the intersection when the light turns green, oncoming traffic should be able to easily see the person. And they'll just be starting to accelerate from a stop, so (with the exception of idiots with high-perf engines who just need to show them off all the time) the cars will be moving pretty slowly. They can stop again just as quickly if they need to, and pedestrians still have a good amount of time to get out of the intersection.
This "already moving in the intersection" phenomenon is (I believe) what drives a semi-recent light timing change: the pedestrian signals at many intersections now transition to "walk" about 5 seconds before the drivers in that direction transition from red to green. This gives time for pedestrians to get into the intersection and be seen, before drivers start making left and right turns into the crosswalks.
Its the same in Australia as well, the cars wait for pedestrians and then proceed with the turn till the light is green for them.
When the car doesn't come to a complete stop, it's easy for a moving pedestrian to stay in the blind spot as both objects move. I watch the whole time and never see their face.
One counter-intuitive result is that I cross more often against the "walk" light than with it. If I have the walk light, it usually means the cars next to me also have a green light (which is kind of insane really). Some of them will be turning, and they're far more likely to do so without looking than someone turning at a red. The A-pillar visibility issue also affects them more. It's generally safer to wait for a red light and look for a suitable gap in the cross traffic (plus right turners).
Also, a pox on anybody who tucks a crosswalk fifteen to twenty feet down the smaller street. Yes, it's further out of traffic, but it's also further out of where any driver might be looking. I will always stay in a direct line (and pay close attention to traffic) rather than take the extra steps to destroy my own safety.
Get used to the idea that not everyone lives in the same circumstances as you. The closest tracks to me are at schools, 1-2km away, and reserved for use by the students during prime outdoor-activity hours. That's probably better than for a lot of people, and even then it's nowhere near an equivalent option.
Oh yeah, also we have real winters here. Streets are plowed. Tracks aren't.
> cycle there
Hardly better. Car/bike interactions are no picnic either, and I'm also tired of cyclists thinking they're better than pedestrians somehow. It's just not so. In this case I suspect they're even worse for safety, adding yet another mismatched speed and cutting into everyone's margin of error by a greater amount. I don't see anything good or honorable about discouraging people from a healthy activity - running on streets and/or sidewalks - that can be done safely if one takes appropriate care.
Drivers are expecting we’ll be a dawdling pedestrian moving at 2-3 MPH, when in fact we could easily be doing 10MPH or faster.
We have street-grade LIDAR everywhere these days (at least in SF). I don’t understand why they can’t make “smart intersections” that flash drivers a warning when pedestrians are predicted to be crossing.
People know. They don't care. They'd rather kill someone than slow down.
So yes, people driving should be going slow enough to avoid someone running into traffic. But then the runner should also slow to safely evaluate and cross.
Case in point, I had a guy who nearly killed me on a dark, rainy night. He circled around to apologize (pro tip to drivers: don’t do this, I thought he was coming back to fight or shoot me since I let a few profane words slip).
This sounds like an extreme stereotype.
What's really annoying about this: they almost always get angry at me when they miscalculate the time it takes for me to walk (I'm faster than most) across the street and a car is coming the opposite direction. I've had people yell the f-word and other things to be also uncountable times, in this situation. We have a very car-centric culture.
'A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads' has some very good information on this.
Honestly, I think most people just don't care.
If they cared but forgotten they would be doing some other obvious things like slowing down when they drive close to parked cars or setting their mirrors to cover around the car as well as possible.
But that is not what I observe. I see almost all drivers to drive fast inches from parked cars and I can see the driver's face in their side mirror when in car behind them -- clear indication that they have side mirrors set to the road behind the car rather than cover huge blind spot on the side of the car.
I don't know about you, but I have my side mirrors set so I see the side of my car at the inner edge, which is vital when parking, and the shape and geometry of the mirror dictates the FOV I get from it.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjus...
In my automobiles even with side mirrors set correctly there is still a small blind spot but it's much much less. I thoroughly suggest you try this technique.
For parking you can easily move your head over to adjust the angle the mirror and once again see behind for backing up.
Even more unfortunately this is how everybody is taught to drive. I don't know how the exam looks in Czech Republic but here in Poland there is a lot of backing and the driving teachers set mirrors this way to make it easier for learners to pass the exam.
Side mirrors are designed to fill the blind spot on the side of your car. If you see the side of your car your side mirror mostly sees the same thing that your rear view mirror. You don't need three mirrors to show you what's behind your car.
The correct way to set the side mirror is to imagine the cone of the rear view mirror and the cone of your peripheral vision and point your side mirror directly between those cones.
I set my side mirrors so that they point outwards a tiny bit but if I move my head to the side I can see the side of my car.
In my car this is enough to close my blind spot but still enough to observe the side of my car while parking.
I almost always park with my back first because I don't have stereoscopic vision and it is easier for me to judge distances when parking with back of my car first. And I don't have any problem -- I just move my head to the left or to the right as needed. When you park you can move your car as slow as you need and stop if you need more time.
But when you drive at highway speeds you may not have that much time and this is when you need to be able to observe around your car in a split second without moving your head.
I noticed when I almost smashed into a car in my blindspot. I started reading and I found that I have been using mirrors the wrong way entire time. Here, I found an example link for you. https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/lskpl/lpt_how_...
I can tell you it takes a little bit of effort to adjust to new mirror position. You can get used to moving your head during parking (looks silly but you can park just fine).
But you will thank me the first time you merge, especially at an angle and see how easy it is since you are seeing EVERYTHING with your mirrors and your peripheral vision, without needing to move your head.
Also why not make the mirrors capture a slightly wider field so you can have the best of both...?
The rear and side mirrors overlap but only further behind the car and side mirrors don't show the road far behind you at all.
> Also why not make the mirrors capture a slightly wider field so you can have the best of both...?
Probably because it would require either much larger mirrors or much more curved (and thus making things even smaller than they already are).
There are cars with much larger mirrors. If you notice, in most countries cars/trucks that don't have rear window (and thus no rear view mirror) are required to have larger side mirrors that can also cover the road behind the truck.
Though trucks have other visibility problems that come mostly from the fact of just how high the driver sits.
Park parallel to a road with slow traffic.
Observe cars coming from behind you as they transition from rear view mirror to side mirror to your peripheral vision.
Make your own decision on what is right or not (it is your safety anyway).
I prefer to have two small blind spots that can't fit a cyclist in either of them than one larger that can fit a small car.
And I'd rather have only one small blind spot, while being better able to judge where things in my side mirror are relative to my car. And this wouldn't require a big change to the mirror, only a quite small one, if that diagram is accurate. Also, the field of view shouldn't be so narrow that a 4 degree tilt makes a blind spot too big (my head moves more than that all the time!).
And to top it off your point doesn't make sense...
> clear indication that they have side mirrors set to the road behind the car rather than cover huge blind spot on the side of the car.
a) Your mirrors are supposed to be pointed at the road behind you, not showing you the side of your car.
b) How are you able to tell what their mirrors are pointed at from the outside? Every car has different mounting points for the mirrors, the magnification and FOV can vary, the person's seating position can significantly vary, etc.
What I mean is that people don't care for other blind spots or risk of kids running from behind a car.
It means they haven't "forgot" about the A-pillar blind spot. They just don't care.
> a) Your mirrors are supposed to be pointed at the road behind you, not showing you the side of your car.
Now, they do not. The rear view mirror is supposed to be pointed at the road behind you. Side mirrors serve vital function of filling your blindspot formed between the cone of rear view mirror and your peripheral vision.
This is different in a truck. In a truck you don't have rear view mirror and so your side mirrors actually need to point at the road behind. But you will also notice they are much larger for that reason.
Here in Poland it is illegal to drive your car with the vision through the rear view mirror obstructed. That only makes sense if the side mirrors are not supposed to cover the road behind you.
> b) How are you able to tell what their mirrors are pointed at from the outside?
How to tell without offending you... it is called physics.
The mirror works reversibly. If I can see their face in their mirror it means they can see my face in the mirror -- a face in the car directly behind their car.
It's physically impossible for your side mirrors to show exactly what your rear view mirror does (since there's a whole car in the way...), so no matter how your side mirrors are adjusted, your rear view mirror is serving a function and shouldn't be obscured.
And the mirrors work the opposite of how you think:
If you point your side mirrors and your rear mirror at the road behind you, they will show you different views, not the same: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/road-safety/14154...
If you point your side mirror so they show you the side of your car, they will show you an overlapping view of what your rear view mirror does on top of significantly reducing what you see on either side of your car: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/road-safety/14154...
In the EU the driver's side mirror is allowed to be convex which is all the more reason to not waste a large portion of the view on looking at the side of your car. There should be just barely any of your car visible in your driver side mirror
The image you linked is actually an example of incorrect mirror setup (and even has the word "incorrect" in the file name).
Here is the link to the parent article which you conveniently (or hastily) skipped: https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/168258-eliminatin...
Here is the excerpt describing the image which you have linked:
"Anyway, people have a variety of opinions regarding how to best adjust their mirrors, and almost all of them are wrong. Why are they wrong? They’re wrong because they intentionally create blind spots for the sake of making sure drivers can see things that are entirely irrelevant. Most road users have their ORVMs adjusted like below"
Here is the link to the correct mirror placement:
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/road-safety/14154...
I linked to TWO PICTURES, the first is the CORRECT way with mirrors facing the ROAD, the second is the WRONG WAY mirrors NOT FACING THE ROAD.
If you have eyes, working eyes, look at both pictures. Which picture has the mirrors facing the road, and which picture has the mirrors facing the car? (Hint: Your wrong way is shown in the incorrect picture, where the mirror is facing the car)
-
You can't even see I posted TWO links and you have the audacity to call my point invalid and claim I'm conveniently skipping things, maybe pick up some reading glasses to go with your newfound reading skills before you reply.
1. Put your head against the side window.
2. Adjust the mirror so that you can (just barely) not see the side of your car.
3. Put your head above the centre console.
4. Ditto for the right mirror.
This is how the mirrors are designed to function, right from their very invention. You will have no/minimal blind spots. Yes, you can not see your car in the mirrors. That is okay: you do not need to see your own car, you need to see other cars.
If you are not starting from a stop, my solution to avoid any close calls has always been to hover my foot over the brake on top of making my turns as perpendicular as possible (there are other reasons to do that too: I see cars tilt into the oncoming traffic lane, which slows oncoming traffic down and delays their left turn, making for fewer cars passing at that traffic light and increasing congestion). If there's any potential a pedestrian (think a small child or a short person) is obscured by any other object (a car, a street corner...), slow down even further even if you've got right of way.
I had a couple of near-misses at the same spot, with cars hidden behind the A-pillar. The intersection is prone to Constant Angular Velocity approaches - probably as a result of speed limits and layout. Witnessing a whole car appear out of nowhere is something, let me tell you! Fortunately, I had enough time to break on both occasions as I was facing a yield sign. I now have a head-bobbing habit, and haven't experienced surprises since.
That way, when stuck in slow traffic, I can look for oncoming traffic before turning out at all.
Maybe car driving will be the "killer app" for AR.