Cars' Forward Blind Zones Are Worse Now Than 25 Years Ago (caranddriver.com) 65
Longtime Slashdot reader sinij shares a report from Car and Driver with the comment: "Lack of visibility is a significant consequence of improving safety on the front overlap crash testing." Here's an excerpt from the report: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has a new method to look at what drivers can't look at, and the results of a DOT study using the method suggest that things have gotten worse over the past quarter-century. [...] For the study, researchers with the U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe Center used the IIHS method to examine every generation of some popular vehicles sold between 1997 and 2023. The models chosen were the Chevrolet Suburban, the Ford F-150, the Honda Accord, the Honda CR-V, the Jeep Grand Cherokee, and the Toyota Camry. The analysis measured how much of a 10-meter radius is visible to a driver; this distance was chosen because that's approximately how much space a driver needs to react and stop when traveling at 10 mph. The study also measured visibility between 10 and 20 meters from the vehicle.
The biggest model-specific difference was observed with the Honda CR-V. In a 1997 model, the researchers measured 68 percent visibility, while the 2022 came in at just 28 percent. In a 2000 Suburban, the study measured 56 percent visible area within the 10-meter radius, but in a 2023 model it was down to 28 percent. The study concluded that higher hoods on newer versions of both models had the biggest impact on outward visibility. The F-150 started out with low visibility (43% for a 1997 model) and also declined (36% for the 2015 version). The two sedans in the study saw the least regression: A 2003 Accord was measured at 65 percent visibility, with the 2023 close behind at 60 percent, and the Camry went from 61 percent for the 2007 model to 57 percent for a 2023. Results for visibility between 10 and 20 meters were mixed, with some improving and others decreasing over subsequent generations.
While this is not conclusive evidence across the industry, the results from these representative vehicles suggest an overall decline in outward frontal visibility. The study also notes that, during the same time period, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths on U.S. roads increased dramatically -- 37 and 42 percent, respectively. There's likely at least some causation with that correlation, even when you consider the addition of features such as automated emergency braking that are meant to intervene and prevent such collisions.
The biggest model-specific difference was observed with the Honda CR-V. In a 1997 model, the researchers measured 68 percent visibility, while the 2022 came in at just 28 percent. In a 2000 Suburban, the study measured 56 percent visible area within the 10-meter radius, but in a 2023 model it was down to 28 percent. The study concluded that higher hoods on newer versions of both models had the biggest impact on outward visibility. The F-150 started out with low visibility (43% for a 1997 model) and also declined (36% for the 2015 version). The two sedans in the study saw the least regression: A 2003 Accord was measured at 65 percent visibility, with the 2023 close behind at 60 percent, and the Camry went from 61 percent for the 2007 model to 57 percent for a 2023. Results for visibility between 10 and 20 meters were mixed, with some improving and others decreasing over subsequent generations.
While this is not conclusive evidence across the industry, the results from these representative vehicles suggest an overall decline in outward frontal visibility. The study also notes that, during the same time period, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths on U.S. roads increased dramatically -- 37 and 42 percent, respectively. There's likely at least some causation with that correlation, even when you consider the addition of features such as automated emergency braking that are meant to intervene and prevent such collisions.
I can't stand these modern cars (Score:1)
Re:I can't stand these modern cars (Score:5, Interesting)
They are downright claustrophobic. Itty bitty tiny windows designed to make it feel like you're in an armored car or something. I think it's because the focus groups say that makes people feel safer but I just find it miserable.
Those design features don’t just make people feel safer. They actually are safer. How else do you think the average micro econobox still manages to get a modern 5-star impact rating? Those door sills creeping higher and higher meant less glass but more steel wrapped around you.
We’re now finding the consequences of a bit too much focus on driver safety; sacrificing cyclists and pedestrians. Let’s hope sensor progress continues to get a lot better, since visibility is going the wrong direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Rollover protection is part of why A pillars are so much thicker now. The first time I drove one of them, it amazed me how much I had to keep moving my head just to keep track of what was across the intersection.
Re: (Score:2)
A pillars also now have airbags. In the 90's only front airbags were common.
Re:I can't stand these modern cars (Score:4, Insightful)
The A pillar is now thick enough to mask an entire car while it's in the danger sector. That means that multiple pedestrians or a pair of bicyclists are also invisible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We’re now finding the consequences of a bit too much focus on driver safety; sacrificing cyclists and pedestrians. Let’s hope sensor progress continues to get a lot better, since visibility is going the wrong direction.
I wonder about how much this study's visibility number leads to actual unsafety. What I'd rather see is a test where a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or another object is placed in the 10m area and the percentage of times when the object is mostly hidden or otherwise hard to see is measured. Most objects are not so skinny that they would be mostly obscured by an A-pillar.
Also, not so areas of the 10m area are equally important. The most challenging visibility area is one foot from the car, but that area is mostly
Re: (Score:2)
The Car and Driver story also left out a crucial piece of information. From the IIHS study:
At longer distances (10 m to 20 m), vehicles demonstrated both increases and decreases in visibility.
According to the study, a 10-meter radius was chosen because that's approximately how much space a driver needs to react and stop when traveling at 10 mph. Very few accidents happen when the vehicle is going 10mph because the stopping distance is normally only 12 feet, but then blind spots would play a
Re: (Score:1)
On the other hand if you're going to have a SUV the car itself is going to be a lot heavier so it's going to need more support to keep the thing from collapsing if it rolls.
But that doesn't explain why a lot of cars are built like that. I get the sports cars because people dr
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesn't explain why a lot of cars are built like that. I get the sports cars because people drive those things at speeds do not supposed to but my kid's Corolla had pretty crappy visibility.
I believe the infamous "moose test" will explain why most cars are built like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
SUVs are a hell of a lot more likely to roll over and crush an occupant than sports cars. And ALL cars are being designed and built as a result of larger cars on roadways. If a modern Corolla has crappy visibility, it's because crash statistics demanded it.
Re:I can't stand these modern cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Baloney. The main issues with forward visibility are the huge fender flares and squared-off hoods of modern SUVs. These are styling cues designed to make the car look bigger in profile, because bigger justifies a higher sticker price.
What about the raked roof profiles that result in absolutely no rearward visibility? They don't do that for rollover protection.
Same reason every car now has 20" alloy wheels with rubber-band tires. They don't do that for fuel economy, improved grip, or a more comfortable ride. It's exclusively for style, because even an econobox needs to look like a rocket ship. Yours for only $799/mo!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How else do you think the average micro econobox still manages to get a modern 5-star impact rating?
I'm not sure what you think you were talking about but the modern cars being discussed aren't the micro econoboxes. They still have perfectly reason able and large windows. As to how they get an impact rating you're way off with your structural knowledge. The impact rating is almost exclusively managed by the pillars of the car. The amount of steel in the door is irrelevant (and actually incredibly weak unable to stop a thing). Making the doors higher doesn't do anything for your rating.
We’re now finding the consequences of a bit too much focus on driver safety; sacrificing cyclists and pedestrians.
Sorry but horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
How else do you think the average micro econobox still manages to get a modern 5-star impact rating?
I'm not sure what you think you were talking about but the modern cars being discussed aren't the micro econoboxes. They still have perfectly reason able and large windows. As to how they get an impact rating you're way off with your structural knowledge. The impact rating is almost exclusively managed by the pillars of the car. The amount of steel in the door is irrelevant (and actually incredibly weak unable to stop a thing). Making the doors higher doesn't do anything for your rating.
Steel, protects better than glass. Plain and simple. Don't make up bullshit to change that fact. The door sills got higher for the same reason A-pillars got thicker. Wasn't because drivers asked for it.
Yes, you are correct about fashion over function in many design elements. But you can't deny the obvious design changes around safety. If it's NOT about safety as you suggest, then explain the $15,000 worth of safety equipment becoming standard on every damn vehicle. 10 years from now you won't find a
Re: (Score:2)
The sheet metal in the door sill doesn't protect anything. In modern designs, there is what amounts to a horizontal pillar constructed within the door, about midway up, that braces against the vertical pillars when the door closes. The sheet metal of the door is just a covering that gets draped over it. It's weak enough you can bend it with your bare hands, or a kick at least. It does not provide structural integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
Double whammy (Score:5, Informative)
The absurd height of SUVs etc. might make visibility worse, but it also greatly increases pedestrians' chances of dying in a crash.
If you're hit by a low-slung car, you'll probably suffer broken legs and other injuries after you're thrown over the top of the car... not fun by any means, but much more survivable than full-body trauma from a hit from a car where the top of the hood is 4.5 feet off the ground.
See the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety article [iihs.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Trucks and SUVs have been getting larger because of emissions standards.
The allowable emissions were specified by the size of the vehicle, as in some kind of measure of the vehicle volume. The intent from regulators was to get trucks of a given size to become more efficient, instead trucks were built to have more air inside the volume defined by the frame and body panels. A full size truck from the 1990s is about the same size as a compact truck made today.
Then is other bullshit means to meet emissions st
Re:Double whammy (Score:4, Informative)
There are two kinds of pollutants that emission regulations have targeted, because they are both human health concerns. First is particulates. Even gasoline engines emit particulates. There's a 50% chance AI is hallucinating, but google search told me gasoline particulate filters are a thing; I've certainly never heard of such a thing.
Second there's NOx emissions, which are what catalytic converters are for. More efficient engines can reduce particulates, but not NOx, unfortunately. In fact increasing engine efficiencies can often increase NOx. NOx can be reduced at the expense of efficiency by using exhaust-gas recirculation to moderate combustion temperatures. EGR has been a thing on gasoline engines since the 70s.
If you really think engines don't need catalytic converters, you forget the horrible smog of the 60s and 70s. Air quality is not great in cities today sometimes, but it's a lot better than it was before the EPA regs.
Trouble is, we're now at the point of diminished returns for emissions controls. And on large diesel engines, these systems give me constant trouble. Modern diesels are remarkably clean compared to older engines. No smoke or smell to speak of when operating under load. However NOx is still generated and has no smell, but is a human health concern, so a catalytic converter is still required.
Re: (Score:1)
If you really think engines don't need catalytic converters, you forget the horrible smog of the 60s and 70s.
I can't forget that time because I'm not old enough to have any firsthand knowledge of it.
Air quality is not great in cities today sometimes, but it's a lot better than it was before the EPA regs.
I live on the edge of what we consider a city in the Midwest USA, which I would gather our friends on the East and Left coasts might consider a "village" or something. When the air is still we can get air quality warnings from vehicle exhaust. Most times such air quality warning come from dirt and chaff kicked up during planting and harvest time. I have no doubt that things improved since the formation of the EPA bu
Re: Double whammy (Score:2)
Second there's NOx emissions, which are what catalytic converters are for.
Not really. Catalytic converters are there to burn off unburned hydrocarbons. Which result from poor carburetted engine design, as well as valve overlap to promote exhaust scavenging.
In fact increasing engine efficiencies can often increase NOx.
True. But it's a trade-off. Poor efficiencies result in higher fuel burn, which results in more CO2 production.
NOx can be reduced at the expense of efficiency by using exhaust-gas recirculation to moderate combustion temperatures.
To a degree. But NOx production rises with engine output. Higher cylinder pressures and temperatures, more NOx. And my cars with EGR all cut the recirculation at high throttle openings. So, it works while cruising. But
Re: (Score:2)
Not emissions standards, fuel consumption standards is what has been driving the upsizing. A larger vehicle is allowed to consume more fuel than a smaller.
The simple fix would have been to not care about the fuel consumption regulation but instead just tax the fuel more and let people bring out their calculators and figure out what fuel consumption that they could afford.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be long for lawyers to get in on the game - that because you were driving a vehicle with a tall hood, you knew it was going to cause more damage and thus you should pay more damages to the person you hit.
Get that going a few times and the insurance industry will adjust rates appropriately so people who drive big vehicles now have to pay for significantly more liability insurance because their vehicles are more likely to cause more damage to people.
Shouldn't take more than a few years for it to be s
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that market pressures should in theory make owning stupidly-large vehicles more expensive. However, given the lobbying power of the car industry, I'm sure politicians will step in with laws to prevent the market from operating as it should.
Re: (Score:2)
while they're looking at their phone.
Lets just skip to the relevant part of your statement that tends to make every driving position irrelevant.
Time to bring it back? (Score:2)
Is it time to bring back the awesome field of view that the AMC Pacer gave drivers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, yeah, forgot about that. I had one of the Pacer's less ugly cousin the Gremlin. Man that car was reliable and almost the same field of view as the Pacer. Mine had a straight six 232 with three on the floor. I bought it for $300, drove it for years, and sold it for $300.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a one barrel, one horn, driving purple people eater.
Visibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sort of thing really will work its way down to every car eventually. It's already getting into cheaper and cheaper vehicles. A large percentage of modern vehicles have standard multi camera systems that do 360 views of varying quality. A fair handful of vehicles have forward night vision (intelligent low light enhancement) in the gauge cluster screen. It is or soon will be cheaper than building the car with modern crash standards and vintage visibility at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice cattle catcher. I'll see more practical variations on that theme on quite a few trucks around here, on the light and heavy varieties both. Wandering cattle isn't near the same concern here as further to the west but deer are a common hazard and will do damage. There's likely to be some minimal impact to visibility but I doubt it much matters on the whole.
Re: (Score:2)
The government should mandate free healthcare. That way people can get their penises enlarged and on longer need to drive a car the size of a small school.
The Less You See, the Better: (Score:2)
Modern cars are designed to ignore the other guy. All part of today's "Screw 'Em" ethos.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern US cars are designed to ignore the other guy. All part of today's "Screw 'Em" ethos.
FTFW. In Europe our safety standards also apply to pedestrians, which is why the Cybertruck (among others) isn't road legal here.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern cars are designed to ignore the other guy. All part of today's "Screw 'Em" ethos.
Based on auto insurance rates, I’m guessing that ethos has become an industry mantra.
Crappy SUVs.... (Score:2)
Time to outlaw these or require a trucker's drivers license.
Re: (Score:3)
Time to outlaw these or require a trucker's drivers license.
You say that as if SUVs are the worst example. Those who barely know how to drive can hang a damn car hauler on the ass end of a 26’ U-Haul and legally pretend they’re a trucker with zero additional training. Certainly not as popular but far more dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
The SVUs have the numbers. That is what makes them the worst example and the largest risk. I am aware of the limits. For example I am allowed to drive up to 7.5 metric tons, with zero training on a vehicle this size. I once drove a 4.5t truck and I immediately felt very unqualified and did drive as carefully as never before. And I am not doing that again. But that is the point. Peopel with a normal drivers license are not qualified to drive soemthign as heavy and dangerous as a SUV. But many do because it i
Amen to that (Score:2)
We lost rear visibility in the name of rollover protection, and we're losing front visibility for the purpose of improving partial offset crash scores — and for style reasons in pickups, and SUVs, and cars that think they're SUVs. Square hood manly! Ugh!
My '93 Impreza was kind of amazing to see out of, and that had great rollover characteristics. I know this because the person I sold it to got hit hard in a rear quarter on the highway at speed and rolled five times, and walked away with light scratche
Jeep Wrangler vs Honda CRV (Score:1)
The front, side, and rear visibility in my 2007 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited is way better than my wife's 2024 Honda CRV.
There is a fix: (Score:2)
Many years ago, I came up with a concept to fix these issues. My concept was as follows:
1) Cars, SUVs, and light trucks used for non-commercial purposes like commuting, short trips and "family car" duties" would remain mostly the same as they are now, with the following changes:
a) The driver's controls inside the car would be removed.
b) There would be a driver's seat bolted to the very front of the front bumper right in the middle, so the driver would be right at the front of the car.
c) The necessary driver
Re: (Score:1)
It's a real shame you spent so much time to type in something so stupid.
Re: There is a fix: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. Show's like Three's Company exist for people like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving a compact car in 2025 (Score:2)
Re: Driving a compact car in 2025 (Score:2)
Not new (Score:3)
Over the years I leased two Chrysler Cirrus cars -- both shared the same defect, the pillars on both sides of the windscreen were so wide that one or two people in acrosswalk would be hidden by them. Exterior visibility has been an issue for many years -- of the 7 cars that I have owned, only two had clearly visible corners and were easy to parallel park -- my '66 caddy and '73 benz sedan. The rest required braille parking in crowded urban areas. The only saving grace of my current small SUV is a backup camera. And don't get me started on touch screens...
Re: (Score:2)
The only saving grace of my current small SUV is a backup camera.
I'm almost certain that backup cameras are required by federal regulations now, and that has been the case for years at this point. Maybe it's been a decade by now. I'm sure someone can look it up if curious enough.
I could be mistaken but I recall some SUVs and trucks having two rear facing cameras now, one being the standard backup camera and the additional camera pointed down at a towing hitch to aid in hooking up a trailer. That's a nice touch over what I recall when trying to get the family truck hoo
Re: (Score:1)
One of the easiest vehicles to parallel park that I ever drove was an 84-passenger ThomasBuilt. Great mirrors, great visibility, good turning radius (for a bus). I do generally fine with my current vehicles, but they're mostly older. The newest is a 2014 Honda Pilot, and the hood is high enough it took me a hot minute to get used to the degraded visibility. By contrast, my '94 Suburban is pretty easy to see all around, and my '78 K10 is a dream (a non-moving dream at the moment, but hey, visibility is g
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck all that.
Its pretty obvious (Score:2)
Conventional window SIZE regulations needed. (Score:2)
The point of windows is visibility.
Blind zone caused by rear view mirror (Score:3)
The rear view mirror blocks visibility of what's front and to the right. This makes the car rather unsafe, and it feels the mirror could at least be positioned so that it's slightly higher without obstructing the view.
This is in addition to cars being slightly difficult to see things that are up close.
Re: (Score:3)
This makes the car rather unsafe, and it feels the mirror could at least be positioned so that it's slightly higher without obstructing the view.
If you weren't mounted vertically in a tank your head would be below the mirror and the only thing the mirror is blocking would be the clouds, airplane and the occasionally poorly positioned traffic light. In virtually all normal cars (reads: non American SUV penis compensators), the driver is seated such that their head is well below the mirror and it's not blocking anything significant.
You are right though, and it's one of the reasons I don't like driving our work SUVs.
Nowhere in a Toyota is Easy to See (Score:2)
It's the dang A pillar! (Score:2)
The A pillar has gotten huge over time primarily for roll over protection. The dang thing is a big obstruction. I've been driving since 1969 and I now have to move my head sideways to see around those pillars when pulling out onto a road. I frequently get surprised by a car obscured by that pillar.
Make the A pillar thinner and increase the size of the B pillar with added strength in the roof!
Sounds about right. (Score:2)
In my experience, this checks out.
I bought a Scion IQ and--sheesh--you can't even see the hood from the driver's seat.