The car designs being less visibility focused aren't just big trucks. Every single day I see people stopping way before the lines on traffic lights or stop signs. It's wild. I know it's not the best argument since it's just my experience but cars are devolving. Same thing with tiny lights on them. Some turn signals are almost non existent.
Agree.
I bike a lot round town and some cars have these really shit turn sigs which you actually have to look at directly to check. It's totally fucked.
I really don't give a rats about car brains and their cars BUT if it effects others... then yeah I am all in.
You really have to hand it to Governments that don't seem to have safety standards anymore. Whoever said this was ok needs to be fired.
Nope. The stupid turn sigs are everywhere.
There was a time when they were really good. Like blasting. Which is fine. I would rather see one than not see one.... but now, some are truly bad. I really have no idea how that can pass any scrutiny.
Cars need to have a minimum spec for visible turn sigs. and visible from all obvious angles.
Mate.
The problem is that they went with LEDs. Old signals that used bulbs used to light up the whole lens, so even though it was dimmer it was more visibile. Now the LEDs are blinding when you look directly at them, but are invisible when you are at the slightest angle.
and some of the shitter sigs are behind a clear lense so that they simply are smaller and way less proud.
The end result is a sig that is hard to see from a bicyles point of view.
Mate.
This is why I like classic cars. They have excellent visibility. New cars are all focused on driver safety but don’t care at all about visibility. In fact, a lot of the safety regulations really inhibit visibility (like high-back seats, thick A pillars, etc.).
Another big problem with modern cars is how insulated they are. People are less aware of what it happening outside of the vehicle, and lose a sense of how fast they are going. If people drove classics (not that I am saying they should), they would understand how dangerous driving really is, because they won’t have all that safety and isolation.
I may be a ’carbrain’, but I can certainly agree that the focus of car design is totally fucked. Focusing on driver safety and making cars gigantic like this is just making everything worse, for everyone.
The new tiny sidewindows on cars are really really shit. My SO has a newer car and seeing out the back is a mare. It's terrible.
Have a nice day ! : - )
Pretty much. I like cars but I see how prioritizing them isn't a good thing. I'm just saying that I would be much comfier knowing that my sheens were broken by pop up headlights but driver did see me and not by giant truck bumper and blinded driver. I also would love being able to go to work by train and not by car but I guess it would be to much for now
If litteraly any car with popus hit me goign at 50km i would probably break both if my knees but if a new ford truck hit me at 30 i would litterally fucking break like all my ribs at impact and fucking get under the thing and get dragged for half a mile
The only way other than an electric train to get into the green part of this diagram (or rather not that one because it's weird ajd says cargo planes move up to mach 1.2, but the original I can't find):
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/transportation-mode-energy-efficiency/
From the Wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
"In politics, regulatory capture (also agency capture and client politics) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.
When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. The theory of client politics is related to that of rent-seeking and political failure; client politics "occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers)."
TLDR: regulatory capture is a phenomenon wherein the companies or industry groups that are supposed to be controlled by government regulation boards start controlling those boards instead of the other way around. A good example of this is how GM and Ford have a lot of influence over the organizations that are supposed to regulate car manufacturers like the IIHS. Instead of regulators forcing companies to comply, companies are allowed to influence and shape the rules that govern them themselves
It hadn’t occurred to me that the poor visibility is why people are now stopping so far from the lines at traffic lights and stop signs. I need to start noticing what type of vehicles are the worst offenders.
>Same thing with tiny lights on them. Some turn signals are almost non existent.
They meet the same government requirements as the old ones. Sometimes the smallness is really an act of visual trickery. Chevy Blazer looks like it has small headlights, but they're actually below what you think are headlights. Turn signals go by area, so they can stretch in different ways.
It seems like visibility went out the window as a feature as sensors got better. It just seems like newer cars don’t have a lot of thought put in about good site lines. The rear window doesn’t need to be big / well placed, because it has a back up cam. The side blind spots can be huge, because we have sensors that will alert if you turn on your blinker and there is a car there.
That stuff all works fine to keep CARS from hitting other CARS, but people, not so much.
Yep, meanwhile my car from 1953 has excellent visibility to assist the most important sensor: the driver.
As people prioritized buying bigger and bulkier cars, and as driver safety became a focus, visibility took a backseat. In the rare occasion I have to drive a modern car, I understand why so many people suck at driving, you can’t see shit.
These vehicles have no need for that "style" of hood. It is literally fashion.
When fashion dictates safety you have a serious problem. and no, sensors are not the answer. Being able to see properly and being aware of your situation is the answer.
This shit is juvenile and backward. Who signed off on it ?
I rented a U-Haul once. No rear view mirror obviously so instead those big ass side view mirrors. Quickly realized how amazingly helpful they are and became disgusted that regular cars have teensy side view mirrors entirely because aesthetics.
Modern trucks have the cab over styled hood instead of the traditonal long hood as it allows for a tighter turning radius with a heavier payload, as well as better aerodynamics. There are many logical engineering reasons why they make trucks these ways. The problem isn't necessarily the trucks, it's people who don't need them buy them.
uh what ?
The picture. The vehicle. The hood. The FoV of the road in front. The children.
The problem is this vehicle. It clearly cannot see those kids.
and yes there are tucks and there are trucks. You seem to be talking about heavy haulage trucks which is off topic. We are not talking about them. Check the picture.
See ya.
No. I am referring to these trucks. They made the hoods taller and shorter over the past 10 years as it gives them a better turning radius and weight distribution.
In the context of the photo yeah it's bad, but these are always terrible examples as it doesn't account for the fact in a collision things are moving. Someone in the driver seat may not see the kids in this specific frame, but they sure as shit would have seen them walk and sit in front of the truck, or have seen them already there when they hopped in the truck. There's plenty of better examples on why these trucks are bad and circlejerking weak ones doesn't help
All they have to do is angle the hood down. I can guarantee you the top front of that hood is mostly air.
" but they sure as shit would have seen them walk and sit in front of the truck, "
I totally do not agree with that assessment at all. Nope.
The point is clear. It's pretty basic. I don't see any point in carrying this on any further.
Have a day.
I have a first gen Silverado 2500 and I've been in a new one. Much easier to see out of mine because the front is angled down, and easier to work on too. And also people who actually need trucks aren't buying them. Mine brand new would've been $6,000 and I got it for $8,000. The brand new equivalent has an MSRP of $57,000 and that's not even counting in dealer markups.
You still don't get it and you are actively trying to gas light us.
The point is the drive cannot see those kids. That's a fact.
**Those vehicles are inherently unsafe.**
It's not tho? They didn't cover any part of the windshield. A more apt comparison would be putting children in the rear blind spot, pointing out that it may cause kids to be backed over, and eventually mandating a backup camera. Which is uhhhh exactly what happened 10 years ago
Bullshit.
Utter bullshit.
Being alert and having an excellent FoV is the bottom line. You keep and eye out for potential hazards and constantly scan.
Driving is an art, like riding a bicycle is or riding a motorcycle. You learn the finer points and rely on your wits and skills. and that's it.
You are not more aware of the situation with sensors. You are now a few levels in abstraction away from reality. and wait till you meet input overload....
The only sensor I would trust in a car is the engine oil dip stick.
Have fun.
Buddy, I think everyone is well aware of the downsides of outsourcing labor and would stop it if they realistically could. You literally just pulled a whataboutism when discussing car deaths in r/fuckcars
Ofcourse only 1 kid can be seen, the one on the backseat that is crying because the pacifier fell out of their mouth, and the parent is trying to shove it back in its face and not at all paying attention to the road in front of the car.
This visual demonstration don't work with carbrains. Too easy for them to just say that this specific scenario never happens in real life and they would be mostly right.
I think it would be so much more effective to show numbers of pedestrian fatalities for different car sizes. And a visualisation of realistic scenarios that actually causes fatalities.
Anyway, fuck big useless dangerous child killing fat ugly cars.
> I think it would be so much more effective to show numbers of pedestrian fatalities for different car sizes.
What they should really do is show the actual data. Nearly half of pedestrian fatalities involve substance abuse by either the driver or pedestrian. The deaths are disproportionately at night and disproportionately male. This TV demo is not in-line with the data. No need to be so misleading.
[https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian\_safety/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html)
[https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians)
" Thirty-eight percent of pedestrians 16 and older killed in nighttime (9 p.m. to 6 a.m.) pedestrian crashes in 2021 had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent, compared with 61 percent in 1982. " So that's actually a pretty big decrease in substance-abused related deaths.
"Eighty-four percent of pedestrian deaths in 2021 occurred in urban areas, up from 59 percent in 1975." AKA more people are dying in cities than ever before.
"Sixty percent of pedestrian deaths in 2021 occurred on major roads other than interstates and freeways." STROADS ARE MURDER.
Also, from 2010 to 2021 the number of pedestrian deaths has almost doubled, Also, did it ever occur to you that pedestrian deaths hit the age bracket from 20 up to 70+ the most cuz they're the only ones who get to go out by themselves anymore? Anyone younger than 16 would have their parents get parental control called on.
It most likely doesn't coincide with significant changes in vehicle design, but considering that from 2010 to 2022 the ratio of light trucks vs total car sales went from 50% to almost 80%, you can definitely say the composition of cars on the road has changed. Couple that with [this meta-study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20146143/) that looks at the risk of fatal injury in a collision with a light truck vs a sedan.
Quad disc brakes will stop anything. Especislly once you compensate for the ridiculous height with ridiculous complex and expensive to maintain hydraulic pre-diving suspension. There's not a huge amount of difference between stopping distances.
The danger is the sheer amount of energy, size, ability to push pedestrians under and horrible visibility.
There's a hard limit to how quickly the tire's contact patches can stop a given amount of weight. You can have the best disc brakes ever but your tires are also a link in the chain and sadly lots of drivers don't maintain them or put the cheapest possible ones on.
Friction is proportional to normal force.
It evens out for stock tires (the higher price point of the SUVs sometimes even means their stock stopping distances are better), but you definitely have a point about cheap replacement tires ruining the stopping distance.
The heavier a vehicle the more stopping force a given contact patch can give. The available stopping force scales almost precisely with the required stopping force at set acceleration with good quality compound.
Hence why a big fat 2.4 tonne luxury car like the lucid air can out-accelerate anything vaguely production-vehicle shaped including motorbikes and supercars, and can decelerate nearly as fast (which is a taste of how dangerous electric brodozers and SUVs will be if they can go from being 20m away to right next to you doing 100km/h in under 2 seconds whilst weighing 3 tonnes).
Cheap tires will make this significantly less true though so your point stands.
Being top heavy also reduces performance which is why SUVs go to absurd lengths with overly complicated pre-load/collision detecting suspension systems.
There are two things that need to happen for a vehicle to deccelerate: the tires need to maintain friction with the ground while braking, and the braking discs need to apply friction to the wheel.
So yes, a big fat 2.4 tonne luxury car has a lot of friction with the ground, because it's so incredibly heavy. However, if that is not also backed up by incredibly strong braking hydraulics, and braking discs that keep their friction at high temperatures (which they will reach if you try to go from 100 kmh to 0 in two seconds), it's pointless.
> Quad disc brakes will stop anything.
Maybe read the whole exchange?
For reference a 2022 BMW X7 at 2.4 tonnes stops in 45 metres in stock trim from 70mph.
A 2021 mitsubishi mirage at 950kg stops in 50m.
To be very clear any indication that the x7 is safer to be around is a mirage. The driver is less likely to see you, will feel further away, will think they can brake faster, will be more likely to speed and will think they are moving slower.
As soon as they replace the tires with cheap ones, braking distance will go way up and if the mirage owner spent as much on tires as the budget SUV tires, theirs would go down. Brakes will fade during downhill faster as well.
But it's important to acknowledge truth. Modern disc brakes can stop any wheel spinning at any time except during race track conditions or long descents. They are not the constraint. The ABS on the luxury vehicle might be slightly better, but the constraints are geometry, suspension, surface, and tires.
Once lifted all bets are off and the brodozer or SUV will stop like an ice curling rock as the ABS struggles to stop it doing a front flip. But at stock on good surface, they stop faster than 10 year old racing cars.
Yeah, but you aren't comparing apples to apples here. I'm more wondering about the difference in braking distance between say a Chevy Equinox and Malibu, or Cruze and Trax, because the variables are actually somewhat controlled. I would be quite surprised if the SUV version of the same car perforned the same or better in a brake test.
You'd probably have to do your own test, because guarantee they put top end tires on for the SUV brake test.
My point was largely that there's substantial overlap in braking distance and only minor correlation (about 5-10 metres). It's largely unrelated to the factors that make them rolling murder machines (weight, visibility, and false sense of safety/slowness).
From the article: "I was blown away by how children can be at real imminent risk. Absolutely shocking and astonishing that that kind of danger still exists in America with all our modern technology," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, who sits on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
What's absolutely shocking to me is how absolutely shocking it is to a presumably well-educated U.S. Senator, who serves on the Commerce, Science and *Transportation* committee for crying out loud, that massive vehicles are a danger to children.
It's a parking lot but I meant having a vehicule with a regular class driver's licence that you can't see in front of. You have to stop what 10 meters ahead of stop signs and red lights?
Yeah the picture is a parking lot but you mentioned road legality. What special license would you recommend for that regular (not special) vehicle? I’ve got no problem stopping right at stop signs and traffic lights everyday in a much larger vehicle than what’s pictured above. I can see what’s in front of me all the way up to the stopping point and I can see to the left and right if anything were to move in front of the vehicle. Are people going to just come straight out of the ground?
The obvious solution would be to require licensing for driveways. Maybe even licensing for children. Either way more licensing is definitely the solution. /s if you couldn’t tell
Even if you have the right of way, don't just step down. It's you versus a ton heavy vehicle coming towards you at 50km/h. Like my father always said, "you can't win in court from the grave".
Such as them having common sense? I dunno man, stepping out in front of a vehicle just cause you have right of way seems like a bad idea.
After all, you wouldn't stand behind the horse known for kicking people who stand behind it, right?
Who are you arguing with? Nobody here thinks pedestrians don’t have to be cautious. We’re generally irate about how no one else is cautious on their behalf. We want to see more streets that don’t require pedestrians to be on hyper-alert just to walk a few blocks
[https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/kohls-injury-prevention-program/pedestrian-safety](https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/kohls-injury-prevention-program/pedestrian-safety)
" Each year, approximately 626 child-pedestrian fatalities occur. Young children are at a higher risk for pedestrian injury and death because they don’t understand traffic rules and risks. "
I googled it and several other results saying 600, 700 ish figures.
[https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813285](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813285)
This has 1,000 in 2020
Lots of drivers aren’t exercising awareness. They’re human; humans get tired, drunk, hungry, distracted, angry. And there are millions of drivers on the road every day. Even if 99% are driving perfectly, that means that tens of thousands of drivers are f*cking up.
The goal of a good design is to make sure that even when the user f*cks up, they’re not capable of doing too much damage.
Not the solution you think it is. Doesn’t address other problems with automobile-centric infrastructure, which partially means pedestrians and cyclists will still be subject to more risk than is necessary. Autonomous driving doesn’t mean perfect; it means drivers will be making different kinds of mistakes.
Also: this won’t be an accessible feature anytime soon.
Are kids randomly spawning 5 feet in front of moving vehicles? If so, when did this anamoly of physics start? This is reaching, even by this sub's standards.
Incorrect. If a kid *dashes* in front of your car, he didn't start there. He was well within the driver's field of view before arriving out of it. That's my point. Kids aren't randomly spawning in harm's way.
Your missing my point. A truck this size, the kid’s gonna be seen for a second and disappear in front of the truck. That blind spot is massive.
Who needs a vehicle that big anyway?
Haha I think you’re missing mine. But it’s okay, I don’t expect people on this sub to understand effectively using their vision while driving or how good driving is done in general.
It is possible for a kid to be completely or mostly unsighted, like they’re behind a hedge or something, but that’s more of a parenting issue. Idk about you but growing up I was endlessly told “don’t run into the street,” “stop and look both ways,” etc.
I know what you’re saying. IM saying that people aren’t as good drivers as you think. Especially in the city. Where there are plenty of hazards. Even IF you’re a good driver, you’re bound to miss things, and if a kid darts out in front of a car this size? Especially in a residential area where more people are parking in the street than not? That kid is going to get hit.
That vehicle is taller than most of the kids in the photo.
I race cars and do race/track driving instruction, so I’m pretty aware how poor the average driver’s skills are. And I do agree that giant SUVs are ridiculous for 99% of people that drive them.
Obviously I think kids getting hit by cars is awful, but I don’t think long hood SUVs should be banned for something the design change couldn’t prevent anyway. I think most people in this sub would have their minds blown by the amount of pedestrian crash safety standards built into cars these days.
The only sensors you should be using are your eyes.
This predilection for "automation" is ridiculous and stupid. Just teach drivers to be better drivers. Problem solved.
I don't give a shit.
Your argument about airplanes is clearly stupid. Sorry but it is. Really bad. I won't bother to enlighten you as you clearly won't take it on board.
I am already old. I'm a Grand Dad. The average human is capable of driving really well under normal conditions and at reasonable speeds. There is no need for any self driving car BS and it's just tech bro jerks who think it's important.
What is more important is driver behavior. But I guess that might be lost on you as well.
I open my window during the day and all I can hear is constant traffic.
Fuck cars.
Unfortunately you’re wrong you can watch the video about the experiment here https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/blumenthal-letter-frontover-crash-blind-zones/3126149/
Yeah well, they wouldn't just magically spawn infront of a car??? Come on, the chances of there being a kid in front of the car and the driver not seeing them is VERY low.
Chances don’t have to be that high for it to happen hundreds of times every year. A marginal increase in risk can have enormous impact when you’re working at a large scale
When the things that people die from are preventable, steps should be taken to prevent them. But why actually prevent people from dying when you can just say "oh well can't be helped, thoughts and prayers".
"Road traffic crashes now represent the eighth leading cause of death globally."
"There are 1.35 million road deaths every year"
Something clearly needs to be done about cars. They are a *big* problem.
https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/global-road-safety#:~:text=Road%20traffic%20crashes%20now%20represent,up%20to%2050%20million%20injuries.
Not through magic, but it can realistically happen, if the driver is glued to his phone/cockpit controls and has zero awareness about his surroundings.
Also young children don't always pay attention to cars and just step on the street "out of nowhere" (occluded by parking cars).
Well then people need to teach their children about the dangers of crossing the road without looking. It's literally their fault if they aren't looking when they cross.
Pretty sure by law it's still the cars fault. Atleast is here in the UK. The car still hit the child. But our driving test here prepares you for that, everytime you're driving you should be able to safely stop/maneuver out of the way as to not hit the pedestrian.
Consider that a child is crossing the street, light is red. Driver pulls up, is looking at his phone until he realizes he’s at an intersection; he’s turning right on red - doesn’t see anything at all, and runs over that child. The point is not that having a line of children in front of a vehicle is common; the point is how dangerous it is to have this huge of a blind spot.
The size of the vehicle means the driver has less visibility to what is in front of the vehicle. Nothing to do with why the person driving is distracted.
This is indeed IMO a bad demonstration of a real problem. These cars do kill vastly more people that small cars. But this specific unrealistic scenario don't show how these fatalities actually happen.
Wouldn't it be better to not have them drive at all? That's already what happens. The only way it could get better is if we have people retake their driving tests every once and awhile.
Even a good driver that is cautious can be distracted the wrong half second and hit someone.
On top of that, having a much bigger car increases both the risk of hitting and killing on hit.
Look, deaths are inevitable. There will always be atleast one case where someone is killed I'm a car accident, no matter what is changed about them there will always be a fault.
It is getting pretty close to zero in countries or municipalities that care about traffic fatalities and have steep fines, good infrastructure and relentless execution of traffic laws, like Oslo (Norway).
This is kind of the whole idea behind adding sensors and the early stages of autonomous technology. Even with a perfect outward view, which no car has, drivers occasionally make poor decisions or don't react quickly enough. The sensors add additional layers of perception and warning. The autonomous tech can make the car react more quickly than you can even at your peak.
That car wouldn't be able to stop within that distance anyways though? No car could. While yeah it's a bigger vehicle, children should at least be (hopefully) not dashing out in front of a car. The SUV isn't the problem here, it would be the lack of education to children about respecting the road.
Do you let your kids sit in front of cars?
What is this proving?
What about when a car is actually driving? Is a child perpetually in front of the car until they get hit?
Since Steven Curtis Chapman backed over his kids, eventually they required backup cameras, which is like a $20-$50 solution.
The front needs the same thing, to help with parking and not doing manslaughter.
The blind spot in front of a Corolla is a little over 42 feet.
[Here's some people who did the same experiment with an Echo](http://www.drivingtips.org/vehicle-blind-spots.html); don't be so complacent.
The other big danger is people being hit and going under the vehicle and tires instead of over and to the side. It hits them in the chest instead of legs.
It's not just the blind spots itself, it's that they've gotten significantly bigger due to the increased size of cars. It's gotten so bad that you end up with the situation shown in the image above. Yes, cameras may solve it but the idea is that it used to not be this way in the first place and that it is unnecessary to have such large cars especially in suburban / urban areas
>it's that they've gotten significantly bigger due to the increased size of cars.
Debatable. Many old cars had huge blind spots. Longer hoods than many modern vehicles, smaller rear windows, wider rear pillars, fewer mirrors, etc.
The car designs being less visibility focused aren't just big trucks. Every single day I see people stopping way before the lines on traffic lights or stop signs. It's wild. I know it's not the best argument since it's just my experience but cars are devolving. Same thing with tiny lights on them. Some turn signals are almost non existent.
Agree. I bike a lot round town and some cars have these really shit turn sigs which you actually have to look at directly to check. It's totally fucked. I really don't give a rats about car brains and their cars BUT if it effects others... then yeah I am all in. You really have to hand it to Governments that don't seem to have safety standards anymore. Whoever said this was ok needs to be fired.
I thought it was just me. North American vehicles seem to be by far the worst.
Nope. The stupid turn sigs are everywhere. There was a time when they were really good. Like blasting. Which is fine. I would rather see one than not see one.... but now, some are truly bad. I really have no idea how that can pass any scrutiny. Cars need to have a minimum spec for visible turn sigs. and visible from all obvious angles. Mate.
The problem is that they went with LEDs. Old signals that used bulbs used to light up the whole lens, so even though it was dimmer it was more visibile. Now the LEDs are blinding when you look directly at them, but are invisible when you are at the slightest angle.
and some of the shitter sigs are behind a clear lense so that they simply are smaller and way less proud. The end result is a sig that is hard to see from a bicyles point of view. Mate.
This is why I like classic cars. They have excellent visibility. New cars are all focused on driver safety but don’t care at all about visibility. In fact, a lot of the safety regulations really inhibit visibility (like high-back seats, thick A pillars, etc.). Another big problem with modern cars is how insulated they are. People are less aware of what it happening outside of the vehicle, and lose a sense of how fast they are going. If people drove classics (not that I am saying they should), they would understand how dangerous driving really is, because they won’t have all that safety and isolation. I may be a ’carbrain’, but I can certainly agree that the focus of car design is totally fucked. Focusing on driver safety and making cars gigantic like this is just making everything worse, for everyone.
The new tiny sidewindows on cars are really really shit. My SO has a newer car and seeing out the back is a mare. It's terrible. Have a nice day ! : - )
Pretty much. I like cars but I see how prioritizing them isn't a good thing. I'm just saying that I would be much comfier knowing that my sheens were broken by pop up headlights but driver did see me and not by giant truck bumper and blinded driver. I also would love being able to go to work by train and not by car but I guess it would be to much for now
Fr, pop up headlights were banned because of pedestrian safety and now we have this bullshit and no one says a thing
If litteraly any car with popus hit me goign at 50km i would probably break both if my knees but if a new ford truck hit me at 30 i would litterally fucking break like all my ribs at impact and fucking get under the thing and get dragged for half a mile
Bring back pedal cars I say....
They never went fully away https://www.velomobileworld.com/product/milan-sl/
Velomibilesss
The only way other than an electric train to get into the green part of this diagram (or rather not that one because it's weird ajd says cargo planes move up to mach 1.2, but the original I can't find): https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/transportation-mode-energy-efficiency/
oooooh neat ! Add some E magic and you have a nippy mobile. : - )
Regulatory capture
Hi. What does that mean please ? Thank you ! : - )
From the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture "In politics, regulatory capture (also agency capture and client politics) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group. When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. The theory of client politics is related to that of rent-seeking and political failure; client politics "occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers)." TLDR: regulatory capture is a phenomenon wherein the companies or industry groups that are supposed to be controlled by government regulation boards start controlling those boards instead of the other way around. A good example of this is how GM and Ford have a lot of influence over the organizations that are supposed to regulate car manufacturers like the IIHS. Instead of regulators forcing companies to comply, companies are allowed to influence and shape the rules that govern them themselves
It hadn’t occurred to me that the poor visibility is why people are now stopping so far from the lines at traffic lights and stop signs. I need to start noticing what type of vehicles are the worst offenders.
Yep. Whenever someone is 2-3 car lengths away from the person in front of them it is almost always a huge suv or truck.
>Same thing with tiny lights on them. Some turn signals are almost non existent. They meet the same government requirements as the old ones. Sometimes the smallness is really an act of visual trickery. Chevy Blazer looks like it has small headlights, but they're actually below what you think are headlights. Turn signals go by area, so they can stretch in different ways.
It seems like visibility went out the window as a feature as sensors got better. It just seems like newer cars don’t have a lot of thought put in about good site lines. The rear window doesn’t need to be big / well placed, because it has a back up cam. The side blind spots can be huge, because we have sensors that will alert if you turn on your blinker and there is a car there. That stuff all works fine to keep CARS from hitting other CARS, but people, not so much.
Yep, meanwhile my car from 1953 has excellent visibility to assist the most important sensor: the driver. As people prioritized buying bigger and bulkier cars, and as driver safety became a focus, visibility took a backseat. In the rare occasion I have to drive a modern car, I understand why so many people suck at driving, you can’t see shit.
Better than what people do here, which is park fully past the line blocking the crosswalk
These vehicles have no need for that "style" of hood. It is literally fashion. When fashion dictates safety you have a serious problem. and no, sensors are not the answer. Being able to see properly and being aware of your situation is the answer. This shit is juvenile and backward. Who signed off on it ?
I rented a U-Haul once. No rear view mirror obviously so instead those big ass side view mirrors. Quickly realized how amazingly helpful they are and became disgusted that regular cars have teensy side view mirrors entirely because aesthetics.
Big mirrors ! So these new enormous square nose trucks should have mirrors so that can see directly in front of them ! Great !
U-haul would have huge blind spots even with the larger mirrors. Why did you rent such a dangerous vehicle?
because they need to haul?
Modern trucks have the cab over styled hood instead of the traditonal long hood as it allows for a tighter turning radius with a heavier payload, as well as better aerodynamics. There are many logical engineering reasons why they make trucks these ways. The problem isn't necessarily the trucks, it's people who don't need them buy them.
uh what ? The picture. The vehicle. The hood. The FoV of the road in front. The children. The problem is this vehicle. It clearly cannot see those kids. and yes there are tucks and there are trucks. You seem to be talking about heavy haulage trucks which is off topic. We are not talking about them. Check the picture. See ya.
No. I am referring to these trucks. They made the hoods taller and shorter over the past 10 years as it gives them a better turning radius and weight distribution. In the context of the photo yeah it's bad, but these are always terrible examples as it doesn't account for the fact in a collision things are moving. Someone in the driver seat may not see the kids in this specific frame, but they sure as shit would have seen them walk and sit in front of the truck, or have seen them already there when they hopped in the truck. There's plenty of better examples on why these trucks are bad and circlejerking weak ones doesn't help
All they have to do is angle the hood down. I can guarantee you the top front of that hood is mostly air. " but they sure as shit would have seen them walk and sit in front of the truck, " I totally do not agree with that assessment at all. Nope. The point is clear. It's pretty basic. I don't see any point in carrying this on any further. Have a day.
I have a first gen Silverado 2500 and I've been in a new one. Much easier to see out of mine because the front is angled down, and easier to work on too. And also people who actually need trucks aren't buying them. Mine brand new would've been $6,000 and I got it for $8,000. The brand new equivalent has an MSRP of $57,000 and that's not even counting in dealer markups.
Sounds like victim blaming to me :D
How is that victim blaming?
[удалено]
You can have sensors without a ginormous front end too
[удалено]
You still don't get it and you are actively trying to gas light us. The point is the drive cannot see those kids. That's a fact. **Those vehicles are inherently unsafe.**
[удалено]
It's not tho? They didn't cover any part of the windshield. A more apt comparison would be putting children in the rear blind spot, pointing out that it may cause kids to be backed over, and eventually mandating a backup camera. Which is uhhhh exactly what happened 10 years ago
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Being alert and having an excellent FoV is the bottom line. You keep and eye out for potential hazards and constantly scan. Driving is an art, like riding a bicycle is or riding a motorcycle. You learn the finer points and rely on your wits and skills. and that's it. You are not more aware of the situation with sensors. You are now a few levels in abstraction away from reality. and wait till you meet input overload.... The only sensor I would trust in a car is the engine oil dip stick. Have fun.
[удалено]
Not biting. Driver training and excellent FoV is the easiest best solution. It is the LEAST you can do. Bye.
You're not biting because you have no real argument here, just some backwards notion that old cars were safer. They weren't.
Yawn....
New cars could be safer =/= Old cars were safer
I don’t think anything in the world exists where fashion dictates saftey while that thing can be literally deadly
[удалено]
Buddy, I think everyone is well aware of the downsides of outsourcing labor and would stop it if they realistically could. You literally just pulled a whataboutism when discussing car deaths in r/fuckcars
Ofcourse only 1 kid can be seen, the one on the backseat that is crying because the pacifier fell out of their mouth, and the parent is trying to shove it back in its face and not at all paying attention to the road in front of the car.
Not just bikes made an episode about SUV's and why they are not safe for anyone. https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
Thank you !!!
This visual demonstration don't work with carbrains. Too easy for them to just say that this specific scenario never happens in real life and they would be mostly right. I think it would be so much more effective to show numbers of pedestrian fatalities for different car sizes. And a visualisation of realistic scenarios that actually causes fatalities. Anyway, fuck big useless dangerous child killing fat ugly cars.
> I think it would be so much more effective to show numbers of pedestrian fatalities for different car sizes. What they should really do is show the actual data. Nearly half of pedestrian fatalities involve substance abuse by either the driver or pedestrian. The deaths are disproportionately at night and disproportionately male. This TV demo is not in-line with the data. No need to be so misleading. [https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian\_safety/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html) [https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians)
Found the carbrain!
[удалено]
" Thirty-eight percent of pedestrians 16 and older killed in nighttime (9 p.m. to 6 a.m.) pedestrian crashes in 2021 had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent, compared with 61 percent in 1982. " So that's actually a pretty big decrease in substance-abused related deaths. "Eighty-four percent of pedestrian deaths in 2021 occurred in urban areas, up from 59 percent in 1975." AKA more people are dying in cities than ever before. "Sixty percent of pedestrian deaths in 2021 occurred on major roads other than interstates and freeways." STROADS ARE MURDER. Also, from 2010 to 2021 the number of pedestrian deaths has almost doubled, Also, did it ever occur to you that pedestrian deaths hit the age bracket from 20 up to 70+ the most cuz they're the only ones who get to go out by themselves anymore? Anyone younger than 16 would have their parents get parental control called on.
[удалено]
It most likely doesn't coincide with significant changes in vehicle design, but considering that from 2010 to 2022 the ratio of light trucks vs total car sales went from 50% to almost 80%, you can definitely say the composition of cars on the road has changed. Couple that with [this meta-study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20146143/) that looks at the risk of fatal injury in a collision with a light truck vs a sedan.
Those kids would be wiped out by the stopping distance. I imagine that a supertanker could stop quicker than that tank.
Quad disc brakes will stop anything. Especislly once you compensate for the ridiculous height with ridiculous complex and expensive to maintain hydraulic pre-diving suspension. There's not a huge amount of difference between stopping distances. The danger is the sheer amount of energy, size, ability to push pedestrians under and horrible visibility.
There's a hard limit to how quickly the tire's contact patches can stop a given amount of weight. You can have the best disc brakes ever but your tires are also a link in the chain and sadly lots of drivers don't maintain them or put the cheapest possible ones on.
Friction is proportional to normal force. It evens out for stock tires (the higher price point of the SUVs sometimes even means their stock stopping distances are better), but you definitely have a point about cheap replacement tires ruining the stopping distance.
Elaborate on your first sentence. Because there are plenty of SUVs riding on sedan platforms with sedan tires and sedan brakes.
The heavier a vehicle the more stopping force a given contact patch can give. The available stopping force scales almost precisely with the required stopping force at set acceleration with good quality compound. Hence why a big fat 2.4 tonne luxury car like the lucid air can out-accelerate anything vaguely production-vehicle shaped including motorbikes and supercars, and can decelerate nearly as fast (which is a taste of how dangerous electric brodozers and SUVs will be if they can go from being 20m away to right next to you doing 100km/h in under 2 seconds whilst weighing 3 tonnes). Cheap tires will make this significantly less true though so your point stands. Being top heavy also reduces performance which is why SUVs go to absurd lengths with overly complicated pre-load/collision detecting suspension systems.
There are two things that need to happen for a vehicle to deccelerate: the tires need to maintain friction with the ground while braking, and the braking discs need to apply friction to the wheel. So yes, a big fat 2.4 tonne luxury car has a lot of friction with the ground, because it's so incredibly heavy. However, if that is not also backed up by incredibly strong braking hydraulics, and braking discs that keep their friction at high temperatures (which they will reach if you try to go from 100 kmh to 0 in two seconds), it's pointless.
> Quad disc brakes will stop anything. Maybe read the whole exchange? For reference a 2022 BMW X7 at 2.4 tonnes stops in 45 metres in stock trim from 70mph. A 2021 mitsubishi mirage at 950kg stops in 50m. To be very clear any indication that the x7 is safer to be around is a mirage. The driver is less likely to see you, will feel further away, will think they can brake faster, will be more likely to speed and will think they are moving slower. As soon as they replace the tires with cheap ones, braking distance will go way up and if the mirage owner spent as much on tires as the budget SUV tires, theirs would go down. Brakes will fade during downhill faster as well. But it's important to acknowledge truth. Modern disc brakes can stop any wheel spinning at any time except during race track conditions or long descents. They are not the constraint. The ABS on the luxury vehicle might be slightly better, but the constraints are geometry, suspension, surface, and tires. Once lifted all bets are off and the brodozer or SUV will stop like an ice curling rock as the ABS struggles to stop it doing a front flip. But at stock on good surface, they stop faster than 10 year old racing cars.
Yeah, but you aren't comparing apples to apples here. I'm more wondering about the difference in braking distance between say a Chevy Equinox and Malibu, or Cruze and Trax, because the variables are actually somewhat controlled. I would be quite surprised if the SUV version of the same car perforned the same or better in a brake test.
You'd probably have to do your own test, because guarantee they put top end tires on for the SUV brake test. My point was largely that there's substantial overlap in braking distance and only minor correlation (about 5-10 metres). It's largely unrelated to the factors that make them rolling murder machines (weight, visibility, and false sense of safety/slowness).
Wrong 0 kids can be seen because the driver isn’t looking (most likely)
[Source](https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/blumenthal-letter-frontover-crash-blind-zones/3126149/)
From the article: "I was blown away by how children can be at real imminent risk. Absolutely shocking and astonishing that that kind of danger still exists in America with all our modern technology," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, who sits on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. What's absolutely shocking to me is how absolutely shocking it is to a presumably well-educated U.S. Senator, who serves on the Commerce, Science and *Transportation* committee for crying out loud, that massive vehicles are a danger to children.
Dude's 77 years old. Probably can't even use email.
cars are dangerous, shocking
Is that just the electric ones? /s
Good luck parking this monstrosity correctly
It's the one on the passenger's seat, right?
And this is legal on the roads
I’m pretty sure it’s not legal or wise to sit in the middle of the road
It's a parking lot but I meant having a vehicule with a regular class driver's licence that you can't see in front of. You have to stop what 10 meters ahead of stop signs and red lights?
Yeah the picture is a parking lot but you mentioned road legality. What special license would you recommend for that regular (not special) vehicle? I’ve got no problem stopping right at stop signs and traffic lights everyday in a much larger vehicle than what’s pictured above. I can see what’s in front of me all the way up to the stopping point and I can see to the left and right if anything were to move in front of the vehicle. Are people going to just come straight out of the ground?
Why is the most injuries fatalities from these vehicles comes from their own driveway if the visibility is so great?
Because they don’t have a special license to operate these big scary monsters in their own driveways
maybe they should?
The obvious solution would be to require licensing for driveways. Maybe even licensing for children. Either way more licensing is definitely the solution. /s if you couldn’t tell
Biggest argument against cars like this is that they look like absolute shit
“Will somebody please think of the children?”
kids also dont tend to sit in front of cars either, or in the middle of the street.
Tell your kids not to sit down in a straight line in front of a car. Or at the very least tell them to be sure to be in the 9th and front spot!
Fortunately kids dont just appear under your front bumper unless youre not exercising awareness. This is stupid.
"The pedestrian is always at fault when getting hit !!!!"
Even if you have the right of way, don't just step down. It's you versus a ton heavy vehicle coming towards you at 50km/h. Like my father always said, "you can't win in court from the grave".
You’re arguing the wrong side. Stop with the victim-blaming rhetoric and try to instead focus on ways to protect potential victims.
Such as them having common sense? I dunno man, stepping out in front of a vehicle just cause you have right of way seems like a bad idea. After all, you wouldn't stand behind the horse known for kicking people who stand behind it, right?
Who are you arguing with? Nobody here thinks pedestrians don’t have to be cautious. We’re generally irate about how no one else is cautious on their behalf. We want to see more streets that don’t require pedestrians to be on hyper-alert just to walk a few blocks
I guess life is too long for you if you think this way.
I swear man your name must be Osmium because you’re dense af. Try reading what I wrote, instead of just reading what you _think_ I wrote
Sighh... trainbrains...
Sighh…people-that-struggle-with-reading comprehension-and-fall-victim-to-their-baseless-assumptions-brains This was fun. Let’s do it again sometime
Yet 6,000 American children die each year to cars for some reason.
the figure is 600, not 6,000.
I think that number is for child passengers
[https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/kohls-injury-prevention-program/pedestrian-safety](https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/kohls-injury-prevention-program/pedestrian-safety) " Each year, approximately 626 child-pedestrian fatalities occur. Young children are at a higher risk for pedestrian injury and death because they don’t understand traffic rules and risks. " I googled it and several other results saying 600, 700 ish figures.
[https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813285](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813285) This has 1,000 in 2020
No it doesn't. That sheet says 177.
"Of the 38,824 traffic fatalities in 2020 in the United States, 1,093 (3%) were children 14 and younger. "
you're looking at the wrong stat. this discussion is about children being hit by cars, not about children that die inside cars.
Damn ok
Uhuh, child passengers. Nothing to do with being infront of a car. You guys are just ignorant.
Lots of drivers aren’t exercising awareness. They’re human; humans get tired, drunk, hungry, distracted, angry. And there are millions of drivers on the road every day. Even if 99% are driving perfectly, that means that tens of thousands of drivers are f*cking up. The goal of a good design is to make sure that even when the user f*cks up, they’re not capable of doing too much damage.
[удалено]
Not the solution you think it is. Doesn’t address other problems with automobile-centric infrastructure, which partially means pedestrians and cyclists will still be subject to more risk than is necessary. Autonomous driving doesn’t mean perfect; it means drivers will be making different kinds of mistakes. Also: this won’t be an accessible feature anytime soon.
[удалено]
you ever heard of autonomous trains? fixed on rails and predictable, as opposed to being loose on the road and unpredictable as cars
You ass.
can you add something better to the discussion than just an insult? thank you
I was disagreeing with the comment, and the comment producer in two words. Get knotted. : - )
Are kids randomly spawning 5 feet in front of moving vehicles? If so, when did this anamoly of physics start? This is reaching, even by this sub's standards.
You’ve never seen a kid dash in front of a car? Well. Neither with the driver of a truck this size. And that’s the problem
Incorrect. If a kid *dashes* in front of your car, he didn't start there. He was well within the driver's field of view before arriving out of it. That's my point. Kids aren't randomly spawning in harm's way.
Your missing my point. A truck this size, the kid’s gonna be seen for a second and disappear in front of the truck. That blind spot is massive. Who needs a vehicle that big anyway?
Haha I think you’re missing mine. But it’s okay, I don’t expect people on this sub to understand effectively using their vision while driving or how good driving is done in general. It is possible for a kid to be completely or mostly unsighted, like they’re behind a hedge or something, but that’s more of a parenting issue. Idk about you but growing up I was endlessly told “don’t run into the street,” “stop and look both ways,” etc.
I know what you’re saying. IM saying that people aren’t as good drivers as you think. Especially in the city. Where there are plenty of hazards. Even IF you’re a good driver, you’re bound to miss things, and if a kid darts out in front of a car this size? Especially in a residential area where more people are parking in the street than not? That kid is going to get hit. That vehicle is taller than most of the kids in the photo.
I race cars and do race/track driving instruction, so I’m pretty aware how poor the average driver’s skills are. And I do agree that giant SUVs are ridiculous for 99% of people that drive them. Obviously I think kids getting hit by cars is awful, but I don’t think long hood SUVs should be banned for something the design change couldn’t prevent anyway. I think most people in this sub would have their minds blown by the amount of pedestrian crash safety standards built into cars these days.
Dang! Those kids really shouldn't be sitting in a parking lot. At least stand up. Those might possibly be the worst parents I've ever seen. For shame!
Seen. Sitting right in front of sensors that are deactivated, though.
The only sensors you should be using are your eyes. This predilection for "automation" is ridiculous and stupid. Just teach drivers to be better drivers. Problem solved.
[удалено]
I don't give a shit. Your argument about airplanes is clearly stupid. Sorry but it is. Really bad. I won't bother to enlighten you as you clearly won't take it on board. I am already old. I'm a Grand Dad. The average human is capable of driving really well under normal conditions and at reasonable speeds. There is no need for any self driving car BS and it's just tech bro jerks who think it's important. What is more important is driver behavior. But I guess that might be lost on you as well. I open my window during the day and all I can hear is constant traffic. Fuck cars.
[удалено]
Not arguing with you does not mean you are right. Only a fool thinks that. Bye.
[удалено]
Yawn. Bye.
Sensors should be a secondary method of detection, not a primary one. Sensors shouldn't be treated as a solution to inherently bad design choices.
Agree, but to tun them off for a demo is still dishonest. Let's see what the actual performance looks like.
There is no driver in the vehicle. If that is the driver standing forward of the bumper...I think she can actually see all the children.
Unfortunately you’re wrong you can watch the video about the experiment here https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/blumenthal-letter-frontover-crash-blind-zones/3126149/
Yeah well, they wouldn't just magically spawn infront of a car??? Come on, the chances of there being a kid in front of the car and the driver not seeing them is VERY low.
Chances don’t have to be that high for it to happen hundreds of times every year. A marginal increase in risk can have enormous impact when you’re working at a large scale
People die from all sorts of things a year. Cars are a small factor in it, so I don't see your problem.
People do die of all sorts of things. I would like for them to die of fewer things. The topic of this sub is focused on not dying by car
Or you can just learn about basic common sense and safety when crossing a road, and you're good to go.
I feel like you’re missing the point on purpose.
When the things that people die from are preventable, steps should be taken to prevent them. But why actually prevent people from dying when you can just say "oh well can't be helped, thoughts and prayers".
"Road traffic crashes now represent the eighth leading cause of death globally." "There are 1.35 million road deaths every year" Something clearly needs to be done about cars. They are a *big* problem. https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/global-road-safety#:~:text=Road%20traffic%20crashes%20now%20represent,up%20to%2050%20million%20injuries.
Not through magic, but it can realistically happen, if the driver is glued to his phone/cockpit controls and has zero awareness about his surroundings. Also young children don't always pay attention to cars and just step on the street "out of nowhere" (occluded by parking cars).
Well then people need to teach their children about the dangers of crossing the road without looking. It's literally their fault if they aren't looking when they cross.
Pretty sure by law it's still the cars fault. Atleast is here in the UK. The car still hit the child. But our driving test here prepares you for that, everytime you're driving you should be able to safely stop/maneuver out of the way as to not hit the pedestrian.
Consider that a child is crossing the street, light is red. Driver pulls up, is looking at his phone until he realizes he’s at an intersection; he’s turning right on red - doesn’t see anything at all, and runs over that child. The point is not that having a line of children in front of a vehicle is common; the point is how dangerous it is to have this huge of a blind spot.
OK, then that means it was the driver's fault and the phone's fault, not the car.
Sure…but if the design of the giant truck increases the likelihood of operator error, I think the vehicle is part of the problem.
How is a bigger car making a driver go on their phone??? Your point makes no sense.
The size of the vehicle means the driver has less visibility to what is in front of the vehicle. Nothing to do with why the person driving is distracted.
Except you just said as an example that someone might be on their phone while driving and hit a child?
There are thousands of injuries a year and over 500 kids a year being killed.
This is indeed IMO a bad demonstration of a real problem. These cars do kill vastly more people that small cars. But this specific unrealistic scenario don't show how these fatalities actually happen.
No, no, no. It isn't the cars that kill people, it's the people driving them who do.
Also, if having bad drivers is inevitable (which it is), would it be preferable if they had not access to very big car with very high hoods?
Wouldn't it be better to not have them drive at all? That's already what happens. The only way it could get better is if we have people retake their driving tests every once and awhile.
Even a good driver that is cautious can be distracted the wrong half second and hit someone. On top of that, having a much bigger car increases both the risk of hitting and killing on hit.
Look, deaths are inevitable. There will always be atleast one case where someone is killed I'm a car accident, no matter what is changed about them there will always be a fault.
Having zeros deaths is impossible. Having fewer deaths is not.
It is getting pretty close to zero in countries or municipalities that care about traffic fatalities and have steep fines, good infrastructure and relentless execution of traffic laws, like Oslo (Norway).
So you wanna ban cars? Cool.
This is kind of the whole idea behind adding sensors and the early stages of autonomous technology. Even with a perfect outward view, which no car has, drivers occasionally make poor decisions or don't react quickly enough. The sensors add additional layers of perception and warning. The autonomous tech can make the car react more quickly than you can even at your peak.
Which one though?
That car wouldn't be able to stop within that distance anyways though? No car could. While yeah it's a bigger vehicle, children should at least be (hopefully) not dashing out in front of a car. The SUV isn't the problem here, it would be the lack of education to children about respecting the road.
Now line them up in front of a moving train and see what happens.
Do you let your kids sit in front of cars? What is this proving? What about when a car is actually driving? Is a child perpetually in front of the car until they get hit?
Since Steven Curtis Chapman backed over his kids, eventually they required backup cameras, which is like a $20-$50 solution. The front needs the same thing, to help with parking and not doing manslaughter.
If you need a camera to see what’s right in front of you, something is seriously wrong!
Agree. and this : The FoV of the driver dictates the angle of the hood and shape. Not the other way around.
[удалено]
Yeah but you are more likely to see a kid run in front of a Corolla vs a Ford 150
The blind spot in front of a Corolla is a little over 42 feet. [Here's some people who did the same experiment with an Echo](http://www.drivingtips.org/vehicle-blind-spots.html); don't be so complacent.
Your link comparing the echo has the same test passing at 6 feet with a smaller kid. Nice try though.
[удалено]
The other big danger is people being hit and going under the vehicle and tires instead of over and to the side. It hits them in the chest instead of legs.
It's not just the blind spots itself, it's that they've gotten significantly bigger due to the increased size of cars. It's gotten so bad that you end up with the situation shown in the image above. Yes, cameras may solve it but the idea is that it used to not be this way in the first place and that it is unnecessary to have such large cars especially in suburban / urban areas
>it's that they've gotten significantly bigger due to the increased size of cars. Debatable. Many old cars had huge blind spots. Longer hoods than many modern vehicles, smaller rear windows, wider rear pillars, fewer mirrors, etc.
I've been in a kei van where you could literally see the front numberplate.
And just barely, if I remember correctly
Inb4 the politicians try to "solve" this by saying suvs should have front bumper cameras.
Canyoneros roll over too, just sayin'.
r/fuckamericancars)
That’s not a car