With all the design changes to the auto in the last 50 years, why are the blind spots in cars seem to be getting worse? The bubble tops were some of the best cars for visibility.....it seems that every new car I drive a headrest, sail panel etc are obscuring my vision., and it is getting progressively worse and not better.
Are we putting safety features into cars that are actually increasing our chances of accidents?

 

IMO yes. All the pillars are full of air bags and structual supports and it takes space to put all that stuff. My 12 Camaro Convertible is horrible with the top up. You always need to make sure you are ahead of traffic.

 

Supply and demand for creature comforts outweighs common sense methinks.

 

Damn catch 22....you need the airbags for accidents that could've been prevented from them NOT being there...haha

 

Whatever happened to looking to make sure the coast is clear?

 

...and the headrests...non adjustable and tall..I understand why we need them, but when I am driving and all I see are their outlines obstructing my view.
With the deeper boxes on PUs and the high headrests, creates a large blindspot directly behind...I know you can get the camera, but my 1968 GMC certainly was not as bad.
In think there is just too much going on inside the car...gizmos and gadgets that are making for more distracted drivers.
I was given a courtesy car with a third seat...This car was like an extended smart car..with 6 headrests ! Needless to say you could see nothing ...I thought the 3rd seat was banned?
I am not sure , but I think we are sitting lower in new cars, which presents visibility problems also.......

 

My argument is that it is Much more difficult to see if coast is clear due to design changes....

 

I know exactly what you mean Sammy.

On my '13 Mustang, the "shoulder check" areas are bad. The quarter windows are so small. The one good thing Ford does is they have blindspot mirrors built into the corner of the side mirrors. They work great in the daytime, not as well at night.

 

Yup. The new camaros and challengers are the worst. Blind spot central outta be their site. Giant A-pillars have taken over most models now. Ten years ago I didn't think style would ever overcome safety again but maybe they can be combined for a worst of both worlds.

 

It's a bunch of unnecessary idiot-proofing IMO. "Safety" features are just something that can be marketed and used to jack up the base price of cars at the same time.

 

Ted, I don't know what to say. My 07 Sonata is a dream car for excellent visibility even with the SRS system in the pillars and roof line. One thing I DO like about some of the new tech is the 'blind spot warning' alert that's available as an option on some models.

BTW, if you think some of the new cars are atrocious for blind spots, you've never driven some of the 70's Ford products have you? The 'Pinto/Bobcat' had the worst A pillar design you could hide a truck behind, the Torino had a rear window that was just for show and the side mirrors showed next to nothing. I'm sure there are other models out there with similar horror stories.

 

I am sure that there are specific models thru time that fair well ...your Sonata being one of them...but I do believe that car's blindspot(s) are getting progressively worse. The 2014 Suaru Outback that I drove to Florida comes to mind...and I just purchased a 2011 F150 4door that, even with the blindspot mirror, is very poor.That was my point with the 68 Gmc PU that was one of my first rides..a set of highway mirrors and you were good to go.
I had a 71 or 72 Ford maverick which had better driver visibility than my 2007 Mazda 3

 

Amen to that. That's why they introduced 'blind spot monitoring option' in some of the newest turds. Oh we all need cars that park themselves too.

I haven't driven a new camaro but the 'C' pillars in the Challenger and Mustang seem abnormally ginormous. Mustang in particular.

 

I think its safe to say we drive Oldsmobiles over 70s Fords for a variety of reasons.

 

I have a 2011 SHO and I can't see much. As for the blind spot monitoring system? I still check my blind spot EVERY time I change lanes. I can see in the future where young drivers will look in their mirror and if there isn't a dot in the mirror signifying a car being there they will change lanes. This IMO will lead to more accidents. However the pillar that is right next to my head does have an air bag!


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

Why does anybody think these newer cars need blind spot monitoring? Good answer! If in the other cars you are too short to see over the GIANT headrests then you have a limited amount of growth to achieve before the roof is in your way. Same dang reason they have big side view mirrors. If you can't see by looking over your shoulder you need to have a good insurance policy.

 

In my experience in the automotive business (engineer for large car company), I have seen that safety features are done for one of three reasons.

1. The government mandates it.
2. The government probably will or will mandate it soon, so get onboard now.
3. A competitor is doing #2 already, so you need to as well.

Big one right now is the IIHS Small Overlap test. As for side curtain airbags, you can fit an airbag, a harness, and a moonroof drain tube all in an A pillar that is not much bigger than an A body. Huge pillars are more styling, and cars have been trending from the potatoes of the 40s and 50s to the long and flat cars of the 60s and 70s, to the boxes of the 80s, and the jellybeans of the 90s and 2000s to what I guess could be called "angular chunk" design.

My 07 pickup has the best sight lines of anything I've driven.

 

My 2007 Colorado extended cab is very bad for blind spots. The A pillar is really bad for cross walk locations, the side rear quarter is bad for hiding cars! I put small fisheye mirrors on to improve visibility. My pet peeve is people seem to love hanging out in the blind spots!

 

I was amazed how much I can see in the Cutty once I started driving it. My mother's 05 VW Polo is much worse.

 

It strikes me the latest designs have much less glass in the side and rear windows than earlier ('80s and up) models.
Saves weight perhaps, and possibly makes a car safer in a rollover accident, but this is putting primary safety (avoiding an accident in the first place) behind secondary safety (protecting occupants in the event of a collision).


Perhaps the conspiracy theorists will support my view of Big Brother thinking; "OK, we'll make the proles get in wrecks, but look after them so they can buy new cars to keep the economy going".


Roger.

 

It is also interesting how this affects the older driver.
I was a passenger in my Dad's car...the 2014 Subaru Outback and noticed he was only relying on his mirrors for backing up etc.I asked him why he was not actually turning to look and his response was "the *****g headrests are in the way. A month later we were in the 61 Buick bubble and he was actully turning and looking.
Over reliance on mirrors,warning lights, cameras etc do not make us better drivers. As we age, the less complicated the car, the better, and the chances of accidents will be greatly reduced IMO.

 

Yes, I have been irked about this also.
All but one of my cars have excellent visibility when turning my head to see what is there. Every year when I rent a car (or van) on vacation I am disgusted to have such poor visibility. Not only the stupid headrests (that I found could be removed on a few models) and large pillars, but the butts keep getting higher (making a back window useless), the window sills keep rising (to help hide low vehicles), and the dark tint on most windows hurt at night. I can see why kids getting backed over is a growing issue.
Certainly making progress backwards, just like in many other areas....

Not sure where you heard this, but after driving a Pinto for over 25 years, i have no complaints about visibility. Yes, the rear pillar is a bit long, but the other windows are easy to see out of and the windows are low enough and clear to see well. If you depend on only the mirrors, then yes you can miss a car. when looking, not possible. Going from a Pinto to a new rental car is like putting me in a panel van.

This is the complaint I have about my 86 Cutlass. It is the only car I have that has a slight issue on visibility, but far better than most new rental cars I get.

Amen to this in my opinion.

 

Shouldn't be a problem...

My '68 Cutlass is terrible with the top up too, but it might be a psychological thing as it is fantastic with the top down, which is almost always the way I drive it, so it may seem twice as bad as it really is with the top up.

BTW, my new 1978 Starfire has no blindspots at all. I had forgotten how nice that is in a closed car.

 

I've owned lots of classic car convertibles and none come close to the new Camaro for blind spots.

 

The rear ends of new cars have been raised to deal with the proliferation of SUV's and pick up's on the road today. There were too many accidents happening where the occupants of the car were getting hammered without the protection provided by the rear end collision system.

Case in point, I was driving an 02 Intrepid about 7 years ago and was hammered in the rear by a Range Rover with a push bar on the front. The height of the Rover and the push bar completely missed the rear bumper and went right through the trunk lid and quarters.

So today the rear ends are higher, the rake of the rear window is worse, and you can barely see out the back. When I drive my Cutlass or Rivieras, I can see out the back very well. My wife's 300 is a challenge and the 2010 Malibu I had was even worse.

I like the modern conveniences of newer cars but the older ones are simply easier to drive IMHO.

 

I don't believe the Camaro's blind spot is due to any design mandate by the government but, simply, due to Chevrolet building a show car around an existing platform (which we've seen on other cars like the Aztek). Give Chevrolet a clean slate and that Camaro wouldn't be as bad.

 

'71 Mach 1

 

There was an article about 6 months back (can't find it now) about how the newest side impact requirements are making car doors taller, which is reducing visibility and causing more accidents. I'll keep looking for it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewd...getting-worse/

Not the one I read before, but does discuss the issue

 

Yeah, the government's emphasis on wrapping us up in a cocoon seems a little out of kilter with their lack of emphasis on preventing accidents in the first place.

If I had to pick one most-important safety feature of a car, it would be good tires. High-performance, sticky-rubber tires, preferably with a really effective all-weather tread pattern. It's amazing the accidents you can avoid when the car actually does what you tell it to do.

Yet everyone's free to put high-mileage, rock-hard, or and/or dirt-cheap tires on their vehicle -- and then rear-end me. Grrrrr.

On the other hand, I really don't want the government telling me what tires I have to buy.

 

Now they are making these crossovers....not a minivan and not a SUV...I drove an Orlando...made in China...with the third set of seats.The blindspots were really bad. The doors were very tall. I could not put my arm flat out the window...on about a 30 degree angle. Again, design changes influencing safety...Oh, and please do not become a passenger in the rear seating of cars like this....your chances of becoming a statistic will be greatly increased!

 

I suppose road safety can be broken down into three main categories;


#1, Road design, good visibility at junctions, avoiding creating blind bends etc.
#2, Primary safety, Brakes, tires, field of vision are obvious examples.
#3, Secondary safety, seat belts, airbags, vehicle construction etc.


There seems to be a fourth category emerging, vehicles that will alert emergency services by themselves if a serious collision is detected, and built in breath analysers that prevent a car from starting if alcohol is detected.


None of which does much to prevent accidents, human nature accepts a certain level of risk, we drive our cars to what seems to us to be an acceptable risk level. We would leave much longer braking distances and approach bends much more cautiously if we were driving a '50s Olds on skinny crossply tires and marginal braking system than we would in a modern car.
But if we all drove ultra safely that implies humans won't take risks, if that was the case we would have gone extinct long ago, it's the chancers that got lucky that enabled the human race to develop. Maybe the problem is we haven't evolved enough to deal with 3000 lbs of steel travelling at high speed.


Roger.

 

Modern cars seem intended on getting into accidents. Over here in the E.U. there is mandatory legislation which dictates collision structural integrity and awards the stiffer designs with star ratings of which 5 stars are top. In fact, there's a video out there where a bubbletop Impala crashes head-on with a smaller 5-star Malibu. The Malibu wins the bout. But, who's to say that the 5-star driver would see the bubbletop coming, depending on weather conditions and angle.
I almost hit a moped driver with a van we rented, in a round about, because he approached at an angle from which the A-pillar hid him from sight. Had I've been driving a '57 Cadillac, I would have seen evrything in front of me and then some.
I sometimes wonder if automobile lobbies know that the windfall from such legislation amounts to higher vehicle and parts sales

 

Great point!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

 

I've watched that video dozens of times ... I'm still unconvinced as to it's accuracy. Cherry picked worst case scenario is my guess. My wife drives (and has accidented) a 2005 Malibu and it's tissue paper and plastic. The only way it would make a solid frame car fold up like that is if the '59's frame was already severely compromised. Now would a '59 found on the road with a 2009 likely have a compromised frame? Sure ... but that doesn't make for a very accurate test. Slide a new repop frame under there and do that test again ...then maybe I'll buy it.

Does that mean the '59 is safer for it's occupants than a '09? Of course not. Crumple zones and airbags are real, and they do a real job ... letting the car die so that the occupants walk away. I'm all for that ... but I've seen plenty of occasions of older full frames hitting unibody ... I've never seen the older car come away the worse.

 

It depends on how the opposing vehicle is hit. Because of the Malibu's unibody integrity, the impact was absorbed evenly. Evidently, the '59 bubbletop suffered so badly, because the sheetmetal was ripped off of the frame.
In other cases, which you mention, where a full-framed vehicle destroys a unibodied type, it's the full-framed's frame which causes the major damage, acting as a battering ram or spear

 

Doesn't a 59 Impy have an X-Frame? Doesn't it do poorly in these kinds of crashes? Haven't we been down this road a million times?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

I've heard of adding X-braces to strengthen a chassis. But, not the other way around. 56 Chevy convertibles were built that way. More than likely, Olds also:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1956-1...al-mark-24.htm

 

I had a Cheby Equinox rental for a few weeks. It had more blind spots than Ray Charles' kitchen

 

Alot of the smaller SUVs that have a roof that gets smaller in the rear is almost impossible to see out the rear window with the rear head rests in.