Automotive

Today's vehicles have bigger blind spots ... but not where you think

Today's vehicles have bigger blind spots ... but not where you think
View from the driver's seat
View from the driver's seat
View 2 Images
View from the driver's seat
1/2
View from the driver's seat
An obstructed near-view can make it difficult to see cyclists and pedestrians nearest to your vehicle
2/2
An obstructed near-view can make it difficult to see cyclists and pedestrians nearest to your vehicle

We expect new cars to be better than old cars, given how much engineering and legislative effort goes into improving them. So when you update your daily driver – a move that most of us experience as quite costly – it can be hard to accept that its user-friendliness has gone backwards in certain respects.

You wonder whether you’re imagining things, as I did after I switched from a 2004 wagon to a 2023 small SUV from the same manufacturer. The new car was smaller inside than the old one but felt bigger to drive. It seemed as though it was harder to negotiate confined spaces without denting the bodywork. Did I just need time to get used to the car?

If you’ve asked yourself the same sort of question, a first-time study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a non-profit research center in the United States, supplies a sanity-saving reality check.

Puzzled by traffic accident data showing that fatalities for cyclists and pedestrians had risen over the past 25 years, while car passenger deaths had come down, IIHS researchers wondered whether drivers might be finding it harder to see those more vulnerable road users.

And they discovered that successive versions of long-running popular cars had obstructed, more and more, a driver’s view of the 10 meters (33 ft) of space they were about to drive into.

An obstructed near-view can make it difficult to see cyclists and pedestrians nearest to your vehicle
An obstructed near-view can make it difficult to see cyclists and pedestrians nearest to your vehicle

That near-car view, from the eye point of the average male driver, had shrunk on every one of six long-running models tested, IIHS testing showed, when an early (1997-plus) version was compared with the version on sale in 2023.

In the case of traditional cars, the near-car viewable area had contracted only slightly, the 7-8% reductions from the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry possibly even attributable to measurement error.

When it came to SUVs, however, the shrinkage was dramatic. The driver of a 1997 Honda CR-V could see 68% of a forward half-circle whose perimeter was 10 meters (33 ft) from their eye point – slightly more, in fact, than from the sedans that were tested. The driver of a 2023 CR-V could see just 28% of that semi-circle.

In relative terms, the driver of the 2023 CR-V could see only 42% of what they would see from a 1997 model, within that half-circle.

Just as shut-in was the driver of a big Chevrolet Suburban, except that its 28% near-view in 2023 had not shrunk quite as much from the mere 56% view available to drivers of the body shape launched in 2000, the earliest tested.

The two remaining vehicles in the study – the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ford F-150 – fell between these extremes, both for the available near-view in 2023 (50% and 36% of the semicircle, respectively) and the proportional reduction over time (25% and 21% – the F150 was very restricted even in 2001).

The picture improved when the field of view between 10 meters and 20 meters (66 ft) around the car was examined: every vehicle, regardless of age, showed its driver more than 80% of that area. So in any of the cars, you can still see very well into where you’ll be soon.

The IIHS has developed a camera-based method for measuring view-area that it says is much easier and faster to use than prior instruments, and just as accurate. It says its study is the first to show how driver near-car views have changed over time, and it is working on a study that tests many more models.

It said it focused on the 10-meter semicircle because that’s slightly more distance than the average driver needs to bring their car to a stop from 16 km/h (10 mph).

The authors of this initial study note that its findings are too narrow to compel a conclusion that field-of-view shrinkage has caused a rise in fatalities for vulnerable road users, even if that looks likely. However, any of us can take the preliminary findings as supporting our own experience – and especially if we’re in a country like the US, where SUVs made up nearly 60% of new vehicles purchased last year.

Car designs reflect a compromise between a wide range of conflicting attributes. Clearly, however, designers of at least some SUVs have de-prioritized near-field visibility over successive design cycles.

The key design culprits, according to the research team: higher hoods and larger side mirrors, which improve visibility out to the sides but increase blind spots around the front corners of the car. Other contributing factors include widening A-pillars and larger, lower or closer rear view mirrors.

It might be hard to believe that you are much less likely to see objects nearby from your new car than from the car you bought 25 years ago, but that assertion fits the available facts.

Source: IIHS.

15 comments
15 comments
Rusty
Oh goodie! Car manufacturers will add even more sensors & cameras with bells, alarms, whistles and what not that will of course raise the price even more, not to mention the repair price.
Ric
I found this article too laden with numbers to keep me engaged but I don’t recall seeing anywhere mentioned why this has been happening. It’s the airbags that have to be stuffed in the A pillars which has made them obstructively fat. Even my Honda fit has this problem.
Neutrino23
I’ve noticed I have to be very careful about looking for pedestrians when making a left turn. Something about the post at the left of the windshield blocks a critical part of my field of view. They made it thicker to strengthen the roof support, also, something about how it is angled really interferes with my vision. I have to move my head back and forth quickly to make sure I’m not hitting someone.
alan c
What Neutrino23 says - here in the UK it seems to be 'A' pillars are larger and more swept back to increase strength in a head on collision. The downside is that the large door mirror fills the aperture between 'A' pillar and top of door skin leaving very little visibility when turning out of junctions.
terrym
Not just new cars have this issue. The forward side view in my 2015 Ford Cmax is really bad. I have to be constantly aware of the blind spot at junctions, especially those with pedestrian crossings. Same at 4 way stops. Not only does the car have a thick A pillar, but it has a triangle structure at the lower end with a small, but useless window.
Nobody
This is an interesting subject. When we bought a new van, my wife complained about not seeing the hood anymore. When pulling into a parking space she could not tell where the front leading edge of the car was. I got some markers that look like antennae that attach to the front of the car. They stick up high enough for her to see. We also noticed that we feel like we are sitting another foot farther back from the windshield as we drive. This along with the fact that we are getting older and turning our heads side to side gets more difficult. We now depend on the car sensors more and more to inform us what is near. So far that adaptation is proving to be difficult. The rear camera is an absolute necessity when backing up because the high headrests on all the seats block our view. The biggest problem with backup cameras is the fact that everything is much closer or farther than they appear on the camera. We can see but the wide angle view is distorted. Something that looks far away suddenly looks very close while only moving a few feet. With all the sensors we still need the extra wide angle accessory mirrors to feel like we are really seeing around us. Another problem is the fact that we now always drive with the windows up and the surround sound on. Honking from other cars or outside noises are barely noticeable. We are more isolated than ever.
Chase
I've known this for decades now. Add to that the rising beltline (and dash with it) that makes anyone shorter than 5' 8" look like a 10 year old that stole their parent's car because they can't see over the steering wheel and the bottom of the door window is next to their ears, and yeah, we're on our way to having cars that could let occupants walk away from a Low Earth Orbit re-entry, but with the visibility of a Gemini capsule to match. All the radar and camera sensors in the world don't make up for loss of visibility.
@Ric, it's that and additional rollover protection, which is why all of the pillars have gotten fatter, not just the A-pillars.
@Neutrino23, I can personally attest to how bad that is. The only accident I've been in for the last 20 years is because I didn't properly clear my A-pillar Blindspot and hit a pedestrian. And I absolutely still beat myself up about it. That was in a 2013 Mazda3, and that Blindspot has only grown since then.
@Nobody, this is why I've been advocating for years that the backup camera screen should be moved to the rearview mirror, and really should've been there from the start. The wide aspect ratio of the camera feed fits so much more naturally with the aspect ratio of the rearview mirror, so there would be far less distortion. The "mirror" could also be moved up to the roof where it no longer sits in the line of sight out of the windshield (and blocks a ton of visibility for somebody that's 6ft like me) since it no longer needs clear line of sight out the back window. You could also have it automatically change the cropping, full wide-angle and a bit lower when in Reverse, and a more natural but still wider 90 degrees and level in forward motion. It would get people looking up to the rearview mirror again for information about what's behind them instead of having their eyes glued to the dash the entire time they are backing up incredibly (infuriatingly) slowly. And finally, it would be one less thing for OEMs to have to program their horrendous infotainment systems to handle, making them slightly more stable (maybe).
Also, side note for anyone that doesn't know, if I'm directly behind you and you can see my face in more than one mirror, your mirrors are improperly adjusted. The side mirrors are supposed to show you things in your B-pillar blindspot, not the vehicle directly behind you. /psa
Global
One of the prime reasons you sit inside the car with properly adjusted mirrors, & most importantly SEATS before you lease/or buy the vehicle. I have done this for over 50 of my driving years, and most annoying are the occasions when driving a rental where you sitting so low down and cannot make out the outside world anymore, no matter how much one adjusts. seeing & being aware of people, railings, curbs, etc.. Rear sensors help with the proximity, but sometimes I want to nudge my recycle bin back a bit when it's been misplaced, but the sensor beeps and flashes so wildly till the car brakes are applied and no matter how much you press the accelerator, it won't allow you to move any further back.
veryken
Glad to see actual studies of what I've been saying all along. Everyone, from carmakers to safety agencies to advocates even other drivers, thinks the greater "safety cage" and crash results show better safety. Truth is, in the real world, outward visibility is far more important. Rear windows are now tiny. A-pillars are huge. Even the window attachment point of the rearview mirror blocks huge portions looking forward!
angryman77
@Chase - I discovered by accident that my review mirror actually is a display that shows the backup camera view when you flip the switch on it.
Load More