If you’ve driven machinery from various eras, you probably know firsthand how the outward visibility of new cars pales in comparison to that of old cars. We understand this from experience, but it’s been a hard thing to put numbers on until now. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has quantified outward visibility in both new and old cars, and the results aren’t good. Based on this sample, it’s harder to see out of new cars than ever before, and that may play a significant role in making our roads more dangerous.
Pedestrian deaths in America hit an all-time low in 2009 with 4,109 fatalities, but that trend quickly reversed. By 2022, more American pedestrians were dying in collisions than at any point in recorded history, and while 2023 saw a slight decline from 7,522 pedestrian deaths to 7,318 pedestrian deaths, that number is still incredibly high. While mobile phone use has increased since 2009, surely that isn’t the only reason for this worsening trend, right?
Pretty much all new cars produced in the past seven years offer automatic emergency braking, and since we live in a global car market, we also benefit from European crash testing that has included pedestrian tests since 1997. Since many cars sold in North America are structurally identical to their European-market counterparts, maybe there’s more to the alarmingly high number of pedestrian fatalities than just the crossover craze and mobile phone use. That’s why the IIHS turned to technology to actually quantify outward visibility.
The new IIHS method relies on computational software and a portable camera rig that can be positioned in the driver seat at various heights to represent different-sized drivers, no matter where the vehicle is located. The camera rotates to take a 360-degree image of the field of vision around the vehicle. The software then converts that image into a blind zone map that depicts an aerial view of the vehicle and the nearest points on the ground that the driver can see. It also provides a numerical value for the percentage of the area around the vehicle that is visible.
Neat, right? For this test, IIHS researchers honed in on the metric of 180-degree forward visibility within a 10 meter (32.8-foot) radius of the vehicle, rounded up old and new examples of six popular cars – the Chevrolet Suburban, Ford F-150, Honda Accord, Honda CR-V, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Toyota Camry – and put its rig in the driver’s seat. You can probably guess what the non-profit found.
Let’s start with the worst of the worst. If you’ve driven a first-generation (1995 – 2000) Honda CR-V, you know just how expansive the view out is. According to this IIHS test, first-gen CR-V drivers can see 68 percent of everything 10 meters ahead. Once the rig was put into a 2023 CR-V, however, a stark contrast appeared. Shockingly, drivers of the new model are only able to see 28 percent of the area out to 10 meters ahead of them.
The 2000 Chevrolet Suburban is in a similar place, even if it started out worse. Drivers of the old example were able to see 56 percent of the area 10 meters in front of them, but with the 2023 model, that figure plummets to a shocking 28 percent. Since the Suburban is essentially a half-ton pickup truck with a wagon body, you’d expect to see a similarly precipitous decline for the Ford F-150.
Drivers of the jellybean 1997 F-150 could only see 43 percent of the forward space within a 10-meter radius, notably worse than the 2000 Suburban, and things only get more interesting from there. Since the 2015 F-150 and the current model use the same cab, the IIHS used a 2015 model and found that it let drivers see 36 percent of forward area within 10 meters of the vehicle. Still not a good number by any means, but a huge improvement over the new Suburban.
Unsurprisingly, sedans fared better than SUVs and trucks, though things aren’t trending in the right direction. Visibility from within the 2023 Honda Accord came in at 60 percent, versus 65 percent for the 2003 model year. Drivers of the 2023 Camry can see 57 percent of the forward area within 10 meters of the vehicle, compared to 61 percent in the 2007 model.
So what have we learned, other than a 2000 Chevrolet Suburban has nearly as good forward visibility as a brand new Toyota Camry? Well, new cars are harder to see out of than ever before, and once you combine the increased crossover utility vehicle sales mix with the serious decline in visibility for crossovers and SUVs over the past 25 years or so, a serious potential problem emerges. Obviously, a larger sample size is needed, but as IIHS senior research engineer Becky Mueller said, “If further research confirms that these changes reflect a general change, that would suggest that declining visibility in SUVs has compounded the effects of taller, blunt-nosed vehicles that IIHS has already documented.”
More interestingly, it’s not necessarily thick modern A-pillars that decrease forward visibility, but other components such as hood height and angle, cowl height, and mirror size. IIHS researchers attribute the bulk of the new CR-V and Suburban’s reduced visibility to those elements, meaning a happy medium between strong pillars and good visibility theoretically exists. There’s even a good chance it’s on the market already, as IIHS researchers are working through the process of comparing visibility maps of 150 new vehicles.
Top graphic image: IIHS
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
The CR-V’s tall, giant Jimmy Durante front overhang which is nearly impossible to unsee at certain angles was an easy indicator of its poor forward visibility. Add the fact many of their drivers can barely see over the dashboard only compounds the problem.
Now with even former jellybeans like the Kicks, Equinox, and Outback turning into overstyled 4-wheeled bricks, things are only gonna get worse.
Stupid NTISB spent so much time and effort making cars safer when involved in a wreck they ignored the fact that they increased the likelihood that the cars would be in a wreck. Forget the fancy machines just measure top to bottom side to side glass area. I bet those numbers are crazy different
Vicious stupidity cycle! Make everything bigger and much heavier, need more structure to support. Con regulators into unwanted, unproven. over promised smart nannies, AND SCREENS that make drivers less attentive. I never got on the stupid-go-round, newest car 2010. I’m going back to that cloud that needs more cussin’!
Obviously this is a massive factor. Let’s not ignore that the modern car is also remarkably more lethal. Specifically, the higher cowl heights led to more incidents of blunt force trauma to the head. Which often goes poorly.
Often lost in this, we’re at similar fatality numbers to 1971. We are significantly better at keeping people alive than in 1971. It would be reasonable to conclude a large portion of those 1971 fatalities would likely have different outcome currently.
Good point casualties in war have proven this theory no reason it doesn’t play out in civilian models
I rented a Silverado a year ago up in BC, Canada. The sightlightns are terrible and my co-worker was measuring inches in a parking garage in Vancouver.
Along similar lines of thought, registration and inspection windshield stickers should be allowed to be placed more inboard, where they are blocking your view of your hood instead of adding to the A-pillar blockage of pedestrians to your left. I’m sure it varies by vehicle, but in mine it would make a difference.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the more sloped windshields of modern cars for aerodynamic reasons, which leads to a deeper dashboard and greater distance from the driver to the glass.
Probably a contributor, especially with depth perception. But if truly a major factor, the Dustbuster-style Chevy Lumina/Pontiac TransSport would have already killed off everyone back in the early 90s.
Alternate title for the article, Thick A– Pillars!
I feel like with decent alloy and structural design the thickness required for rollover testing isn’t that bad, and the A-pillar airbags could probably be moved to the headliner like the rear bags and still do an ok job, but there’s added cost to that sort of thing.
Like my Bolt EV has some THICC A pillars to the point where it forks at the bottom forming a little spot for what could be a cool old style vent window, the actual steel beams that make it up are fairly thin but then they put the plastic surrounds all on it and the airbag in it and get it all plump again.
I’d love to see the test results on a classic Range Rover or Discovery I. They were designed intentionally for good off-roading sight lines. Tall greenhouse with large, windows, thin A- and B-pillars; in general, plenty of glass all around. It’s part of what makes them excellent in city traffic as well, because good visibility out of the car is essential in all kinds of driving.
Ordinarily, a V-8 engine in a vehicle will tend to dictate a somewhat higher cowl and consequently limit at least the forward visibility out the windshield, Land Rover put the floor further up — slightly above the door sills, while they kept the engine fairly low in the frame to lower the center of gravity. So the cowl could be kept lower than typical of SUV-type bodies which were normally derived from pickups. (The overall packaging of the original Range Rover/Discovery is actually pretty interesting and has a lot to do with its on- and off-road chops.)
Subarus, particularly the Foresters mentioned in the comments, have the advantage of the flat-4 (and sometimes flat-6) Subaru engines. The engine just doesn’t need the clearance of a taller I-4 or V6, so a flatter, lower hood and cowl come naturally. Foresters in particular tend to have a taller greenhouse design, so better visibility just comes naturally.
Older Hondas are still some of the best for outward visibility — Honda worked hard on packaging to get a low cowl on a conventional transverse I-4/FWD layout.
I hear some you can see out but you can’t get out.
Not a problem they are so big I can’t get in.
H
Nobody has yet complained about REARVIEW MIRRORS and the MASSIVE CAMERA/SENSOR PODS taking up a frightening amount of your front field-of-view.
Let me, then, be the first.
THESE SUCK. I test drove a Challenger Daytona and had a really good time of it, bu the rearview mirror and electronics assembly there took up SO MUCH WINDSHIELD that I was ducking down to see anything over there – you know, things like crosswalks, cross-traffic…
I’m kind of used to not being able to see past my 8 and 4’oclock (thank God for Click & Clack’s mirror adjustment lessons) and have kind of given up on being able to see behind me (stupid little porthole tailgate hatches…) but taking away my view out the FRONT is just absurd.
Not too mention new road designs that instead of an intersection or T having 90° turns they have intersection that you have to look out for cars coming to the intersection at an on ramp or off ramp 245 degrees angle.
I hate when I have to drive our truck (the minivan won’t haul a yard of gravel so well) because it’s huge, lumbering and I can’t see crap out of it. Why people choose to drive these monsters just for status is beyond me.
The covid era “get everything delivered” thing for the gravel place and the feed store almost convinced me to get rid of the truck and just pay for delivery which worked out cheaper in the short and long run but then they stopped doing it. Dodged a bullet on that one.
I wonder how much of this is due to increased occupant protection. A high beltline will provide more side impact protection and a place for more airbags, for example.
Trucks and SUVs have always had trouble with the massive hood housing the engine and accessories, as well as a long bed in back. Add in the same design changes and they are worse for it.
Though, ideally you’d want a crushable tank that doesn’t have windows, filled with airbags and a center seating spot for the occupants, to provide maximum safety from the outside world.
Glad they are making a study of this and publishing it, maybe that will help encourage automakers to keep visibility in mind instead of an afterthought. Also, something I think of often lately (basically anytime one drives by) how does anyone see out of a Jeep these days with 1000 ducks covering the interior?
those people aren’t looking up from their phone anyway so the lack of visibility isn’t a concern.
You could make rollover protection and side impact protection less important and that would let manufacturers make thinner pillars and lower the cowl height like they were from the eighties on back. Sure more people would die as the roofs collapsed on them or the grilles of the other cars plowing into the doors, but the pedestrians would have a better chance of being seen.
Your choice.
As I understand, the high sills and thick pillars don’t help actual crash safety much, they just make buyers feel safer.
Thick pillars were mandated by the rollover ratings. Back in the 80’s any Squarebody that I saw rolled over in the middle of a freeway were pancaked so hard that the roof was even with the hood and bed.
But they never measured avoided accidents. The best safety device is an aware driver but that never gets put in the projector just actual accidents
You can make the pillars thinner and get the same crashworthiness, you just have to use more expensive higher strength steel.
The article doesn’t mention high sills but that’s also a massive problem nowadays. Back in the day you could drive with your arm on the door, now it’s impossible unless you work for Circle Du Soleil.
This is one of my crapcans and the oldest car I own and you have no idea how much I appreciate the almost 360 visibility of its thin pillars and low shoulder line:
https://postimg.cc/njwYzTdT
It’s a shame is a death trap but we definitely need a solution for modern cars. My wife’s new Volvo EV is a bunker in comparison.
Yeah, window sills that doubled as arm rests went away, when the new side impact requirements went into effect. Had to raise them up, to add more protection to the sides of the vehicle.
Also ruins the convertible experience.you feel like a small child in a carnival ride
What my FJ cruiser is so easy to see out of what are you talking about? (As he proceeds to almost hit the sears tower hidden in the blind spot)
Joking aside going from driving something like my Firebird, D250 or my dads 57 Bel Air compared to anything I have driven from like 2010+ is night and day for visibility
Our 2012 Volt is notorious with this. So much so that it’s my daughter’s least favorite car in the fleet to drive. She’d rather take the Spark. My wife also prefers her ’95 Escort and it is remarkable how much better one can see out of it.
I personally don’t mind the limited visibility in the Volt, but have learned to keep my head on a swivel while pulling up to intersections. Startlingly large vehicles can hide behind that left A-pillar/mirror combo.
Let’s not forget that they are raising the front of the sedans again, so it doesn’t hurt pedestrians as much if you hit them. Ignoring the fact that not being able to see them is much worse for pedestrians.
Also, what is the status to the idea that the higher front breakover corner that was supposed to decrease broken legs actually results in more broken spines? Is there any new data? Autopian had an article a year or two ago, I think.