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.
I do not understand how they ever sold the Camaro reboot, much less how it outsold the Mustang and Challenger for years. No matter how good the rest of it might be, the windowsills and cowl were so high that no matter what I did with the seat they were at nose level.
The visibility in my ’88 SL is unmatched. So will my body parts if I get into a crash, however.
When I come across cars from the 80’s it makes me really miss the big windows and great visibility cars had then. If you’ve ever sat in an 80’s model Honda Accord, Prelude, or Civic you’ll know what I mean. The cowl was really low, too. With the sloping hood lines they had it literally felt like you could reach over the dash and touch the road in front of you.
My Saab 900 is a fishbowl. And Top Gear dropped one on its roof and those skinny pillars barely budged, so it’s not like I’m sacrificing rollover safety for that great visibility.
Lucky you! Saab 900’s are awesome vehicles. They have really comfy seats as well. I think the blackout function for the dash lighting is neat as all get out. Saab’s are unstoppable beast in the snow, too!
I’d rather my car was stoppable in the snow :p
A-Pillars have gotten me into trouble more times than I’d like to admit.. I try to be an extremely courteous, responsible wheelman, and yet!, the A-Pillar is a sort of nemesis. It’s so easy when in a rush to lose entire vehicles behind the pillar even in daytime, even moreso at night.
Thankfully I’ve slowed down over the years, but every now and then..
Yeah driving now involves a lot of leaning forwards and backwards to check and double check that nothing is hiding in the huge A-pillar blindspots. Striking difference when I get into my 1995 F-150 and can see almost every direction unimpeded, including straight back through the back glass.
Not a completely comparable period but EU-wide pedestrian fatalities dropped by 20% 2012-2022. So excluding the common vehicles on sale, it would seem like the reason for increased fatalities in the US has to do with changes in driver behaviour (no idea if this is a factor) or the increased bulk of the vehicles hitting pedestrians.
A friend of mine recently got into a car accident because the other driver was in a big modern Chevy truck and simply didn’t see my friend’s Honda Fit in front of him. The hood is so high and the sight lines so bad that he just rolled right into the Fit when the light turned green.
I have no doubt. I’m 6 foot tall and the top of the hoods on the new trucks are almost shoulder level. Pretty sad when you need to grab a step ladder to check the oil or add washer fluid. I suspect the hoods keep getting higher so the grilles can keep getting bigger and bigger.
I love this. With all the gnashing of teeth recently with changing regulations, this really has promise. It’s hard to understand how the well-intended regulators have let “cars” evolve to the point where the driver struggles to see out. Heck, on many modern pickups, the hood is higher than the already high dash! Hopefully something good will come of these efforts.
Is any regulator looking at all the requirements all together? It feels very piecemeal.
Bring back stellar outward visibility!
This is an important issue that’s not often reported, so thanks for that. But you shouldn’t look for one number that sums up driver visibility. It’s more constructive, I think, to separate vertical and horizontal visibility, because they’re two different issues. Of course a high-riding truck with a long hood will obstruct forward vision close to the vehicle. But with a more squarish profile and more upright A-pillars, that truck will probably give better visibility horizontally, especially at intersections. Reviewers talk about pillars being thick or thin, but how long are they? A streamlined car’s a-pillars might be three feet long, and that slices up the view of cross traffic at intersections. You might see just the legs of an approaching pedestrian, and then only the head, but the brain has to integrate that fractured view to recognize the hazard.
It’s probably no accident that after my daughter bought her first car, a Ford C-Max with a large, streamlined windshield, she struck a bicyclist at an intersection (no one was hurt, and we paid for the bike). Now I tend to avoid cars with flattened windshields. The A-pillars in my Mercedes GLK are short and upright, blocking much less of the view.
We seem to be in the worst of possible worlds here. Pedestrian impact regs mandate tall, boxy hoods that limit downwards and straight-ahead visibility. Fuel economy regs and styling trends lead us to sleek windshield profiles with very long A-pillars. The profiles and proportions of many cars look like jet aircraft canopies mounted atop a brick. Blind spots enlarge into zones, then regions and continents. Where will it stop?
I went from daily driving my 87 LeBaron and 95 Neon to an 07 Civic and the A pillars on it are absolutely brutal. I find myself bobbing my head side to side to see around them a lot.
I purchased an 09 Civic recently and also have really struggled with the A pillars. I was used to driving a BMW e36 or a Jeep MJ. It’s really easy to loose a whole car in a Civic’s A pillar.
Total visibility is definitely an issue. My little 2001 Tracker is like driving a greenhouse. Acres of glass with teeeeny tiny little pillars. My Volt feels downright bunkerlike in comparison. However, if I roll the Tracker or get into a serious accident I’ll be turned to a fine pink paste. There has got to be some sort of middle ground between the bunker, and a totally unsafe open greenhouse.
I find this true but also the cars that are supposed to have less blind spots just have them in weird places you don’t expect so they are actually worse. It’s why Subarus all park together because the thing has so many weird blind spots. You don’t realize it until you drive one a few times. Better visibility out of a dump truck. It seems like 3/4 ton trucks and up are a little less effected but still have the a column and massive side and some other blind spots. More intuitive blind spots that can be fixed with mirrors.
I find my 03 Yukon XL is actually much easier to park than my wife’s 2020 Escape just because it is so easy to see out everywhere. It’s absurd since it is over 5 feet longer with the bike rack on, over 3 feet even without it.
The transition of the old Mazda platform escapes to the newer egg ones is pretty enormous. We have an 11 at home (2nd to last year of the old platform) and a 13 at work. Despite the refinements of the 13, I much prefer the older one.
It was very similar when my parents went from a 97 Grand Cherokee to an 18 Grand Cherokee. The 97 had excellent sight lines, the 18 can hid some large objects in its blind spots.
I’ve rejected a car for lack of visibility. Last time I was looking for a car I was moving from a PHEV and looking at full electric options, I was avoiding tesla. The local dealer had a Mustang Mach-e so I drove it.
I’m tall with long legs. Compared to most people I sit a bit higher but much further back. The hood, the A pillars, and the height of the door sills made it so I felt like I had no visibility. More than once I had to have my wife in the passenger seat spot a curb for me.
Same body type. I get it.
My 88 Saab 900 has the classic wraparound windshield so there’s no A pillar obstruction. Noticed it even more lately.
From the drivers’ seat of a 900, the A-pillars appeared to go straight up and down, for the least obstruction possible. It was probably the wraparound curvature of the windshield that makes it work. I wish I could buy a car like that today.
I loved my Suzuki SX4, but the ginormous A-pillar, mounted way forward, made left turns hazardous for pedestrians on occasion. It took a lot of craning.
know how many accidents I’ve almost been in because of the damn size of the A pillars on a 2009 jeep. I practically have to get into the passenger seat to see if another car is in the intersection.
This is why an AMC Pacer is the only true answer.
I’d be curious about a newer Kia with the downward slope on the hood and rear end if it improved the visibility. But yeah the B-Pillars and A-pillars are all too big due to roll over requirements.
For the longest time Subaru was doing good as it had beefier hardened steel interiors but then the wind airbag requirements came along and beefed them up.
Man, I thought it was just me. My Bolt has big A pillars that keep me from seeing properly to my left at intersections. Particularly hard to see is any pedestrian to the left front wanting to use a crosswalk. This visibility issue has spiked adrenalin more than once.
In other news, water is wet….
I agree with this study wholeheartedly. Giant A pillars make it hard to see anything to the left or right, huge cowls mean you can’t see things low in front of you and the ever decreasing size of rear windows mands you NEED a backup camera. I have decided against cars I very much wanted because of these things.
I remember looking out the low, sloping front of my 87 Integra and feeling like I could see the ground a foot in front of my car. I understand why this changed, but vision is such an important part of driving.
The huge cowls keeping sight lines high, in conjunction with a trend of putting turn signals low in rear bumpers have meant more frequent close calls for me with rear end collisions. Too many other drivers just get too close to see my turn signals and then they’re too close to react when I hit the brakes for the previously indicated turn. I’ve adjusted to this by signaling much more in advance than I used too, but that isn’t always ideal in an urban environment where there are multiple places to turn in the distance I have my signals active.
I actually don’t want to see the ground close ahead of the car. That’s stressful and distracting at high speed, when I ought to looking a far ahead.
I have experienced times in my 14 GC when coming to a right-angle intersection where there is a vehicle approaching the intersection on the left and if it is moving at just the right speed it will be completely blocked from view by the A pillar for the entire time of approaching the intersection.
As others have pointed out there’s also the huge pod behind the mirror (which is also in the way because too low due to sloping windshield) and the big ass side mirrors.
I have had the GC for almost 10 years and it is the only vehicle I have owned where I haven’t developed a feeling for the vehicle space. I always feel like cars riding parallel are infringing on my lane and i will typically leave way more room than needed in front when parking head on. I am glad there is a backup camera.
Contrast that with the 00 GC I had for several years-no problem feeling where that Jeeps boundaries were. And they aren’t significantly different in size.
Also totally different story with my Saab 9-3 convertible – I can pull that into the garage and deliberately park it to the right of the opening, just barely clearing the jamb.
Outward visibility is part of the reason why I went with a new GTI over the Mazda 3 hatch, interior is amazing but C pillar on the 3 is thicc and beltline is high
I also have an old extended cab Tacoma (5spd 2wd with 5 lug wheels, aka grandpa/landscaper spec). With the mirrors positioned correctly it has no blind spots, unlike modern trucks. 2in lower than a Rav4 but still has a 6ft bed, oh how far we’ve fallen
As a side note, it is mindblowing to me that you can get a manual trans in a brand new Tacoma but not the GTI, what a world we live in
This is the least surprising finding ever. My 2013 JSW TDI has decent visibility and everything else I own has stellar visibility because it’s 30 to 50 years old. My BMW E12, Saab 900, Sentra SE-R and 911 SC are fishbowls. I drive Mach Es regularly for work and I fell like I’m driving a cave. I’ve learned to use rear view cameras because I have to. I can’t see squat out of them.
I’ve never driven a 911, but those are all very sound choices in terms of visibility. My sister’s old Subaru Justy was also a paradigm of visibility, which helped while dodging jacked up pickup trucks in suburban Denver.
Far and away the worst vehicle I’ve had to deal with this from is my partner’s mom’s Nissan Murano. You can’t even see the actual corners of the vehicle in order to park it. It has a whole network of cameras so you can see what’s around you. Not to mention that the hood is just… bulbous, and curves back toward the cabin, and there’s one specific fold near the cowl that will absolutely blind the driver if the sun catches it.
And since everything in it is drive by wire, including the steering, the whole thing feels like driving an arcade game. Just no connection at all with the real world.
I don’t doubt the Murano’s steering is bad, but I think the only steer by wire vehicle on the market is the cyber truck, and OH MAN is it disorienting to steer.
I had to look it up, but it is steer by wire – and an interesting implementation that still includes a steering column, but with a clutch that only engages if there’s a fault in the steer-by-wire system. It’s an interesting design with safer failsafe modes than Tesla’s. Electric Feel: Nissan Digitizes Steering, But the Wheel Remains – Feature – Car and Driver
Interesting, I remember that system, but thought it only ever made it into some Infiniti products… Where people hated it.
Edit: I don’t think the Murano got that system. Rock auto’s replacement parts are all electric over hydraulic.
Ah gotcha, thanks. I don’t know much about Nissan’s in general, so I got to learn a couple new things!
Fair, and thanks for the correction. I hate that friggin’ thing and have only ever opened the hood to check fluids. When it dies I hope it gets driven off a cliff.