Poor visibility out back (pun intended)

[AD]

Looking at the posteriours of the latest crop from japan including out
back, legacy and the upcoming FT-85 toyobaru
i've got to ask: doesn't ANYONE care about being able to see anything
through the rear embrasure?

It seems that the latest trend in the marketing driven disrespect
towards consumers resulted in the race of
"how short could we make the rear slit before consumers become to
complain"?

Of course I've got to blame this on the automakers desire to introduce
a mechanical problem
to sell electronic bandaids, such as the rear view cameras.

Then, 5-10 years after the fact the car is sold to a 2,3rd, 4th owner
who is frantically knocking on the rear view camera
trying to get the damn thing to work. I was very amused when i rode
with a woman who was driving one of the jap
2 door tanks on stilts: apparently she could not see a thing cause her
particular truck had 40-50 cm wide rear pillars compounded
by the rear enbrasure glass being very high off the ground (and very
short to boot).
I would've been amused if it was not for a fact that it's getting
nearly impossible to buy a new car with a decent 360 visibility.

Somehow me thinks the marketing desire to make a buck or two would
result in rapid goodwill deprectiation from the drivers
buying in the secondary market. "I could not see a thing from my
Fill_in_a_manufacturer_name_here"

If this is driven my marketing research i've just got to say the
makers don't have to tend to every whim of
the customer. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[1 Lucky Texan]

Looking at the posteriours of the latest crop from japan including out
back, legacy and the upcoming FT-85 toyobaru
i've got to ask: doesn't ANYONE care about being able to see anything
through the rear embrasure?

It seems that the latest trend in the marketing driven disrespect
towards consumers resulted in the race of
"how short could we make the rear slit before consumers become to
complain"?

Of course I've got to blame this on the automakers desire to introduce
a mechanical problem
to sell electronic bandaids, such as the rear view cameras.

Then, 5-10 years after the fact the car is sold to a 2,3rd, 4th owner
who is frantically knocking on the rear view camera
trying to get the damn thing to work. I was very amused when i rode
with a woman who was driving one of the jap
2 door tanks on stilts: apparently she could not see a thing cause her
particular truck had 40-50 cm wide rear pillars compounded
by the rear enbrasure glass being very high off the ground (and very
short to boot).
I would've been amused if it was not for a fact that it's getting
nearly impossible to buy a new car with a decent 360 visibility.

Somehow me thinks the marketing desire to make a buck or two would
result in rapid goodwill deprectiation from the drivers
buying in the secondary market. "I could not see a thing from my
Fill_in_a_manufacturer_name_here"

If this is driven my marketing research i've just got to say the
makers don't have to tend to every whim of
the customer. It's getting ridiculous.

I've noticed many sedans - primarily smaller/foreign one, have had
this problem since the 80s/90s or so. And of course, the backup camera
IS one approach to this issue. Though I think electronics are
generally cheaper than good engineering so, it may not be a money
MAKING option as much as a money SAVING one for the manufacturer.

The Forester happens to be an exception - I feel, but maybe not for
long.

Perhaps it is a combination of taller stance, rollover/impact
strength, and maybe an aging population. My neck is not as flexible as
it was ten years ago! lol!

In general, Subarus still have decent visibility - some cars of late,
horrible.

 

[Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B]

Looking at the posteriours of the latest crop from japan including out
back, legacy and the upcoming FT-85 toyobaru i've got to ask: doesn't
ANYONE care about being able to see anything through the rear embrasure?

I thought it was FT-86, as in...Hachiroku...

If it's HALF the fun of my '85 GTS, I'm getting my hands on one, by any
means possible (except stealing...I want to KEEP it once I get one!)

 

[John]

Looking at the posteriours of the latest crop from japan including out
back, legacy and the upcoming FT-85 toyobaru
i've got to ask: doesn't ANYONE care about being able to see anything
through the rear embrasure?

It seems that the latest trend in the marketing driven disrespect
towards consumers resulted in the race of
"how short could we make the rear slit before consumers become to
complain"?

Of course I've got to blame this on the automakers desire to introduce
a mechanical problem
to sell electronic bandaids, such as the rear view cameras.

Then, 5-10 years after the fact the car is sold to a 2,3rd, 4th owner
who is frantically knocking on the rear view camera
trying to get the damn thing to work. I was very amused when i rode
with a woman who was driving one of the jap
2 door tanks on stilts: apparently she could not see a thing cause her
particular truck had 40-50 cm wide rear pillars compounded
by the rear enbrasure glass being very high off the ground (and very
short to boot).
I would've been amused if it was not for a fact that it's getting
nearly impossible to buy a new car with a decent 360 visibility.

Somehow me thinks the marketing desire to make a buck or two would
result in rapid goodwill deprectiation from the drivers
buying in the secondary market. "I could not see a thing from my
Fill_in_a_manufacturer_name_here"

If this is driven my marketing research i've just got to say the
makers don't have to tend to every whim of
the customer. It's getting ridiculous.

You can make the same argument for the headlights on new vehicles. All
the focus is on the person driving the vehicle and how well they can
see, because they are the ones forking over the money. But they never
take into account that those nice bright lights are blinding everyone
else in front of them and those traveling towards them.

So many now rely on the vehicle to drive for them rather than their own
driving skills. Stability control, traction control, lane change
warning systems, even ABS...gives that false sense of security. Why
don't you just learn to drive? How many people do you actually see
changing lanes by only using their mirrors? You don't know how many
times I've almost been hit or run into the other lane because the driver
(I use the term loosely) never bothers to turn their head and look in
their blind spot.

 

[John Varela]

So many now rely on the vehicle to drive for them rather than their own
driving skills. Stability control, traction control, lane change
warning systems, even ABS...gives that false sense of security. Why
don't you just learn to drive? How many people do you actually see
changing lanes by only using their mirrors? You don't know how many
times I've almost been hit or run into the other lane because the driver
(I use the term loosely) never bothers to turn their head and look in
their blind spot.

If the side mirrors are adjusted correctly there is no blind spot.
The driver should be able to see an overtaking car in the side
mirror before it disappears from the inside mirror and then see it
in his peripheral vision before it disappears from the side mirror.

But a glance over the shoulder is a good idea anyway.

 

[Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B]

You can make the same argument for the headlights on new vehicles. All
the focus is on the person driving the vehicle and how well they can see,
because they are the ones forking over the money. But they never take
into account that those nice bright lights are blinding everyone else in
front of them and those traveling towards them.

I get flashed at all the time in my Scion (now, if I could only get WOMEN
to flash at me...)

What I hate is when someone 'flashes' his high beams at me by turning them
on AND LEAVING THEM ON! IF I have my highs on, I'll turn them off. If
they're off, I'll flash them back. If you turn on your high beams and
leave them on, I have modified the high beams so they are brighter than
stock, and my Hella driving lights are MUCH brighter than stock, so if'n
you REALLY wanna see BRIGHT, I'd be more than happy to oblige!

But, yes, I think they are too bright for oncoming traffic. I had to aim
the headlights lower than specified to keep from being blinded by idiots.

The other thing I don't like is bright low beams, with the turn signals in
the headligh housing. Who TF can see that?

So many now rely on the vehicle to drive for them rather than their own
driving skills. Stability control, traction control, lane change warning
systems, even ABS...gives that false sense of security. Why don't you
just learn to drive? How many people do you actually see changing lanes
by only using their mirrors? You don't know how many times I've almost
been hit or run into the other lane because the driver (I use the term
loosely) never bothers to turn their head and look in their blind spot.

I like the back up warning systems: "Hey, I don't even have to LOOK
anymore!"

Yeah, I think there should be a driving test every time you have to renew
your license, in your own car, so the inspector can see what people are
doing (or not doing) thanks to all the 'aids'.

 

[John]

I get flashed at all the time in my Scion (now, if I could only get WOMEN
to flash at me...)

What I hate is when someone 'flashes' his high beams at me by turning them
on AND LEAVING THEM ON! IF I have my highs on, I'll turn them off. If
they're off, I'll flash them back. If you turn on your high beams and
leave them on, I have modified the high beams so they are brighter than
stock, and my Hella driving lights are MUCH brighter than stock, so if'n
you REALLY wanna see BRIGHT, I'd be more than happy to oblige!

But, yes, I think they are too bright for oncoming traffic. I had to aim
the headlights lower than specified to keep from being blinded by idiots.

The other thing I don't like is bright low beams, with the turn signals in
the headligh housing. Who TF can see that?

Well, the lights you have are modified, you chose to do that and luckily you realize that they are too bright and dont blind others. What I'm referring to are the vehicles that are right off the delaer lot with low beams blinding everyone.

 

[weelliott]

I get flashed at all the time in my Scion (now, if I could only get WOMEN
to flash at me...)

What I hate is when someone 'flashes' his high beams at me by turning them
on AND LEAVING THEM ON! IF I have my highs on, I'll turn them off. If
they're off, I'll flash them back. If you turn on your high beams and
leave them on, I have modified the high beams so they are brighter than
stock, and my Hella driving lights are MUCH brighter than stock, so if'n
you REALLY wanna see BRIGHT, I'd be more than happy to oblige!

But, yes, I think they are too bright for oncoming traffic. I had to aim
the headlights lower than specified to keep from being blinded by idiots.

The other thing I don't like is bright low beams, with the turn signals in
the headligh housing. Who TF can see that?




I like the back up warning systems: "Hey, I don't even have to LOOK
anymore!"

Yeah, I think there should be a driving test every time you have to renew
your license, in your own car, so the inspector can see what people are
doing (or not doing) thanks to all the 'aids'.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some automakers are dealing with the turn signal/bright lowbeam
problem by turning off that headlight when that blinker is in use.
I've seen Mercedes and I think Audis do this. I think it is ironic
that the things that they are illuminating less are located where the
car will be turning. It is opposite of my friend's mid nineties
mercury sable that woudl illuminate an extra light on the side of the
front bumper to help illuminate the side of the car that the car was
turning towards.

As far as high rear end, I remember borrowing a friend's first gen
neon and being afraid to back up in it for fear of mowing over anyone
under 5 feet tall. The high rear ends are there for a few reasons: The
higher belt line gives better side impact protection. It is more
stylish to have a beltline that swoops upward towards the rear, and
now the front of the beltline has to be higher since the hoods have to
be higher since there has to be room under the hood for pedestrian
crumple zones before hard points are contacted. Trunks are larger when
you have a trunk opening that is higher, and trunk space is a
consideration among buyers. Head rests mandated in the late 90s on
rear seats already make a blind spot. Might as well use that blind
space behind it.

I think the reduction in glass has gone too far. Reduced visibility on
the gun-slit window Chrysler Magnum and Chevy Camaro are known
problems that I'm sure the designers knew about before putting it into
production, but if the prototype looked awesome, and you add another
three inches of glass to it, the public might decide to change their
mind when it gets to the showroom. Many automotove journalists said
the Camaro would lose the gunslit windows between prototype and
production for visibility issues. I guess it didn't for the above
reason. Looks awesome, but when you're average height, and can't see
out of the car, there is a problem.

Just my two cents. On sale today for the low price of nothing.

Bill

 

[AD]

As far as high rear end, I remember borrowing a friend's first gen
neon and being afraid to back up in it for fear of mowing over anyone
under 5 feet tall. The high rear ends are there for a few reasons: The
higher belt line gives better side impact protection. It is more
stylish to have a beltline that swoops upward towards the rear, and
now the front of the beltline has to be higher since the hoods have to
be higher since there has to be room under the hood for pedestrian
crumple zones before hard points are contacted. Trunks are larger when
you have a trunk opening that is higher, and trunk space is a
consideration among buyers. Head rests mandated in the late 90s on
rear seats already make a blind spot. Might as well use that blind
space behind it.

Well, I live in a place that for better of worse (usually but not
always the latter FDA heavy hand is wanted, but automotive i think
not)
is not as heavily regulated as the states and I drive a 1960 box
design with modern seats(with headrests) in front
(but not in the back). The headrests in front I can cope with, but
even if I had them in the rear i'd rather have
low beltline around them.

I think the reduction in glass has gone too far. Reduced visibility on
the gun-slit window Chrysler Magnum and Chevy Camaro are known
problems that I'm sure the designers knew about before putting it into
production, but if the prototype looked awesome, and you add another
three inches of glass to it, the public might decide to change their
mind when it gets to the showroom. Many automotove journalists said
the Camaro would lose the gunslit windows between prototype and
production for visibility issues. I guess it didn't for the above
reason. Looks awesome, but when you're average height, and can't see
out of the car, there is a problem.

The question that begs to be asked is this: since this trend is
obviously
costing insurance companies in the states money and those bastards
are usually sophisticated when it comes to beancounting why
we do not see the fine tuning of the rates of the customers
who vote for the high beltline handicap, ultimately with the insurance
companies dollars?

I';m absolutely sure the parking lot incidents are rampant in that
group.
More so in the urban areas.

 

[AD]

As far as high rear end, I remember borrowing a friend's first gen
neon and being afraid to back up in it for fear of mowing over anyone
under 5 feet tall. The high rear ends are there for a few reasons: The
higher belt line gives better side impact protection. It is more
stylish to have a beltline that swoops upward towards the rear, and
now the front of the beltline has to be higher since the hoods have to
be higher since there has to be room under the hood for pedestrian
crumple zones before hard points are contacted. Trunks are larger when
you have a trunk opening that is higher, and trunk space is a
consideration among buyers. Head rests mandated in the late 90s on

Ok, since I feel prolific today I've got to expand on the pedestrian
crumple zones
before that idiocy spreads to the nothern part of the new world.

Firstly you have to account for the difference in the attitudes of the
pedestrians in
the drivers in the states, where the two are essentially two modes of
transportation.
I;m not sure if it's a cultural thing or something that is a result of
vicious
shafting by the police in the states in cases where a driver
compromises
pedestrian safety, bit usually it's safer to cross streets and walk on
sidewalks
in the states.

Outside of the states there seems to be quite an animosity between
the drivers and pedestrians with the former habitually taking the
right of way
from the latter and the latter routinely jaywalking as a payback to
drivers who won't let them cross first on crosswalks.

Secondly there is lax attitude towards drivers from the road police
outside the US.

So these two combined have resulted in the euro govenment instead of
fixing
the police to strangle the automakers with the pedestrian safety
bumpers & co.

I don't think these regulations need to spread to the states as long
as police keeps
shafting drivers behaving recklessly around bipeds crossing the
streets.

With the proliferation of suvs and cars on stilts i don't think these
regulations
could be effective.

Heck, you need to carry firearms outside the states to protect the
basic rights to walk on
car-free sidewalks, except you can only get long guns around here.

Hence the general drop in civility (one example is the driver-
pedestrian relationship).
The populace packing in the states seems to put a limit on how much
civility could drop
before some disrespectful **** gets shot. Treasure the second
amendment before
the influx of obama instilled higher justices clutters your supreme
court
with the subsequent highly fluid interpretation of the bill of rights.

All things combined US could do without pedestrian crumple zones.

 

[weelliott]

All things combined US could do without pedestrian crumple zones.

The thing is most cars are being designed for a global market. Europe
adopted the pedestrian driven soft car frton regulations before the
states did. Smaller carmakers like BMW, Porsche, etc... Aren't going
to make drastically different cars for the US and europe. They will
changes stuff like emissions, engine equipment, and stuff like that,
but they aren't going to tool up for two different sets of body panels
and frames if they don't feel they need to. So that is why the newer
Z4 compared to the old Z3 looks a little odd until you get used to
it.

Bill