Should euroncap and the US safety organisation include visibility

>>16844230
the US should make seatbelt mandatory first

>>16844230
they don't care about visibility, crash avoidance through driver ability is pretty much not accounted for in any testing. this oversight will eventually lead to driverless cars with no windows at all

File: cross-traffic-alert-and-reverse-sensing-system.jpg (108KB, 550x421px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 550x421px

Yes, but manufacturers would just circumvent it with bells and whistles.

File: 1450949511586.jpg (189KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1462x1462px

>>16844235
>the US should make seatbelt mandatory first
>It's actually real in a US state

That's it, can we all agree America is third world?

>>16844245
>allowing moms to make it out of a bike filled-driveway
>allowing moms

kek, sexist ferd

>>16844245
>drive smart
>idiot is reversing out when he can go forward

>>16844251
>there are people right now who unironically think that one of the richest countries in the world is third world

File: Screenshot_20170316-144050~01.png (300KB, 1440x1276px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1440x1276px

>>16844235
It already is in most states. Nobody gives a shit about the states that don't enforce it though.

>>16844230
That would absolutely kill work vans and small cars.

Fair safety ratings would end small cars as well.

File: OldDriver.jpg (13KB, 245x341px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 245x341px

>>16844230
>visibility when rating car safety levels?

Definitely.

>>16844230
>Should euroncap and the US safety organisation include visibility when rating car safety levels?
Ironically, the purpose of lowering visibility is to increase safety. With the shift of car demographics for more heavy SUV and trucks on the road, passenger cars needed to both have stronger resistance against compression of the passenger cabin and to have a taller front and rear profile to avoid SUV and trucks from riding up over them.

Unfortunately, those two changes lowered visibility.

Want cars to go back to higher visibility? Get rid of the taller SUV and taller trucks. Establish a max weight restriction on passenger type vehicles not owned by a business. Since neither of these two things will ever happen, you thus have lowered visibility become the consequence as car manufacturers meet safety requirements set by their respective governments.

>>16845034
>Want cars to go back to higher visibility? Get rid of the taller SUV and taller trucks.
Or stop forcing others to stop liking things you don't like, and just get rid of the safety restrictions.

Also small windows in modern cars are mostly for aesthetics. Look at the rear window vs C/D pillar ratio on crossovers. A six inch window and 1 foot D pillar isn't for safety, it's for modern styling. Big square windows that fit the panel and maximize visibility don't look modern. They look old, and they look boring.

>>16844230
>include visibility

Yes.

I can see OP's truck from a long way off. So it's OK.

>>16845034
>Establish a max weight restriction on passenger type vehicles not owned by a business.

Tried. All the rich fuckers own their own businesses. So we got lawyers driving F650 based bro-trucks.

>>16844230
It'd first have to be proven that lower visibility results in lower safety with a statistical significance over similar cars with higher visibility.

>>16845034
Interesting opinion friend, care to link some sources of designers/engineers saying exactly this?

>>16844968

I find panel vans are much easier to see out of than most modern crossovers.

I can actually see if I am about to flatten a pedestrian or if I am about to turn into a gutter, for instance.

Never had an issue nearly hitting into something backing up and the CuckUVs come with backup cameras as standard because they are almost as bad to see out of.

Big truck mirrors make a big difference