4 ms·

I definitely agree that car size inflation is a real problem. Cars are too big and getting bigger every year. That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement

I definitely agree that car size inflation is a real problem. Cars are too big and getting bigger every year. That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement for safety tech. The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras. You sound a bit like the teachers that would drill mental math because "you won't always have a calculator in your pocket". It's good to be able to do mental math, and it's good to be an alert driver, but let's not ignore the massive capabilities that technology allows.

tomrod 5y ago
> Cars are too big and getting bigger every year. /me waves from my tiny Corolla, slightly larger than my 2002 Prius, which a Camry has shrunk in size to meet relative to the 2009 model.
- leetrout 5y ago
  Yep. I noticed that as well when I bought my 2018 Corolla. The size comparison to a 2003ish Camry is very similar. 2003 Camry: 189″ L x 71″ W x 58″ H 2018 Corolla: 183″ L x 70″ W x 57″ H
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Doesn't this prove the point that cars are growing? The modern "compact" corolla is the same size as the "midsized" from 15-20 years ago.
    - leetrout 5y ago
      Ah yes it does and that was my point and I misread OP.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  The Toyota Corolla has grown 8 inches longer, 4 inches wider, and a full 500 pounds heavier from 2001 to 2021. It may be a small car by today's standards but it's as big as mid sized sedans used to be. https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/corolla/specs https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/corolla/specs https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2001-Toyota-Corolla-CE__4dr_Sedan/specs/ https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2001-Toyota-Corolla-CE__4dr_Sed...
californical 5y ago
I disagree about the safety tech. There are some situations where it’s great, but those features make the driver feel a false sense of security. Let the people feel like they’re entirely responsible so they’re more careful. For example, widening the roads in the suburbs used to seem like a great idea - more space, less accidents, right? But that’s untrue. Narrower streets with trees blocking visibility on the sides are actually safer because the driver is forced to be more aware [1] [2]. Another good example is road markings and street/stop signs. Surely, having street signs and lane markings is safer right? Well, this is early on, but at least on city streets, it appears that’s not true either. [3] [4] Now, to your point, it does appear that automatic car safety systems do make cars safer right now [5]. But those types of things are pretty new, so I wonder how long it’ll be until they have the same fate as those other safety innovations of the past. Where taking them away will make driving safer because people feel personally responsible, so they drive slower. [1] https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2015/06/14/studies-narrower-lanes-equal-safer-streets/71228318/ https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2015/06/14/studies... [2] https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/narrow-streets-are-safest https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/narrow-streets-are-safest [3] https://gizmodo.com/this-street-has-no-lanes-signals-or-signs-and-its-saf-1651826670 https://gizmodo.com/this-street-has-no-lanes-signals-or-sign... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/world/europe/a-path-to-road-safety-with-no-signposts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/world/europe/a-path-to-ro... [5] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-features-accidents/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...
- dahfizz 5y ago
  All of your points are valid, and seem to be backed up by data, but only apply to urban driving. In my opinion, the majority of the benefit from safety tech is in parking lots or the highway. You don't need blind spot monitoring or adaptive cruise control on a stop-and-go single lane city street. These features only make sense cruising at highway speed or pulling out of a parking spot. It's possible that ""full"" self driving cars will make drivers feel less responsible in the cities. I think the transition to genuinely autonomous cars is going to be slow and painful regardless.
BeetleB 5y ago
> The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras. Any data to back this up? Note that there is a difference between "always better" and "generally better". The former needs only one counterexample. My car has on several occasions failed to detect that there is a car in front of me, and would have happily crashed into it. About once a year, it also suddenly applies the brake hard thinking there is a car in front of me when there isn't. That is quite dangerous - were there a car behind me it would have rear ended me.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  > Any data to back this up? Note that there is a difference between "always better" and "generally better". Maybe I should clarify again that I am talking about "basic" safety features like backup cameras or blind spot monitoring. My parent was talking specifically about the intelligent rearview mirror some trucks have. These things, by definition, see more than the driver because of where they are placed. It is physically impossible for you to see what is behind your rear bumper, so having a camera that can see it is strictly better. I can't make quite as strong a claim for the more advanced safety features like automatic braking and lane departure warnings, but the data says cars with these systems are safer on average[1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-features-accidents/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...
CRConrad 5y ago
> That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement for safety tech. The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras. One area where I strongly believe (yeah, personal feelies, no empirical study to back it up) misguided priorities have led to sub-optimal safety results is forward visibility. Some sibling comment mentioned "car didn't detect / erroneously 'detected' vehicle in front"... Since when do we need technology to "detect" vehicles in front of us; aren't we supposed to be able to SEE those, in order to be qualified to drive?!? A: Since A-pillars have gotten as fat as your thigh, obscuring huge swaths of your field of vision. Now sure, I understand that it's a good thing you won't get crushed flat if your car rolls over. But it's a bad thing if you crash into a vehicle, or run over a pedestrian, because you can't see out of your own vehicle. And how often do roll-over accidents really happen? My guess would be, a lot less often than collisions caused by impeded forward visibility. (If my opinion that "visual aids shouldn't be necessary" in the forward direction makes me a "mental maths-advocating teacher", then so be it.)

tomrod 5y ago

> Cars are too big and getting bigger every year. /me waves from my tiny Corolla, slightly larger than my 2002 Prius, which a Camry has shrunk in size to meet relative to the 2009 model.

leetrout 5y ago
Yep. I noticed that as well when I bought my 2018 Corolla. The size comparison to a 2003ish Camry is very similar. 2003 Camry: 189″ L x 71″ W x 58″ H 2018 Corolla: 183″ L x 70″ W x 57″ H
- dahfizz 5y ago
  Doesn't this prove the point that cars are growing? The modern "compact" corolla is the same size as the "midsized" from 15-20 years ago.
  - leetrout 5y ago
    Ah yes it does and that was my point and I misread OP.
dahfizz 5y ago
The Toyota Corolla has grown 8 inches longer, 4 inches wider, and a full 500 pounds heavier from 2001 to 2021. It may be a small car by today's standards but it's as big as mid sized sedans used to be. https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/corolla/specs https://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/corolla/specs https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2001-Toyota-Corolla-CE__4dr_Sedan/specs/ https://www.autoblog.com/buy/2001-Toyota-Corolla-CE__4dr_Sed...

californical 5y ago

I disagree about the safety tech. There are some situations where it’s great, but those features make the driver feel a false sense of security. Let the people feel like they’re entirely responsible so they’re more careful. For example, widening the roads in the suburbs used to seem like a great idea - more space, less accidents, right? But that’s untrue. Narrower streets with trees blocking visibility on the sides are actually safer because the driver is forced to be more aware [1] [2]. Another good example is road markings and street/stop signs. Surely, having street signs and lane markings is safer right? Well, this is early on, but at least on city streets, it appears that’s not true either. [3] [4] Now, to your point, it does appear that automatic car safety systems do make cars safer right now [5]. But those types of things are pretty new, so I wonder how long it’ll be until they have the same fate as those other safety innovations of the past. Where taking them away will make driving safer because people feel personally responsible, so they drive slower. [1] https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2015/06/14/studies-narrower-lanes-equal-safer-streets/71228318/ https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/news/2015/06/14/studies... [2] https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/narrow-streets-are-safest https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/narrow-streets-are-safest [3] https://gizmodo.com/this-street-has-no-lanes-signals-or-signs-and-its-saf-1651826670 https://gizmodo.com/this-street-has-no-lanes-signals-or-sign... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/world/europe/a-path-to-road-safety-with-no-signposts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/22/world/europe/a-path-to-ro... [5] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-features-accidents/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...

dahfizz 5y ago
All of your points are valid, and seem to be backed up by data, but only apply to urban driving. In my opinion, the majority of the benefit from safety tech is in parking lots or the highway. You don't need blind spot monitoring or adaptive cruise control on a stop-and-go single lane city street. These features only make sense cruising at highway speed or pulling out of a parking spot. It's possible that ""full"" self driving cars will make drivers feel less responsible in the cities. I think the transition to genuinely autonomous cars is going to be slow and painful regardless.

BeetleB 5y ago

> The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras. Any data to back this up? Note that there is a difference between "always better" and "generally better". The former needs only one counterexample. My car has on several occasions failed to detect that there is a car in front of me, and would have happily crashed into it. About once a year, it also suddenly applies the brake hard thinking there is a car in front of me when there isn't. That is quite dangerous - were there a car behind me it would have rear ended me.

dahfizz 5y ago
> Any data to back this up? Note that there is a difference between "always better" and "generally better". Maybe I should clarify again that I am talking about "basic" safety features like backup cameras or blind spot monitoring. My parent was talking specifically about the intelligent rearview mirror some trucks have. These things, by definition, see more than the driver because of where they are placed. It is physically impossible for you to see what is behind your rear bumper, so having a camera that can see it is strictly better. I can't make quite as strong a claim for the more advanced safety features like automatic braking and lane departure warnings, but the data says cars with these systems are safer on average[1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-features-accidents/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/vehicle-safety-...

CRConrad 5y ago

> That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement for safety tech. The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras. One area where I strongly believe (yeah, personal feelies, no empirical study to back it up) misguided priorities have led to sub-optimal safety results is forward visibility. Some sibling comment mentioned "car didn't detect / erroneously 'detected' vehicle in front"... Since when do we need technology to "detect" vehicles in front of us; aren't we supposed to be able to SEE those, in order to be qualified to drive?!? A: Since A-pillars have gotten as fat as your thigh, obscuring huge swaths of your field of vision. Now sure, I understand that it's a good thing you won't get crushed flat if your car rolls over. But it's a bad thing if you crash into a vehicle, or run over a pedestrian, because you can't see out of your own vehicle. And how often do roll-over accidents really happen? My guess would be, a lot less often than collisions caused by impeded forward visibility. (If my opinion that "visual aids shouldn't be necessary" in the forward direction makes me a "mental maths-advocating teacher", then so be it.)