8 ms·

It’s possible. Visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists in these trucks is horrendous. It’s so ridiculously bad that even an M1 Abrams tank has less blind spo

It’s possible. Visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists in these trucks is horrendous. It’s so ridiculously bad that even an M1 Abrams tank has less blind spots: https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140dgn8/many_popular_trucks_have_a_bigger_dead_spot_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/140dgn8/many_popu...

arp242 11mo ago
A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard? Weight also matters of course. Hopefully this relatively simple ruling will fix some of that too.
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  >A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard? It's hard because the people pushing for new rules very transparently want rules far beyond what the public wants or considers sensible. If they were simply asking for that it'd probable be done already.
- ricardobeat 11mo ago
  EU Regulation 2019/2144 [1] covers field of vision requirements. This is exactly the kind of regulation the USA wants the EU to drop. > there shall be no obstruction in the driver's 180° forward direct field of vision below a horizontal plane passing through V1, and above three planes through V2, one being perpendicular to the plane X-Z and declining forward 4° below the horizontal > For vehicles with high driving positions (driver's eye points more than 1,650 mm above the ground), a 1,200 mm tall cylindrical object with a diameter of 300 mm must be visible when placed 2,000 mm in front of the vehicle According to Claude a Dodge RAM fails both of these. At 80cm (2-year old, a dog, or someone crouching down), depending on driver position, an object might be obscured by the hood in a comically large 5-8 meter area ahead. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:42018X0116&from=FR https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
potato3732842 11mo ago
Tanks are famously dangerous to be anywhere other than directly in front of. The angular front blind spot isn't terrible, but from the front corners on back they're massive hazards to the point where infantry gets trained on it so they don't get run over. Speaking or fun over, whoever made that illustration should be run over by a tank. Fix the size of the goddamn kid or fix the distance and change the size of the kid. Having both variables move serves to only add confusion and annoyance.
- ricardobeat 11mo ago
  The kids are the same size - the number above is the distance at which they become visible. It could indeed be a little less confusing.
  - potato3732842 11mo ago
    That makes far more sense.
lan321 11mo ago
> an M1 Abrams tank has less blind spots Absolutely not. You can't even turn around in the driver position of a tank.
trollbridge 11mo ago
It seems this could be largely mitigated with relatively simple lidar.

arp242 11mo ago

A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard? Weight also matters of course. Hopefully this relatively simple ruling will fix some of that too.

potato3732842 11mo ago
>A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard? It's hard because the people pushing for new rules very transparently want rules far beyond what the public wants or considers sensible. If they were simply asking for that it'd probable be done already.
ricardobeat 11mo ago
EU Regulation 2019/2144 [1] covers field of vision requirements. This is exactly the kind of regulation the USA wants the EU to drop. > there shall be no obstruction in the driver's 180° forward direct field of vision below a horizontal plane passing through V1, and above three planes through V2, one being perpendicular to the plane X-Z and declining forward 4° below the horizontal > For vehicles with high driving positions (driver's eye points more than 1,650 mm above the ground), a 1,200 mm tall cylindrical object with a diameter of 300 mm must be visible when placed 2,000 mm in front of the vehicle According to Claude a Dodge RAM fails both of these. At 80cm (2-year old, a dog, or someone crouching down), depending on driver position, an object might be obscured by the hood in a comically large 5-8 meter area ahead. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:42018X0116&from=FR https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

potato3732842 11mo ago

Tanks are famously dangerous to be anywhere other than directly in front of. The angular front blind spot isn't terrible, but from the front corners on back they're massive hazards to the point where infantry gets trained on it so they don't get run over. Speaking or fun over, whoever made that illustration should be run over by a tank. Fix the size of the goddamn kid or fix the distance and change the size of the kid. Having both variables move serves to only add confusion and annoyance.

ricardobeat 11mo ago
The kids are the same size - the number above is the distance at which they become visible. It could indeed be a little less confusing.
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  That makes far more sense.

lan321 11mo ago

> an M1 Abrams tank has less blind spots Absolutely not. You can't even turn around in the driver position of a tank.

trollbridge 11mo ago

It seems this could be largely mitigated with relatively simple lidar.