Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sh_hobbies t1_j64o6ny wrote

Reply to comment by grublets in Ford now recalling 462,000 SUVs due to rear camera issue linked to at least 17 accidents by EdBegleyJuniorJunior

Most cars aren't built like they used to be. Windows are higher up and don't have the same amount of visibility since they crutch the camera. The back window is good for seeing headlights behind you while you drive, but it's a total blind spot in a parking lot.

176

[deleted] t1_j64ozdn wrote

[removed]

93

sh_hobbies t1_j64puik wrote

The downvotes would indicate folks didn't understand my comment. I'm not complaining or faulting anything in the design... but you can't just say "turn your head and use your eyes; don't depend on the camera!" Because your view is obscured by the design.

63

[deleted] t1_j64rp58 wrote

[removed]

30

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j655qhs wrote

Was going to say, they're huge now. I really wish the US had something akin to old-school smaller trucks. I had an old roommate who drove a Ford Ranger, I loved that thing. I would love to get an imported mini-truck, if I didn't have to worry so much about other drivers.

31

darksoft125 t1_j6843ha wrote

Its crazy how big trucks have gotten. The Ford Maverick is considered a "compact truck," but it's similar in size and capability to an F-150 from the 80s!

15

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j685lwi wrote

F-150's are basically what 250's or commercial trucks used to be as well. I remember my dad's F-150, that thing was small in comparison to modern SUV's and trucks, same with the Nissan squarebody as well.

5

Golluk t1_j66q4y5 wrote

Sadly getting rid of it soon, but I have an '03 Ranger. Visibility is amazing as your essentially in a Turret with big windows in every direction.

8

lmaoidc29 t1_j659a80 wrote

Why import one ? We have plenty of mini trucks in the us unless you want something that wasn't sold here

−10

cranktheguy t1_j65daf0 wrote

The new Ranger is the size of the old F-150. I'm not sure what small trucks you're referring to.

26

Wooden_Bed377 t1_j65jw39 wrote

Coincidentally the Ford Maverick is one example.

*Edit for spelling.

2

cranktheguy t1_j65kpxz wrote

1996 Ford Ranger (base model) wheelbase = 107.9"

1996 Ford F150 (base model) wheelbase = 116.8"

2023 Ford Maverick 2023 wheelbase = 121.1″

15

Wooden_Bed377 t1_j65l5g6 wrote

Sure. I've oddly enough had all 3 (well, early 2000's F-150). Did you pick the 2 door model by accident for the first 2?

2

cranktheguy t1_j65lmn1 wrote

No and no - those were both the regular cabs.

Edit: misread your comment, yes, I picked the base model, which is two doors. Because that's what a small pickup used to be.

4

Wooden_Bed377 t1_j65ly9z wrote

Ahh. That's your issue. The Maverick is a crew cab, and the standard size of the old ones nobody bought sales wise besides for fleet vehicles. The third door was where it was at :) haha.

−3

cranktheguy t1_j65vi2o wrote

The issue is they don't make small (like the two door models) anymore. Half my friends in high school had small two door trucks like that, but they were a bunch of nobodies, so maybe half right.

3

Oddity_Odyssey t1_j66h8wm wrote

Have you ever seen a 95 Chevy s-10 or a 98 Toyota Tacoma. You can fit one person and a bag in those things.

2

errie_tholluxe t1_j6c3sws wrote

Something I noticed in LA one day. The S-10 is actually smaller than a modern Camry.

1

jefplusf t1_j65kkjz wrote

Maverick, Santa Cruz come to mind

−4

cranktheguy t1_j65m359 wrote

1996 Ford Ranger (base model) wheelbase = 107.9"

1996 Ford F150 (base model) wheelbase = 116.8"

2023 Ford Maverick wheelbase = 121.1″

2022 Hyundai Santa Cruz wheelbase = 118.3"

10

jefplusf t1_j65ravx wrote

Why a wheelbase comparison as opposed to total length comparison?

−1

cranktheguy t1_j65rsoz wrote

Wheelbase is the usual way to compare cars, but if you Google the length over all the rankings don't change. I'm on my phone right now though but you can look it up.

3

GoArray t1_j675nrh wrote

>We have plenty of mini trucks

The only 2, came out in 2021. You'd have to go back to the 90's for anything comparable. "Plenty" is a stretch by any definition of the word.

7

Didactic_Tactics_45 t1_j68x8sr wrote

You make a fair and accurate point, but it still doesn't alleviate the responsibility of the driver. The parent comment relates to the need for cautious driving if visibility is low. If you can't see clearly, the driver should back out very slowly until they can verify it is clear to back out completely. Pedestrians and passing vehicles have plenty of time to avoid you or alert you to their presence. I'm speculating of course but I'd guess these accidents are caused by drivers moving too quickly without visual confirmation that the path is clear. This is always the driver's responsibility with or without camera assistance.

*edit: spelling

4

veringer t1_j68j6an wrote

I have to imagine mirrors still work if your head and neck don't.

3

letigre87 t1_j66woc6 wrote

There was an article in an automotive magazine years ago about how an inch changed car design. It pointed out auto makers had to raise the hood off the engine for pedestrian safety and when that happened it changed all the lines on cars. The raised hood changed where it intersected the windshield and carried the body lines to the back essentially slanting the windshield and raising the hips. With everything lifted higher it meant the proportions were off and they had to stuff larger wheels in the now huge wheel wells. Now I gotta find the article.

30

vegetaman t1_j679z34 wrote

And then those damn pillars have gotten so massive it's hard to see pedestrians.

9

RKRagan t1_j65c44h wrote

My work van has no back windows. Hell it doesn’t even come with a rearview.

20

Now_Wait-4-Last_Year t1_j665f3w wrote

That can't be legal to make you drive that thing, surely?

−18

NicklesBe t1_j666asx wrote

Have you never seen a work van? Most work vans don't have back windows.

35

Tibbaryllis2 t1_j66i1tz wrote

ASAIK, only the front driver/passenger mirrors, windows, and front windshield are required on vehicles. Everything behind the driver can be entirely solid.

14

finalremix t1_j66xaiu wrote

Yup. And in some places, it's an either/or situation. If you don't have a passenger sideview mirror, you need a rearview on the glass. One or the other is required at minimum.

5

round-earth-theory t1_j67iu95 wrote

You can backup without a rearview, but it does require a manual inspection of what's behind you before starting. As long as someone doesn't dart behind before you start, it should be safe.

5

RKRagan t1_j66iqg7 wrote

Its a brand new Ford Transit 350 and it has a camera and sensors. But I still check my side mirrors as well.

9

AcidTWister t1_j64xams wrote

See: The Rezvani Vengeance

With a back view so inaccessible, the rear view mirror is a screen that projects your rear camera image.

13

master-shake69 t1_j65dcuj wrote

Well to be fair I'd expect something like that to be in some sort of convoy instead of driving around by itself.

8

malphonso t1_j65xo4p wrote

Looks like something from the Crackdown games.

5

finalremix t1_j66xnml wrote

That seriously looks like the SUV before you get the spider jump. I love it.

2

finalremix t1_j66xm09 wrote

Okay, I fucking hate contemporary vehicles... but that I'd buy if I wasn't making a professor's salary.

4

Confident-Area-6946 t1_j66j660 wrote

Now youre speaking my honda crv language, its not that small of a rear window but its still small and optically it looks like people are tailgating me.

5

Noisy_Toy t1_j64s0b5 wrote

>since they crutch the camera

What does crutch mean in this sense?

0

sh_hobbies t1_j64tgko wrote

They use the camera to compensate for lack of visibility.

21

Noisy_Toy t1_j656f73 wrote

Thanks. I’ve never heard it used as a verb. Wasn’t sure if it was new usage or an autocorrect!

6

yawetag12 t1_j65lj8f wrote

>Wasn’t sure if it was new usage or an autocorrect!

It's been used as a verb for almost 400 years.

2

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j655tv4 wrote

They use it as a crutch, basically are dependent on it to function.

19