The problem is crash test requirements require cars be built in a way that limits visibility. Giant pillars in case of a roll over, and lots of air bags stuffed everywhere.
Something had to give, and that thing was visibility.
Old cars had very narrow a pillars and they survived rollover just fine - look at the thickness of an actual full on roll cage and it is much smaller than modern a-pillars.
It’s mainly the airbags (and the angle of the windshield too I suspect) - and that it is simply not an aspect that is controlled for in testing to allow a vehicle to be road worthy. Add a tax based on degrees of width of A pillars and they would start shrinking.
It sounds like what happens in every other instance of engineering: trade-offs. Emphasise performance in one metric -- preventing roof collapse and preserving the integrity of the passenger compartment in this case -- and it can come at the cost of other metrics (here, visibility). I don't think vehicle engineers are deliberately making cars hard to see out of, but I do think it's possible that those setting the policy which drives A-pillar thickness don't realize such is making cars less safe from a visibility perspective.
I wish we had a tiered set of safety requirements for vehicles. In my opinion, occupant safety should be much more negotiable than it is. A good example is the column thickness on modern vehicles. I'd gladly trade some roll-over protection for increased visibility.
1. Rollover standards enacted in the 2000s lead to slightly thicker or bigger a and b-pillars. Many were redesigned with better steel and/or geometries, but most just got bigger.
2. Additional airbags fitted behind a and b-pillars required more area, and specific angles, complicating design.
3. Technology and wires. Clearance for tweeters, light and rain sensors, microphones, and then the various harnesses required to make them work. Add to this the wiring for anything mounted up high, and you got a bundle goin baby.
4. Cars with all this cruft are heavier now, and mostly already top-heavy suvs, so lets make them even thicker to hold the increased weight when sally flips her explorer when it hits a curb going too fast in the cosco parking lot.
Yep, that's a classic case of an engineering trade-off. The thick A-pillars in modern cars are a real detriment to visibility in a place where we need it most, and can not only cause more crashes due to low visibility, but also more impacts with pedestrians since they're frequently hidden in that spot. However, they're also a real boon for crashworthiness: thicker pillars are structurally essential for surviving a rollover accident, and they're also good for holding airbags which can prevent deaths or maimings that the front airbags are insufficient for.
I wish there was a way we could roll back some of the interior safety requirements that do more harm than good due to visiblity and weight, but I'm not sure how to word in a way that wouldn't cause the crazies to come out of the woodwork and insist that every car absolutely need two sets of upper B-pillar curtain airbags in order to survive.
It also indicates, however, that the industry is putting real development effort into solving the problem, whether through clever optics like Toyota's efforts, or cameras and screens like Jaguar's concept.
Crumple zones and airbags take space. Roofs that can handle the car being flipped without deforming enough to hurt you need chunkier pillars (I really lament this, makes visibility a lot worse)
Most of the visibility issues I encounter don't seem to be because of safety, more so design / style choices.
I've driven a few where the rear windows for no good reason turn into sideways pseudo teardrop shapes. There's not an airbag or anything else that explains it other than design. Plenty of vehicles manage to do without such designs. Others simply choose it.
Not all cars have such high beltlines that make you feel like you are driving a sherman tank. American cars seem to have these issues more than imports. Maybe its a way to shirk around some crash testing metrics by deferring to less visibility than to offer more visibility and potentially spend more engineering something just as strong?
What are you referring to here? Modern cars have bigger pillars so they can roll over, at the expense of massive blind spots, you seem to be talking about something else?
Wider A pillars and worse visibility has a lot to do with mandated stronger roofs. Good for rollover survivability but bad for pedestrian safety. SUVs are a ridiculous trend and are more prone to rollovers.
Lessened visibility is due completely to rollover protection regulations. Vehicles around the 2010's+ require stronger A,B,C...pillars etc. Automakers complied with the regulations by making pillers both larger and shorter. Shorter members are stronger as there is less bending moment. If you look at where the windows start on newer vehicles they are munch higher. Thus body lines to match this brings up the hood.
This is astoundingly obvious when you park an unmodified 80's-90's vehicle next to something new.
The question to me is what overall reduces mortality rates, improved roll-over and side impact protection or driver visibility?
Personally I think blind spots everywhere suck and would much prefer better visibility.
I don't disagree that some cars are worse than necessary, and this probably comes from styling/fashion trends. But across all makes and models, there is a trend driven by changing safety requirements.
The Hondas (and Toyotas) of the 80s had much thinner A-pillars than they do now. Barely enough to hold the weather gasket for the windshield and act as a frame for the front door.
I was in an early 80s Toyota Hi-Lux during a relatively gentle rollover and watched the roof and windshield cave in towards me. I think I was saved by the fiberglass camper shell on the bed, so it only collapsed until the weight of the car was transferred to the hood and the shell. The cab roof got smashed into a linear interpolation of those high points...
Take a look at some of the late-model cars with gigantic A, B, and/or C pillars -- in many of these, head-checks are not as effective as in older cars. The Cadillac ELR, Nissan Leaf, Infiniti QX80, Lexus GS F, etc. All have gigantic C pillars and/or headrests that block rearward visibility, which results in blind spots the size of Texas if you rely on head-checks. Now take a look at some older cars, maybe a 2012 Ford Escape. Awesome visibility. The dual pushes for improved structural rigidity and strength (small overlap crash tests, anyone?) and swoopier designs are causing many new cars to move in the wrong direction on visibility.
That blind spot houses a curtain airbag that has significantly increased safety in crashes. Engineering is managing tradeoffs. Safety is now a mandatory standard. We can have small a-pillars at the expense of safety.
As with any blind spot, one just has to move their head...
Something had to give, and that thing was visibility.
reply