Rear visibility, apparently no longer required.

I have a 2015 Explorer and have to back up my utility trailer tonight. I might just wait until dark to try it and compare. I'm not sure if there are any material differences between mine and the new Explorers beyond the front refresh, but I'll have to see. I did put Jeep LED tail lights with back up lights on the trailer, and am considering adding additional back up lighting, so I can see better where I'm backing and really light up the garage I'm backing into (it is rented and has very little light).

I had a cargo van without windows & limo tint on the front door windows. That really sucked to try and back up with the trailer.

spitfirebill wrote: I hate my new version work Explorer, because it isn't really an off road vehicle anymore.

how much off road capability do you need. Actual or perceived? We've been off road in ours, it was great. Sand, gravel, mud, trees. It's big, but it's way more capable than it has any right to be for it's size.

Yeah, the backup camera system isn't designed to cope with an object that's permanently hovering 4 feet off the rear bumper. Normally, anything that close would mean STOP BACKING UP NOW! :)

While Explorers do have tow ratings, it's not really what they expect people to do with them these days.

The trend is to zero rear visibility so that kids in rear facing seats don't get blinded by the horrible DOT headlights that throw light everywhere, and the manufacturers keep making the lights brighter and brighter and rant rant seethe seethe

I drive brand new cars on a daily basis at work, without the parking sensors and cameras you're flying blind. it's so frustrating that you can't park a car without these things.

I have a 2012 Ford Explorer. I agree that the rear window is pitifully small. Almost all of the "mid" sized SUV's share this trait. However, I think that the rear camera does a great job.

I back in to my driveway all the time. Even partially covered in snow, road salt and at night it has worked well.

iceracer wrote: "outside mirrors dim when the lights come on" . I have a problem with this statement.

Yes, and the problem is the US DOT allows headlights to be so ridiculously bright that there is a percieved need to dim the SIDE mirrors at night.

Just like it's ridiculous that vehicles need to have their aft visibility completely hamstrung just so the manufacturers can save a few bucks by going with crappy optics and more brightness to make up the difference. And then charge extra for the backup camera that is a "feature" but is really mandatory because they have no rear visibility because of the headlights they wanted to be able to cheap out and make.

I said I wouldn't rant. At least I haven't started on the rant about non-amber rear turn signals and why they are the reason we have to have 3rd brake lights...

Auto-dimming side mirrors are really nice. However, they should (and all that I've seen do) work like the auto-dimming inside rear-view mirror. Only dims when it's a lot brighter behind the car than in front. If there's no bright light behind you, they don't dim.

Newsflash. GRM board votes electric starter as worst automotive advancement in the last century. It was the start of the slippery slope to too many nannie add one. Real men drive cars without aids!

Newsflash: someone is always unable to understand a reasonable line between a Model T and a self-driving government-controlled robot overlord.

Knurled wrote:

iceracer wrote: "outside mirrors dim when the lights come on" . I have a problem with this statement.

Yes, and the problem is the US DOT allows headlights to be so ridiculously bright that there is a percieved need to dim the SIDE mirrors at night. Just like it's ridiculous that vehicles need to have their aft visibility completely hamstrung just so the manufacturers can save a few bucks by going with crappy optics and more brightness to make up the difference. And then charge extra for the backup camera that is a "feature" but is really mandatory because they have no rear visibility because of the headlights they wanted to be able to cheap out and make. I said I wouldn't rant. At least I haven't started on the rant about non-amber rear turn signals and why they are the reason we have to have 3rd brake lights...

not so much saving money due to crappy optics, but having crappy optics forced on them by the DOT. I recently went from USDOT headlights on my Rover to E-code headlights from Europe. I did not expect the HUGE difference in light dispersal. They are regular reflector style lights, not LEDS, not projectors, no fancy cuts, yet they put ALL their light on the ground with a very distinct cut off line that I only thought was possible with projectors.

The DOT mandates that so much light is sent "upwards" to illuminate signs overhead and I imagine to be "seen" by oncoming traffic. E-codes do not have this mandate and except for a small sliver of light on the far right side that lifts up to illuminate signs on the side of the road, all the light goes on the ground. If the US had modern lighting mandates, we would not be blinded on a daily basis

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Newsflash. GRM board votes electric starter as worst automotive advancement in the last century. It was the start of the slippery slope to too many nannie add one. Real men drive cars without aids!

So, you are equating poor rear visibility with the electric starter? That makes perfect sense.

In reply to mad_machine:

Your explanation is dead on correct. Un-lit overhead highway signs are the reason for the idiotic upwards light throw in DOT headlights. I will admit they're pretty hard to read sometimes with my e-codes, but anyone who isn't below the cutoff isn't getting blinded either...

I think Toyman 01 got into a vehicle that he was unfamiliar with and perhaps not properly equipped (mirrors) and decided to voice his exasperation.

What does rear view have to do with backing an enclosed trailer when there is nothing to see.

At least he got it done.

Toyman01 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Newsflash. GRM board votes electric starter as worst automotive advancement in the last century. It was the start of the slippery slope to too many nannie add one. Real men drive cars without aids!

So, you are equating poor rear visibility with the electric starter? That makes perfect sense.

No, I'm pointing out the frustrating tendency of this forum to bitch about all and any modern additions to cars which in truth make all of us safer and the vehicles more convenient to use while complaining we can't buy a brand new 1970 Datsun 510 because of overreaching government crap. I put 50k miles on the car being bitched about and it was the best non sports car I've ever had. Visibility is fine, better than most. The rear camera works spectacularly well, better than most I've had as it had a separate washer nozzle so whenever you washed the rear screen the camera got washed too. Of that 50k miles I put on the car I pulled a trailer for 3-4k of those with no issues.

Let's look at recurring threads on here that we have each of about once a month: New cars suck
New cars are too expensive
Insert safety feature of choice here sucks and isn't needed (side air bags, traction control, thicker A/B/C pillars etc.
Automatic transmission sucks
New trucks are pointless as they have too much luxury
We need no frills sports cars
We need (insert total POS from other parts of the world) sold here

No matter what a bunch of people who don't buy new cars and many seem to think they have super human skills beyond Hamilton/Senna/Andretti because they claim a sports car is the best safety aid for avoiding all accidents the simple fact is with more and more cars on the road, less and less human beings are getting killed than in previous years. Survivability is up and accidents are being avoided due to safety features. Also the market has proven time and again that the cars enthusiasts claim to want just don't sell that well. this place just likes to bitch about stuff all the time in the face of common sense and proven sale facts.

I quit. Adrian out.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

Valid points. In my opinion, what is lost is our ability to do these things that cars/computers/phones are now doing for us. As a society, our spelling is atrocious, we cruise in the passing lane, and we no longer write letters. Every conversation is interrupted by a knee jerk look at the most recent super important bit of information transmitted at lightning speed to somebody's phone.

It is hard, especially in such rapidly changing times to not lament a simpler day.

Group hug, everybody. It is a little scary out there.

I have to say for all the Issues that rover built into the discovery, it also built a few nice features. Among these are that they make it easier to back up than some. Even with the spare hung off of the rear door, the glass on the side opposite it dips down to allow a better view out. The pillars are thinner, (I don't understand the need for HUGE D or E pillars), the rear wiper comes on when the windshield wipers are on and you put it in reverse, and the silly little "Alpine" windows at the roof level on the sides even come in handy if you are back up under something you might hit.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Toyman01 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Newsflash. GRM board votes electric starter as worst automotive advancement in the last century. It was the start of the slippery slope to too many nannie add one. Real men drive cars without aids!

So, you are equating poor rear visibility with the electric starter? That makes perfect sense.

No, I'm pointing out the frustrating tendency of this forum to bitch about all and any modern additions to cars which in truth make all of us safer and the vehicles more convenient to use while complaining we can't buy a brand new 1970 Datsun 510 because of overreaching government crap. I put 50k miles on the car being bitched about and it was the best non sports car I've ever had. Visibility is fine, better than most. The rear camera works spectacularly well, better than most I've had as it had a separate washer nozzle so whenever you washed the rear screen the camera got washed too. Of that 50k miles I put on the car I pulled a trailer for 3-4k of those with no issues. Let's look at recurring threads on here that we have each of about once a month: New cars suck New cars are too expensive Insert safety feature of choice here sucks and isn't needed (side air bags, traction control, thicker A/B/C pillars etc. Automatic transmission sucks New trucks are pointless as they have too much luxury We need no frills sports cars We need (insert total POS from other parts of the world) sold here No matter what a bunch of people who don't buy new cars and many seem to think they have super human skills beyond Hamilton/Senna/Andretti because they claim a sports car is the best safety aid for avoiding all accidents the simple fact is with more and more cars on the road, less and less human beings are getting killed than in previous years. Survivability is up and accidents are being avoided due to safety features. Also the market has proven time and again that the cars enthusiasts claim to want just don't sell that well. this place just likes to bitch about stuff all the time in the face of common sense and proven sale facts. I quit. Adrian out.

I agree with about half of this. I'm sure you probably expected me not to, assuming you thought about it at all.

My real problem is with the creeping control imposed by mandates and the loss of options for people who may wish to make other choices. The fundamental issue is with the Law of Unintended Consequences which government regulators never seem to grasp. Despite multi-million-dollar studies, they often miss or ignore things in the broader picture because they are focused on very specific issues.

Some rough cases in point:

• DRLs: Address a specific, minor visibility problem by requiring cars to run with headlights on during the day (thankfully this never became a full mandate, but it was close, and numerous manufacturers adopted them anyway).

• What they missed: Now they have raised the visual background noise, so everything without DRLS is that much harder to see, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Motorcycles have now lost their one visibility advantage. Emergency vehicles now have to run even MORE lights to compete. And the worst unforeseen consequence is the berking epidemic of people who drive at night with only DRLs on, who not only can't see as well as they should, but who also have NO TAILLIGHTS to show other drivers where they are. Was it worth it?

• CHMSLs: Address a perceived problem with brake light visibility.

• What they missed: When they were new, these attracted attention as intended because so few cars had them. 30 years later, now that nearly every vehicle on the roads has a CHMSL, do they make any difference at all any more? See comment about raising the visual background noise above.

• Impact protection: Improve specific issues in cabin strength.

• What they missed: This one at least has valid intentions. But the unintended consequences include the dramatic loss of all-round visibility in all directions, which creates more risks to already at-risk groups like motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Hell, it creates more risks even for people who drive small cars! Now you have to bandaid the underlying mandate-driven flaws by requiring numerous extra systems like lane departure warnings, blindspot monitors, backup cameras, and the like.

I get it. Cars in the '50s and '60s were not safe. I grew up in them and drove one every day into the 1990s. I know they had serious issues. The advent of engineering advances like crumple zones have led to dramatic improvements in impact management and occupant safety. I'm radically in favor of those advances. No matter how you try to characterize me, I am not advocating that we should all be driving 1912 Mercers.

I'm even leaving out discussion of the first 20+ years of unsafe airbags.

But as I said previously, we're stuck in the hinterlands between actually having to drive our cars and not having to drive them at all. It's a transitional period and it's creating all the problems transitions do. The Powers That Be clearly are looking for a specific outcome - the one that gives them the most comprehensive control over the population - and they will continue to make life difficult or impossible for those of us who prefer a different outcome. Much like bringing socialized medicine to America, they'll grind us down until assimilation is not only easier, but the only real option.

What frustrates me is why a car can't be made safe without gigantic pillars.

I get it, a huge pillar is going to be more efficient from a structural standpoint, but there seems to be no limit to the size and visibility is compromised as a result. There are ways to achieve a better structure and retain visibility. For example, just look at a roll cage (I get it, unlikely in a production car). A piece of ~1.75" roll cage tubing is significantly stronger than the pillar of the average car, yet also a lot thinner and easier to see around (imagine it replacing the pillar instead of in addition to). Perhaps its time for construction methods to change?

Visibility is periodically studied by NHTSA (like so), but unfortunately there don't seem to be requirements automakers must meet... or they don't need to advance and provide better visibility. As technology, materials, etc. advance, we should be making cars that are both easier to see out of and safer in a crash.

Safety follows performance.

In the past, cars had a top speed of 85 mph with cruising speed 50 or below. Today 85 is normal and 50 is for the suburbs. So we need to be protected more.

On the A pillar thing, it might be due to the angle of the windshield. My Fiesta slopes at nearly 30 degrees.

I have no problem with the visibility around the A post.

One thing is called moving of the head and the object unseen does not remain unseen for long.

When i fail, i fail on my own merits. I think the car itself is a factor, but there are layers of choices involved in what to drive, how hard to try to adapt to what you chose to drive, how cautious to be in a given situation, etc etc.

I've had a lot of very minor reversing incidents. All kinds of vehicles. I've even backed the open door of a car into another vehicle. All of them were primarily my fault. I can back up to within a couple inches of another vehicle without a backup camera when i'm trying. The trying part is the trick. When i'm not focused all my precision and technical abilities are out the window. I can out-think almost any amount of constraints imposed by XYZ vehicle with 'poor visibility'. I just have to be trying and not so casual that i assume success and fail by omission of trying.