If you feel like cars have gotten harder to see out of, you’re not alone. Thanks to a new testing regimen developed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has the data to prove you’re right.
The IIHS placed a camera inside the car roughly where the driver’s head would be and captured a 360-degree image, which software can translate into a map of the blind zone. It’s a great idea, and a remarkable improvement over previous approaches, one of which used an elaborate system of grid lines or traffic cones. (“No, not there—a little more to the right … no, the left … aww, hell, Tom!”)
The eight authors of the study (seven from the DOT and one from the IIHS) used this methodology to evaluate a selection of vehicles built within the past 25 years. Logically, they chose some of the most popular SUVs, trucks, and cars in America from the 1997 to 2023 model years: Chevrolet Suburban, Ford F-150, Honda Accord, Honda CR-V, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Toyota Camry. The team evaluated vehicle blind zones based on a 180-degree field of view, meaning that the main variables on the vehicles were the length, width, height of the hood, the height and width of the A-pillars, and the size and position of the side-view mirrors. As far as distance from the driver, and speed of the vehicle, those parameters were set at 10 meters and 10 mph, “a low speed at which blind zones are a common factor in crashes.”
(You can request the full text of the study on the IIHS website. The paper’s official title is “Longitudinal Analysis of Forward Blind Zone Changes in Popular Vehicle Models (1997–2023),” and it was published in the March 2025 edition of the SAE International Journal of Transportation Safety.)
Visibility, measured as a percentage of the area in a 10-meter circle visible in front of the vehicle, was best in the cars, worse in the trucks, and equally bad in two very different SUVs: The Chevrolet Suburban and the Honda CR-V. The Suburban represented the second largest decrease in visibility: Between the 2000–2006 generation and the 2021-present generation, the percent of the visible area in a radius of 10 meters declined from 56 to 28 percent. In contrast, the decrease in visibility for the Camry and the Accord fell within the margin of error (from 61 to 57 percent, and from 65 to 60 percent).
Of the vehicles measured, the CR-V posted the largest decrease in close-range front visibility. “Drivers of the 1997 model were able to see 68% of the area 10 meters in front of the vehicle, while drivers of the 2022 model can see only 28%.” The contributing factors? The newer CR-V has a higher hood and larger side mirrors. We would never have guessed that a CR-V is harder to see out of than a new F-150, though the Suburban’s poor visibility does make us think twice about the Silverado upon which it is based. A point for the Ford pickup, perhaps?
In good scientific fashion, the goal of the study’s eight authors was clear and limited: to determine whether blind zones were getting larger. Clearly, they are. What that decrease means and what impact it has on pedestrian safety need to be studied further. That only becomes clearer in light of the number of pedestrians and cyclists who have been killed in vehicle crashes between 1997 and 2022: Fatalities have risen 41 percent for pedestrians and 36 percent for cyclists.
Think about everything that’s changed in that time period: The adoption of cell phones (by pedestrians and drivers), the surge in popularity of SUVs and trucks, and the growing size of every car on the road. According to IIHS analysis referenced in the study, the average U.S. passenger vehicle has become about “4 in. wider, 10 in. longer, 8 in. taller and 1000 lb heavier over the last 30 years.” That’s good news for drivers and passengers, who are safer than ever—and bad news for pedestrians and cyclists.
The authors of the study are careful to point out that they don’t have enough data to say that a decrease in vehicle visibility causes higher fatality rates among pedestrians and cyclists. To answer that question, they would also need to consider other factors, “such as increased horsepower, sound insulation, and high seating position—which can encourage more frequent and severe speeding as well as decreased situational awareness.” Will they discover some sobering consequences of our desire for more comfortable, powerful vehicles? It’s not hard to imagine.
We’re grateful to the authors of this study not only for capturing an important trend in recent vehicles, but also for reminding us that driving carries with it a serious responsibility. Keep driving, keep having fun—and keep your eyes peeled.
No kidding. I wonder how much they got paid for this study?
The reason we can see out is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) pushed the DOT to make for stronger roof crush standards. Where does a roof crush where the A, B and C pillars are. So they make them out of Boron steel and make them thicker so it will support a larger SUV.
Now I am not complaining but I just find the irony they make a big discovery on something they created and now complain about.
That is why the automakers have lights, cameras, buzzers and vibrating seats to make it so you don’t miss something important.
Just like many things agencies will become critical of the auto industry but they often create the issues they complain about.
People also complain about the high sides on many cars and slotted windows. The reason is for side impact standards. The increase of the regulations due to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) have made a number of lower vehicles having to adopt higher sides to better absorb the impact. This too can limit sight lines for shorter drivers too.
I remember the push for air bags then they found that air bags can hurt and kill short adults and children. Then the auto makers had to come back with shut off switch for the passenger seat and two stage air bags.
In place of just complaining I wish the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) would also invest into more on how to solve these issues since they hold all the data. Easy to crash a car but to sort out all the what can and could happen is much tougher with changes. They should work more to solving the problem vs just pointiing it out.
FYI you can say you did not see this study coming. LOL!
You can say you did not see this one coming. LOL.
What next heavier larger vehicles do more damage top smaller lighter cars?
This would be far more interesting if some select vintage cars were in the study:
a 59 GM full-size 2 door hardtop
67 Camaro
69/70 Mustang
A couple of 70s offerings include a Vette
Dentside, any one of the 80-96 F150s
67-72 c10, a squarebody
and a few of the smaller cars (i.e., a 70s Civic, a Chevette, etc.).
My. Fiero A pillars are so small it feels more open. But the B pillars can hide a semi.
Just driving an older car the openness is very noticeable.
Look at the size of those A-Pillars. Huge blind spot there alone. Certainly doesnt bode well for those of us who ride a Motorcycle. And the only excuse drivers can use is “I didnt see it”
Facebook Conversations