🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't believe in beating a dead horse, so I'm going to answer one more
time, then agree to disagree :)


In article <93nlho$3m$1@bob.news.rcn.net>,
  hillman@enteract.com (David Hillman) wrote:
> In article <93nk68$rvs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <dmcdd@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >A higher seating position puts my eyeline above the roof of most
small
> >cars. Your low car eyeline puts you even with most small cars. Since
the
> >majority of city traffic is still cars, that puts those in a higher
> >seating position in the advantageous position of being able to see
> >farther ahead in traffic an anticipate situations before the car
> >immediatly ahead of them has to hit the brakes. That is a very large
> >advantage.
>
>    And if I drive slightly to the left of the preceding car, your
>    advantage is virtually nil.
>
>    Also, if you are close enough to make a 'very large' difference in
>    perspective, you are following too close.  Especially considering
that
>    most 'small cars' can significantly out-brake your tall station
wagon.
>

Driving to the left of the preceding car buys you a line of sight until
the next car doing the same thing - not very far in my experience (My
car before the Grand Cherokee was a Ford Probe - I've got small car
experience also). That car driving just as far to the left as you are
completly blocks your view of the road ahead.

Driving in a higher position buys you line of sight until the next tall
vehicle - and then the view that it blocks of the road ahead diminishes
as distances increase.

I'm picturing a four lane divided interstate. Let's say you're driving
as close to the yellow line as you can in the left lane and are able to
see 8 cars ahead before there's a Volvo wagon driving over the yellow
line spraying the next few cars with gravel. You can see 8 cars, and
then no more.

I'm in the right lane, 12 cars behind you. I can see 8 cars ahead before
there's an Expedition. I can't see over the Expedition, but I can see
the shoulder next to him, and I have an unblocked view of the other lane
- where there's a stalled car, and people in that lane are cutting into
my lane. You're 9 cars back from the stalled car and don't know it, and
I'm 21 cars back and have seen the obstacle and can plan for it. I know
why and when traffic is slowing. I call that a very large advantage.

> >Being able to see the  reflected brake lights on wet pavment of the
> >second car up balances out being able to see many cars ahead in
traffic?
> >I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion...
>
>    Read carefully.  The only vehicles which cause a major difference
in
>    visibility are very wide, yet low ones.  These are very rare.  As
such,
>    very little advantage is conveyed by sitting higher.  Very little
>    advantage is also conveyed by being able to see under preceding
>    traffic.
>
>    They cancel out, in the rough terms we have available.

Any vehicle higher than you in front of you obstructs your field of
view. In a low vehicle that's a greater percentage of the traffic than
if you're in a high vehicle. You can simply see farther if you can see
over a greater percentage of the traffic.

>
> >That's just not true. In my grand cherokee I have the mirrors
adjusted
> >to see any traffic to the side of me.
>
>    I didn't say /every/ tall station wagon has this problem, but a
>    significant number do.

I don't agree. The number of large vehicles with malfunctioning mirrors
is insignificant. If the mirrors are not adjusted properly, it's
probably because the driver doesn't care about them, doesn't use them,
and wouldn't use them in a small car either.

>
> >We're talking about a total difference in vehicle height of maybe two
> >feet at the most between stock vehicles. If the large vehicles
driver's
> >mirrors are only showing the top two feet of other tall vehicles they
> >need to get their mirrors fixed - or learn how to adjust them. This
part
> >of your argument is just plain wrong.
>
>    So two feet is insignificant when vehicles are close, but becomes
>    more so as the distances increase?  Hmmm.

It's just the opposite. Two feet is very significant close up, but at a
distance, it just doesn't matter. If someone's mirrors in a Tahoe are
pointed high enough to only show the top two feet of the Expedition next
to them, the mirrors are pointed at the sky. In my experience in my
Grand Cherokee (BTW, it's a 4WD tall station wagon, thank you very much
:) if I aim the mirrors to give me a good view of the horizon on a flat
road, there's not anywhere a small car can hide, except in my blind
spot. I turn my head to catch that, just as I did when driving my Ford
Probe. Even in My Ford F250 Heavy Duty, I can see all cars - maybe just
from the windshield up, but I can see em. Now, if an MG midget pulls up
to the rear end of my Cherokee so close that our bumpers touch, I
probably won't see him. But, who's fault is that? Mine, beacuase of my
ride height, or his for following to close?


>
>    Virtually no one knows how to correctly adjust their mirrors, so
I'll
>    stand by my statement.

In general I also have a low opinion of the average IQ of our
population. I still think that if someone doesn't have their SUV's
mirrors adjusted right, it's because they're not using them. They also
wouldn't use them in a car. I contend that there is no vehicle on the
market sold today to the general public that has mirrirs high enough on
the sides to completly miss a small car next to them if the mirrors are
adjusted correctly.

>
>    You've probably never been in a small car next to a tall station
wagon,
>    and had them not be able to see you.  Happens to me frequently.
And
>    I'm trying to stay away from them, so I imagine it happens more
frequently
>    to other small car drivers.

When I was driving My Ford Probe, I often got cut off by other drivers -
large and small vehicles. It had nothing to do with their vehicle's
height, weight color or shape - it had everything to do with the other
driver not caring to look for me.

>
> >To sum up, You're mistaken - there is a great advantage to foresight.
>
>    Yes, there is; but the point is that tall passenger vehicles offer
>    very little foresight advantage, compared to regular passenger
vehicles.
>

> --
>  D a v i d  H i l l m a n
>  nma, scca, scscc, imoc
>

My point is that tall passenger vehicles offer a great deal of foresight
advantage - and I like it!


Dave McDonald


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/