JT, no just a standard 4x8 trailer but no way I can see it through the back window. Seems to me that the seats have to be up a little higher in the back to accommodate the belts and head restraints. I guess it doesn’t make much difference anyway because if you turn in your seat to look back, all you see is your own head restraints.
In my old cars, the '61 Beetle and '64 Fairlane, I could put my right arm over the seatback and turn around and look out the rear window. That’s impossible in any of today’s cars. Between the headrest setback, the side bolsters, and the bucket seats, it just isn’t possible.
On the other hand, rearview mirrors on both sides were not common, I’m unaware of any car that had power mirrors, and convex mirrors were some years away. Headlights were, well, dim to use a polite adjective, and directionals were often tiny, and almost unidirectional.
With proper care, today’s cars are safer visually than the old cars were, especially with the new rearview cameras becoming commonplace.
And now, about that “proper care”, that’s the only thing that hasn’t improved since my '61 Beetle. IMHO it’s gotten worse with the advent of satellite radio, cellphones, tablets, and drive-through restaurants. A lot worse. At least when I had my '61 Beetle and '64 Fairlane everyone was concentrating on their driving.
I remember an advertisement for some car back in the,1950s that boasted that one could see all four corners of the car from the driver’s seat. It may have been the 1952 Ford… I remember how much better the vision was to the rear in my 1955 Pontiac that replaced my 1947 Pontiac fastback. In the vision to the rear, I think my 1955 Pontiac was much better than today’s cars.
It’s partly just styling, but mostly aerodynamics and safety. Cars have become taller overall, not just in the back, giving more interior space and a better seating position without adding too much length. Higher trunklids are both more aerodynamic and allow for bigger trunks. Higher belt lines also make for stronger doors. I do wish rear visibility were better, but figure in a few years we’ll have cameras that give a better view than any mirror ever could. Maybe then cars won’t even have a rear window and the trunk will extend all the way to the roof, like a closet on the back of the car. I think I’d like that.
It seems to me that many hatchbacks, like the Yaris or Golf, would have good rear visibility. I had a series of Vitz (underpowered Yaris) cars as rentals in 2013 and 2014. They had very good rear isibility, and backing up was a breeze with the rear view camera. With height adjustment on the driver’s seat, it might accommodate shorter folks well.
If you think todays cars have poor rear visibility, try a 71 Mustang fastback or even a 74 Torino wagon. Those are the two worse that I know of, and even though both have two side mirrors, the side mirrors are about the size of a playing card, so they are useless.
The cars of the 60’s had lower beltlines because they were mounting the seats closer to the floor for a more sporting feel. People today don’t seem to like to sits 5" off the ground below, so the seats are higher, and the beltline too. But as most cars taper off on all 4 corners, you can’t see the corners anymore. Its hard to judge how close you are to nearby objects, especially those behind you. The rear view cameras help a lot, but they sure are hard to get used to. I think its a trust thing.
I can see the time coming with electric cars that the front windshield and rear window will be identical. There will be controls at each end. The seats will swivel 180 degrees. The car can be driven from either end. Electric motors can reverse rotation at the flip of a switch. Railroads have done this for years with their locomotives, which made roundhouses with turntables a thing of the past. You would never back out of your garage. Just pull in and when you are ready to leave, drive out from the other end.
That would be neat, then they could put a plow at one end and a shovel at the other end. Oh wait, they already did that.
Most locomotives only have good visibility in one direction, but they’re usually operated in multiples so it’s easy enough to have some facing one way and some the other so there will always be one facing forward. Early diesel road switchers (the configuration of all modern road locomotives, with open walkways down each side) were intended to be operated with the long hood at the front and cab closer to the back, like most steam locomotives. Finally they realized it made more sense to turn them around and operate them with the cab at the front, and then to chop the hood down to allow a better view.
Which has very little to do with visibility from cars, though sometimes the same people designed both. Raymond Loewy most famously, but its hard to name a product his firm didn’t design. GM was also the largest maker of diesel locomotives from the thirties into the eighties, when GE took the lead in some years. GM sold off their locomotive business years ago, but the spun-off company still divides the US locomotive market with GE. A bit funny that two companies known for very different products also dominated the locomotive business, but it happened because GM was a big maker of large diesel engines and GE dominated the market for large electric motors and generators.
Visibility may not be as important as it’s reputed to be.
After all, Lindbergh’s plane–The Spirit of St. Louis–had no forward vision whatsoever, due to the placement of the fuel tank in front of the pilot’s seat.
Visibility?
Who needs it?
;-))
When I’m not carrying passengers in the back seat, which is most of the time, I remove the rear head rests. On both our Toyota and Mazda they really obstruct the view.
I wish they would make back up camers that could be turned on any time for better rear vision restricted to only when you are backing up.
Docnick: thanks for reminding me, I have to put them back in as I’m expecting passengers later this week.
b
I’m jumping in late here. Has anyone considered that the poor rearward visibility is the result of a conspiracy to sell more rear view cameras and the entire luxury packages that include them?
And about that “grassy knoll.”
The BEST car for visibility was the AMC Pacer…Probably one of the Ugliest vehicles ever sold.
Too funny, as I was reading the thread I thought, “careful what you ask for, your next car might be a Pacer”. The only greenhouse on wheels…
I owned a 1975 AMC Pacer X. It had a lot going for it in many ways. My first wife really wanted the car. It did handle better than a lot of the cars available at the time. The Pacer had rack and pinion steering and a wide stance. The visibility out of the Pacer was great–a lot better than the Ford Maverick we also owned at the time. The hatchback feature was handy and the wide passenger door allowed easy access to the rear seat. Our son was about 2 when we bought the car and it was easy to put him in the back seat in his child seat. As he grew a little bigger, the 2 door configuration made us feel safer when he was in the back seat.
It’s a fad like most other auto styling endeavours. There are plenty of new cars that don’t suffer from this. I kind of like the styling, but having a car like this, I can see out the back just fine, but it’s annoying to have to stay back further from traffic lights so I don’t have to duck to see when they change. (or look at them through the sunroof)