• teft@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    2 months ago

    In the army you have to have a ground guide for vehicles that big. A ground guide is a soldier that walks in front of the big vehicle and watches for obstacles. The ground guide helps the driver navigate obstacles they are unable to see due to blind spots.

    I propose we legislate that all vehicles that big require a ground guide to walk in front of them.

    Then everyone will buy small vehicles so the newly formed ground guide union will have less power.

    • n2burns@lemmy.caEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      Ground guide or at least a crew commander at the top of the tank/armoured fighting vehicle. I can see lots of people accepting a lookout on top of their Personal Support Truck before they’d consider downsizing or gulp not driving. I guess that would also increase vehicle occupancy above the abysmal 1.4 people/vehicle it’s currently at!

  • Zeppo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    36·
    2 months ago

    I also hate driving vehicles like this. It’s not comfortable to know you can’t see around you properly. They’re hard to park too and get terrible mileage.

    I had a gf with a full size Chevy, a Silverado or something, and basically hated driving it. We’d go mildly off roading on some dirt roads and when you were going uphill you couldn’t see the road ahead of you. Just awful. I had to stop and get out a few times to ensure we weren’t about to drive off a cliff. That never happened in the normal sized Subaru I had.

    • PennyRoyal@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      19·
      2 months ago

      Having driven modern Unimogs, I can say with certain that you can absolutely design a vehicle to carry heavy loads, go almost anywhere, be a truly multi-roll vehicle, and have virtually no blind spot. Has virtually no bonnet though, and no chrome wheels, so won’t compensate for having a tiny dick in the same way as a giant pickup though

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      And so weirdly unnecesary, A relative of mine lives in the countryside and genuinely has to use a lot of really beat up tracks, their landrover doesn’t have incredible frontal view but easily better than every single thing in this diagram.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    2 months ago

    I think the real-life photo of like a dozen kids in a line in front of the hood and completely invisible from the driver’s seat of the truck is more impacting. It’s insane. People that drive trucks like that are seriously compensating for something.

    I hate Elon Musk, so I don’t want to get into a whole thing about it, but the Model 3 and Y have some of the shortest front blind spots of all makes and models of vehicle, largely because their is no engine under the hood allowing for a short and low front end. I couldn’t find any data for other all-electric vehicles, but I would assume any fully electric car would be similar.

    Bicycles have zero blind spot in front.

    • edric@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      2 months ago

      Subarus also have pretty good visibility because of how their boxer engines sit lower than other types of engines.

    • Bilbo_Haggins@lemm.eeEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      Yep other EVs have this as well. The Hyundai IONIQ has great front sightlines for an SUV IIRC.

      Still a car, but I admit EVs are much less hateable in a city for multiple reasons. No stinky tailpipe, no roaring engine noise, and generally better sightlines and safety features.

      I think my ideal city would be mostly bikes and ebikes, with those vehicles that can’t be replaced by bikes being EVs.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.ccEnglish
    13·
    2 months ago

    Inb4 haha none of those other than the tank can shoot, you can mount a minigun on top of it.

    *Minigun sold separately

    **Mounting a Minigun will void warranty

  • Taniwha420@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    2 months ago

    I don’t understand how the distance to see ground in the tank is longer than those of the Dodge and Chevy, but the distance to see children is shorter.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lolEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      Sharper angles from the trucks. Look at the 16 Wheeler truck cabin for an extreme version of it, high up viewpoint and a large front means larger section in front of you is obscured, vs the lower to the ground but gentler angle down of the tank making it slow to see the grounds you can see shorter objects for longer.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    31·
    2 months ago

    This makes me wonder if there could be a regulation mandating front facing cameras on vehicles where vision is obstructed when moving at low speeds. Perhaps collision alert systems are sufficient. At any rate, there should probably be something that mandates some form of compensation for the lack of vision.

    • Spur4383@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      There is no need for cameras, that is solving a problem that did not need to exist. They should not raise the front ends as they do for aesthetic reasons.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        14·
        2 months ago

        I personally prefer the solution that maximizes liberty. If both routes, ie regulating compensation for lack of vision and prohibition of that which causes the lack of vision, accomplish the same end, ie the ensurement of safety, I would choose for former, as it maximizes personal choice and freedom.

        • Fillicia@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          31·
          2 months ago

          Except that a tablet sized screen is not accomplishing the same goal as proper visibility and people should have the freedom to use the public road safely first and foremost.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            Except that a tablet sized screen is not accomplishing the same goal as proper visibility

            I never said that I was specifically advocating for that as the only solution. All that matters is if the same end is accomplished. If it is indeed true that the safety of a vehicle is only maximized when objects are directly visible to the driver, then so be it. If not, that is an unnecessarily specific and restrictive regulation. And, in any case, regulating a limit, and letting the market work within it, accomplishes the same end with the benefit of freedom of choice. An equivalent example would be regulating the maximum allowed emissions for a vehicle rather than mandating a specific design of the engine, exhaust system, etc.