• Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    6 days 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.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      6 days 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

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days 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.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 days ago

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

  • Annoyed_🦀 🏅@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 days 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

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days 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.

  • witty_username@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Yea don’t cross post from NonCredibleDefense if you want to be taken seriously.
    Just look at the lengths of the children. Bit on the tall side, no?

    Edit: my bad. Sorry for being snarky

    • borf@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Barely a head taller than the vehicle tires, so no, they are not on the tall side

      If you meant “short side” consider the ages of the children and the fact that 5 and 3 year olds do exist in the real world

      • Hawke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        The pic is confusing because they used similar visual cues for vehicle “hood height” compared to child “distance from vehicle”.