Talk:Vehicle blind spot

Eliminating blind spots

I can't help thinking that the section about eliminating the blind spots should have its pros and cons. Having not tried it, I imagine there must be some negative effects, like anything else. If not, why isn't it the normal thing to do?

fitting blind spot mirrors as the name implies is a simple and effective solution, blind spot mirrors manage the side blind spot area's, that are a crash causality, cheap and effective blind spot mirrors been around for a long time on trucks, busses and all heavy vehicles offering various sizes, the blind spot mirror 3" ( minimum for visual effectiveness)offers greater viewable area with less time, does not take sufficient away space on base mirror to cause issue, encourages the desire to check/look, as it shows a visible area including curb and down side of vehicle which is a crash causality in car parks. Engineers have provided many engineering solutions costing 1000s that flash lights, make boinging noises but don't show you what or where the problem is. There are no negative effects associated with eliminating blind spots. --71.104.15.93 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

frond-end blind spot

We must write something about the A-pillar Blind spot. A lot of cars have dis blind spot. Most drivers are not aware that it is getting bigger in new model flat angle windshield cars.

Stef

Merge

I have suggested a merge with Driver visibility. Both articles cover the same ground. I think it may be best that Driver visibility becomes a redirect to this article, and any useful stuff from that article is merged into this one. But it is also possible for the merge to go in the other direction. SilkTork 08:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stef

Yes good sugestion

I do not know how to merge, but I Agree

Thanks,

Stef

I would not merge Blind Spot into Driver Visibility, I might merge Driver Visibility into Blind Spot. A "Blind Spot" is a thing and is something every driver knows about (hopefully), so people would search on "Blind Spot". However, "Driver Visibility" is a function of a Driver or a subject, not an actual thing. After reading seeing "Driver Visibilty" in the "Blind Spot" article I thought, 'O yeah, maybe I should look there too.

Sue--129.21.22.32 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sue. I recently searched for "blind spot" and found this article. But it would not have occurred to me to search for "driver visibility." Dratman 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a how-to?

The "To set mirrors to eliminate all blind spot areas, use the following steps:" section sure sounds like it violates Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.

I do agree with Stef, the blind spot created by the A pillar needs to be mentioned, specially because it is a blind spot that affect pedestrians.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.204.152 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Two of the external links in this article - "Quick summary of recent blind spot and driver awareness research" and particularly "Combating the HGV blind-spot and side swipe accidents" - appear to be simply adverts for products. Although there is a relevance to the subject, I'm pretty sure this is not really appropriate. Would I be right to remove them?

Dr Walpurgis (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seatinpot

"Other areas that are sometimes called blind spots are those that are too low to see behind, in front, or to the sides of a vehicle, especially those with a high seatinpot."

What in the world is a "seatinpot?" Also, the footnote links to a non-existent page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.210.76 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative mirror arrangement

This article is a clear proponent of arranging mirrors so the side mirrors are pointing way out to the side. The article states that this is how to adjust mirrors 'properly' and 'reputed to be a lifesaver'. The traditional(?) method of a view down the side of the car isn't mentioned. This isn't neutral point of view, nor do I think the references are reliable enough to support 'way out' method as better than 'down the side' method as they are not independent studies on the best method for mirror positioning, they are either the 'way out' inventor's publications or references to them. Searching for mirror positioning methods returns lots of low quality websites for both. The most reliable source I've found is probably [1] which gives the 'traditional' method.

I'd like to change this section to be more neutral, playing down the 'way out' method as being so officially correct, unless others think to the contrary? Dm20 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Add what you want with a WP:RS. You can certainly put in an opposing viewpoint (no pun intended).

But IMHO, DON'T dilute the article. The best position/way to arrange mirrors in an automobile is a fact, not subject to reasonable debate, and should not be displaced or watered down by a misplaced reliance on WP:NPOV. There are ample cited sources on the point.

Your personal practice, experience or the testimonials of your driver's training instructor are not a WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Blind spot (vehicle). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other automobile design factors

This section seems to be missing a description of a Blind Spot Monitor "system" which is refered to several times later in the section. Perhaps a brief description & a link to the Blind Spot Monitor page would be appropriate. Unknowntouncertain (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]