> That said, "good visibility" is not a replacement for safety tech. The sensors and cameras in a car are always going to be better at spotting danger than a human for things like blind spot monitoring and backup cameras.

One area where I strongly believe (yeah, personal feelies, no empirical study to back it up) misguided priorities have led to sub-optimal safety results is forward visibility. Some sibling comment mentioned "car didn't detect / erroneously 'detected' vehicle in front"... Since when do we need technology to "detect" vehicles in front of us; aren't we supposed to be able to SEE those, in order to be qualified to drive?!?

A: Since A-pillars have gotten as fat as your thigh, obscuring huge swaths of your field of vision.

Now sure, I understand that it's a good thing you won't get crushed flat if your car rolls over. But it's a bad thing if you crash into a vehicle, or run over a pedestrian, because you can't see out of your own vehicle. And how often do roll-over accidents really happen? My guess would be, a lot less often than collisions caused by impeded forward visibility.

(If my opinion that "visual aids shouldn't be necessary" in the forward direction makes me a "mental maths-advocating teacher", then so be it.)