 |
|
|
|||||
The view from the drivers seat is changingand becoming more dangerous. According to a new study from researchers at the U.S. Department of Transportations Volpe Center in Massachusetts, the size of driver blind spots in vehicles has steadily increased over time.The study looked at six different models of top-selling cars sold in the U.S., including the Honda CR-V, the Chevrolet Suburban, and the Toyota Camry, and compared blind zones in different versions of those cars released between 1997 and 2023. Using a camera-based visual measurement tool, the researchers found that the forward blind zones in every one of the six cars got bigger in newer models. The worst-performing modelsthe CR-V and the Suburbanhad forward visibility reductions of up to 58%.Its glaring, its shocking, but it might not be surprising, given that we are seeing vehicles get larger and taller and heavier over the years, says Becky Mueller at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, one of the reports coauthors. She is the lead engineer on driver direct vision research at IIHS, and helped develop a new method for measuring what a driver can see around a vehicle.[Photo: courtesy IIHS]How to measure a blind spotUsing a three-piece rig and a camera-enabled smartphone, researchers can now take accurate measurements of the field of vision for drivers of varied heights in nearly any car on the market.For the study, published in the SAE International Journal of Transportation Safety, the researchers focused on forward visibility within a 10-meter radius of the vehicle, or roughly 33 feet. Thats the average driver stopping distance at 10 mph, the speed at which car blind spots are a common factor in crashes. They studied six of the more common vehicle models that have been on the market continuously for at least the last 20 years. Measuring the direct vision field from different year models of each of those cars created a longitudinal data set that they could then use to track how blind spots have changed over time.What they found was a steady decrease in outward visibility. Hondas compact SUV model CR-V, for example, had a significant drop. Drivers of the 1997 CR-V could see 68% of the area 10 meters in front of the vehicle. By the 2022 model, they could only see 28% of that area. The larger Chevrolet Suburban SUV, also had a large decrease in visibility. Drivers of the 2000 Suburban could see 56% of the area 10 meters in front of the vehicle. Drivers of the 2023 model could only see 28%.Were interested in learning more about the new IIHS research and assessment approach and how it may relate to safety performance in the field, says Chevrolet spokesperson Shad Balch. We believe in an approach that prevents a collision, starting with an attentive driver and supported by sensing and braking technologies. GMs active safety features constantly monitor vehicle surroundings, helping to protect occupants and others from all viewpoints.Honda did not respond to a request for comment.[Photo: courtesy IIHS]The car size problemThis data complements previous studies looking at the size and shape of cars, which, like car blind spots, are getting bigger. Over the past three decades, the IIHS found that the average U.S. passenger vehicle has gotten 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller, and 1,000 pounds heavier. The organization also found that vehicles with a hood height greater than 40 inches are about 45% more likely to cause pedestrian fatalitiesroad deaths that have increased nearly 40% since 2000.[Image: courtesy IIHS]Mueller says vehicle design is playing a role in the decrease of forward visibility. Shes noticed increases in the size of side- and rear-view mirrors and mirror casings, as well as of A-pillars, the part of the car frame that rises up from the hood over the front door. And while there are some regulations governing the minimum size of components like mirrors, there is no maximum size limitation. There just isnt a lot of guidance for vehicle manufacturers to know what is causing blind zones for drivers, and how to redesign so that they can mitigate some of those things, she says.Some vehicle safety features may be compensating for the decrease in forward visibility. Chevrolets Balch points to several safety features in new GM vehicles, including automatic emergency braking, forward collision alert, front pedestrian braking, HD Surround Vision camera systems, and side bicyclist alert. Other carmakers, like Volvo, have developed additional safety technologies that aim to reduce the likelihood that a driver will crash into a pedestrian or cyclist.Mueller says IIHS is currently in the process of expanding its vehicle blind zone analysis, looking at 150 different vehicle models. She says there will be an additional analysis of vehicle cras data to see whether there are connections between reduced visibility and increased crash rates. This is a particular concern when it comes to vehicle crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists, who are much more likely to be injured or killed than vehicle occupants.If we do find a strong correlation between larger blind zones and more crashes, that is something that we can make known to consumers, and then also make vehicle design recommendations that will help vehicle manufacturers design vehicles that minimize blind zones, she says.
Category:
E-Commerce
Why are some people perceived as more trustworthy than others? In a perfect world, the answer would be simple: because they are more trustworthy. In other words, ideally, the average human would be perfectly able to infer someones trustworthiness by objectively assessing their degree of honesty, reliability, and integrity. But, in the real world, things could not be more different. Indeed, there are many factors unrelated to a persons actual honesty that determine whether that person is generally seen as trustworthy or not. Here is just a small selection of them: 1. Attractiveness: The halo that blinds We dont just trust attractive people more. We also assume they are smarter, kinder, more capable, and even morally superior. This is the classic halo effect, the well-documented cognitive bias in which our overall impression of a person (often based on a single positive trait like physical attractiveness, confidence, or status) influences how we judge their unrelated traits, such as intelligence, morality, or trustworthiness. In other words, if someone looks good or sounds smart, we are more likely to assume they are good and smart. The term was first coined by psychologist Edward Thorndike, one of the fathers of social psychology, in 1920, when he observed that military commanders who rated their subordinates as physically impressive also tended to rate them higher on leadership, intelligence, and character, even when there was no evidence to support those links. This spillover effect distorts objective evaluation, making it harder to see people clearly. In practical terms, the halo effect explains why charismatic leaders get away with bad behavior, why attractive people are presumed innocent, and why we often misplace trust in those who simply seem impressive. This is perhaps the most durable illusion in human social perception. The definitive quantitative review comes from J.H. Langlois, who conducted a meta-analysis of 76 studies to test whether “what is beautiful is good” holds up across various domains. It does. Attractive people were consistently rated more positively across virtually all traits, including honesty and trustworthiness, by both adults and children (yes, even 5-year-olds assume people are more trustworthy when they meet predefined societal archetypes of beauty or attractiveness). The researchers concluded that “attractive individuals are judged more favorably than unattractive ones, even when there is no objective basis for such judgments.” This bias is not just persistent; it is also consequential. In legal settings, for instance, attractive defendants receive lighter sentences than unattractive ones for identical crimes. In hiring, attractive applicants are rated as more qualified regardless of their résumé. And in leadership, beauty can serve as a false credential for competence. If beauty is a signal, its a deceptive one. Especially because attractive individuals learn (early and consistently) that charm and appearance open doors. Over time, this can create a mismatch between how trustworthy they appear and how trustworthy they are. And this mismatch is something many learn to exploit. In theory, it should lead to a self-correction over time, such that beauty or appearance ceases to act as a signal of trustworthiness (becoming instead a fake signal or noise). So far, though, it is clear that even if you cant judge a book by its cover, people still do; and there is no second chance for a good first impression. 2. Social class: The wealthier they seem, the more we trust them Status symbols trigger unconscious biases. A seminal study found that people wearing luxury brand logos (think Ralph Lauren, Rolex, or even carrying a Starbucks cup) were judged as more competent and trustworthy, regardless of their actual behavior. Note that there are only trivial differences in actual prosocial behavior in general by social class or socioeconomic status, so the perceived effect is more like a self-fulfilling prophecy and subjective or cultural projection, than a reality-based inference. In fact, some studies suggest that certain antisocial behaviors are more frequent or likely in higher status individuals. In a large-scale study, higher socioeconomic status was associated with significantly higher rates of unethical behaviors in a range of contexts, from cheating in games to endorsing dishonest behavior in hypothetical scenarios. The researchers also found a negative association between social class and empathy. In other words, people with more resources and power were less likely to consider the perspectives of others or feel compelled to behave ethically. So, while our instincts might nudge us to defer to the affluent, the evidence says we should do the opposite: interrogate the credentials behind the confidence, and ask whether their influence reflects substance or merely style. 3. Charisma: A red flag in disguise? Charisma is often mistaken for authenticity, but as any psychologist will tell you, its frequently a performanceand one that masks darker traits. Narcissists and psychopaths tend to score high on perceived charisma. They know how to manipulate impression management to engineer trust. In fact, according to a meta-analysis, individuals with high narcissistic traits are more likely to rise to leadership positions, in part because their confidence and charm seduce people into trusting them, even when that trust is undeserved. Put simply, we confuse style for substance. And we pay for it later. 4. Familiarity and fluency: Trusting what feels easy This is perhaps the most pervasive finding of all. We tend to trust people who look like us, speak like us, or fit our mental models. This is called the mere exposure effect, and it means we trust what we recognize, even when it’s not trustworthy. For example, research has shown that people with easily pronounceable names are seen as more likable and even more trustworthy. In the corporate world, people with simpler or Anglo-sounding names are more likely to be hired and promoted. Its bias masquerading as gut instinct. This bias toward the familiar is not just an aesthetic preference, it can be morally distorting. Psychologist Paul Bloom, in his book Against Empathy, argues that our instinctive emotional empathy is narrow, biased, an often unethical precisely because it is selective. We are more likely to feel empathy for those who resemble us, think like us, or share our background, even when that empathy is misplaced. Bloom contends that this favoritism can lead to harmful decisions, such as favoring charismatic insiders over competent outsiders or excusing unethical behavior from those we identify with. In other words, when familiarity governs our moral instincts, trust becomes parochial, and our judgments lose objectivity. So how can we get better at trusting the right people especially in a world where style so often disguises substance? 1. Focus on behavioral consistency, not first impressions Instead of asking “Do I like this person?” or “Do they seem confident?” ask: “Have they behaved predictably and reliably over time?” Research in personality psychology shows that trustworthiness is strongly correlated with the trait of conscientiousness, which manifests as consistency in behavior, follow-through, and self-control. Interestingly, conscientious people may often be the exact opposite of entertaining, charismatic, attention-seeking, narcissistic individuals. At times, they can be quite boring in the sense of being structured, organized, methodical, and predictable, which is precisely what makes them so reliable and trustworthy. You probably wont have much fun if they organize your vacation (a spreadsheet for everything and zero time for serendipity), but they are your perfect choice if you want someone to organize or manage your finances. 2. Discount overconfidenceit is often a proxy for deception People tend to mistake confidence for competence, and even more dangerously, for integrity. But the research is clear: overconfidence is often unrelated to actual ability, and it is positively correlated with deceit. A widely cited study showed that individuals who were most overconfident in their self-assessments were also most likely to cheat or deceive others when given the opportunity. In other words, if someone always seems certain and never admits what they dont know, that is not a sign of strength. It is a sign of strategic self-presentation. 3. Judge character through adversity, not performance in ideal conditions Peoples true nature is more visible when things go wrong. Research on moral character and trust by Nancy Darling and colleagues shows that stressful or ambiguous situations expose discrepancies between stated values and actual behaviors. If someone remains generous, fair, or honest when there is no benefit to doing so, or when the pressure is on, it is a much stronger signal of trustworthiness than how they act during polished moments or well-rehearsed pitches. 4. Take your biases seriously, not personally Everyone is biased. But most people assume that they are the exception. In one famous study on bias blind spots, over 85% of participants believed they were less biased than the average person. That illusion of objectivity is precisely what makes us so susceptible to misplaced trust. You are not a human lie detector. None of us are. But you can become more accurate if you start by doubting your own instincts and controlling for the predictable ways they go wrong. Trust, then, is not just a matter of judgment. It is a mirror reflecting our hopes, biases, and blind spots. We trust not because others are trustworthy, but because we need to believe they are. And the more persuasive the illusion, be it beauty, confidence, wealth, or likability, the more likely we are to mistake it for the real thing. This is not a flaw in individual reasoning, but a feature of human cognition. Our brains are designed to take shortcuts, especially when it comes to social decisions. The problem is that those shortcuts were optimized for tribal life, not complex modern systems where bad actors can scale their charm and weaponize it. The solution is not to stop trusting. It is to trust smarter. That means getting more curious about people’s track records than their charisma, more attuned to patterns than first impressions, and more willing to scrutinize those who seem above scrutiny. It means accepting that your instincts might be less accurate than you think, especially when they feel most certain. Ultimately, the goal is not to become cynical, but discerning; to replace reflex with reflection, and wishful thinking with evidence.
Category:
E-Commerce
On Thursday, the United States Department of Defense (DOD) entered a major deal with MP Materials. The DOD agreed to buy $400 million of MP Materials newly created preferred shares stock. The move will make the U.S. military the company’s largest stakeholder. In the hours after the deal, the company’s stock surged more than 50%. MP Materials owns and operates the only operational rare earth mine in the U.S., located in Mountain Pass, California. It is the world’s second-largest rare earth mine (the largest is in China). The purchase is part of a major effort to reduce foreign dependence on rare earths, a group of 17 chemical elements found within the earth’s crust, which are necessary in creating magnets that are essential in military weapons systems. The company says the DOD’s investment will allow for a major expansion of its operations, announcing that it will use the funds to construct the 10X Facility, its second domestic magnet manufacturing facility, at a location that is yet to be chosen. The company estimated that, upon completion, its total U.S. rare earth magnet manufacturing capacity will reach 10,000 metric tons.This initiative marks a decisive action by the Trump administration to accelerate American supply chain independence, said James Litinsky, founder, chairman, and CEO of MP Materials in a press release. We are proud to enter into this transformational public-private partnership and are deeply grateful to President Trump, our partners at the Pentagon, and our employees, customers and stakeholders for their unwavering support and dedication. The preferred shares bought by the DOD can be converted into common stock, the press release explained. The deal also includes a warrant convertible at $30.03 a share for 10 years, allowing the U.S. to purchase additional common stock. Under the deal, the U.S. government is committed to a 10-year agreement in which it will buy MP Materials for a minimum price of $110 per kg for its neodymium and praseodymium output. Once the 10X Facility is complete, it has agreed that “all magnets produced at the 10X Facility will be purchased by defense and commercial customers with shared upside,” per the press release. MP Materials said it has obtained a commitment letter from JPMorgan Chase Funding Inc. and Goldman Sachs Bank USA, which will provide $1B in financing the 10X Facility. It also said it expects a $150 million loan from the DOD within 30 days. The DOD has been consistently working to ensure access to rare earth materials in recent years. Since 2020, it has spent more than $439 million on establishing supply chains for the materials in an effort to move away from relying on shipments from overseas. “DOD’s strategic investments are building capability at multiple stages of the rare earth supply chain and will provide a clear signal to private capital that the time is right to build additional resiliency,” Danielle Miller, acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for industrial base resilience, said last year.Miller continued, “We are on track to meet our goal of a sustainable, mine-to-magnet supply chain capable of supporting all U.S. defense requirements by 2027.”The sale comes as concerns around China’s control over the industry have surged. Previously, Shenghe Resources, which is partly owned by the Chinese government, was MP Materials’ the sole customer. However, the company said earlier this year that due to China’s 125% tariffs (put into place after Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods) it would no longer send materials to China. “Selling our valuable critical materials under 125% tariffs is neither commercially rational nor aligned with America’s national interest,” MP Materials said in a statement at the time. The DOD’s new investment, which represents about a 15% stake in the company, is scheduled to close on July 11, 2025.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||