Then you're under-informed. They introduced laws about requiring backup cameras in multiple countries - I obviously didn't legislate them myself!

https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/car-backup-camera-la...

> 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries are caused every year by backover crashes

No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid these fatal accidents.

People saying they want cars without screens are like people arguing for cars without seatbelts because they find them uncomfortable.

Always an excellent (if mis-spelled) rejoinder, if the burden of proof is on you, and you are failing to meet it.

>They literally introduced laws

You've claimed this 5 or 6 times in this sub-thread, and yet I've not seen a single reference or link. Here, you link to "fatherly.com", which I will not visit. Link to something reputable, ideally the law itself, or major news coverage of the law.

>210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries

I know a case is weak when they start quoting absolute numbers at me on national issues. The order-of-magnitude of people in the US is 10^8. 200 dead is close to the noise floor on unlikely death. Literally 1-in-a-million. It's like the number of people that die from snake bites and shark attacks and lightning strikes.

>No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid these fatal accidents.

Here's where you get to the actual danger of what you are saying. Because screens do not come without considerable cost, not just in terms of hardware, but in terms of distraction. Do you think the number of fatalities caused directly or indirectly by screen-use-while-driving will exceed 200? (I would bet it's at 20k right now).

BTW I will carve out an exception - it's probably a good idea to have a dedicated backup screen, as with a 3rd party dashcam you can install yourself. However this is a very different beast than the center console infotainment center that, for that brief moment it becomes vital safety equipment, becomes a massive, constant, deadly liability to the safety of everyone within eyeshot.

This is a bizarre reason to refuse to understand something - you can find these laws yourself in seconds, either the original legislation, or references to it in the media, by Googling for them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-...

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ189/pdf/PLAW...

> I know a case is weak

Well take it up with the US and EU governments! I didn't write the laws - I'm just telling you what it is and why they introduced it.

You have to follow the law - and have a backup camera and screen in a new car - for other people's safety whether you like it or not! Just like you have to wear your seatbelt.

Not sure what your angle here is, but you clearly aren't an unbiased commenter. You have gone on and on about how many lives this law has saved, and how dangerous it is to drive without a screen and so on. So yes, I do expect you to make a better case rather than walk around acting as if yours is the foregone conclusion, obvious and right (of course, because it's for the children!)

You still have not responded to my central claim that these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811024.pdf

> a statistically significant 28 percent reduction in crashes

You:

> You still have not responded to my central claim that these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.

Them:

> no evidence to support the hypothesis that driver’s backing behavior (i.e. speed and acceleration) was influenced by the presence of absence of an RV system

People said the kind of things that you're saying about seatbelts when they came out - they thought they'd get trapped and didn't want to wear them. At some point you have to listen to the studies not just gut instinct.

Let's assume that these screens eliminate 100% of all deaths and accidental injury from backing up.

My point is that does not outweigh the number of deaths that are caused when the screen distracts the driver and causes a crash. This happens frequently, at higher speeds, and with worse consequences. Worse, I bet these crashes are grossly under-reported because no-one is going to admit being distracted by a screen, and so accepting liability.

As for gut instinct, mine has nothing to do with it. I have been in enough close calls with other distracted drivers, and I have seen the PSAs about not driving distracted, to know that it's a 10 kdeath/yr issue, not a 100 death/yr issue.

I'm going to disengage because there's something about this whole interaction that doesn't sit right with me.

You could disable the screens while driving forward or at higher speed if you think that's important for safety. But we shouldn't remove them.

And I feel the same for the baseband chip (phone and data), speaker, noise-notification in phones. Yes I'm punishing passengers, waze, etc, but the #1 (observed) danger these days to me, cyclist and pedestrian, is the driver's phone. It's such a problem, I feel we're not being serious about it.

It it possible to mitigate this by visually checking that blindspot before you get in the car, and keeping aware to make sure nothing sneaks into it while you're getting in? Sure, just like it is also possible to backup with no mirrors whatsoever by getting out of the vehicle and surveying your surroundings.

But on the whole, enough people don't do this that backup accidents are indeed an issue.

What my neck really wants is an auxiliary backup camera that you can stick on a towed trailer.

(Also I'll just chime in here - "screw touchscreens". The damn things should be illegal for any function the driver might need to used while driving. Software defined display screens are fine, but should be fully navigable through straightforwardly-predictable states using directional buttons on the steering wheel)