If the US weren't so obsessed with enormous cars with terrible visibility, I think this would be a different conversation.
Unless you really struggle with object permanence, a child somehow ending up in front of you without you seeing them is not a frequent occurrence, compared to one ending up behind you.
But yes, American cars are stupid big and should be smaller.
I can see quite a lot in my backup cam that is in a visual blind spot in both of my cars.
- Gas mileage (pollution)
- Tire wear (pollution)
- Handling (safety)
Which is the work product of the 2000s era of "legislate to make cars better" advocacy.
90s SUVs rolled a lot, so they changed the rules to require them be strong, Strong made them hard to see out of in reverse so they added cameras. Now because both are regulatory required, at substantial cost, you can't even make a small vehicle that doesn't have both.
It's not like the Subarus and Volvo wagons of the 00s were lacking in rollover strength or rear visibility, but now that you have to have the features by law and when all the dust of engineering tradeoffs settles the modern analogues wind up just as bad to see out of as everything else, because why wouldn't you if you're required to have the mitigation technology. No reason for 2020s Subaru shove that stupid steel bar in the pillar (at great expense) to keep it sleek and skinny when they have to have the fat pillar mitigation tech installed by law.
How many times we gonna run laps of this feedback loop before we decide the problem is systemic?
I go to South America a lot to visit family and for business and the cars by and large are much more maneuverable, small and nimble, and you can actually see most things around you.
But then every time I get back on my first car ride I'm greeted with an absolute monstrosity of a vehicle. Even the average sedan feels gargantuan. Due to this people can't realistically see very well behind them. Never mind the fact that most cars the rear windshield isn't even that large anymore, and in some vehicles head checks don't even work well because the columns are right in your view.
I understand some of this is in the name of "safety", but realistically it feels like it trading one safety measure - safety for the people inside the vehicle - at the expense of another - those outside the vehicle.
The reason this law exists is because small children (e.g 3ft tall) were getting run over.
Seriously, go put a large suitcase immediately behind your rear bumper and try to see it without a camera. You can't.
Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.
If you have parking sensors it will alert you to something walking behind you anyway.
The point being made is there are way to deal with this without the need for a rear camera.
This is why we have seat belts instead of telling people "you idiot you should have used the brakes!"
The point being made is that many of these things can be mitigated by better driver training or driver aids which are much simpler & cheaper (I am likely to fit parking sensors in my older cars, kits are cheap).
Oh, well, if it's that easy! Just retrain 1.2 billion people, some of whom still don't know how to tie a shoelace reliably.
They have been mandating that in most UK countries for decades and it is definitely one of the reasons why roads are safer now.
> Some of whom still don't know how to tie a shoelace reliably
Your true colours finally show. All the people are too stupid to learn how to do anything. BTW this is called the "Bigotry of low expectations".
All? No. Some? Absolutely. Five minutes on the road demonstrates it.
If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)
Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.
So you accept that better driving training would be better.
> If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)
As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they.
If you implement better driver training. Then newer driver have to do that training. So over the overall minimum standard improves.
A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard. It is a band-aid over a bigger problem.
> Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.
Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.
Oh, certainly! But it needn't be exclusive. (And "teach people better" is a lot harder than running a wire to a $30 camera.)
> As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they.
They drive far, far too long on average. I'd love to see an annual requirement to pass a driving test over 60, but… old people vote.
> A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard.
Sure. It improves the "backing up" bit only.
> Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.
Both are safety mitigations, for different aspects of driving.
I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.
But earlier you were pretending that it was the case. Interesting.
Do you not remember?
> I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.
Are you saying the mandated camera doesn't stop someone from reversing over you or that the hummer doesn't have the camera, but won't kill you because the camera is mandated by law in other vehicles?
I am not sure what to make of this statement.
Hardly. Just that "teach people" is tough, expensive, and time consuming. "Install a $30 device" is not. (In your now flagged last-last-last reply to me, you advocated for PSAs. As we all know, they worked great to stop texting while driving!)
> Are you saying the mandated camera doesn't stop someone from reversing over you or that the hummer doesn't have the camera and the hummer won't kill you because the camera is mandated by law.
I'm saying I'm glad the Hummers now have backup cameras, because they sure as shit can't see me with the windows/mirrors.
This remains entirely true. That's part of why it's tough, expensive, and time consuming. People do dumb things. Much of safety is figuring out ways to lessen opportunities to do so, and mitigating damage when they manage it.
See, for example, aviation/medical safety, which take the approach that individuals making mistakes is an indictment of the system that permitted that mistake to occur. We engineer them away, as much as possible, with pretty great success overall.
> I knew that. I thought I deliberately misinterpret the sentence so you would be forced to clarify. You did to me several times in the other thread.
No, I still wanna know how you stop time between checking behind your car and getting in, starting it up, and backing out, so no kid/pet/whatever can run behind it in those 10-15 seconds.
You can.
And then the kid/pet moves. They do that.
Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!
Yes, like a backup camera.
> Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!
The number who will is well above zero.
(This critique also applies to your proposed mitigations, yes?)
Well you've just twisted what I said because you are getting angry. So we will leave it there.
Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?
> you are getting angry
If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.
You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk and decided to get a quick jab in at me. That was disingenuous. I don't appreciate it.
> Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?
Driver awareness can be done through other means than re-training.
> If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.
I never said that and obviously don't believe that. Funny how at the start of this reply you were pretending you weren't engaging in that behaviour. I wouldn't bother replying, you won't get another one.
Yes, I do. And I'm wondering why this one doesn't count.
> Driver awareness can be done through other means that re-training.
Such as?
(Ironically, the serious answer to this is "stuff like backup cameras". Which improve driver awareness when backing.)
> I never said that and obviously don't believe that.
You: "However the backup camera being required by law is absolutely ridiculous. You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head."
How do you use those two techniques to see things in the blind spot behind the bumper without its being transparent?
Solve the problem completely or else admit that it's just for twits who can't parallel park.
That's just simply not how safety engineering works. Safety features mitigate risk, none of them solve it.
However the backup camera being required by law is absolutely ridiculous. You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head.