http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/business/us-rule-set-for-cameras-at-cars-rear.html?hp
I swear to fucking christ I'm just going to move to Mexico
?We wouldn?t buy a car if we couldn?t see 30 or 40 feet going forward,? said Janette Fennell, the founder of KidsAndCars.org. ?We?re taking this big lethal weapon going in reverse, and we can?t see.?
It's called "watch where you're going" and "know where your fucking kids are."
With the high fucking belt lines it is hard to see in reverse. However you can't keep people from being dumb. So they
will still hit stuff.
Just gimme a car that drives itself. Geesh.
Quote from: J86 on February 27, 2012, 09:55:45 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/business/us-rule-set-for-cameras-at-cars-rear.html?hp
Fuck that shit.
"?We haven?t done anything else to protect pedestrians,? said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety in Washington. "
Yeah?? I'ma go and get me a big old cadillac with dagmars on the front, no left side mirror, a fixed hood ornament shaped like a rocket, bullet point tail lights, and I'm going to wrap the damned thing in barbed wire.
Rear view cameras suck. They use crazy wide fish-eye lenses and completely distort your depth of field.
Not to mention: its one more piece of technology I don't want and will resent having to pay for.
It's called STOP BUYING CARS WITH MAIL SLOTS FOR REAR WINDOWS
Quote from: Laconian on February 27, 2012, 10:56:56 PM
It's called STOP BUYING CARS WITH MAIL SLOTS FOR REAR WINDOWS
How do you do that when that's all that is available?
I drove the new Taurus last year for a week and if it hadn't had a rearview camera I'm sure I would have hit a few things I couldn't see....like a VW. What these people don't fucking understand is that when you start requiring cars to be built like tanks to protect the occupants, you get the visibility of a tank. Fucking retards.
I think the extreme cases of restricted visibility is from stylists, not engineers. Like the Camaro. :facepalm:
Ughhh
Quote from: Laconian on February 27, 2012, 11:23:39 PM
I think the extreme cases of restricted visibility is from stylists, not engineers. Like the Camaro. :facepalm:
I think the fact is that car or truck is a two ton steel box that moves, and sits on four big rubber person crushing devices. I think the simple fact is that such a device is always going to have an element of danger to it, and the only answer is for people to pay attention.
I like the little cameras on SUVs or other cars with shit visibility, but required? Good lord that's unnecessary.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 27, 2012, 11:33:48 PM
I think the fact is that car or truck is a two ton steel box that moves, and sits on four big rubber person crushing devices. I think the simple fact is that such a device is always going to have an element of danger to it, and the only answer is for people to pay attention.
I agree, but things are what they are, and stylists have only contributed the visibility/awareness problem.
Quote from: thewizard16 on February 27, 2012, 11:50:25 PM
I like the little cameras on SUVs or other cars with shit visibility, but required? Good lord that's unnecessary.
I like the TSux's rear view camera. The visibility is OK, not terrible, but the camera is a huge boon when parallel parking.
Quote from: Laconian on February 28, 2012, 12:32:31 AM
I like the TSux's rear view camera. The visibility is OK, not terrible, but the camera is a huge boon when parallel parking.
The gf's Murano has one and I definitely appreciate it when parallel parking that, but requiring it in all vehicles seems excessive. I don't think I've ever thought I needed it in the Camry (or any of the Camries), or even most of the rental cars. The Malibu might benefit from it due to crap visibility, but most of the other cars weren't a problem at all.
Guh, the Malibu's rear viz is abominable. I had my boyfriend hop out and give guidance whenever I had to parallel park in SF.
Not saying cameras wouldn't be nice. But required????
People get impatient with me when backing up- I go slow and careful. Only hit something once, but it was literally so blizzardy we could barely see 3-4 feet and I didn't know a car was sitting stationary behind me in the parking lot when they should have driven somewhere...
Our E350 CGI has that - I've never relied on it when backing up, even though it automatically turns on. I prefer to turn my head and upper body to the right, stretch out my right hand and put it on the rear of the front passenger seat and back in manually without electronic aids. The only thing in such a situation which I find helpful are the
Parktronic warning beeps which give you an indication of how close you are to the objects around you.
The Dodge Durango V6 I drove also had rear camera. Ok, in that car it came in handy since it's quite huge and hard to park in crowded Munich, but I am betting that if I got used to the car and knew its dimensions by heart, I wouldn't need them.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 27, 2012, 09:57:00 PM
I swear to fucking christ I'm just going to move to Mexico
Carspin Mexico Meetup! :lol:
Eye of the Tiger and MexicoCityM3!
More BS. I really dont want to be on the road with people that REQUIRE a rear view camera not to hit anything. The first time they do anyway whos fault will it be? Then it will be, we need larger higher resolution screens!!
It can be difficult to see at night too. Might as well add night vision as well so the screen isnt wasted.
One feature I do like though is the auto dropping of the door mirrors when you put it in reverse. Seems to me that could be implemented on most cars with nothing more than some programming.
Seems unnecessary, but at least the systems with a little image on the rearview mirror seem to have come down in price. And most people will find them useful from a convenience perspective, even if they might have preferred not to spend that much. It's not the worst requirement that's ever been put forward.
Well, everybody has pretty much said all there is to say except........
What is missing is that rear view cameras are worthless if the driver doesn't pay attention to it. Drivers today routinely backup without looking, what makes anyone think those same drivers will pay attention to a rear view camera. Maybe the Safety Nazis will design it so the car can't be put in reverse unless the system is on and a retinal scan proves you are looking at the screen.
Why not address the real problem of poor vehicle design and poor driving habits? All these crutches like back up cameras do is further reduce the already pathetic skills most drivers have.
Quote from: MiataJohn on February 28, 2012, 06:30:02 AM
All these crutches like back up cameras do is further reduce the already pathetic skills most drivers have.
+1
Wonder how many kids are backed over in Europe, where they take driving seriously and have to go to "REAL" driver's ed.
Some data points.
About 120 backing deaths in 1999, mainly infants and those over 70.
\
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/nontraffic-noncrash/images/noncrash.pdf
That's up to 228 by 2008, with most of the deaths caused by light trucks, vans and SUVs. That shouldn't be a surprise.
See: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811144.pdf
I'd still argue the money would be better spent getting drunk drivers off the road.
Quote from: VTEC_Inside on February 28, 2012, 06:22:39 AM
One feature I do like though is the auto dropping of the door mirrors when you put it in reverse. Seems to me that could be implemented on most cars with nothing more than some programming.
My dads E350 CGI does that to - I find it annoying. :lol:
I don't like that feature. If I need to see what my rims might be hitting I'll manually adjust the mirrors.
Another element of the whole "backing over people" issue that's often overlooked is how many of these incidents occur in parking lots. I had to write a story of a lady getting backed over and killed about a year ago. It's amazing how people just don't pay attention to cars backing out of parking spaces. Personally, I tend to think it's a product of the trendy "yield to pedestrian" laws we've created in recent years that now empower people to believe it's their "right" to walk anywhere they want regardless of cars. That and texting, of course.
As for the camera requirement, I see this resulting in people thinking "oh, I have a camera" and not looking back AT ALL before moving.
I love the camera in the jeep that is combined with the radar sensors... its so damn convenient for parking and I have to agree there is a tremendous safety advantage in parking lots.
How about teaching the little fucks not to run up to a moving car? That's what I did with my two kids and would you believe they've never once been struck by a car?
This may sound cruel to some of you but I think this is a prime example of Darwinism at work. If your spawn is stupid enough to jump behind a moving car, they deserve what they get! This is how natural selection works. Mankind survived because, ages ago, the stupid ones got eaten by wilderbeasts. Today, they get crushed by a Chevy Suburban reversing at 2.8 miles per hour.
Quote from: Madman on February 28, 2012, 09:50:16 AM
How about teaching the little fucks not to run up to a moving car? That's what I did with my two kids and would you believe they've never once been struck by a car?
This may sound cruel to some of you but I think this is a prime example of Darwinism at work. If your spawn is stupid enough to jump behind a moving car, they deserve what they get! This is how natural selection works. Mankind survived because, ages ago, the stupid ones got eaten by wilderbeasts. Today, they get crushed by a Chevy Suburban reversing at 2.8 miles per hour.
Yeah, I think you are a little over the top with that. You can't expect an kid between 1 and 4 to fully understand the dangers of playing behind a parked or non-moving car.
Wildebeests are herbivores; they aren't eating anybody. :lol:
Quote from: TurboDan on February 28, 2012, 09:38:12 AM
Another element of the whole "backing over people" issue that's often overlooked is how many of these incidents occur in parking lots. I had to write a story of a lady getting backed over and killed about a year ago. It's amazing how people just don't pay attention to cars backing out of parking spaces. Personally, I tend to think it's a product of the trendy "yield to pedestrian" laws we've created in recent years that now empower people to believe it's their "right" to walk anywhere they want regardless of cars. That and texting, of course.
As for the camera requirement, I see this resulting in people thinking "oh, I have a camera" and not looking back AT ALL before moving.
More often than not I see someone using their mirrors as their sole source of ascertaining what's behind them when they back up. What ever happened to turning your head around ahd physically looking out the rear window. Most people have about 170 degrees of vision so they will be able to see what's behind them and what is approaching from the side. You can't do that with a mirror.
Adding to the problem is the number of SUVs. Park beside one and then try to back out. You've got to back out quite far to see around that high back end. That problem didn''t exist when most people drove cars with trunks that you could see over.
Ever since I collided with a guy who collided with me as we were both backing out of opposing parking spaces at the local beer store, I've paid more attention while backing up. Not sure if a rear-mounted camera would've helped either of us.
Quote from: MiataJohn on February 28, 2012, 06:30:02 AM
Well, everybody has pretty much said all there is to say except........
What is missing is that rear view cameras are worthless if the driver doesn't pay attention to it. Drivers today routinely backup without looking, what makes anyone think those same drivers will pay attention to a rear view camera. Maybe the Safety Nazis will design it so the car can't be put in reverse unless the system is on and a retinal scan proves you are looking at the screen.
Why not address the real problem of poor vehicle design and poor driving habits? All these crutches like back up cameras do is further reduce the already pathetic skills most drivers have.
:hesaid:
Totally agree.
How do peopel with panel vans, cube vans, work trucks with caps, and ambulance drivers manage to survive without the cameras? Like my old Panel van:
(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/panel.jpg)
Never backed over anyone and it had CRAP for blind spots.
Quote from: MiataJohn on February 28, 2012, 06:30:02 AM
Well, everybody has pretty much said all there is to say except........
What is missing is that rear view cameras are worthless if the driver doesn't pay attention to it. Drivers today routinely backup without looking, what makes anyone think those same drivers will pay attention to a rear view camera. Maybe the Safety Nazis will design it so the car can't be put in reverse unless the system is on and a retinal scan proves you are looking at the screen.
Why not address the real problem of poor vehicle design and poor driving habits? All these crutches like back up cameras do is further reduce the already pathetic skills most drivers have.
Agreed.
Why dont' we do it like Lambo does:
(http://s93916563.onlinehome.us/__oneclick_uploads/2009/12/lambo.jpg)
Well, I will put money on most people being worse at driving than you are.
Quote from: ChrisV on February 28, 2012, 01:55:44 PM
How do peopel with panel vans, cube vans, work trucks with caps, and ambulance drivers manage to survive without the cameras?
Sometimes they do back over people. A lot of people have driven drunk without crashing, too.
Quote from: MiataJohn on February 28, 2012, 07:59:46 AM
Some data points.
About 120 backing deaths in 1999, mainly infants and those over 70.
\
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/studies/nontraffic-noncrash/images/noncrash.pdf
That's up to 228 by 2008, with most of the deaths caused by light trucks, vans and SUVs. That shouldn't be a surprise.
See: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811144.pdf
I'd still argue the money would be better spent getting drunk drivers off the road.
Correlation is not causation.
I'd wager that a good deal of that increase could just as easily be blamed on the growing prevalence drivers paying attention to of texting, and smart phone use in general, instead of driving.
Quote from: MiataJohn on February 28, 2012, 06:30:02 AM
Well, everybody has pretty much said all there is to say except........
What is missing is that rear view cameras are worthless if the driver doesn't pay attention to it. Drivers today routinely backup without looking, what makes anyone think those same drivers will pay attention to a rear view camera. Maybe the Safety Nazis will design it so the car can't be put in reverse unless the system is on and a retinal scan proves you are looking at the screen.
Why not address the real problem of poor vehicle design and poor driving habits? All these crutches like back up cameras do is further reduce the already pathetic skills most drivers have.
Ding ding!
Everyone made great points, but here is the winner overall.
Poor driving and lack of paying attention to shit. Cameras cannot help this.
Almost every electronic device you add to cars makes the driver stupider.
Quote from: 850CSi on February 28, 2012, 05:48:40 PM
Almost every electronic device you add to cars makes the driver stupider.
Eh, I don't think the driver's intelligence changes any, it just enables more stupid people to have more colorful moving things to look at while driving.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on February 28, 2012, 04:51:53 PM
Correlation is not causation.
I'd wager that a good deal of that increase could just as easily be blamed on the growing prevalence drivers paying attention to of texting, and smart phone use in general, instead of driving.
My original intent was to show how minor the problem is.
Quote from: ifcar on February 28, 2012, 02:24:52 PM
Sometimes they do back over people.
yeah, apparently .000001% do. And this is big enough of an issue for legislation?
Something like this probably won?t mater in the higher classes but in economy minded cars were the margins are pretty small this will probably be a pretty material increase in cost to produce and probably a larger one in MSRP. Sucks.
This sure will be good for my sister. She's one of those people who does not look behind when she backs up.
Honestly, I like the rear-view cameras because it allows you to get really close to objects behind you without hitting them.
In the end, everyone should be driving wagons because they have by far the best rear visibility (perhaps not the CTS wagon with its enormous D? pillar). In addition, you can see almost precisely where the rear of the car is in a wagon, because that is where the window is, as opposed to a sedan where it is difficult to know exactly where the end of the trunk is. I like wagons, but you all know that already!
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on February 29, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
This sure will be good for my sister. She's one of those people who does not look behind when she backs up.
Honestly, I like the rear-view cameras because it allows you to get really close to objects behind you without hitting them.
In the end, everyone should be driving wagons because they have by far the best rear visibility (perhaps not the CTS wagon with its enormous D? pillar). In addition, you can see almost precisely where the rear of the car is in a wagon, because that is where the window is, as opposed to a sedan where it is difficult to know exactly where the end of the trunk is. I like wagons, but you all know that already!
these were my mom's favorite things about her Jeep.
(http://images1.americanlisted.com/nlarge/1990_jeep_cherokee_20972601.jpg)
:praise:
I don't understand this country. Is a law really required? It's not like there's a backing-up-over-people ebidemic going on. There's more important shit to worry about
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on February 28, 2012, 06:34:27 AM
Wonder how many kids are backed over in Europe, where they take driving seriously and have to go to "REAL" driver's ed.
Quote from: MrH on February 29, 2012, 05:07:48 PM
I don't understand this country. Is a law really required? It's not like there's a backing-up-over-people ebidemic going on. There's more important shit to worry about
This is one of my favorite soapboxes to jump on. Over regulation and criminalization of freakin' everything.
For quite some time, I drove around a Merc G-500. It was dreadful to reverse - it had one reverse light which wasn't bright and a small rear window. I would have loved a crisp, color backup camera, but nothing will replace a bit of common sense and careful driving. Even with a good reverse camera, looking out the window is always a better choice. What's next, using cameras excusively to drive forward too?
Quote from: giant_mtb on February 27, 2012, 10:04:50 PM
?We wouldn?t buy a car if we couldn?t see 30 or 40 feet going forward,? said Janette Fennell, the founder of KidsAndCars.org. ?We?re taking this big lethal weapon going in reverse, and we can?t see.?
Fuck you, Janette Fennell. You're not driving a car in reverse at 40MPH, are you? If you're responsible you're going to drive it at 5MPH. Your weapon analogy is bullshit, too. It's like claiming "I got hit by an armor piercing bullet yesterday!" when in fact one of your drunk friends took a round out of your rifle round and flicked it at you, gently brushing your leg.
Quote from: ChrisV on February 29, 2012, 09:15:26 AM
yeah, apparently .000001% do. And this is big enough of an issue for legislation?
Have you been paying attention to America at all recently?
Quote from: ChrisV on February 28, 2012, 01:55:44 PM
How do peopel with panel vans, cube vans, work trucks with caps, and ambulance drivers manage to survive without the cameras? Like my old Panel van:
(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/panel.jpg)
Never backed over anyone and it had CRAP for blind spots.
What is, you're not a fucking moron? For $100
Quote from: Submariner on February 29, 2012, 07:07:24 PM
What is, you're not a fucking moron? For $100
HA! Good one, almost as good as your mother was last night!
Quote from: Colonel Cadillac on February 29, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
This sure will be good for my sister. She's one of those people who does not look behind when she backs up.
Honestly, I like the rear-view cameras because it allows you to get really close to objects behind you without hitting them.
In the end, everyone should be driving wagons because they have by far the best rear visibility (perhaps not the CTS wagon with its enormous D? pillar). In addition, you can see almost precisely where the rear of the car is in a wagon, because that is where the window is, as opposed to a sedan where it is difficult to know exactly where the end of the trunk is. I like wagons, but you all know that already!
How about: if you like rear view cameras: buy one, and if you like wagons, buy one of those?
There's no law required here, is there?
A colleague who works in fleet purchasing in our company tells me this requirement has been put on hold. I hope he's right.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on February 28, 2012, 09:05:39 AM
My dads E350 CGI does that to - I find it annoying. :lol:
I don't like that feature. If I need to see what my rims might be hitting I'll manually adjust the mirrors.
His previous E320 had it too ... the function is old, although the mirror adjustments button must be on the right side position, and of course the system has to be set up.
Not nearly as bad as the bullshit ESP required law, but still fucking stupid. Not to mention the fact that PDC would be more useful.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=26855.msg1685384#msg1685384 date=1331760145
Not nearly as bad as the bullshit ESP required law, but still fucking stupid. Not to mention the fact that PDC would be more useful.
I think we need to move away from ESP, RBC, TPMS, ABS, BPV and DBW; and transition to the all-inclusive SAH, WAH, OEO, ITC, and more electrolytes.