4 ms·

Regulating is how we got here. They put the screens in to serve backup cameras. Once you need to have a screen somewhere why not make it replace all the stuff

Regulating is how we got here. They put the screens in to serve backup cameras. Once you need to have a screen somewhere why not make it replace all the stuff? Engineers love it because less moving parts, fewer parts. Software loves it because ship garbage now fix with updated version later. Designers love it because "clean lines and crap". Marketing loves it because high tech. Bean counters love it for all the above reasons. The only thing (touch)screens aren't is cheaper and better but once everyone is mandated to have them that all goes out the window.

richbell 4y ago
> Regulating is how we got here. They put the screens in to serve backup cameras. And for good reason, they make reversing your vehicle significantly safer. But saying "you must have a backup camera" is in no way an endorsement for massive info-tainment screens. > Once you need to have a screen somewhere why not make it replace all the stuff? Because touchscreens don't help serve any purpose of the car, they are merely cool flashy tech that actually makes things less safe. The fact this stuff made it out of prototyping is baffling. https://youtu.be/G2PMzSo1Bss https://youtu.be/G2PMzSo1Bss
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >And for good reason, they make reversing your vehicle significantly safer. They're significantly safer than the 2005 suburban that had a massive blind spot if your worried about backing over their kid (which wasn't really that common to begin with and was mostly a moral panic). For your average crossover, sedan or other "typical car" they are no better than the car designs we had 20yr ago that you could actually get decent rear visibility out of. Many would argue that they are worse because they have enabled bad design trends (touchscreens and lack of any useful amount of rear visibility). Backup cameras make full sending it into cross traffic or swinging the front of your car into something way more likely which is why most of the OEMs have systems to detect that and prevent it now. Basically we've regulated a local minimum because some people couldn't handle not backing over their kids and that failure mode hit real close to home for the "I know exactly what everyone else needs" crowd who then expended political capital getting it legislated. > The fact this stuff made it out of prototyping is baffling. Reality never got in the way of a good old fashioned industry circle jerk.
- closeparen 4y ago
  And saying “your small cars must be super fuel efficient” is in no way an endorsement for light trucks, yet here we are.
watwut 4y ago
This is not true. The screens predate that US regulation. And that regulation is purely US one, EU does not require camera.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  Worth pointing out that the regulation is US only because of the amount of kids dying while backing up oversized trucks with zero visibility. It is absolutely bewildering how they have let this 'bigger is better' arms race run wild in US roads. Sure lets fit cameras rather than stop designing armoured vehicles.

richbell 4y ago

> Regulating is how we got here. They put the screens in to serve backup cameras. And for good reason, they make reversing your vehicle significantly safer. But saying "you must have a backup camera" is in no way an endorsement for massive info-tainment screens. > Once you need to have a screen somewhere why not make it replace all the stuff? Because touchscreens don't help serve any purpose of the car, they are merely cool flashy tech that actually makes things less safe. The fact this stuff made it out of prototyping is baffling. https://youtu.be/G2PMzSo1Bss https://youtu.be/G2PMzSo1Bss

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>And for good reason, they make reversing your vehicle significantly safer. They're significantly safer than the 2005 suburban that had a massive blind spot if your worried about backing over their kid (which wasn't really that common to begin with and was mostly a moral panic). For your average crossover, sedan or other "typical car" they are no better than the car designs we had 20yr ago that you could actually get decent rear visibility out of. Many would argue that they are worse because they have enabled bad design trends (touchscreens and lack of any useful amount of rear visibility). Backup cameras make full sending it into cross traffic or swinging the front of your car into something way more likely which is why most of the OEMs have systems to detect that and prevent it now. Basically we've regulated a local minimum because some people couldn't handle not backing over their kids and that failure mode hit real close to home for the "I know exactly what everyone else needs" crowd who then expended political capital getting it legislated. > The fact this stuff made it out of prototyping is baffling. Reality never got in the way of a good old fashioned industry circle jerk.
closeparen 4y ago
And saying “your small cars must be super fuel efficient” is in no way an endorsement for light trucks, yet here we are.

watwut 4y ago

This is not true. The screens predate that US regulation. And that regulation is purely US one, EU does not require camera.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago
Worth pointing out that the regulation is US only because of the amount of kids dying while backing up oversized trucks with zero visibility. It is absolutely bewildering how they have let this 'bigger is better' arms race run wild in US roads. Sure lets fit cameras rather than stop designing armoured vehicles.