5 ms·
Up until a couple years ago my car didn't even have a camera. We just looked out the window, which is still an option.
by cwalv 3y ago
Up until a couple years ago my car didn't even have a camera. We just looked out the window, which is still an option.
- Sharlin 3y agoA large majority of cars in traffic don’t have a back camera. Either because they’re old or because they’re cheap (I don’t think a back camera is usually a standard feature at least where I’m from…)
- kalleboo 3y agoIn the US a backup camera is now required by law
- Someone 3y agoFor new cars, I guess. In the EU, it’s similar. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12224-Vehicle-safety-technical-rules-test-procedures-for-advanced-safety-features_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...: All new vehicles sold from May 2022 must be fitted with advanced safety features, including: - monitors that detect when a driver has become drowsy or distracted - emergency stop signal to help prevent rear-end collisions - rear-view camera or parking sensors - alcohol interlock system to prevent drunk driving. These systems will help reduce serious accidents on Europe’s roads.
- jusssi 3y agoIt seems that the only part that got implemented out of that draft was drowsiness/inattention detection. At least that's what I read from the document in "Commission adoption" section of that page.
- L3viathan 3y ago> alcohol interlock system to prevent drunk driving. Wait, what? _All_ new vehicles need to have this? Or do they just need to be constructed such that one can be installed easily?
- oblio 3y agoLooks like EU law, so considering the wording, probably every new car. Also, see: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/statistics-and-analysis/statistics-and-analysis-archive/esafety/alcohol-interlocks_en https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/statistics-and-an... Edit: The actual text: > Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council requires motor vehicles of categories M and N to be equipped with certain advanced vehicle systems, including driver drowsiness and attention warning systems. It lays down in its Annex II basic requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the driver drowsiness and attention warning systems.
- martin8412 3y agoThe car must be built to allow for the installation of a breathalyser, i.e. some standardised interface. Doesn't really affect you unless you're ordered by a court to use one.
- plorkyeran 3y agoIt is a much worse option than it used to be. Visibility out of the rear windows from the driver's seat has gotten worse over the years.
- usr1106 3y agoSo industrial design with poor usability gets complemented by bad electronic devices. Progress?
- harry8 3y agowhat are they getting for the poor visibility tradeoff compensated by electronics? I have no idea. If it's safety, then yes, that would be progress.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoSafety, and aerodynamics (i.e. energy efficiency). Dismissing it as "design with poor usability" is very facile. It's trade-offs between different goals, all the way down.
- kortilla 3y agoOr it’s just cheaper to build
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoCost is yet another trade-off. Those pillars that hold the roof up are safer if they're sturdy, but sturdy means wider and that obstructs the driver's field of vision a bit, and weighs more. "strong and slender" is possible, but it costs more. It all inter-relates. (strong, narrow, cheap), pick any 2. There does come a point where you start to appreciate what Polestar is doing on one of next years models (the Polestar 4): give up on the idea and change direction; no rear window at all, just a camera.
- Kiro 3y agoI rather have no car at all than go back to that.
- usr1106 3y agoThat would be better for the planet anyway. Disclaimer: Not a joke. I've never owned a car.
- Kiro 3y agoI agree and in modern countries with proper transportation there is no reason to own a car.
- oblio 3y agoWell, there is a reason, but you won't like it. Convenience :-)
- Delk 3y agoIf you have e.g. outdoors activities in sparsely populated areas as a hobby, having a car gives you a lot more freedom than being dependent on public transport. Buses may work if you're only going to locations that are popular enough but that may limit your options. Of course you could also rent but that could become expensive or cumbersome if you do it often enough. Also, if you live in a sparsely populated area, public transport with good coverage often isn't really economically (or ecologically) feasible, even in countries that have good public transport in cities. A bicycle might be an option if distances aren't too great but relying on it exclusively probably takes more than an average person is willing to take on. Weather conditions could be poor, you might regularly need to transport groceries for an entire family, etc. All of that is entirely doable within a few miles in a bikeable city but it's potentially a lot less so if distances are greater. I've never owned a car, I bicycle some thousands of kilometres per year (probably more than I drive most years), and I wish people didn't automatically consider owning a car a necessity even when it actually isn't. But I can definitely see reasons for owning one.
- bbojan 3y agoYou don't see small kids right behind your car this way. I believe this was the main reason why rear-view cameras were made mandatory on new cars.
- Shorel 3y agoAlso, because the cars now are gigantic, compared with old cars. Even the Mini Cooper is huge now.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoI wouldn't be surprised if the Mini Cooper is now a light truck. Everything is larger because manufacturers are gaming the footprint regulations to get by with worse emissions and DOT isn't serious about revamping CAFE to stop that behavior.