5 ms·

You can also turn your body a bit as well.

kube-system 1y ago
I have tried this before but I have never been able to make the bumper transparent. 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.
- BanterTrouble 1y ago
  Do you believe, that I believed that I could see through the bumper?
  - kube-system 1y ago
    No, I believe your flippant answer was made with disregard for the need to do so.
    - BanterTrouble 1y ago
      I had a flippant stupid reply. So they got a stupid flippant response. 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.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        Of course, ideally people see the child and do not hit it. When atypical incidents happen, we call them accidents, and when they start happening at rates we find unacceptable we often engineer solutions to make those accidents less likely. This is why we have seat belts instead of telling people "you idiot you should have used the brakes!"
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        Don't patronise me. You've done it twice now. I find it extremely irritating. 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).
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > mitigated by better driver training 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.
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        > Oh, well, if it's that easy! 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".
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Your true colours finally show. All the people are too stupid to learn how to do anything. All? No. Some? Absolutely. Five minutes on the road demonstrates it.
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        Probably should have had better driver training ;-)
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        Yes, they should. 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.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > 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. You can. And then the kid/pet moves. They do that.
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. That for some reason you are other people don't believe can be done at all. This is patently false. Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. 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?)
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        > Yes, like a backup camera. Well you've just twisted what I said because you are getting angry. So we will leave it there.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing? 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.
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        > Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing? 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.
- kazinator 1y ago
  If you put a child size doll right under the rear wheel, can you see that in the camera? Or under a front wheel, for that matter? Solve the problem completely or else admit that it's just for twits who can't parallel park.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    > Solve the problem completely That's just simply not how safety engineering works. Safety features mitigate risk, none of them solve it.
    - kazinator 1y ago
      That is false. Safety engineering sometimes only mitigates risk, but often reduces it to practically zero, such that people have to be deliberately negligent to prevail in bringing about a safety incident. E.g. elevator holds 15 people, yet 45 somehow jam themselves in as a stunt. Partial safety mitigation isn't so much how safety engineering works; it's how it ducks out of working due to non-engineering reasons. If any safety issue remains, that means engineering was not done in that regard: the safety engineers were excused from the requirement to design anything for that risk.

I have tried this before but I have never been able to make the bumper transparent. 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.

BanterTrouble 1y ago
Do you believe, that I believed that I could see through the bumper?
- kube-system 1y ago
  No, I believe your flippant answer was made with disregard for the need to do so.
  - BanterTrouble 1y ago
    I had a flippant stupid reply. So they got a stupid flippant response. 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.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      Of course, ideally people see the child and do not hit it. When atypical incidents happen, we call them accidents, and when they start happening at rates we find unacceptable we often engineer solutions to make those accidents less likely. This is why we have seat belts instead of telling people "you idiot you should have used the brakes!"
      - BanterTrouble 1y ago
        Don't patronise me. You've done it twice now. I find it extremely irritating. 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).
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > mitigated by better driver training 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.
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        > Oh, well, if it's that easy! 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".
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Your true colours finally show. All the people are too stupid to learn how to do anything. All? No. Some? Absolutely. Five minutes on the road demonstrates it.
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        Probably should have had better driver training ;-)
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        Yes, they should. 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.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > 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. You can. And then the kid/pet moves. They do that.
      - BanterTrouble 1y ago
        The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. That for some reason you are other people don't believe can be done at all. This is patently false. Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. 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?)
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        > Yes, like a backup camera. Well you've just twisted what I said because you are getting angry. So we will leave it there.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing? 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.
        BanterTrouble 1y ago
        > Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing? 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.
kazinator 1y ago
If you put a child size doll right under the rear wheel, can you see that in the camera? Or under a front wheel, for that matter? Solve the problem completely or else admit that it's just for twits who can't parallel park.
- kube-system 1y ago
  > Solve the problem completely That's just simply not how safety engineering works. Safety features mitigate risk, none of them solve it.
  - kazinator 1y ago
    That is false. Safety engineering sometimes only mitigates risk, but often reduces it to practically zero, such that people have to be deliberately negligent to prevail in bringing about a safety incident. E.g. elevator holds 15 people, yet 45 somehow jam themselves in as a stunt. Partial safety mitigation isn't so much how safety engineering works; it's how it ducks out of working due to non-engineering reasons. If any safety issue remains, that means engineering was not done in that regard: the safety engineers were excused from the requirement to design anything for that risk.