3 ms·
The problem isn't that they're effective. It's that they're a regulatory solution to the complaints that the same demographics had 20yr ago (it's too easy to b
by potato3732842 1y ago
The problem isn't that they're effective. It's that they're a regulatory solution to the complaints that the same demographics had 20yr ago (it's too easy to back a big fashionable in the 00s SUV over a kid) and as a result of it now all cars have crap rear visibility because there's no reason to be good when you have the camera.
- danans 1y agoThe primary factor that correlates with reverse cameras reducing backup accidents is age - people over 70 have higher backup accidents rates without cameras/sensors. FTA: > When averaged between the 2 automakers, effects were significantly larger for drivers 70 and older (38% reduction) than for drivers younger than 70 (1% increase); effects were significant for older but not younger drivers. A big SUV is probably an exacerbating factor, though. Also, for any kind of car, rear cameras and sensors decrease impacts while parallel parking. I see far fewer damaged bumpers on newer cars these days.
- dghlsakjg 1y agoVisibility has gotten worse in many vehicles as a crash safety thing. Rear visibility is so blocked because the "beltline" of cars has moved up as crash standards get more stringent. A car that has a small rear window and high 'beltline' will do better in a crash.
- hakfoo 1y agoTBH, I'm hoping we have front-view cameras that maybe kick in at under 20kph or something. Front visibility is famously poor on SUVs and trucks, and even aside from pedestrians, I suspect there are a lot of small but very expensive bumper taps because you mis-judged the distance to the crap at the back wall of your garage.