7 ms·

Backup cameras are amazing. Especially now that I have kids shorter than my trunk line, I appreciate them even more. A lot of the other stuff, though, I agree

Backup cameras are amazing. Especially now that I have kids shorter than my trunk line, I appreciate them even more. A lot of the other stuff, though, I agree with you.

giantg2 1y ago
Back up cameras can easily be added aftermarket if wanted. But frankly, many of those older cars had much better rearward vision that anything today.
- taeric 1y ago
  We must have driven very different cars. Rear visibility has always been terrible, and rear cameras are a god send.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    Compare an 80s Caprice, 80s Nova, and similar to any car today, and I think you will clearly see the rear visibility today is much worse.
    - taeric 1y ago
      There were some cars with better visibility. I would question the caprice being one, but generally smaller cars did have better visibility. Such that something like a Kia Soul has ok visibility. Still is absolutely nothing compared to using the backup camera. And the side mirror blind spot detectors are pretty awesome. On all cars.
      - giantg2 1y ago
        The backup camera has limited field of view and most require you in a heads down position. This is not helpful for maintaining awareness of your surroundings. It will not help you see a bicyclist speeding by. The blind spot detectors can fail and lead to a false sense of safety, especially on multilateral roads. Show me the FARS data that supports these as actually saving lives.
        taeric 1y ago
        Are you trolling? The FARS data does call out the same concerns you list, but in a "we can do even better" way. The fatality and accident numbers have absolutely gone down with backup cameras. This reminds me of when my father would try to argue that seat belts make people worse drivers. There is a logic to what you are saying. But it doesn't pan out with the data.
        giantg2 1y ago
        Show me the data. FARS rear impact pedestrian fatalities for 2017 (before the mandate) was 71. In 2023 (latest data) it was 68. There were still some percentage of backup cameras prior to 2017 so I checked 2006 and the number was 74. If they were really effective I'd expect a much larger drop. https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedestrians.aspx https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedestrians.aspx Your dad's argument about seatbelts is that it will make people worse drivers. My argument is that backup cameras don't reduce fatalities because there are few to begin with, involve low speeds, and the data hasn't show any real improvement. The point, if you want to save lives, let's start where the biggest savings are. Those are better driving testing and education (I do support these) and breathalyzer interlock devices (support these for offenders, not universal).
        taeric 1y ago
        There are studies where they compared the same vehicles that show it has reduced the numbers. They can go into the actual calculations for how they got that, if you want to see it. You seem to be asking why you don't see this directly in the data, with a number going down. But you do realize the the number of drivers and miles driven have both increased in that timeframe, right? Such that, if the safety had remained the same, the number of incidents would have gone up. Pretty much by definition, that means a number remaining the same means something kept it from growing.
        giantg2 1y ago
        How about the number of kids playing outside? If that number goes down, that would affect the results too. Again, if those studies exist to compare results, show me.
- const_cast 1y ago
  Older cars are more likely to be things like coupes, a form factor more or less abandoned today. I know, I used to drive a coupe. Dear God, the rear visibility was the worse out of any car. And the side blind-spots. You'd think a small vehicle would have good side visibility but no, all you get are those tiny little back windows. But, it was a beauty.
  - red369 1y ago
    Generally, I think you're right. But there is quite a range even for coupes. I'm sure Porsche can afford to use higher strength steels, but the pillars on a 911 are surprisingly thin: https://h7.alamy.com/comp/B082JF/2008-porsche-911-turbo-in-silver-rear-seats-B082JF.jpg https://h7.alamy.com/comp/B082JF/2008-porsche-911-turbo-in-s... On the other hand, coupes with rear hatches can be particularly bad: https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/10/2015/11/2004-toyota-celica-gt-hatchback-rear-seat.png https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/10/2015/11/2004-toy... Looking at the extremes like the Honda CRZ, it does seem to be a low priority area!
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- qualeed 1y ago
  Sure, but where I live they are mandated by law in every new car. There's plenty of kids on my street, and I'm much more comfortable knowing everyone has one when backing out of a driveway, and not just the people who bothered to go get one installed aftermarket.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    I'd feel more comfortable if we'd raise the standards for the driving test so that only responsible people can drive. For example, the proper way to park is to back into the driveway. You should never be backing from a smaller road or driveway into the larger one. The perk of this is that you do not have to watch for cross traffic while backing up and also looking at a camera, no gear change delay when pulling out, and better visibility into the area you are backing up to due to your approach. This makes it significantly safer for all parties when exiting the driveway.
    - qualeed 1y ago
      I mean, sure, of course that'd be great too. If we could raise the standards high enough that there was never any accidents ever, that'd be even better. But the realistic option that worked immediately was mandating backup cameras. (I would note that even in a world where everyone backed up into their driveways and parking spots, mandated backup cameras would still be a good thing.)
      - giantg2 1y ago
        "But the realistic option that worked immediately was mandating backup cameras." Citation needed. FARS data shows no decrease in reversing fatalities pre vs post backup cameras. You're also mischaracterizing my argument. The point is, the current test of 50 questions and a 10 minute drive around the block is a joke of a test. Of course you're not weeding out people who aren't fit to drive with such an easy test.
        qualeed 1y ago
        How we got to whatever your country's driving test is comprised of from me simply saying "I like backup cameras" is wild. You seem to think I've said "with backup cameras, everything is fixed!" which is so disingenuous I don't know where to begin. I think you're just trying to be contrarian for the sake of trolling. By the way, I don't even know what FARS is. There's no agency by that name that I can think of in my country. Does it collect data on accidents worldwide? I'm guessing you're from the US. Here's a quote from the NIH. >"This study indicates that drivers not only attend to an audible warning, but will look at a rear-view camera if available. Evidence suggests that when used appropriately, rear-view cameras can mitigate the occurrence of backing crashes, particularly when paired with an appropriate sensor system." From the IIHS. >"Rearview cameras reduced backing crash involvement rates by 17%. Reductions were larger for drivers 70 and older (36%) than for drivers younger than 70 (16%)"

Backup cameras are amazing. Especially now that I have kids shorter than my trunk line, I appreciate them even more. A lot of the other stuff, though, I agree with you.

giantg2 1y ago

Back up cameras can easily be added aftermarket if wanted. But frankly, many of those older cars had much better rearward vision that anything today.

taeric 1y ago
We must have driven very different cars. Rear visibility has always been terrible, and rear cameras are a god send.
- giantg2 1y ago
  Compare an 80s Caprice, 80s Nova, and similar to any car today, and I think you will clearly see the rear visibility today is much worse.
  - taeric 1y ago
    There were some cars with better visibility. I would question the caprice being one, but generally smaller cars did have better visibility. Such that something like a Kia Soul has ok visibility. Still is absolutely nothing compared to using the backup camera. And the side mirror blind spot detectors are pretty awesome. On all cars.
    - giantg2 1y ago
      The backup camera has limited field of view and most require you in a heads down position. This is not helpful for maintaining awareness of your surroundings. It will not help you see a bicyclist speeding by. The blind spot detectors can fail and lead to a false sense of safety, especially on multilateral roads. Show me the FARS data that supports these as actually saving lives.
      - taeric 1y ago
        Are you trolling? The FARS data does call out the same concerns you list, but in a "we can do even better" way. The fatality and accident numbers have absolutely gone down with backup cameras. This reminds me of when my father would try to argue that seat belts make people worse drivers. There is a logic to what you are saying. But it doesn't pan out with the data.
        giantg2 1y ago
        Show me the data. FARS rear impact pedestrian fatalities for 2017 (before the mandate) was 71. In 2023 (latest data) it was 68. There were still some percentage of backup cameras prior to 2017 so I checked 2006 and the number was 74. If they were really effective I'd expect a much larger drop. https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedestrians.aspx https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedestrians.aspx Your dad's argument about seatbelts is that it will make people worse drivers. My argument is that backup cameras don't reduce fatalities because there are few to begin with, involve low speeds, and the data hasn't show any real improvement. The point, if you want to save lives, let's start where the biggest savings are. Those are better driving testing and education (I do support these) and breathalyzer interlock devices (support these for offenders, not universal).
        taeric 1y ago
        There are studies where they compared the same vehicles that show it has reduced the numbers. They can go into the actual calculations for how they got that, if you want to see it. You seem to be asking why you don't see this directly in the data, with a number going down. But you do realize the the number of drivers and miles driven have both increased in that timeframe, right? Such that, if the safety had remained the same, the number of incidents would have gone up. Pretty much by definition, that means a number remaining the same means something kept it from growing.
        giantg2 1y ago
        How about the number of kids playing outside? If that number goes down, that would affect the results too. Again, if those studies exist to compare results, show me.
const_cast 1y ago
Older cars are more likely to be things like coupes, a form factor more or less abandoned today. I know, I used to drive a coupe. Dear God, the rear visibility was the worse out of any car. And the side blind-spots. You'd think a small vehicle would have good side visibility but no, all you get are those tiny little back windows. But, it was a beauty.
- red369 1y ago
  Generally, I think you're right. But there is quite a range even for coupes. I'm sure Porsche can afford to use higher strength steels, but the pillars on a 911 are surprisingly thin: https://h7.alamy.com/comp/B082JF/2008-porsche-911-turbo-in-silver-rear-seats-B082JF.jpg https://h7.alamy.com/comp/B082JF/2008-porsche-911-turbo-in-s... On the other hand, coupes with rear hatches can be particularly bad: https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/10/2015/11/2004-toyota-celica-gt-hatchback-rear-seat.png https://www.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/10/2015/11/2004-toy... Looking at the extremes like the Honda CRZ, it does seem to be a low priority area!
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
qualeed 1y ago
Sure, but where I live they are mandated by law in every new car. There's plenty of kids on my street, and I'm much more comfortable knowing everyone has one when backing out of a driveway, and not just the people who bothered to go get one installed aftermarket.
- giantg2 1y ago
  I'd feel more comfortable if we'd raise the standards for the driving test so that only responsible people can drive. For example, the proper way to park is to back into the driveway. You should never be backing from a smaller road or driveway into the larger one. The perk of this is that you do not have to watch for cross traffic while backing up and also looking at a camera, no gear change delay when pulling out, and better visibility into the area you are backing up to due to your approach. This makes it significantly safer for all parties when exiting the driveway.
  - qualeed 1y ago
    I mean, sure, of course that'd be great too. If we could raise the standards high enough that there was never any accidents ever, that'd be even better. But the realistic option that worked immediately was mandating backup cameras. (I would note that even in a world where everyone backed up into their driveways and parking spots, mandated backup cameras would still be a good thing.)
    - giantg2 1y ago
      "But the realistic option that worked immediately was mandating backup cameras." Citation needed. FARS data shows no decrease in reversing fatalities pre vs post backup cameras. You're also mischaracterizing my argument. The point is, the current test of 50 questions and a 10 minute drive around the block is a joke of a test. Of course you're not weeding out people who aren't fit to drive with such an easy test.
      - qualeed 1y ago
        How we got to whatever your country's driving test is comprised of from me simply saying "I like backup cameras" is wild. You seem to think I've said "with backup cameras, everything is fixed!" which is so disingenuous I don't know where to begin. I think you're just trying to be contrarian for the sake of trolling. By the way, I don't even know what FARS is. There's no agency by that name that I can think of in my country. Does it collect data on accidents worldwide? I'm guessing you're from the US. Here's a quote from the NIH. >"This study indicates that drivers not only attend to an audible warning, but will look at a rear-view camera if available. Evidence suggests that when used appropriately, rear-view cameras can mitigate the occurrence of backing crashes, particularly when paired with an appropriate sensor system." From the IIHS. >"Rearview cameras reduced backing crash involvement rates by 17%. Reductions were larger for drivers 70 and older (36%) than for drivers younger than 70 (16%)"