Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

#11

Post by dbloom »

I'm happy to see that the article (briefly) mentions the current regulations requiring side mirrors instead of side cameras. Side mirrors are the bane of aesthetic and aerodynamic design. They even cause excess cabin noise, especially in electric cars. But current NHSTA regulations require side mirrors, and don't accept side cameras as a substitute.

For example, the Nissan Leaf (like many other cars) has funny-shaped headlights to prevent excess cabin noise and drag from the side mirrors: http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/vehicle-images/2013...

Tesla's early promotional materials for the Model X show side cameras instead of mirrors (http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx ). But apparently they have given up on the regulations changing, because their newer design prototypes have side mirrors (http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/14/tesla-model-x-makes-aut... )

Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

#14

Post by m52go »

LukeWalsh wrote: post #4

This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to back up, I've never felt like a camera was necessary. I've driven cars with backup cameras before but typically just use the rear view mirror or turn my head. Maybe others don't feel this way, thoughts?

I totally agree.

This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient. It's the reason a modern Insight is less efficient than a CRX from 20 years ago.

Are you any less likely to get into an accident with that CRX than a new Insight? Probably not. As long as humans are behind the wheel, they're the ones that need to be trained better, not the cars.

It's useless.

Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

#15

Post by JoeAltmaier »

encoderer wrote: post #9
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #6

My car has one; useless. Its covered by road grime or slush or a raindrop all the time. I can see out of it for 10 minutes after leaving the car wash and that's it.

Really? Mine (A MB GLK) works very well. It's never been too dirty to see, and it has a great overlay showing range to objects and current trajectory.

My car is cheap; a Subaru Forester. Tiny plastic bubble lens. Live on a gravel road; drive in all weather in town.

Maybe this summer it will be better, but its been crap all fall, winter and now spring (in Iowa).

Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

#18

Post by benihana »

LukeWalsh wrote: post #4

This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to back up, I've never felt like a camera was necessary. I've driven cars with backup cameras before but typically just use the rear view mirror or turn my head. Maybe others don't feel this way, thoughts?

It's not alarming, it just seems pointless. This isn't going to save lives, because rear view cameras are used when reversing, which happens at low speed. The best thing this will do is cut down on kids getting run into while a car is backing up. But I never hear of that happening on the news, I don't know anyone who's tragically lost someone in a low speed reversing accident. I do know several people who've died in car accidents between 20-60 mph. I mean, I love the tech of back up cameras, but this just seems like a pointless regulation that will increase the cost of cars for us, the consumer.

Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

#19

Post by DirtyAndy »

A lot of cars with cameras don't seem to have rear object detection systems (that beep inside the car when something is behind you and you are in reverse). I doubt most people use a reversing camera to get out of there drive way, so this move wouldn't seem likely to stop people running over kids - beepers that go off when something is behind you would seem much more effective (certainly in my experience).

I don't know about the US, but here in New Zealand these deaths are more prevalent in lower socio-economic areas, that presumably don't buy as many new cars - these changes will takes years to filter through to the people that they might benefit most.

Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

#20

Post by ndespres »

I was taught to never back a vehicle up without physically turning around to look out the back window, as rear and side-view mirrors don't give a 100% view of what's behind you. When I see someone using just mirrors to back up, I perceive it as lazy or irresponsible driving behavior.

Driving a box truck with no rear visibility makes me uncomfortable and I'll use a spotter to reverse. If you can't (or won't) look and see behind you, you should NOT be driving in that direction. Will cameras fix this problem?

The article states that "There are nearly 210 backover deaths each year." I wonder how the overall safety of a vehicle and its driver will be impacted by the addition of a possibly distracting LCD in the front seat. Maybe fewer collisions while reversing, but how many additional distracted driving cases while driving forward and playing with the car computer?

Post reply on HN