So, all new cars will be potential surveillance points. Gotcha. Thanks, soccer moms.
"But if I signal my turns, then someone who's tailing me will be able to figure out which direction I'm about to go!"
You've never driven in Dallas, have you?
U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
31–40 of 65 posts
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#32This lowers the barrier to entry for front-seat display entertainment in the car -- what could go wrong?
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#33This 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…
I agree. This line just confirms this:
>Many vehicles, including luxury models, already carry rear-facing cameras, and an auto industry group applauded the move.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#34This 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.
It's a camera that helps you avoid running over kids. How much does a camera weigh?
Is using technology to prevent kids deaths pointless?
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#35This 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.
http://www.amazon.com/Rear-Vehicle-Backup-Camera-Waterproof/...
Amazon puts the _shipping_ weight of a camera at one pound.
A soccer mom will make her car more inefficient every time she orders McDonalds for the whole family.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#36I 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…
Looking out the window also doesn't give you a 100% view. There's a massive blind spot below your eye level behind the car.
Let's not forget these systems typically have a distance sensor setup with audible tone. Having some more accurate gauge of obstacles and their relative distances and the improved visibility is a no brainer. When I read this headline the first thing I thought was "good, finally."
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#37My 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.
My Ford Focus has one, and I hadn't any problems with it. That and the proximity sensors are great features, I'm glad that they will become part of every car eventually.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#38I 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…
Looking out the window also doesn't give you a 100% view. There's a massive blind spot below your eye level behind the car.
Children moving around the back side of cars in parking lots for example. I find myself always being extra careful when backing up in eg Target or Walmart parking lots for this reason. Seems like an ideal use case for cameras.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#39This 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…
I disagree about being pointless. I am using my rear view camera, and it prevented some minor accidents. If you haven't seen such so far, you are probably lucky, others are not.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#40In general I'm not in the "government is too invasive" camp but this one did have me scratching my head. Isn't the market working just fine? Backup cameras first appear on top of the line models. Slowly make their way into mid priced cars and now some of the "low end" new cars have them. I'm sure by 2018 they'll be in 90% of new cars so why add a regulation? Oh well.
It's the "do something" mentality of people who value the strength of government over the people.
This way, the government can pat itself on the back, knowing it wouldn't get resistance from the auto industry since, as you said, they're already trickling the tech down.
Why would an auto-industry group applaud the move? They're the bastards who have the power to install rear cameras on 100% of new vehicles. It's all a show.
---
As an aside: I own a vehicle with a rear camera, and it's an amazing feature. About a month ago, I told a friend "If I were one to support arbitrary government power, I would say we need a law requiring these!". I guess that's the world we live in. The only vehicles that have comparable visibility were old Broncos and large trucks. New cars, with their low-visibility rear windows and high backends, seem to be designed with the intention of getting more people into accidents.