Live data from Hacker News

U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

money.cnn.com

41–50 of 65 posts

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

#41

In 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.

I assume for the same reason they require brakes, seat belts, mirrors and airbags. Guaranteed minimum spec.

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

#42
post #5

So, all new cars will be potential surveillance points. Gotcha. Thanks, soccer moms.

Stereotyping stay-at-home parents, paranoia, and and blaming women? Please give your comments more effort so they won't be taken badly.

Alright. From the article:

"While the administration delayed the rule, more children died in backover accidents"

Literally a "Think of the children!" argument--which makes sense, because most of those deaths are caused by parents hitting their own kids.

"Soccer mom" is a common phrase used in the US to identify a particular blob of demographic. I'm sure that whatever magical progressive part of the country you're in has stay-at-home dads and everyone uses public transportation, but out in the rest of the US (especially in suburbs) this phrase fits.

It's also a demographic that is well-known for its political advocacy or at least perceived clout: consider all of the terrorist fear-mongering by politicians, and at whom that is directed.

As for paranoia, well, you must not be keeping up with the news. Insurance companies already offer GPS and other trackers for your car to lower premiums, and any number of alphabet soup agencies mine compromised systems for data regularly (as has been made quite obvious).

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

#43

In 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.

[deleted]

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

#44

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?

How do you "make sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle?"

At this point, I think most people would lean towards taking people out of the equation as much as possible.

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

#45
post #11

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…

Side cameras are massively inferior to side mirrors. Side cameras give you no parallax or 3d, and don't let you adjust where you are looking by adjusting your head position.

Turn on the front-facing camera on your smartphone and place it face up on your desk. Note that no matter where you move your head, you always see the same patch of ceiling (or your face, if you are over it). Mirrors don't work that way.

Aesthetics, aerodynamics, and cabin noise are poor reasons to do away with mirrors.

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

#47

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?

How do you "make sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle?"

I think a real test for drivers education would be a start. I took my test in Kansas and it involved turning left, turning right, changing a lane, and stopping at a stoplight. The entire test took less than 3 minutes.

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

#48

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?

See the third photo in this article for a dramatic illustration of how much cannot be seen from the driver's position with mirrors or by turning to look through the rear window on some common vehicles: http://www.drivearabia.com/news/2009/03/04/product-review-pa...

Drivers tend to massively overestimate how much they can see behind them.

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

#49
Ignoring the regulation for a moment, current camera systems are a bit lacking. Those of us who had good driver training will always look over our shoulder when reversing, occasionally checking the near-side mirror if needed. Facing forward to use a screen feels weird. And it's worse than that:

Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center console, which is bad for three reasons:

1. It's low down, so you lose part of your peripheral vision which ends up just picking up the car's interior.

2. When you're reversing on a road, but facing forwards to look at the screen, you can't see out the side windows to check for approaching cars heading towards your rear.

3. Your peripheral vision is further affected by your focus on a narrow, highly detailed area - that 9" screen showing a wide-angle view. Your brain concentrates just on that 'important' area. It's entirely different to looking out the back window when everything is at the same scale, peripheral and central. You end up being forced to trust the screen completely, which just isn't sensible.

Having tried a few on rental cars, I'm very uncomfortable with the constant attention swapping you end up doing between the screen and the rear window.

These cameras can only be beneficial to people backing out of driveways (which is the point of the law), but they're not a panacea and I'm not convinced they're a substitute for an alert driver using mirrors and windows. A useful additional tool, for sure, but will they be used that way? An audible proximity alarm feels like a more reasonable thing to mandate to me.

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

#50

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…

I wonder if anyone has investigated the effect that back-up cameras have on mirror usage.

It may be that by having drivers take their eyes off the mirrors when backing up (because they're now looking at the camera display on the dash), they won't be alert to vehicles approaching from the sides. It seems to me that this could increase the likelihood of pulling out in front of someone, and increasing that kind of crash.

As with red-light cameras, it seems like there might be unintended consequences that someone should look at.

Post reply on HN