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

51–60 of 65 posts

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

#51

Post by awda »

Back-up deaths constitute 210 deaths per year, of 34k auto deaths anually (2012)?

And this technology is only estimated to prevent 33% of them (60-70)?

I guess every little 0.2% safety improvement is good if it's free... but I'm not sure this is the most cost effective way to increase car safety.

(Roll cages; higher standards for airbags and various types of collision for occupants; crumple zones for pedestrians; self-driving cars (if you're going to go full-sensor anyway, why involve a human at all).)

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

#52

Post by vilhelm_s »

benihana wrote: post #18
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…

We don't have to estimate this from news reports, according to the article they have already done the math and expect it to save "between 59 and 69 deaths per year".

I agree that's not a lot compared to the total number (34,080 deaths in 2012). It would be interesting to see the cost per life, how much does the camera increase the car price?

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

#53

Post by tlrobinson »

skybrian wrote: post #25
DirtyAndy wrote: post #19

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 kno…

At least in a Prius, the backup camera goes on automatically when you reverse.

Does the Prius automatically focus your eyes on the screen too?

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

#54

Post by rtkwe »

m52go wrote: post #14
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.

> This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient.

Adding a backup camera, wiring, and video screen is going to add a small amount of weight, I'd guess around 15 lbs and that's including any additional mounting material for the camera. It's going to have an insignificant effect there.

One trend that's making this less pointless is the increasingly tiny back glass on modern cars. In order to give larger trunks and a more streamlined shape the back window is shrinking making it harder to see out of. (In a lot of cars I see)

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

#55

Post by zippergz »

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.

I have two cars with backup cameras, the first I got in 2007. I have never experienced this to be the case.

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

#56

Post by jusben1369 »

adventured wrote: post #41
jusben1369 wrote: post #21

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.

Fair point. Hadn't realized it was for airbags.

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

#57

Post by stronglikedan »

scrumper wrote: post #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…

> Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center console

The newer Acura MDXs have a dedicated screen built into the rear-view mirror hanging from the windshield. It looks like a normal mirror until you put it in reverse, and then you can see the output from the backup camera in the left side of the mirror. It's better than most, but still doesn't solve #2 and #3 from your points.

Basically, be smart and only use it if/when necessary. Use it only as a tool and not the tool.

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

#58

Post by aaaaaababdd »

m52go wrote: post #14
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.

The reason modern cars are usually heavier then old cars is because they are safer -- for example, larger crumple zones, ABS, VSC, HSC, airbags, better windshields, safety cells, anti-intrusion bars, other barriers.

Are you less likely to survive an accident in a modern car? Yes, you are. Depending on who you ask airbags by themselves save 5,000-20,000 people per year.

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

#59

Post by scrumper »

stronglikedan wrote: post #57
scrumper wrote: post #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…

> Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center console The newer Acura MDXs have a dedicated screen built into the rear-view mirror hanging from the windshield. It looks like a normal mirror until you put it in reverse, and then you can see the output from the backup camera in the left side of the mirror. It's better than most, but still doesn't solve #2 and #3 from your points. Basicall…

> Basically, be smart and only use it if/when necessary. Use it only as a tool and not the tool.

Absolutely. I was trying to get that across. I worry a bit that the regulation will make people think of cameras as all they need to look at.

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

#60

Post by drcube »

chadillac wrote: post #36
EliRivers wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So why weren't those sensors and alarms mandated, as opposed to a redundant and distracting in-car CCTV system?
Post reply on HN