U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by stronglikedan » Mon, Mar 31, 2014, 10:24 PM UTC

scrumper wrote: post #59

stronglikedan wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I hope not. I think it will be like rear/side mirrors. You can use only mirrors to back up, but eventually, they will not be enough, and you will impact something. I think that the same people that don't look now are the same people that won't look then.

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

#62

Post by sssbc » Mon, Mar 31, 2014, 10:29 PM UTC

So each year ~5M new cars hit the streets, at an extra $140 each, so the cost is ~$700M/yr.

There are 210 deaths/yr by backing over, assume these prevent all 210 (they won't, certainly not until most of the old cars are off the road), this means each life is worth $3.3M, minimum.

Cool.

But is there a way to invest $700M/yr that will save more than 210 lives/year?

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

#63

Post by dingaling » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 7:01 AM UTC

brohoolio wrote: post #26

I'm glad. My automotive industry friends, especially those that are parents have really really wanted this. I don't understand the response "to make sure people are responsibly operating their vehicle." Have you met people? Newer cars are kind of a pain in the butt to see out of the back. Why? Because of the roof strength requirements. The columns supporting the roof are bigger, limiting visibility. Maybe we should m…

>Newer cars are kind of a pain in the butt to see out of the back. Why? Because of the roof strength requirements.

Partly, but mainly because of what the designers like to call 'high waistline' which gives the shape 'energy and aggression'. There is no reason a Ford Focus should have a tiny rear window mounted high at 40 degrees inclination other than style.

Plus adhesive attachment of windows cuts a further ~10% of the glass area.

I saw a 1990s Volvo 740 yesterday: absolutely enormous slab windows gasket-mounted into the frame.

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

#64

Post by m52go » Wed, Apr 02, 2014, 1:35 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #54

m52go wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

In the 1980s and 1990s, it wasn't uncommon for cars to weigh under 2000 pounds.

Now, with regulations like this, closer to 3000 pounds is the norm.

Every pound adds up.

All the safety regulations that have led to this increased weight aren't pointless, but one wonders if it's really worth MANDATING everyone to tote around an additional ONE THOUSAND POUNDS.

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

#65

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 02, 2014, 2:03 PM UTC

m52go wrote: post #64

rtkwe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

In the 1980s and 1990s, it wasn't uncommon for cars to weigh under 2000 pounds. Now, with regulations like this, closer to 3000 pounds is the norm. Every pound adds up. All the safety regulations that have led to this increased weight aren't pointless, but one wonders if it's really worth MANDATING everyone to tote around an additional ONE THOUSAND POUNDS.

> In the 1980s and 1990s, it wasn't uncommon for cars to weigh under 2000 pounds.

It wasn't all that much more, if at all, common than it is now. Sure, some subcompacts were under 2,000 pounds -- just as they are now.

> Now, with regulations like this, closer to 3000 pounds is the norm.

Regulations don't require 3000 pound+ cars, consumer preferences do. The Smart Fortwo meets all applicable US regulations and has a curb weight of 1,600 pounds, a little less than the 1980s Le Car. Neither are exactly rare in their time, but both are notable among contemporaries in the US market for being small.