backtop


Print 152 comment(s) - last by GruntboyX.. on Dec 8 at 1:05 PM


Backup camera system in a Toyota Venza crossover

The NHTSA says that nearly 300 children are backed over and killed in the U.S. each year  (Source: rearviewsafety.com)
DoT steps in to help prevent child fatalities from backovers

When it comes to new vehicles today, it seems as though computers are taking over many aspects of the driving experience. We have electronic stability programs, laser/radar cruise control, lane guidance, and automatic parking systems.

On the safety front, it's not uncommon to found vehicles that are loaded with driver/passenger and side/head curtain to protect the occupants inside the vehicle. Some auto manufactures go even further by providing knee and seatbelt airbags.

However, new government regulations could do more to protect people outside the vehicle. According to the Associated Press, the Department of Transportation wants to help protect small children that get backed over by vehicles through the use of cameras and better outward visibility. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), roughly 300 children are killed each year from accidental "backovers". The number injured each year is about 18,000.

Many cars today are being designed with higher beltlines to enhance styling and to perform better in side-impact crash tests. As a result, outward visibility through the side and rear windows is often compromised. Vehicles like SUVs and pickups have an even great disadvantage as they sit higher off the ground often making it harder to see small children when the vehicle is put in reverse.

Many auto manufacturers get around the visibility problems inherent with today's vehicles by incorporating backup cameras that transmit an image of what's behind the vehicle to a dashboard display screen (which is often used for the vehicle's GPS). While the backup camera systems are usually optional on today's vehicles, they would be mandatory in all vehicles (up to 10,000 pounds) by 2014.

Auto manufacturers can get around the requirement by adhering to improved rear visibility requirements handed down by the DoT, but with current car design trending towards making outward visibility an afterthought, it's believed that most car manufacturers will go the backup camera route instead.

"There is no more tragic accident than for a parent or caregiver to back out of a garage or driveway and kill or injure an undetected child playing behind the vehicle," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "[Changes would] help drivers see into those blind zones directly behind vehicles to make sure it is safe to back up."

Backup cameras will no doubt add to the cost of new vehicles in the years to come -- this is in addition the price increases that are sure to come from more stringent fuel economy requirements being handed down by the government.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

it's a horrible thing ...
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 12/3/2010 8:31:02 AM , Rating: 5
it's a horrible thing to think about, but do we really need a law to require backup cameras? I bet most of them occurred when the driver was in a hurry and wasn't careful anyway. Is a backup camera really going to help that driver?




RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By AlexWade on 12/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/3/2010 8:38:16 AM , Rating: 5
How is a backup camera gonna help you with a trailer? Most of them are mounted right above the license plate.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/3/2010 10:39:03 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
How is a backup camera gonna help you with a trailer? Most of them are mounted right above the license plate.


Exactly. Plus, I've always thought backup cameras do as much harm as help. True they can help you see stuff directly below your back fender (like a child or pet), but on the other hand they typically have a much narrow range view than a person with good vision has looking over their shoulder.

I found that this is actually quite dangerous. During my testing of several vehicles, I crept out using the backup cam and only noticed when cautionarily glancing over my shoulder than someone was walking into the path of my vehicle, just not visible in the backup cam yet.

Driving is all about focus and you basically have to choose to focus on the backup cam or focus on looking over your shoulder.

The backup cam may save you from running over little Timmy who's crawling in the driveway, but it makes it more likely that you'll hit little Jimmy who's riding his bike towards your driveway, but isn't visible in your backup cam's field of view.

I'd go as far as to say the concept of a backup cam is pretty worthless.

I think requiring a sensor that detects obstacles behind the back of the vehicle and beeps would be a MUCH better idea, as you could look over your shoulder and still receive the warning that the backup cam aims to give.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/3/2010 11:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
Downrated, eh? If you disagree with my opinion that these devices pose a danger in some regards, please POST why you disagree.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By acase on 12/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/3/2010 12:37:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Didn't down rate you but I do slightly disagree. I would say I probably have more common sense than your average driver in America...but if my truck was equiped with one of these, before backing up I would simply look at the screen and make sure no one was behind me, then look over my shoulders as back up as normal. Seems pretty straight forward.


I agree that your strategy is safer, but it kind of defeats the purpose, because then you can't see if something low lying moves into the camera's view after your initial peek. Say the baby was crawling, just outside the wheel base (out of view) and then crawled under your back tire (in view, but after your peek)... same problem.

Like I said, a beeping sensor would give the EXACT same benefit, without the visual distraction. And it would have the benefit of offering CONTINUOUS monitoring of obstacles, while the driver is looking over their shoulder -- the ONLY safe method of backing up.

Of course that's just my opinion, you could disagree...


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2010 1:11:43 PM , Rating: 1
It seems that you need to manufacture increasingly convoluted scenarios to justify your dislike of this idea. Infants crawling under bumpers, just perfectly out of view of the backup cam? In a situation like that, backing out one's car is the least of one's concerns.

quote:
Like I said, a beeping sensor would give the EXACT same benefit, without the visual distraction.

No, it has an aural distraction, which is even worse because it would induce panic in the driver. And the beeping sensors are, themselves, subject to every single "well, what if they're just out of view?" issue that you bring up about rearview cameras.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Keeir on 12/3/2010 5:54:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It seems that you need to manufacture increasingly convoluted scenarios to justify your dislike of this idea.


Actually, the justification for the idea is rather convoluted as well.

Each year in the US, there are over 30 Billion "Back-ups" that occur in residental areas. (50 Million Homes x 300 Days a year x 2 back-up per day --> 30 Billion!)

As noted in the article around 20,000 of these result in injury. Its quite literally a once in a million or less occurance.

One of the best ways to reduce accidents/increase efficieny is to involve more senses. For example, physical typing is usually the most efficient when there is Aural, Visual, and Tactile feedback. A back-up camera alone increases Visual information, but would not provide the same benifit as say... a back-up sensor that emits a sound that is audible in both cabin and exterior of the car. If this induces "panic" shouldn't the drive apply the brakes? Which is exactly the response required?

I am confused, I would prefer an Aural system if I had the choice... a back-up camera seems like a redundent system... most of the time you will ignore it just like the visual check systems that allow the accidents in the first place


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By SPOOFE on 12/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By JediJeb on 12/3/2010 3:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
How about tackling both problems by putting the screen for the backup camera just above the rear seat, that way you have to be looking behind you to see the camera view so you just might see both the child sitting behind the car and the one entering the path from the side.

Honestly though the average driver today has such poor situational awareness that even a dozen cameras wouldn't help, they would just throw the car in reverse and stomp on the gas and blast down the driveway before they even think to look either over their shoulder or in the view screen.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By thurston on 12/5/2010 6:45:54 PM , Rating: 1
This is rediculous.

quote:
Say the baby was crawling, just outside the wheel base (out of view) and then crawled under your back tire (in view, but after your peek)... same problem.


Or maybe if the baby crawled up into the fan to be by the radiator so it wouldn't get cold at night. Then it gets chopped when the car is started.

Why don't we just put people in jail that allow babies to crawl around unsupervised and encourage more abortion.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By hyvonen on 12/3/2010 1:20:14 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, I fully agree. I would love to have a rearview camera; it would eliminate one of the blind spots.

But I would use it only for additional information; I would still look around, look at the mirrors etc. When I'm driving, I want to know what's around me, and I'm checking the windows and mirrors continuously to know where the other cars are. Same thing when backing up, but you can't see right behind the car.

You know, not being able to see well when backing up is the reason why I'm always parking "backwards", so I can just take off and see exactly where I'm going. Backing out of a parking spot is much more difficult than backing into one.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2010 1:19:17 PM , Rating: 4
I agree with you but I don't even want to discuss the pros or cons. I do not accept the premise that the Government has the authority to make this kind of law.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By hyvonen on 12/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2010 1:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not being "anti-government". I'm not an Anarchist. Government is fine, unlimited Government is NOT. Why is it so hard to grasp this concept?

And tea party? Ummm, I've been this way long before they were around. And I'm in the real world, thank you very much.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Alexstarfire on 12/3/2010 6:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
I both agree/disagree with you. Like some others in here I don't use my back-up cam to actually back up with. It's frickin' impossible. You can see a lot, but judging side-to-side distance is impossible. I take a quick check to make sure there is nothing directly behind me, especially useful when backing out of a parking space, and then I just use my mirrors for the rest.

As for your other situation you came up with, provided your mirrors are set up properly that situation would practically never come up. The already one in a million chance will become a one in a billion or less chance. I'm wondering if that has even ever happened. Something tells me if it has it's probably in the single digits.

Audible sounds are great, but don't provide that much info. Saying something in blocking your path isn't very useful unless you know what it is. If it's a person you can just wait (like in a parking lot), but if it's like a bike then you can stop and get out to move it. Not to mention audible sounds can be very irritating. I turned the sound off for when I'm in reverse.

At least this is one thing that has the potential to be useful when/if the law gets enacted. You can't reduce accidents like these to zero, but we can only do the best we can.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By thurston on 12/5/2010 6:30:57 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't you just turn off the ability to mod your posts down if you don't like it? Replying takes away the ability to mod. Why can't someone mod posts if they like?


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2010 11:56:53 AM , Rating: 5
For once we agree.

And the camera's would do nothing to help see a toddler lying on the ground directly under the bumper.

Next they'll mandate full sonar on cars so you can't hit anything without knowing it first.

Then training wheels for SUVs so they can't roll over. Course by then they'll raise fuel economy standards so high no one can build them.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By tastyratz on 12/3/2010 12:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with mick also. +1 from me!
Backup cameras instill a false sense of security, and I like the idea Jason had of a sensor that beeps if it detects something behind you. This would force the driver to look if they aren't already, and would provide the same functionality.

Not to mention a lense close to the ground and likely to be hit with debris while very unlikely for the driver to bother cleaning it.

I would support mandatory tone generation (beeping) on all vehicles over 4000lbs when they are put in reverse also.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2010 1:19:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Backup cameras instill a false sense of security, and I like the idea Jason had of a sensor that beeps if it detects something behind you.

And beeping doesn't instill a false sense of security? At least with the cameras one can be completely aware of the limitations of the system. The beeping is FAR worse, as it causes the "magical technology solves all" syndrome.

quote:
This would force the driver to look if they aren't already

No, it wouldn't. They would panic and then slam on their brakes. "Instant safety!" one thinks. False. The function of "magic warning out of nowhere" is what leads people to rely on it; the camera has a clearly delineated space, instantly recognizable to all our other senses, whereas the beeping is completely foreign to the usual experience of actually driving (as opposed to warnings about your seatbelt or you Check Engine light).

I'm amazed that people concerned about the bad habits that may be caused by a backup camera are so blasé about those exact same bad habits that can be caused - even moreso - by sensors and beepers.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By kattanna on 12/3/2010 12:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Driving is all about focus


YEP !


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By hyvonen on 12/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By hyvonen on 12/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2010 11:54:28 AM , Rating: 1
You expect idiots like that to think?


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Mr772 on 12/3/2010 12:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
They most definately help getting lined up with the trailer hitch and ball on a large SUV. A quick glance and you can see if someone or something is directly behind your truck below the back glass - you can't do that with side or rear view mirrors.

I don't see a disadvantage to having a rear camera. It's just another tool nobody, said it was going to prevent all the problems of the world when backing up your vehicle.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2010 1:22:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I don't see a disadvantage to having a rear camera. It's just another tool


Then YOU pay to have one installed. That's fine. Nobody has a problem with them or having them be a factory option at the buyers discretion.

What's unacceptable here is the Government making it mandatory that the auto industry install these as standard equipment. It's wrong and they have no legal authority to do it.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By SPOOFE on 12/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By tk427 on 12/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2010 1:53:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Totally wrong like every other government mandated safety regulation??


Where do you draw the line?

When we allow the Government to mandate something that we could/should take responsibility for, we're given them more power over us. At what point do you agree that we've failed to traverse the slippery slope, and have fallen to the bottom?

You want to mandate my safety? Good. Secure our borders and eliminate threats to my sovereignty. Get these fucking criminals off the street and do something about crime!! Fix the justice system so people who break laws are actually punished! Do something about these shitty roads that cause unsafe conditions!! We're sure as hell paying enough taxes to cover all of this! THAT'S what the government is supposed to be tasked with. Putting a camera in my car? No, just no.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By thurston on 12/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2010 2:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yup.

Please show me where in the constitution the government has the authority to tell companies what features to put in their products.

To me if a car company wants to build an all steel car with no crumple zones, no airbags, and no seatbelts they should be able to. It's my life so why shouldn't I be able to take risks with it? Shouldn't it be my decision to risk my skull being crushed when I hit something?

Now. That said. Most of us don't have issues with requiring seat belts and airbags. But honestly if I don't want to pay for them, why should I have to? But we've gone beyond that. Now the government is mandating convenience features. Tire pressure sensors, back up cameras, brake override technology(OMG I can't stop my car because I'm a moron too dumb to put it in nuetral). These are not necessary things.

What's next? Mandating automatic doors with pressure sensors on them to prevent someone's hand getting slammed in them?

You people say "well this just protects people". Yes. This might stop something bad from happening. But if you accept that the government has the power to do this, where is the line drawn? What don't they have the power to do? Do you only stop when its something you don't like? Well what if someone else likes it.

It's a states job to respond to its citizens wishes. Not the federal governments. The federal government was never intended to take care of the individual. But hey who gives a crap about the constitution. Just let the federal government take care of everything. It knows better than you do whats good for you.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Dorkyman on 12/3/2010 7:15:09 PM , Rating: 5
While we're at it, let's do something that REALLY would help with highway fatalities--make everyone wear a helmet in the car. Oh, and those 5-point safety harnesses. Those two items are mandatory in race cars for good reason.

Another item: no one is allowed to talk to the driver, and he/she is not allowed to control the air controls or the radio. Can't be too safe, you know.

Big Brother is here to help you. Do not fear him. He knows what is good for you.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By strikeback03 on 12/3/2010 8:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
Unless the camera is able to extend to the side or something, aren't you just going to see your trailer? Now if the camera were in the trailer that would help that situation.

As least in the future all cars will have a good spot in the dash to put a carputer screen.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By MrBlastman on 12/3/2010 10:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
This is about the most asinine bit of legislation that I've heard of so far from our supreme government. Wow. Good spot in the dash to put a screen for sure--except, these screens will come with a tag attached saying:

"If you remove this screen, the driver will face death via electrodes implanted in his seat administering high voltage and apt amperage. Remove at your own risk. You have been advised."

I can see police officers now, wasting even more of their time on crap like this rather than busting the bad guys--pulling people over and fining them for having malfunctioning screens or even ones that have been tampered with.

How hard is it for people to just turn around and look out the back window?!


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By MightyAA on 12/3/2010 10:31:34 AM , Rating: 3
Totally agree. This is ridiculous. I've got a stupid backup radar thing. But, if you are backing up, you are looking backwards, not at the dash screen. If I'm looking at the dash, I'm not seeing oncoming traffic.

The other stupid part about the radar is that it senses to the side as well... so every morning it is screaming at me because it detects the garage door opening and thinks I'm going to collide. This has pretty much insured that I've been trained to ignore it like a pavlov dog.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By robert5c on 12/3/2010 11:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
i also take the stance the camera is a bad idea,

i think the point of a backup camera anyway is to check behind you, and to make the small final movement close to an object, but not to use to backup, as you won't see beyond the field of view of the camera, which is important if you really want to save kids lives, kids run up to cars backing out, innocent things just want to say bye.

so i agree that if anything, put sensors that detect something behind you...does the same job, less cost, and now they can make them behind the bumper liner so no styling difference either.

on your not about your sensor being useless, it may just be a bad implantation by your manufacture, or a older design. they have come a long way since being released, and on my BMW i love the thing to a fault. its less annoying, and staggers the beeps so you actually start to be able to gage distance by frequency of the sound. and i myself like that it picks up the side because when turning into a spot it lets you know your close to the pole/wall/car but not yet going to hit it, if its solid, stop what your doing...

also the side only picks up about 6 inches on mine, which is just about right...i rather it beep at me every morning i back out of my garage and be solid the morning my kids thought their little bike fit next to my car.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2010 3:34:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
sensors that detect something behind you...does the same job

False. A noise emitted for an unknown reason provides far less information than a realtime image. Even the briefest of glances at your screen before looking behind to back up provides for more useful data than a random chirp.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2010 11:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
I remember getting marked down in my driving test for not looking behind me when I backed up. Of course why didn't I look behind me? I was in my sisters 93 Nissan Sentra and the lady said "back up" and then stuck her head between the seat to look behind us. Blocking me from doing it.

With these mandated its just a matter of a generation before no one actually looks before they back up. After they hit you they'll just say "I didn't see you in the camera".


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By namechamps on 12/3/2010 8:45:50 AM , Rating: 4
Why?

300 children is very small. Fare more children drown each year in bathtubs. Looking at it logically shouldn't the govt mandate a parent activation system (which drains tub when parent leaves the room) on all tubs by 2014 instead.

Sorry loss of child is horrific and tragic but we can't legislate all deaths to 0.

300 is very small. roughly 90 million children in the US. In other words 99.99967% of children avoided being backed over by an SUV last year.

The last thing is efficacy. I would imagine most people who backed over a child were in a hurry. So even with backup cameras in place some % of the 300 would still be killed. 50? 100? 150? Making the net result of this massive expenditure even less.

This has nothing to do with seatbelts. If lack of seatbelts only resulted in 300 deaths annually seatbelts shouldn't be mandated either. The reality is high speed accidents result in many magnitudes more deaths per year.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By quiksilvr on 12/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By mcnabney on 12/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By corduroygt on 12/3/2010 9:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
You can get an aftermarket backup camera on pretty much any car, so if you cared about it, it's always an option.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By quiksilvr on 12/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By adiposity on 12/3/2010 12:00:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I agree that it shouldn't be a requirement to have it STANDARD, but I believe it should be a requirement for ALL vehicles to have the option. That's as fas as the government should go IMO.


While I agree that this is an improvement, I have to disagree that the govt. should mandate an OPTION. This will also increase the cost of cars (though not as much).

Why should any automaker be required to design their car so it can support a camera and mounted TV?

First, you can get that aftermarket if you want it.

Second, I doubt it really does anything for safety.

Third, this is just the govt. passing a "think of the children" law for a statistically tiny problem.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By DanNeely on 12/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By snakeInTheGrass on 12/4/2010 11:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
The best part that didn't seem to be mentioned here - they expect a cost of 2-2.6 billion dollars / year for this. And 'under 300' was actually an average of 230, according to another site. So let's see, some basic math... about $10-11 MILLION per life saved. I know we couldn't afford that to prevent heart disease or much of anything else. What the hell kind of asinine concept is this? It's horrible that it happens, but things will happen as long as we're using MPUs (meat processing units) to interface with the world.

People can't be bothered to turn around and look - how about we mandate live spy satellite coverage of everywhere so that we can get a live feed of our surroundings right into the car? Then you'll know, right? Wait, but 2 people were run over in covered parking, better add cameras everywhere else indoors to complete the coverage. And hey, as long as you have nothing to hide... ;)


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2010 3:37:38 PM , Rating: 1
What's this "300" nonsense? Fun movie, but lousy fact. It's 18,000 that are hurt every year.


By snakeInTheGrass on 12/4/2010 11:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
What's with the 18,000 claptrap? It's ~230 deaths. Injuries doesn't equal deaths. If you want injuries, great... let's say just $5,000,000 per prevented death and $80,000 per prevented injury - not that it's going to eliminate all of those injuries and deaths, so the actual cost will be higher.

There's certainly something lousy about these facts - that the government is trying to pass another asinine law.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By sorry dog on 12/5/2010 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
They don't mind the cost because it's not the government's money. Only thing they have to budget for is the cost to police it.

...And don't forget the cell phone blockers that are coming too.

This Lahood guy is a real piece of work. He is totally disconnected with safety versus cost relationship.

I tend to consider myself an independent voter, but why do idiots like Lahood always show up under Demo administrations?

I think it was under Clinton that pop-up headlights and minimum bumper heights were regulated out.

Not that the repubs don't regulate our freedom away, but the dems seem to be biggest product safety Nazis.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By weskurtz0081 on 12/3/2010 8:48:00 AM , Rating: 5
In my area, people with backup cameras still back into stuff! I bet the companies that make these products are extremely happy though!


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By teldar on 12/3/2010 10:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
The need for it to help with backing up a trailer is possibly the worst reason I could possibly hear. It wouldn't help in the least with a trailer. The camera is mounted too low to be helpful and all it would show would be the tongue. Not useful.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Murst on 12/3/2010 10:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
I guess most of you guys have never had a trailer. Many trailers already have hookups so that your lights (and possibly brakes) work on the trailer in a similar way to your car when the trailer is hooked up.

Is it really that crazy to assume that a trailer would also require a camera extension hookup so that you can see out of the back of the trailer? At least I'm assuming that's what the OP was thinking.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By 91TTZ on 12/3/2010 10:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my area, a man with a big SUV didn't know his son was outside and backed over him and thus killing him. I'm all for this. To me, it is the same as requiring us to wear seat belts. Sure it is government intervention, but it will help save lives.


Using the same logic, the government should step in and prevent people from making unauthorized trips in the vehicle, such as cruising or joyrides. Sure it is government intervention, but it will help save lives.

What happened to personal responsibility? Do we really need the government to micromanage our lives when we should be the ones in control of them?


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By The Raven on 12/3/2010 10:53:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my area, a man with a big SUV didn't know his son was outside and backed over him and thus killing him.


Again as others have stated, no one thinks of this as anything short of a horrible tragedy, but I'd like to ask that man if he is supportive of this after he is brought up to speed on the statistics. You and I arguing over what we think is the problem is of less importantance in my estimation.

But when this law raises the cost of my vehicle when we are all are (or should be) cutting costs, that is when my opinion matters.

I work in the auto manufacturing industry and my company supplies parts and materials to all the major manufacturers. A while back, after that runaway Toyota gibberish we got orders from the US gov't for 'black boxes' that they were talking about requiring on all vehicles. They cost $3000 a piece. I'm not sure where you are financially, but that is a lot of money to me. And keep in mind that it all adds up.

Also as an aside, this story should make people think twice when they insist that SUVs are much safer than smaller vehicles.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By mcnabney on 12/3/2010 12:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
You are buying into the automobile industry's lies.

Automobile event recorders aren't really very expensive. The piece of hardware itself only costs about $10. When they first came out the companies factored the cost of updating the vehicle's computer to provide an output. Once that was done the actual cost of the event recorder is neglible. Adding a little more storage is pretty much a no brainer. Recording the 10 year functional activity of a car might require a $5 memory chip.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By 91TTZ on 12/3/2010 5:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Automobile event recorders aren't really very expensive. The piece of hardware itself only costs about $10. When they first came out the companies factored the cost of updating the vehicle's computer to provide an output. Once that was done the actual cost of the event recorder is neglible. Adding a little more storage is pretty much a no brainer. Recording the 10 year functional activity of a car might require a $5 memory chip.


False.

Car computers have just about always had an output. I've worked on cars from the 1970's that had an output on them.

Also, the ECU will output a large amount of data. You'd fill up a memory card fairly quickly with that amount of data.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Wererat on 12/6/2010 10:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
Here's some stats on what is probably the most extreme car data collection, F1:

-Sensors on a Formula One race car: 150 - 300

-Data generation rate while racing: 100 kilobytes to 0.5 megabytes per second

-Data generated during 1 Grand Prix race: 1 to 2 gigabytes

-ECU data collected per car per year (including practice laps and equipment testing): 2 to 3 terabytes

(source:http://f1-dictionary.110mb.com/ECU.html)

Given the less stringent requirements on a street car, it seems reasonable that a car could hold the last day or even week of data internally at minimal cost.

ECU realtime output jacks exist at reasonable cost for street cars, and PC apps exist to collect/display those. I don't know that anyone's finished a smartphone version.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Keeir on 12/3/2010 7:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry Mcnabney

I will agree a reliable system could be designed for very cheap.

Without seeing the requirements of the U.S. Govn't proposed solution however, I could believe such a system might be very expensive.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Pirks on 12/3/2010 2:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20313...

1) "park in your garage so that the front of your car is looking at the garage door"

2) "natural selection is at work"

Man you're 4 hours late today :P


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2010 2:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I forgot and left my PirksFilter (tm) on :P


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By MeesterNid on 12/3/2010 9:54:11 AM , Rating: 2
How about we mandate the government to freaking have common sense before they can mandate anything!

Better yet, what if every mandate they put forward is applied to them first for a period of two years and only after that can it be passed on to the public!?


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Murst on 12/3/2010 10:09:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Better yet, what if every mandate they put forward is applied to them first for a period of two years and only after that can it be passed on to the public!?

Interesting idea. So in 1941 when Japan attacked the US, and Congress declared war, you would have it so that only Congress would be at war for a period of 2 years, after which the whole country would go to war? Sounds like you really thought this through.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By MeesterNid on 12/3/2010 10:47:11 AM , Rating: 2
No, it just sounds like you didn't read what I posted...
quote:
mandate
not every single solitary law.

Now you may also not be familiar with the word mandate, so to be clear it's not like a "man date", but something that is required.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Murst on 12/3/2010 12:00:04 PM , Rating: 3
LOL... what?

You do realize that every law congress passes in a mandate. You also stated that "every mandate" from congress should follow this process, which would include all laws congress passes.

The point is that your statement was as stupid as many of the laws coming out of congress, which is both ironic and funny. You might make a good politician.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By mcnabney on 12/3/2010 10:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
Well, fewer kids are 'accidentally' killed by firearms than are killed in backovers.

Are you against the requirement to include triggerlocks on all new firearm purchases? It is a similar line of reasoning for both. Triggerlocks add a very small percentage to the cost of a gun, just like a rearfacing camera does to a car. The goal is to prevent accidents for the entire population. The courts generally don't have an influence here since the negligent party is often related to the victim.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By MeesterNid on 12/3/2010 10:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
You freaking bet I am! People aren't morons...there are obviously some out there that are, but we shouldn't tailor every law to the lowest common denominator (see our school system for examples of "why")...it should be up to the individual to decide how to safeguard their guns from their kids.

Personal responsibility FTW!


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By Schrag4 on 12/3/2010 11:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
You give a very good analogy. And in both cases, the purchaser should decide whether they need the option. If you don't have kids, you shouldn't be burdened with the extra expense. If you have kids, you should take responsibility and do what you need to do to keep your kids safe. Maybe that doesn't mean putting a camera on your car. And maybe that doesn't mean putting a trigger lock on your gun. Securing the weapon somehow? Absolutely. Trigger lock? Not necessarily (it's not how I do it anyway).

So I would agree with your analogy, and say "Yes, I would be against requiring triggerlocks be included on all new firearms." There are already laws in place saying you can't give your kids unfettered access to your guns (in some places anyway). How you do that should be up to you. If you fail to do so, it's not the gun maker's or seller's fault, it's your own fault. And if you back over your own kid, obviously you had no clue where your kid was. It should be up to do to decide how you'll make sure nobody's behind your car when you back up, not the govt.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By 91TTZ on 12/3/2010 11:33:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you against the requirement to include triggerlocks on all new firearm purchases? It is a similar line of reasoning for both.


I'm against that requirement, yes. If I had kids in the house I'd do the responsible thing and get trigger locks. But that's me acting as a responsible person, since I believe in personal responsibility. I don't need the government micro-managing my life.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2010 12:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I am against mandating trigger locks. Why should I pay for something I don't want. Same goes for this backup camera.

A friend of mine has an IS350 with a backup camera. He never looks behind him anymore. I've caught him a few times from hitting a car that was coming because he just stared at the screen.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By walk2k on 12/3/2010 1:57:43 PM , Rating: 1
With so many computer aids pretty soon people won't even learn how to drive properly any more.

Though I have to say I agree every pickup truck and SUV should be equipped with these since you can't see dick out of them... though honestly they should just be banned outright, nothing but a menace on our roadways.. especially since half the damn time the "driver" use the term loosely is starting at his cell phone or GPS navigation screen.. my neighbor's 16 yr old daughter literally does not look out the front window when she drives... I fear for the future.


RE: it's a horrible thing ...
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2010 2:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
How about you just hold the individual responsible for their actions? If they hurt someone, they lose their license and possibly go to jail. Perhaps for life.

Our parents drove gigantic cars made of solid steel. Funny they somehow managed not to kill each other and us.

As far as younger drivers, well then they'll lose their license eventually. It should be states tackling these matters. Not the federal government. Make driving tests harder.


Idiots :)))
By Pirks on 12/3/2010 9:28:34 AM , Rating: 1
Just park in your garage so that the front of your car is looking at the garage door and SURRRPRRRIZZZE!!! you will NOT have to BACK UP when you drive out of your garage :P Simple solutions never come to people's minds 'cause a LOT of people are idiots. So natural selection is at work here, hehehe :)))




RE: Idiots :)))
By AssBall on 12/3/2010 9:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, pirks, cars shouldn't even have a reverse gear..... /rolleyes/missedthepoint.


RE: Idiots :)))
By Pirks on 12/3/2010 9:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
If cars didn't have reverse gear they COULD _NOT_ park the way I SUGGESTED above! I wonder how many times you have to read a post here for the knowledge inside it to sink in ;) Try again a couple more times, but I doubt you'll understand... too complex for ya eh?


RE: Idiots :)))
By Murst on 12/3/2010 10:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
Couldn't you just pull in from the back of the garage though... it's a system I've seen at work plenty of times when geting my oil change. :)


RE: Idiots :)))
By AssBall on 12/3/2010 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, it (whatever it is) is way over my head.

Don't worry about the toddler playing in your garage while you back in. He's wearing an SUV proof diaper.

Now do you get the irony?


RE: Idiots :)))
By Pirks on 12/3/2010 11:55:16 AM , Rating: 1
Right, you come back from work, open your garage door with your radio remote in your car and there's a toddler in there waiting for you all day since he just made another remote from scrap parts he got from ebay, opened the door with it, hid in there and then closed the door. Riiight.... post some more shit like that, you're doing very very good job LOLing me :))) Boy that's even more hilarious that frobitch's and Mototroll's Apple related droning :)))


RE: Idiots :)))
By AssBall on 12/3/2010 12:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds like one of your usual rants. Not everyone has a garage (or driveway), and now you are assuming everyone is a rich and self righteous tool like yourself. Maybe your Mom's sister should have backed over you with the Oldsmobile 85 before you learned to speak, saving us from having to read your drivel.


RE: Idiots :)))
By Pirks on 12/3/2010 1:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
If my mom actually HAD a sister you'd look a tad less idiot now. But just a tad ;)

Yeah, for driveways my suggestion does not work, I agree. Good point at least there, go get a cookie.

P.S. you think I'm rich? But I don't have a Mac! How can I be rich then eh? :))) No Lexus, no iPad, not even a single iPod or iPhone ever. Looks like you're wrong again. Besides, AFAIR most Americans live in their own houses, hence I'm just like all of you. If you think that house with garage is only for the rich you ARE an idiot, no point in further discussion then. It's North America man, don't forget about it. People DO usually live in houses with garages here.


RE: Idiots :)))
By frobizzle on 12/3/2010 2:09:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't have a Mac! How can I be rich then eh? :))) No Lexus, no iPad, not even a single iPod or iPhone

Yeah...all you've got is a big rod up your pooper.


RE: Idiots :)))
By Pirks on 12/3/2010 3:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
can't hear ya when your mouth is busy with you know what ;)


RE: Idiots :)))
By bh192012 on 12/3/2010 2:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the first thing that children do when they hear the garage door open (from inside the house or back yard) is to run into the garage to see who it is. Factor in backup camera field of view = extra kid splatter.


RE: Idiots :)))
By frobizzle on 12/3/2010 10:37:40 AM , Rating: 3
You gotta remember that Pirks is so smart he probably qualifies as being over intelligent!


RE: Idiots :)))
By Pirks on 12/3/2010 11:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
don't spit, swallow!


RE: Idiots :)))
By frobizzle on 12/3/2010 2:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
Projecting again, Pirks?


RE: Idiots :)))
By Pirks on 12/3/2010 3:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
nah just reminding you of your duties here


Stupid as the day is long!
By Dr of crap on 12/3/2010 8:42:45 AM , Rating: 5
What a load of BS.
So when you're backing up INSTEAD of looking to the back, you can watch some video screen on the dash! GOOD IDEA!

And for the record, do you know how to parent?

When you are backing out, the kid stays at the front of the car, no matter how much they whine and cry about it! Do your job, be the parent!

And second - do you know how to drive taht big rig??
Move your body around to make sure you see EVERYTHING behind you before you back out. And maybe if you weren't so fat you'd be able to do this!

This is just utter BS!!!!

Next they'll require a dedicated guy to fill up your gas so that YOU don't spill any. You know how much gas is spilled each day by people not paying attention!
/sarcasm!!




RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By banvetor on 12/3/2010 8:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
uhauhauha good points there.

But do you know that in Brazil we do in fact have people dedicated to filling up your tank in each and every gas station right?


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By mcnabney on 12/3/2010 9:43:10 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, some states require that a licensed employee pump all of the gas too. It is kind of a 'jobs' program, but when I have encountered it on business travel I have always received good service.


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By Omega215D on 12/6/2010 12:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, in New Jersey there were signs saying it's illegal to pump your own gas or something like that. I rode my motorcycle through the state several times and had to wait for the attendant to come over, punch in his card so I can take the handle and start filling it up myself because they don't know or don't want to fill up a bike.

Back in NY I just hop off and operate the pump in less than a minute. I guess those in Jersey were tired of idiots driving off with the pump still attached.


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/3/2010 8:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that this legislation is ridiculous, but I don't agree that the danger is "avoidable" in all cases.

I just bought a brand new 2011-model sedan and when backing up, you can't see &$^#. If I'm backing out of a parking spot at Target or any random store and some toddler happened to break away from his/her parent and run behind my car, I wouldn't see them.

Same goes for SUVs. My dad has a Toyota Highlander and a Nissan Titan Crew Cab Long Bed. The Highlander isn't gonna do you any favors are far as seeing toddlers (you wouldn't see them in the side or rear-view mirrors or out the back window). The only thing that saves my dad's Titan are the parking sensors that beep if something is in the way.

My point is, it's relatively easy to keep tabs on your own kids at home when backing out of the driveway. JUST MAKE SURE WHERE THE HELL THEY ARE!! But when you're out in public and not on your own home turf, it's not always an open and shut case.


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By Dr of crap on 12/3/2010 10:20:42 AM , Rating: 1
I believe it said that the kids are run over in their own driveway, hence the stupity of it all.

And adding a camera wouldn't help in the case of the kid running around the parking lot as the SUV backed, would it!

The benefit would be that you'd see yourself run him over!
Now I'd sell tickets to that!!


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By Schrag4 on 12/3/2010 10:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm backing out of a parking spot at Target or any random store and some toddler happened to break away from his/her parent and run behind my car, I wouldn't see them.


I pretty much agree with your whole post. As to when you're out in public, the other parents need to make sure their kids don't run off in the parking lot. I know it's difficult. I have 3 little ones, and I give them absolute hell if they run away from me in the parking lot. Anyone who doesn't is a BAD PARENT in my opinion. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen with my kids, but when it does they learn very quickly that we mean business.

I'd like to add that I don't think that anyone who has a child hit by a car is a bad parent. As I pointed out, the kid needs to learn not to do it, and they learn by running out there and then getting yelled at and/or spanked for it. It's unlikely the'd get hit the very first or second time they try it (before they learn), but it can happen. I'm merely saying anyone who doesn't make a big deal to their kids about not to run blindly onto where cars drive is not loving their child. Not warning of danger is what you do to your enemy not your loved ones.

This brings me to my next beef with this type legislation. How soon before someone sues the car manufacturers for NOT having a backup camera after they or someone else backs over their kid? Personal responsibility, people. Keep an eye on your kids all the time. If you can't watch them like a hawk for a little while, make sure they're somewhere safe (not where cars drive, like, say, a driveway). And I'm talking about kids under about 5 or 6, who still live in a total fantasy land in their heads. (believe me, I know)


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2010 1:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But when you're out in public and not on your own home turf, it's not always an open and shut case.


Accidents happen. /shrug. The world still turns Brandon.


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By walk2k on 12/3/2010 2:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
I can see pretty well out the back of my own car but what I can't see is around all the GIANT HUGE SUVs and crap parked on both sides of me.. So what I got in the habit of doing is blip the throttle a few times before backing out.. the exhaust isn't overly loud but it WILL get your attention if you are standing near it when I rev the engine.

Loud pipes save lives :)


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By frobizzle on 12/3/2010 10:31:59 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with part of what you said.
quote:
And second - do you know how to drive taht big rig??

The problem is that in the name of style, car manufacturers produce vehicles that have horribly huge blind spots. I don't care how much you twist around, your view is going to be badly obscured!

That said, I think this proposal is a complete waste of time and money. Watch most people backing up. They are not paying the least bit of attention to what's behind them. Why does the government think these cameras will make any difference? These morons will just ignore it the same way they ignore their mirrors, or even bother looking behind them!


RE: Stupid as the day is long!
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2010 1:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So when you're backing up INSTEAD of looking to the back, you can watch some video screen on the dash! GOOD IDEA!

Or... you look at the video screen on your dash and confirm that your blind spot is empty, and THEN you turn around to get the fuller view behind you.

You know what a blind spot is, don't you? You check them before making a lane change, don't you? You don't make a lane change first and then check your blind spot, do you? At least, I hope you don't.


bass ackwards
By invidious on 12/3/2010 9:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
Far more children die to being hit by forward moving cars than to cars being backed out of driveways.

A law preventing parents from letting their kids play in the street would cost less and save more lives.




RE: bass ackwards
By AssBall on 12/3/2010 9:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A law preventing parents from letting their kids play in the street would cost less and save more lives.


Good luck with that working. We should have laws against doing anything with more than zero risk factor. Like breathing for example.


RE: bass ackwards
By Spivonious on 12/3/2010 9:54:47 AM , Rating: 4
I have the solution!

Forward cameras!


RE: bass ackwards
By AssBall on 12/3/2010 11:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Excellent.


RE: bass ackwards
By adiposity on 12/3/2010 12:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
Post of the day.


RE: bass ackwards
By walk2k on 12/3/2010 2:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
Good idea, have it broadcast the image to the driver's cell phone, then she might actually look at it.


RE: bass ackwards
By Shanghai Dan on 12/4/2010 10:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
If I have to look forward for the rear facing camera, would I have to look backward for the front facing camera?


RE: bass ackwards
By mcnabney on 12/3/2010 9:58:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think you are wrong. With a third of child fatalities being from backovers, I would guess that more than a third would be caused by kids IN a car that is in an accident. That would mean less than a third are pedestrian accidents by forward-moving vehicles.


RE: bass ackwards
By Murst on 12/3/2010 10:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
Since we're all making up our own stats on accidents, I think you're both wrong, as over half of all child car fatalities are caused by a vehicle that is not moving with the child being on top of the vehicle, and not in front, behind, or inside it.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2010 8:34:03 AM , Rating: 1
As a libertarian and a consumer, who is the government to tell me that I need a back up camera on my car?! Why should I have to pay extra because they think I shouldn't back over children?! Wait, how does this work again? I know it is always self-righteous sounding when it involves fuel economy, and government motors, and...

</*>




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2010 8:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
Oh damn, the Imir beat me to it by a few minutes...


RE: Oooh, let me start the rant this time....
By mcnabney on 12/3/2010 9:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
Then as a Libertarian and an eye/eye kind of guy, you won't mind being taken out-back and shot if you back into a kid running behind you in the Wal-mart parking lot?

As was pointed out earlier, a third of the child fatalities relating to cars/traffic are caused by back-overs. That is a huge number considering that less than 1% of the time that a car spends doing something is actually spent backing up.

Also, side-mirrors, seatbelts, and airbags are only standard because they became a requirement. Those only protect you, I would think that protecting OTHERS would be of higher value to the greater society.

Personally, I really like the idea suggested above that all car models must have it available as an option. It is currently only offered on minivans and SUVs, but all cars are blind there.


RE: Oooh, let me start the rant this time....
By 91TTZ on 12/3/2010 12:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
From reading many of your posts, you seem to be in favor of a nannystate government in just about every topic.

Are you a socialist liberal?


RE: Oooh, let me start the rant this time....
By Anoxanmore on 12/3/2010 1:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

by 91TTZ on December 3, 2010 at 12:15 PM

From reading many of your posts, you seem to be in favor of a nannystate government in just about every topic.

Are you a socialist conservative ?

Fixed that for you. :)


By 91TTZ on 12/3/2010 5:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it that whenever someone points out the odd ways of socialist liberals, others assume they must be some kind of die hard conservative?

Hint: I'm not a conservative.


By bh192012 on 12/3/2010 2:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
So as a wussy liberal you won't mind wearing a helmet 24/7 then? Now that we've gotten all the antagonistic straw men out of the way......

articlesbase.com/law-articles/children-car-accide nts-the-alarming-statistics-695796.html

Since children only make up about 5% of car fatalities, can we go ahead and not think of the children, and focus on the other 95% of people getting slaughtered in cars if we're gonna go around mandating things?

BTW I'm interested in your eye/eye (in this case, death/death) proposal, what you have so far seems reasonable. Insurance would go down, drunk drivers who killed someone and lived couldn't re-offened, same for idiots.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/6/2010 7:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I forgot my closing tag:

</clearly being sarcastic, as is manifestly obvious, even to the most casual reader>

btw, I have a back up camera in my car and I glance at it when I back up and use it to confirm I am not going to bump a car when parallel parking. Why so many freakin' posts on this lame subject? Oh, because it is an excuse to try out your rational constructionist saber rattling.


By Murst on 12/3/2010 10:04:25 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, why should I pay extra for medicine so that the government can verify that it is safe. And why should I be paying extra for a police department to enforce safety. That stuff just doesn't make any sense.


Pointless and probably dangerous
By Flunk on 12/3/2010 8:52:43 AM , Rating: 2
This is really stupid. You don't get the same level of visibility from a camera as you do looking out the back of your car. you only see straight in one direction and the picture is only the size of the screen. You'd miss traffic coming from the periphery.

If they're going to mandate anything they should be mandating better visibility on the rear end of cars. I can see this camera idea going very wrong.




RE: Pointless and probably dangerous
By DanNeely on 12/3/2010 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
Please read the article before you comment. Improving visibility to shrink the blind spot is an alternative to installing a camera in it.

As an exercise, stand a 1 gallon bucket (about the size of a kindergartener sitting on the pavement, or a toddler standing at one end of your driveway (or an empty parking lot) and see how far away from it you need to be to spot it in your mirrors or by looking over your shoulder. It's larger than you probably think. Even taller kids will disappear when they get closer. The area I grew up in didn't have any parallel parking so to pass the test I tried marking out a stall in the driveway using garbage cans, but ended up having to stick taller things in them so I could still see them as I got closer.


By Schrag4 on 12/3/2010 10:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm all for this exercise, but a 1 gallon bucket? That's about the size of a NEWBORN (ok maybe just a little bigger). Did you mean 5 gallon bucket? My kids are small for their age, and at kindergarten age they sit taller than a 5 gallon bucket.


By Aikouka on 12/3/2010 11:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
You're not supposed to just use the camera for backing up... in fact, whenever my back-up camera is on in my car, there's a warning across the bottom of the screen, "Turn and look before backing up."

It can actually be handy if you're really bad at parking a car too :P.


RE: Pointless and probably dangerous
By tk427 on 12/3/2010 11:13:53 AM , Rating: 2
Where does it say anywhere that the rear camera is supposed to be your only guide when reversing out? While I don't necessarily agree with the government mandating it to be standard (personally I think in a couple of years they will be standard just like CD players became standard without government mandating it) having one would certainly help. Start your car, check the rear view camera that nothing is next to your bumper, reverse out like you would normally, i.e. checking your mirrors looking over your shoulder.
I don't believe the backup cameras were ever meant to eliminate the need to still check mirrors and over your shoulder when reversing, however many on here replying have assumed that.


RE: Pointless and probably dangerous
By Dr of crap on 12/3/2010 3:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
No you've missed the point.
The ones that would use the rear camera would be the ones to ONLY use the camera to check behind them before backing out.
Why do you think they would NOT rely only on the camera. It obviously gives you a complete view of what's back there!!??!!

You give the average driver WAY to much in the IQ area!


RE: Pointless and probably dangerous
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2010 3:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do you think they would NOT rely only on the camera. It obviously gives you a complete view of what's back there!!??!!

It obviously doesn't. What's wrong with you? OD on idiot pills today?


Because people can't turn around and look
By xeno81 on 12/3/2010 8:38:38 AM , Rating: 2
Means we get to have the price of new vehicles bumped even higher.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/3/2010 8:41:36 AM , Rating: 1
To be fair, a small child can easily slip into your blind spot while backing up (especially) with a truck or SUV. Maybe not your kid, but the dumbass tot next door.


By AssBall on 12/3/2010 9:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
That would be awesome! I mean kinky. I mean that would be horrible.


By ClownPuncher on 12/3/2010 11:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
Then the neighbors would learn a valuable lesson, which they could use to help them raise their next kid properly.


By SPOOFE on 12/4/2010 3:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a small child can easily slip into your blind spot

Yes, it's true, any safety system can fail under a highly specific and convoluted set of conditions. If children are magically teleporting through time and space to physically manifest right underneath your bumper - magically, I might add - then your safety system won't work. Just like how your brakes will fail if they're magically transmogrified into unicorns, so clearly we shouldn't bother with brakes, either.


I find it pretty useless
By keegssj on 12/3/2010 9:02:55 AM , Rating: 3
We have a camera on the back of one of our cars.

I quickly found out that using it seriously limited my awareness of everything else around the car. If you are looking at the camera, you don't see anything else to the side of the car.

I stopped using it.




RE: I find it pretty useless
By tk427 on 12/3/2010 11:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
Your first mistake was thinking that the camera is going to replace normal checking while reversing. Check the camera, then back out like you normally would.


RE: I find it pretty useless
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2010 3:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Every time I've driven a car with a rear camera, that's exactly how I used it. It's like people whining about how useless a hammer is because they can't tighten bolts with it.


Helps But Hurts
By Ristogod on 12/3/2010 10:05:11 AM , Rating: 2
So I just bought a 2011 Sienna and we have this feature. Yes, you can see what is behind you and stop if there is something there. That aspect works.

What doesn't work is that the camera view offers no indication of the vehicle itself. In other words, by using the camera alone, I could easily still back the side of the vehicle into something, or someone without knowing it.

I still find myself needing to both using rear view and side view mirrors or turning my head to actually be able to backup so that I have perspective on the total vehicle position in relation to what's around me.

It's not that easy to use both the camera and the mirrors either. The screen for the camera is in the middle of the dashboard. So you don't see that screen using the mirror or turning your head.

I understand that accidents can happen, and it's tragic when it does. But I also feel that people are on some other planet when they get into their vehicle. They don't seem to understand the consequences or the gravity of the situation of moving that large body of mass around in public or private places. People need to be cognizant of their surroundings and always been questioning who's around.




RE: Helps But Hurts
By Integral9 on 12/3/2010 10:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
It does take some getting used to and w/out side view cameras, you are limited to the tunnel vision the rear camera offers you. My friends 2010 Acadia has a grid on the camera screen that displays a scale in feet and accurately predicts where the car will go up to about 6 feet when you turn the wheel. The grid moves on the screen. It's pretty cool once you learn to use it. But you still have to spin your head around to be sure nobody is coming down the street behind you.


RE: Helps But Hurts
By SPOOFE on 12/4/2010 3:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you are limited to the tunnel vision the rear camera offers you.

Three words: Fish. Eye. Lens.


Screw that..
By TimberJon on 12/3/2010 10:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
Too many idiots who drive don't even use their mirrors correctly much less turn their head to drive. Let's make them more lazy so they only need to look at a monitor that has a limited field of view. It won't see a child running into the path of the vehicle or a bicyclist.

Yea. Who is the Ahole pushing this for the "good of the people"




RE: Screw that..
By walk2k on 12/3/2010 2:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
Almost surely it's someone with connections to the company that makes backup-cameras.. Like the TSA rape-o-scanners.

It's a great formula really
1. get job in government
2. vote to make something mandatory
3. quit gov't job and work for the company who makes the thing you just voted to require on all new vehicles.


how am I
By AssBall on 12/3/2010 8:07:51 AM , Rating: 3
Supposed to get away with running over minority children backing out of my driveway now?




In other words...
By ultimatebob on 12/3/2010 9:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
The government just guaranteed that the price of all compact cars will go up at least $600 in 2014 to include this expensive feature, even though most of them already have great rear visibility.

Thanks for looking out for us, guys!




If they're going to do this
By SpinCircle on 12/3/2010 9:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
There should be a screen somewhere in the back that you can see when looking backwards. Just looking at a screen on your dash wouldn't necessarily be the best way to back up. But, if you're looking out your back windows while in reverse, and can also see a screen with a view of what is below what you can see out the windows, that may be of benefit. Though, I believe the whole system should be an option like stated above.




I'm for it... but optional.
By Integral9 on 12/3/2010 10:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I've always wanted to replace all the mirrors in my cars with cameras. Cameras offer many benefits that a mirror just cannot offer. I don't know about making cameras mandatory though. That adds quite a bit of cost to the car I think; camera, controller, and display. And unless you absolutely have no real view out of the back, it probably shouldn't be mandatory.




Now regular accidents will go up..
By carigis on 12/3/2010 10:15:54 AM , Rating: 2
in other news.. the fact screens have been added to every vehicle produced for this feature now means everyone is going to have an in dash dvd player add on and we will have 10x the accidents from people not paying attention and watching tv on thier screen that as they are not just going to want to pay for one just for backing up..




Won't work
By Beenthere on 12/3/2010 11:13:17 AM , Rating: 2
People are too busy texting and talking crap on their cellphone to actually drive let alone look in a rear view mirror or at a rear view camera.

You can't fix STUPID.




I must admit
By guffwd13 on 12/3/2010 11:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
that at first i was like "sweet". i find the backup cam very useful as i live in a major city and parallel parking is almost a daily occurrence. the cam makes it very clear how much room is between ok and a bumper with a hole in it (for the other guy as I have a hitch installed).

but as far as preventing child deaths, i must agree with everyone and say i doubt that as with most cams (although some new cars have 3 cams that allow you to see more than 180 degrees).

however, proximity sensors on the hand are immensely useful in terms of getting to close to anything and in my car the proximity indicator is mounted on the dash and above the rear window so that when i look back (like you should instead of relying on the cam) i know if theres anything below the car i can't see.

perhaps they'r requiring the wrong device?




By jimbojimbo on 12/3/2010 11:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
Government policy will ban everyone from driving since it's so dangerous. Everyone must stay in their homes with helmets on.




/Sigh
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2010 11:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is the perfect candidate for a facepalm.




Right idea, wrong technology.
By Xaussie on 12/3/2010 1:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
I have cars with both rear camera and radar technology. The radar technology is ***far*** more effective at alerting you to an object behind the car. Both would be ideal but if I had to pick one it would be radar.

When I back out in the morning the sun is usually shining bright on my LCD and it's still warming up (not reached full brightness) so it can be very hard to see. I also have to think to look at it as opposed to just using my rear view mirror. A beep from the radar on the other hand gets my attention immediately.

Sounds like they're about to screw this one up. And yes, for reference I have three young children who I'd like to keep safe.




Great!
By Binkt on 12/3/2010 3:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take mine with a lead-calculating reticle, please. That backup sonar will finally be good for something after all.




Back it in
By rcc on 12/3/2010 4:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
My simple and low cost solution for backing over things and people is to back in to a parking spot, area, etc. whenever possible.

When you are pulling up to your house, parking spot, whatever, you are generally situationally aware, your windows are clear, etc. So back in. It's a little more work, but it gives you a much more controlled environment.

When you hop in the car in the morning, your windows may be fogged, covered in dew, snow, whatever. And you may not be in a position to see what's going on, hedges, fences, etc.

It's not always possible or practical, but it helps a lot.




Not the total solution
By tygrus on 12/4/2010 6:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
In Australia they call them "reversing cameras" or "rear view cameras". Others use "parking assist", or beeping "parking sensors".
The safest way to move the car is to have the children in the car, (next) locked in the house with an Adult, (next) >3m to the side of the car holding an Adults hand. If you cannot see them, STOP the car. Teach the children in the car to be your backup but keep checking all the mirrors and windows. No music, no phone, no discussions/arguments = no distractions.
They are making vehicles with less visibility and higher view which increases certain risks. The sides went up to increase passenger protection from side impact. The back went up to fit more in the boot and increase cabin size. The front increased to increase frontal impacts, fit larger engines, ESP/anti-lock brakes and other gadgetry etc. The pillars have increased protection when it rolls and overall stiffness. The boxiness has been reduced to reduce drag and boost fuel economy.




Welcome to the Nanny state
By GruntboyX on 12/8/2010 1:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously.... 300 children a year, and we are going to annoy everyone and increase the cost of vehicles because of 300 children?

More children die of other causes, such as choking on a toy or drowning in the bath tub. If we were to draw a pareto chart of how children are fatally injured, death by a backup vehicle would be really small.

Call me a cruel hearted bastard, but I really dont give a damn about the 300 children that die of death by a reversed vehicle. We have more statistically relevant issues to be solving.

I am so sick of loosing my personal liberties, because someone wants the illusion of being safe. If we could colonize the moon, I would be one of the first settlers to hop on that mayflower and get the hell out of here.




All the people
By solarrocker on 12/3/10, Rating: -1
"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki