Backup cameras werent introduced because of people bumping bollards, they were introduced because people kept backing over children that weren't visible in the mirrors or turning around.
I know a guy who has one useless arm because his mom backed over him as a kid.
And yet somehow we managed without them for decades.
I’m not saying get rid of them, but making something mandatory just because it hypothetically makes things a bit safer can have unintended consequences, like unaffordablity
But when you keep adding cheap things, the overall product ends up being expensive, and expensive to repair. I’m arguing there should be an option for people who prefer to go without all the modern conveniences.
Yeah we "somehow managed" without a lot of things in the past - seat belts, crumple zones, turn signals, airbags, etc. We also "somehow managed" to back over a lot of children in driveways
"The agency's assessment of available safety data indicates that on average there are 267 fatalities and 15,000 injuries (9,000 of which are NHTSA-estimated incapacitating and non-incapacitating injuries) resulting from backover crashes per year. Of those, 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries are attributable to backover crashes involving light vehicles (passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses) under 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)..."
We mandate these things because the safety value to the driver and everybody around them is worth the cost.
If modern safety features are a real big issue for you, you're always welcome to buy used.
Are there statistics on how many fewer kids were struck in reverse due to the cameras? I’m sure they’re some but the camera doesn’t prevent someone from being careless
And yeah, some innovations are clearly necessary and welcome across the board. My point is that many are not worth pricing people out of transportation or making people struggle just to afford a safe mode of transportation. Keep the cameras if they do make a noticeable difference, but the idea is to make a car that is as bare bones as possible while still being safe and reliable.
A car doesn’t also have to be an elite tech item. It has to work.
They found similar trends among both sets of data, with rates of events per year reduced to approximately a third. The proportion of injuries classified as “severe” decreased by nearly half, and the absolute number of publicly reported fatal cases decreased by 78%.
The average cost of adding a camera to a car with an infotainment system is about $40 and the cost of adding it to a car without that system is about $130.
So it adds about 0.5% to the cost of a $25,000 car.
A 78% reduction in fatal backup incidents on children seems pretty good to me, but I guess it's very troubling that new cars cost a little bit more.
Seems worth it to me and doesn't seem like it is pricing people out of cars.
Okay, that’s totally worth it then. Keep them in for sure, but it’s still possible to cut out most of the technology in a car, underpower the engine (relative to modern standards) and produce an affordable product
Fun fact for those unaware: in the United States, since May 1, 2018, all new cars, SUVs, trucks, crossovers, vans, etc. under 10,000 pounds are required to have a backup camera.
So does that mean that all cars post 2017 also have screens on the center dashboard to show the feed from the camera? Maybe that's a dumb question. I was just thinking that maybe the legal requirement for a screen also contributes to the explosion of all these new functionalities that most people don't even want.
Not necessarily! Some newer models have a dual purpose center rearview mirror where it's normally a mirror, but when you shift into reverse it suddenly becomes the backup camera. It's much more likely that there IS a screen, though the Slate has a small backup screen in the middle of the instrument cluster, as opposed to a screen attached to the "infotainment" area, since it doesn't have an infotainment center. And yes, that means it doesn't have a radio or speakers, though there are options to add speakers.
Backup cameras (and those 360 sensors) are one of the few examples of advancing technology making life better for everyone. Them being required by law is good government at work.
My only problem with back up cameras is manufacturers using at as an excuse to have dogshit blind spots. Mine went out and while I was fixing it, I’m driving a small suv with the blind spots of a fucking box truck
It's amazing that having that camera in no way whatsoever has improved people's ability to reverse park their car.....or make it quicker for them....or to put the car in the middle of the parking space.
I hate the backup camera, most manufacturers kinda half-assed them for a decade and people RELY on them… which means they have no idea how to back up a car.
Mirrors are fine… but I think a backup camera is good, especially for kids.
Newer cars have worse visibility due to increasing crash safety standards, it's much harder to see out of new cars.
But even despite that this argument is stupid. Once you're seated in the car it's impossible to see if a small child or animal is behind your car. I guess you can get in and immediately take off while never taking your eyes off the mirrors but who does that?
All kinds of advances save lives yet also create a complacency that the car will prevent shut feom happening. Safety standards are fine until there are so many we become the ones being controlled. Theres a balance to all of it
If anyone actually cared about safety, remember that the number of children saved per backup camera is absolutely minuscule in comparison to total mortality due to car accidents.
And how can we prevent mortality due to car accidents? Lower speed limits. A slight reduction in speed limits across the board and significantly higher speeding penalties was estimated to save millions of lives.
Why didn't we do it? "Because it wasn't worth the cost."
No one gives a damn about saving lives. Not you. Not the State. Not the manufacturers. Not when it comes at the cost of inconvenience or profit.
Anyone who says a commercial feature is necessary for safety, but doesn't wonder why it's locked behind higher consumer costs needs to be investigated closely for shilling - or for creating policy that is performative-reactive, rather than actually helpful.
tl;dr: They are arguing a very valid point - and in doing so beg the question whether these features are actually necessary - and what hidden costs are associated with them.
Now that I have a backup camera, I sometimes catch myself accidentally looking back to pull out of a space and instantly think, "how the hell did I ever think this was a legitimate view of my surroundings?"
That's a good point. There's a high likelihood that my car has a terrible view of the back specifically because the designers knew that there would be a backup camera.
I always just back in everywhere I go so to get out is always easy and backing in you have a lot of control to get in a tight spot. Not knocking the camera as if I pull in straight I will only use that to get out but I just prefer backing in everywhere.
68
u/Owww_My_Ovaries 9h ago
Maybe a backup camera?