I am specifically talking about things that take over control of the vehicle.
I've had lane assist fight me when trying to move lanes. I apparently wasn't turning the wheel enough and it thought I was drifting (I wasn't).
I've had another hire car refuse to move backwards without me putting it into reverse. It had anti-rollback measures. I didn't know what was going on. All my other cars would rollback (I drive manuals). Now I know technically you shouldn't coast backwards but it was maybe a foot.
> Oh, certainly! But it needn't be exclusive. (And "teach people better" is a lot harder than running a wire to a $30 camera.)
But earlier you were pretending that it was the case. Interesting.
Do you not remember?
> I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.
Are you saying the mandated camera doesn't stop someone from reversing over you or that the hummer doesn't have the camera, but won't kill you because the camera is mandated by law in other vehicles?
So you accept that better driving training would be better.
> If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)
As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they die.
If you implement better driver training. Then newer driver have to do that training. So over the overall minimum standard improves.
A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard. It is a band-aid over a bigger problem.
> Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.
Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.
> Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?
You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk and decided to get a quick jab in at me. That was disingenuous. I don't appreciate it.
> Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?
Driver awareness can be done through other means than re-training.
> If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.
I never said that and obviously don't believe that. Funny how at the start of this reply you were pretending you weren't engaging in that behaviour. I wouldn't bother replying, you won't get another one.
Don't patronise me. You've done it twice now. I find it extremely irritating.
The point being made is that many of these things can be mitigated by better driver training or driver aids which are much simpler & cheaper (I am likely to fit parking sensors in my older cars, kits are cheap).
The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. That for some reason you are other people don't believe can be done at all. This is patently false.
Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!
It does seem everything is over-engineered or under-engineered and cannot be taken apart. The Electrical stuff I mentioned because I was working on it over the weekend.
I had a flippant stupid reply. So they got a stupid flippant response.
Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.
If you have parking sensors it will alert you to something walking behind you anyway.
The point being made is there are way to deal with this without the need for a rear camera.
It isn't unheard of that business will collude with government to "pull the ladder up behind them". I've worked in companies where that has been their stated strategy.
Deliberately re-framing an argument to force me to accept a conclusion, while misinterpreting what I said is disingenuous.
I've read several of your replies towards me and I can tell that you either unable or unwilling see my point of view. So there is no point in having a discussion with you.