Rear-View Cameras On Cars Could Become Mandatory In the US 754
According to the Los Angeles Times, "The federal government wants automakers to install back-up cameras in all new vehicles starting in late 2014. The plan, announced Friday, received a strong endorsement from insurance industry and other analysts and is likely to get some level of support from car manufacturers. ... The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that, on average, 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries occur each year as a result of back-over crashes. The agency said children and the elderly were the most common victims. About 44% of the fatalities in such accidents are children and 33% are people over 70, it said. NHTSA said its proposal was designed to keep drivers from running over pedestrians who might be crossing behind their vehicles. It could also prevent parking-lot bumper thumpers. The camera systems show motorists what's behind them via a video display on the dashboard. They typically feature a bell or alarm that alerts the driver if an object is within the camera's field of view."
remarkable (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes this mirror is illegal in the us:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=drivers-med-rearview-mirror-sans-bl-2009-01-19 [scientificamerican.com]
Tailgating and bird-watching (Score:5, Interesting)
I can think of one good use for rear-view cameras... dealing with tailgaters! Imagine being able to record some video of some primo dickbag in his BMW X5, angrily following five feet behind you at 50mph because you aren't willing to go significantly above the speed limit for him. The computer's technology can measure how far away the other car is and overlay it on the screen. Then, hit a button on your dashboard, it sends the video (with a capture of his license plate, if he's got one) off to the police and they mail him a ticket. If enough people catch the same person doing it, fuck'im, take his license away and force him to take the bus.
On a more cheerful note, there is another use that Jeremy Clarkson recently suggested on Top Gear -- looking at pretty girls in the car behind you while sitting at a traffic light. Lech-o-matic!
Re:Super (Score:5, Interesting)
What I want is radar or sonar with a HUD on my windshield that shows me a 2D representation of everything around me relative to my location. If there's a kid behind the car, it would show up as a blob behind the vehicle. If there's a car in your blind spot, it would show up as a blob off the back corner of your car. And so on. Such a system, unlike a camera, would make normal driving safer instead of just focusing on a single (and relatively rare) aspect of driving. The only hard part is deciding what is ground clutter and what is something important.
Re:The Russians used a pencil (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm getting old too, but it seems like oncoming headlights have gotten way too bright when I'm driving.
In addition, I've noticed that some newer HID headlights seem to be more focused, which can make a car behind you going over speed bumps / potholes appear to be flashing its brights at you (with a more diffuse beam, this isn't an issue). This can certainly be distracting, especially driving an old car (when someone could very well be flashing their lights at you to let you know you've lost your running lights / your engine's billowing smoke / etc.).
Re:remarkable (Score:4, Interesting)
Not directly related. But the point is: the government wants to mandate an expensive, error-prone device to eliminate a tiny percentage of accidents, and at the same time they're not allowing a cheap and simple device that could have a much bigger impact.
I don't buy the "distortion" argument. If that was such a problem, why do they have convex mirrors on the passenger side?
Re:Super (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Tailgating and bird-watching (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not much of a speeder either, but I'm also not a dick. Get the fuck out of people's way.
Re:remarkable (Score:5, Interesting)
Not directly related. But the point is: the government wants to mandate an expensive, error-prone device to eliminate a tiny percentage of accidents, and at the same time they're not allowing a cheap and simple device that could have a much bigger impact.
They aren't specifically "not allowing" the mirror AC linked to, they are not allowing non-flat mirrors due to distortion. This mirror didn't exist at the time the laws were being written and may very well be worthy of updating the law for.
I don't buy the "distortion" argument. If that was such a problem, why do they have convex mirrors on the passenger side?
Passenger side mirrors aren't even mandatory. The driver can generally get by just fine without them due to the ease of seeing out the windows on that side. The driver's side is much more difficult and error-prone. It's completely rational and consistent with the goals of safety to disallow non-flat mirrors on the driver's side, while allowing them on the passenger's side.
Consider the phrase "objects in mirror may be closer than they appear" for a moment. Now apply that to the driver's side mirror which is used to determine whether or not it's safe to change lanes to the left. Having objects appear further than they really are is clearly something that should be at the top of the list of things such mirrors must not do.
Re:remarkable (Score:5, Interesting)
... and this 'solution' puts the camera screen in the dashboard - the opposite direction your head should be facing when you are backing up.
Yea, this is going to make a big difference. Instead, people will look at the camera - gaining a clear rear-view, but losing the rear-side quarters instead...
Re:The Russians used a pencil (Score:4, Interesting)
Home Theater in the dash is illegal. Video viewable from the drivers seat is illegal.
Rear view camera would probably be enabled only when you back up. That is how mine works anyway. The rest of the time, the display functions as my radio controls and/or my GPS. And the GPS controls are also not usable while driving. There is an override, so a passenger can use it, but the key sequence of the override is so complicated only a passenger could possibly enter it correctly.
I wonder how many accidents will be caused by lost people traveling alone with no easy/safe place to pull over, who attempt to enter the override code while driving anyways?
For a hypothetical (yes, yes...I know) example, would a single mother, new to L.A. and lost in a bad area, stop to use the GPS while chatting with the group of bored gang members standing around nearby looking for entertainment, or try to override it to get out of there rather than risking passing the same gang's corner again?
I wonder if the driver in this example could be successful in a lawsuit if she were to stop to use the GPS and then be attacked? Would it get a quick and silent settlement? Would/should she get a ticket regardless of the circumstances, and even if no harm occurred at all (she didn't wreck or swerve, and didn't stop to get attacked, but got pulled over)?
Strat