Hacker News Reader

Comment by binarymax | Hacker News Reader

Wow. I guess I’m really old and remember the days of using the rear view and side mirrors to back up.

No mirror lets you see right behind the back bumper. It’s dangerous.

And yet drivers managed to (mostly) not back into kids for over 100 years, without rear cameras. You walk around the car before you throw it into reverse. The screens fix the "mostly" problem, but they're not a substitute for driving skill.

> managed to (mostly) not back into kids for over 100 years, without rear cameras

They reckon the mandatory backup camera law saves 95 lives a year.

Getting out of the car would save 95 lives, too

> Getting out of the car

Some cars do have remote-control drive features these days, so you can reverse it from outside the car, but that's a super high-end feature (designed for getting in to and out of extremely tight city parking spaces) and relies on the chips that are in shortage, so that's not a solution.

We are but muggles, so I don't think we need to worry about teleporting children appearing in the time it takes you to get back in the car. You know your blind spot is clear and can see where your future blind spot is now.

This is like arguing against seat-belts because you think you can brace yourself sufficiently.

Seat-belts are have basically no downsides. Backup cameras trade back over accidents for accidents involving cross traffic.

Kids also used to stand in the back while being driven around. I certainly did. Not only were there no car seats, there weren't even seatbelts in the back. Putting kids and their toys in the back of a station wagon for a road trip used to be a thing. Everyone mostly made it out alive, and yet we still have laws against all of the above now, everywhere in the world.

I don't really remember it being an endemic issue of people getting run over by backing up cars that had that small blindspot. Could have been an issue of unattended children/pets or tall car/short people, but I think it was more a big convenience boost.

> but I think it was more a big convenience boost

They don't make laws to force cars to add features for convenience.

Laws in what country?

The backup camera? At least the EU and the US.

I guess Skoda was breaking the law when they made the citigo. That didn't even have radar reversing sensors as standard.

Did it come out before the end of 2021? I'm guessing yes. That's when the EU law comes into effect.

Oh, so this law isn't even in force yet? No wonder I'm not aware of it.

Most people are idiots/lazy, and I say that on both sides (walkers and drivers). I see it more as making a robust solution a law, but doesn't necessarily benefit me to the extent that I want a mandated backup in my car personally.

That's a false equivalence - just because it's not an 'endemic' issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I don't see why things getting run over by cars (think of immovable things as well) shouldn't be fixed?

The stats are clear. Back-over accidents are directly correlated with a) large vehicles and b) the high belt-lines and "as close to a truss as we can get away with" body lines that make modern vehicles "safer".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com