That bus needs to be able to (at least indirectly) reach the brakes so that automatic emergency braking can take their measurements as inputs. And that bus needs to be able to reach the audio system to provide audible feedback to the driver when parking, and also mute the radio. Ergo, you have a bus that reaches both brakes and radio. Now, you might want to prevent the radio firmware from sending data to the brakes over that bus, but physically you have to have a connection between them, as we don't really want to make many separate buses for reasons of complexity, cost and maintenance; moving from a separate end-to-end wire for each specific purpose towards a shared bus was a great improvement.
The data would seem to contradict that statement.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...
As I see it, the issue here is that it's in automakers interest to tie together the safety improvements (which are great and benefit people) with the cost-reduction mechanisms consolidating controls and monitors into a single screen which seem to conflate operation with infotainment and, I would argue, reduce peoples' safety.
This is only tangentially related but different to the repair question, so I modified what I said a bit to reflect I was going off topic.
You want less safety in order to teach some sort of moral lesson to people? Thank god we don't design planes that way, I guess.
When your attention is drawn to a rear camera system you've now ditched that spacial model entirely and have changed to modeling the video game on the screen in front of you. This context switch is -very- expensive to unwind and at least momentarily costs you your awareness of where everything else except the back bumper is in space, and what's in front or to either side of the vehicle.
As far as mirrors go, they aren't to be relied on solely as they do not provide a full picture of the vehicle's surrounds. Checking one's blind spots by turning your head and actually -looking- in your blind spot before merging is a thing. same goes with the rearview.
Hope that clears up your confusion.
I assure you, that was not a nuisance.
The reason they the US mandated backup cameras was due to accidents like this.
They were that common.
from your original point.
> In response to your post however I think we can dispense with the notion that folks backing into parked cars, light posts, etc, represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into. Yeah it says "crash" in the writeup but we're not talking Michael Bay style 8 lanes of exploding cars here.
Given the complete lack of any empathy at all you've shown, I don't expect you to change your mind on this, but please try to consider if we have a way to prevent deaths, then maybe we should try and not just consider a parent backing over their child to "represents anything more than a nuisance to whoever owned the property that got backed into."
I could go on at length about the consequences of trying to play whack-a-mole with human stupidity and how that just breeds stronger idiots. There have been no significant changes to vehicle-related death statistics since the 90s when airbags were mandated, despite significant improvements to crash protection and countless here-let-me-help-you-with-that safety features that have been introduced in the last 30 years. So what do you call it when improving safety doesn't actually improve safety?
USofA exceptionalism?
Road Deaths per 100,000
Year USofA Australia
1990 17.88 13.66
2021 12.89 4.4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
I mean, if you look at the data, you'll very quickly see you're wrong
https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/statistics-data/...
Fatalities have gone only down over teh past 20 years.
Your assertion that car deaths haven't moved is false
A $2 speaker would work just fine. You would still hear it over the radio. If your radio is so loud you couldn't hear it while parking you have bigger problems. A shared bus might be more efficient, but it is not more redundant. I would rather spend $2 on redundancy here.
But do you? Why not have a plain old audio connection that goes to the audio system? It doesn't have to be on the CAN.
* Where's my car? Press the button, get a honk.
* Lock the doors. If they're powered, close themi first.
* Unlock the doors. If they're powered, open them afterward.
* Warm up the car, it's cold outside.
* Cool down the car, it's hot outside.
So that's five buttons on a remote, maximum. None of them require connection to infotainment systems.
* Lock button. Hold it down to get a honk.
* Unlock button. Hold it to get the car started; if the interior temperature of the cabin is outside a set range, warm or cool it appropriately.
Make one button big and round and smooth and bright, and the other one big and square and textured and dark.