Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mathel]

Does back-up cam fill the same function as rear-view mirror?

[McTraveller]

The back-up cameras don't replace the rear-view mirror; they augment it. However, the back-up cameras are basically regulatory capture to some companies for lots of cash.  Ostensibly they are to improve rear visibility to eliminate the couple hundred deaths + injuries per year due to backing over people.

Some folks have done the numbers, and the total societal cost is something like $25 million per life saved.  That is, the extra cost per vehicle, times number of vehicles sold per year, divided by accidents prevented, is on the order of $25M.  This is not an effective use of national resources, because the total lifetime cost of an accident^* is far less than $25M; this means as a society we are over-spending to prevent this type of accident.

So the reason the cameras are mandated is a combination of appeal to emotion (because backing over a child or elderly is unquestionably tragic) and rent-seeking.  It's a side effect of "safety at any cost", which is not a sustainable economic choice.

I can't speak to the non-economic aspects, because those are subjective and emotional and it's difficult to form an objective basis for analysis.  "Prevent all deaths and accidents" is a good sound bite, but it's not practical.

Spoiler: * (click to show/hide)

The median production of a person is roughly $60k per year, which even if you multiply as a constant over 50 years (18 to 68), which is only $3M.  So the cost to society is roughly 10x what society would lose to direct loss.

You could argue that the benefit is higher than $3M, because of health care or other resources spent on dealing with accidents instead of doing something else.  I'd counter that the cost is higher than the raw $25M per accident too - because of opportunity cost of all that engineering and materials to make the cameras.

[MrRoboto75]

The real issue is the rest of crash safety requires less and less glass in the cabin, so now without camera aids there's more, and larger, blindspots.

[Lord Shonus]

Dunno. Electric vehicle technology is pretty mature already.  It's not even really that expensive - I mean if they would just sell me a car without all the infotainment, ADAS computers, and other electrical things^* that cost more than their mechanical equivalents, they would be able to get the price down to where I want it.

Also holy crap; average new car purchase transactions in the US are now over $41k!  This is so high that used car prices have gone up apparently 30% in the past year.  In fact it's a weird situation where some used cars (purchased in the last year or two) are now worth more than they were new!

Apparently most of the new car prices are, according to some news articles, due to the public's foolishness: "Another factor lifting the average car price: Car buyers' desire for more expensive trucks and SUVs, rather than less expensive sedans. Consumers also want more expensive features, such as automatic braking and lane departure warnings, which boost prices, too."  These are all things I DO NOT WANT.  Due to the general public demand, though, manufacturers aren't making what I want...  and cars are not really something you can get "to order" if you're middle-class.

The skyrocketing used car prices are not primarily due to current trends in new cars. They are more of a side effect to there not being any new cars in the first place. The computer chip shortage means they cannot make cars fast enough to meet demand.


In any case, consumer trends do explain the drive away from sedans and toward more features, but as much or nore of the blame lies with the automakers. Simply put, the profit margins on a loaded SUV are far higher than those of a basic sedan. So they used trend ata as an excuse to double down on the SUVs.

[Arx]

I once drove a modern fancy SUV. Automatic transmission, button press ignition based on proximity of the key fob, reverse cam, sensors on both the front and the back, automatic headlight control...

I hated every second of it. It was like driving an elephant that was convinced it knew what I wanted better than I did. I could probably get used to the absurd suite of QoL improvements assuming I could convince myself there was no risk of software error, but not only do I hate SUVs from an environmental perspective I just can't imagine driving something that big every day.

I do admittedly normally drive a Chevy Spark which you could park in a particularly large drinking straw, but nonetheless.

[hops]

I feel like it's less appeal to emotion and more appeal to making backing up in parking lots less of a pain in the ass.

[McTraveller]

Right I think backup cameras improve quality of life, but mandating them as a safety feature is a bit concerning.

I also dislike all the new ADAS features; the worst is probably adaptive cruise; I want to know when people in front of me are going slow so I know to pass them; I don't want to slow down to their speed.

Then again, I'm already in a minority because I still drive a manual transmission, which means I have a much higher propensity to be attentive in my driving compared to the average cell-phone user behind the wheel.

[Arx]

Manuals are vastly more common here in South Africa, so I'm used to one as well. I'm sure I'd get used to an automatic, but I find them weird.

Of course RE: attentive driving, I think quoting my instructor says a lot: "of course, the thing to remember is that only two thirds of people on these roads have a license." So any automatic features added to cars here would probably be a net benefit, provided they were affordable...

[Frumple]

Automatic transmission mostly just means one less thing you need to pay attention to, these days. Rode with folks driving manual before and, just... nah. Naaaah. I've never learned to drive stick and have exactly zero intention of ever doing so, heh.

Adaptive cruise does sound like a legitimate nightmare, though. I could see some kind of emergency slowdown thing if you're getting too damn close going too damn fast, but just passive, or whatever? Weird idea.

Auto headlights, though... given the amount of folks I see driving around in pouring rain or otherwise low light conditions with their lights off, that one seems like a good idea. It's really damn clear that either there's a lot of people that forget that one, or just shitheads that don't for whatever reason.

Rear view cameras are definitely a blessing, at least. Somethin' to at least let you know something's in your blind spots is nice, too. Anything to help our shitty visual capabilities deal with the issues involved with driving is good, really. If only they could figure out a way to make headlights not glare so damn badly...

[Arx]

The automatic headlights actually annoyed me because I couldn't be sure they were on all the time I wanted them on, haha. I tend to be much more cautious about that kind of thing than most drivers.

[McTraveller]

Yeah new headlights' color temperature is begging for legislation.  Maybe I'm just getting old, I dunno, but it seems like lights are way more intense than they used to be, even "low beams".  I'm too lazy to look up how headlight intensity has changed over time.

[MrRoboto75]

They ask you which driving aids you want when you buy the car.  Mine has most turned off or at minimum.

[Rolan7]

I once drove a modern fancy SUV. Automatic transmission, button press ignition based on proximity of the key fob, reverse cam, sensors on both the front and the back, automatic headlight control...

I hated every second of it. It was like driving an elephant that was convinced it knew what I wanted better than I did. I could probably get used to the absurd suite of QoL improvements assuming I could convince myself there was no risk of software error, but not only do I hate SUVs from an environmental perspective I just can't imagine driving something that big every day.

I do admittedly normally drive a Chevy Spark which you could park in a particularly large drinking straw, but nonetheless.

This!!
My 2004-ish Toyota hatchback does have automatic headlights though and they're annoying.  I'm not sure they aren't straight-up bugged.  There's an "off" option but it just ignores that and acts like I selected "auto".

Other than that though, it's a super reliable car <3  And when the alternator stopped working, even I was able to replace the part without much instruction!  Not like some cars which require proprietary tools for deliberately hard-to-reach bolts.

Edit:  I guess manual transmission isn't so important these days with gradient shifting, but I'll still miss it when I have to "upgrade".  Hopefully decades from now, I want to keep this car going as long as possible.

[Lord Shonus]

I had to buy a new car last month, because my PT cruiser wouldn't stop burning. It was ludicrously difficult to find a used car in my price range that didn't have something very wrong with it. I don't think the dealerships appreciated me bringing a code-reader with me, but it saved me a lot of hassle.


One of the cars had a most unusual addition, the purpose of which is lost on me. You could push the stick over, and treat your automatic transmission like a manual. Almost caused an accident on the test drive because I didn't know that was a thing.

[Rose]

One of the cars had a most unusual addition, the purpose of which is lost on me. You could push the stick over, and treat your automatic transmission like a manual. Almost caused an accident on the test drive because I didn't know that was a thing.

Mine has that. Pretty sure the only real use is bragging rights, or if you really wanted a manual but all they had was automatic, you could get that and still feel like you're using a manual.

Alternately for racing I guess.