A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 21st 18, 02:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:


There's isn't a legal requirement for anyone to see everywhere around
a vehical.

wear a blindfold, then tell the cop it's legal.

There's nothing stoping you from wearing a blindfold in a car, provided
your
not driving at the same time, well that's UK law anyway.


the issue is drivers, who need to be able to see everywhere around a
vehicle before proceeding. if they can't see where they're going, they
should not be driving.


No one can see everywhere, our eyes don't have 360 deg. vision and our eyes
have a blind stop and so do cars it;s been know for years. Some car have
greater all round vision.


that's where turning one's head comes into play.
  #12  
Old June 21st 18, 03:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Nevertheless there are always blind spots.

which is why a driver must turn their head.

But what if your head is restricted from turning by a seat belt as after
all
aseat belt isnlt designed to make it easy to turn your head, which is why
in
the UK if you do need to turn your head and the seat belt obstructs you,
you
are allowed to remove it and drive, otherwose there wouldn;t be that
stated
in the UKs highway code.


seat belts do not restrict turning one's head.


They do.


no they don't.

a 5 point harness would restrict movement.

an ordinary seat belt does not, which is one reason why it's not as
effective as a 5 point harness for reducing injuries in a collision.
  #13  
Old June 21st 18, 04:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Nevertheless there are always blind spots.

which is why a driver must turn their head.

But what if your head is restricted from turning by a seat belt as
after
all
aseat belt isnlt designed to make it easy to turn your head, which is
why
in
the UK if you do need to turn your head and the seat belt obstructs
you,
you
are allowed to remove it and drive, otherwose there wouldn;t be that
stated
in the UKs highway code.

seat belts do not restrict turning one's head.

They do.


no they don't.


They do otherwise they wouldn't make a specail case for not wearing them.


they do not. the restriction is when they tension *after* a crash, at
which point it's too late to be turning your head and chances are you
can't anymore because it's broken.

It's like saying smoked glass windscreens have no effect on what you can see.


nothing like that at all.
  #14  
Old June 21st 18, 05:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

On 6/21/2018 9:39 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

There's isn't a legal requirement for anyone to see everywhere around a
vehical.

wear a blindfold, then tell the cop it's legal.

There's nothing stoping you from wearing a blindfold in a car, provided
your not driving at the same time, well that's UK law anyway.

the issue is drivers, who need to be able to see everywhere around a
vehicle before proceeding. if they can't see where they're going, they
should not be driving.

Nevertheless there are always blind spots.

which is why a driver must turn their head.


Or have cameras covering the full rear and sides and display them in a
suitable view on the dash or so. :-)


not as effective nor as safe, for reasons already discussed.

good luck trying to determine depth on small 2d display, or being able
to use it at all if the camera has dirt on it or the lens is cracked.

Simple solution.
Then you wash it or get it fixed. If your license says you must wear
glasses and they break, you get new ones, before you drive. .

--
PeterN
  #15  
Old June 21st 18, 06:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

In article , PeterN
wrote:


Or have cameras covering the full rear and sides and display them in a
suitable view on the dash or so. :-)


not as effective nor as safe, for reasons already discussed.

good luck trying to determine depth on small 2d display, or being able
to use it at all if the camera has dirt on it or the lens is cracked.


Simple solution.
Then you wash it or get it fixed. If your license says you must wear
glasses and they break, you get new ones, before you drive. .


just about everyone does *not* walk around to check the vehicle for any
damage prior to a trip.

people even drive with the check engine light on, where they *know*
something is wrong, unless the performance has been crippled such that
the car is no longer drivable.

you are also apparently unaware that dirt or damage can happen *while*
driving, at which point, the camera is no longer useful and you have to
turn your head.

or are you advocating that the moment a camera gets dirty, perhaps due
to a passing truck splashing mud or slush, a driver must pull over on
the side of the road and call for a tow?

and then there's still the 2d issue, even if no dirt or damage has
occurred.

turning a head is easy, costs nothing and more effective.
  #16  
Old June 21st 18, 09:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

On 2018-06-21 19:08, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Or have cameras covering the full rear and sides and display them in a
suitable view on the dash or so. :-)

not as effective nor as safe, for reasons already discussed.

good luck trying to determine depth on small 2d display, or being able
to use it at all if the camera has dirt on it or the lens is cracked.


Simple solution.
Then you wash it or get it fixed. If your license says you must wear
glasses and they break, you get new ones, before you drive. .


just about everyone does *not* walk around to check the vehicle for any
damage prior to a trip.


No need. There will be a computer doing the checkup. The car will refuse
to start if the check fails.


people even drive with the check engine light on, where they *know*
something is wrong, unless the performance has been crippled such that
the car is no longer drivable.

you are also apparently unaware that dirt or damage can happen *while*
driving, at which point, the camera is no longer useful and you have to
turn your head.


Same as a dirty mirror. And they can have wipers.



--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #17  
Old June 21st 18, 09:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

On 2018-06-21 17:25, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Nevertheless there are always blind spots.

which is why a driver must turn their head.

But what if your head is restricted from turning by a seat belt as
after
all
aseat belt isnlt designed to make it easy to turn your head, which is
why
in
the UK if you do need to turn your head and the seat belt obstructs
you,
you
are allowed to remove it and drive, otherwose there wouldn;t be that
stated
in the UKs highway code.

seat belts do not restrict turning one's head.

They do.

no they don't.


They do otherwise they wouldn't make a specail case for not wearing them.


they do not. the restriction is when they tension *after* a crash, at
which point it's too late to be turning your head and chances are you
can't anymore because it's broken.

It's like saying smoked glass windscreens have no effect on what you can see.


nothing like that at all.


You are wrong.

The code here says that you can remove the seat belt if it obstructs
movement (not only head, but the whole body) while doing slow an
complicated maneuvers.

No matter what you say it is impossible, the law is the law.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #18  
Old June 21st 18, 09:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Or have cameras covering the full rear and sides and display them in a
suitable view on the dash or so. :-)

not as effective nor as safe, for reasons already discussed.

good luck trying to determine depth on small 2d display, or being able
to use it at all if the camera has dirt on it or the lens is cracked.

Simple solution.
Then you wash it or get it fixed. If your license says you must wear
glasses and they break, you get new ones, before you drive. .


just about everyone does *not* walk around to check the vehicle for any
damage prior to a trip.


No need. There will be a computer doing the checkup. The car will refuse
to start if the check fails.


correct, and if any problem does occur, the vehicle will drive itself
to a repair shop rather than pick up a passenger.

people even drive with the check engine light on, where they *know*
something is wrong, unless the performance has been crippled such that
the car is no longer drivable.

you are also apparently unaware that dirt or damage can happen *while*
driving, at which point, the camera is no longer useful and you have to
turn your head.


Same as a dirty mirror. And they can have wipers.


wipers can and do break.
  #19  
Old June 21st 18, 09:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

seat belts do not restrict turning one's head.

They do.

no they don't.

They do otherwise they wouldn't make a specail case for not wearing them.


they do not. the restriction is when they tension *after* a crash, at
which point it's too late to be turning your head and chances are you
can't anymore because it's broken.

It's like saying smoked glass windscreens have no effect on what you can
see.


nothing like that at all.


You are wrong.


nope

The code here says that you can remove the seat belt if it obstructs
movement (not only head, but the whole body) while doing slow an
complicated maneuvers.


so what?

wearing a seat belt does *not* restrict turning one's head to see
what's out the side or back.

if the seat belt in *your* vehicle interferes with normal driving
activity, then it's a safety risk and it should be fixed or replaced.

No matter what you say it is impossible, the law is the law.


it's very possible and i do it every time i drive.
  #20  
Old June 22nd 18, 03:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 4:39:52 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

seat belts do not restrict turning one's head.

They do.

no they don't.

They do otherwise they wouldn't make a specail case for not wearing them.

they do not. the restriction is when they tension *after* a crash, at
which point it's too late to be turning your head and chances are you
can't anymore because it's broken.

It's like saying smoked glass windscreens have no effect on what you can
see.

nothing like that at all.


You are wrong.


nope

The code here says that you can remove the seat belt if it obstructs
movement (not only head, but the whole body) while doing slow an
complicated maneuvers.


so what?


Because regulators often rely quite heavily on actual SCIENCE when
setting up policies & industry safety standards.


wearing a seat belt does *not* restrict turning one's head to see
what's out the side or back.

if the seat belt in *your* vehicle interferes with normal driving
activity, then it's a safety risk and it should be fixed or replaced.


Incorrect, because when the OEM was allowed to sell it, it means
that the assessment of the Government regulators concluded that
it simply wasn't a critical safety issue...no matter how loudly you
try to scream today that it is.


No matter what you say it is impossible, the law is the law.


it's very possible and i do it every time i drive.


If memory serves, when I asked you if your vehicle has a bench seat
(instead of a bucket) ... you never provided a clear response.

So then, what's your response? Still waiting.

Because the topology of the seat DOES make a difference too.

And yeah, a 1969 bench seat that ends 3" below the shoulder
does allow for great visibility over the shoulder and so forth...

....but too bad they're no longer considered safe in accidents.

Restrictions on rearward vision became increasingly evident with
the rise of head restraints built into seats. Even if you could rotate
your head like an owl, you merely end up staring at your headrest.

If I get a chance next week, I'll take some photos in the headrests in
one of my cars to show how this is indeed quite a significantly factor.

Then you can try to claim that the photos are a lie. /S

Plus I've sat in some street legal seats where the depth & support of the
bucket's topology precluded full natural rotation of the head too. At that
point, one does need to rise in the seat (and against the seatbelt) to try
to get one's head out of the "pocket".



-hh
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars PeterN[_7_] Digital Photography 0 June 7th 18 04:49 PM
Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars android Digital Photography 50 May 29th 18 12:10 PM
Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars newshound Digital Photography 4 May 17th 18 06:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.