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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars
On 6/21/2018 10:17 PM, -hh wrote:
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 You missed the point that non inertia-reel seat belts were around when many of the laws were enacted, and some are likely still on the road at this time. The laws need to take a myriad of configurations in to account. Laws are seldom updated in a timely manner. -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars
In article , -hh
wrote: 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. 'regulators' are motivated by money from lobbyists, and not just for vehicles either, plus they can be bought for cheap. the 'science' are biased 'studies' which are paid for by vested interests so that the results are what they want and 'prove' their product or industry is the solution. if the 'regulators' were interested in safety, they'd mandate stringent driver training and testing, which would save *far* more lives, and not just while in reverse either. backup cameras don't do anything for forward motion, which is the normal direction vehicles move. unfortunately, if they did require driver training, the usual lobby groups would object. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...20160617-snap- story.html Despite the growing prevalence of back-up cameras, federal data shows that this*technology hasn't significantly*cut down on cars backing into people and causing them harm.* .... Indeed, NHTSA will mandate back-up cameras in all passenger vehicles by 2018, a move it estimates will save between 58 and 69 lives each year once every car on the road has one. And*that process could take a while. 58-69 lives per year out of ~35,000 is noise. to put that into perspective, roughly 100 people are killed every *day* in automobile related fatalities in the usa alone, much more if you include the rest of the world. another example are anti-lock brakes, which were supposed to save lives by preventing skids and crashes. it turns out that they don't have a tangible benefit, and in some ways, they're worse: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811182 ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash involvements. The observed net effects are a 1- percent reduction of fatal crashes for passenger cars and a 1-percent increase for LTVs. Neither is statistically significant. But ABS is not without effect. Run-off-road crashes significantly increase while collisions with pedestrians are significantly reduced, as are collisions with other vehicles on wet roads. However, the mix of these collision types among fatal crashes is such that the added harm and the benefits cancel each other. 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. seat belts do *not* interfere with the ability to turn and look out side or rear windows. anyone who cannot see out of their vehicle on all sides, for whatever reason, should not be driving until the issue preventing it is resolved. 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. it's irrelevant what type of seats are in the cars i drive nor does it matter since the type of seat does not affect the ability to turn and look out the rear and side windows. you are grasping at straws. So then, what's your response? Still waiting. Because the topology of the seat DOES make a difference too. no it doesn't. And yeah, a 1969 bench seat that ends 3" below the shoulder does allow for great visibility over the shoulder and so forth... there aren't very many 1969 vehicles on the road anymore nor does a seat need to be below shoulder level to see over it. ...but too bad they're no longer considered safe in accidents. in some ways, older vehicles are safer due to their greater mass than the typical car today. a '60s era car will fare a *lot* better in a collision with a modern econobox, plus since it's not unibody, it would not be totaled. in any event, the issue is not about 50 year old cars. 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 a car has headrests that blocks the view out of any window, then it's a poorly designed vehicle. *that* is what should be regulated. the solution is *not* to add a camera, but to redesign the vehicle so that there is better visibility. except there's no money in that, so it won't happen. the rear window of the amc pacer was designed for visibility, something which 'regulators' could have mandated on all vehicles more than 40 years ago. they did not. http://d37jf9ptvshhdu.cloudfront.net...ntfh_amcpacer- _Read-Only_-xlarge.jpg if safety was important, 'regulators' would never have allowed this: https://dxsdcl7y7vn9x.cloudfront.net...-4F92-93F0-58A E9970C330_3.jpg if you think cameras are the solution, then remove all windows and substitute a 360 degree virtual reality display, which without any glass, the vehicle's structure could be significantly stronger. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars
nospam wrote:
-hh wrote: 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. 'regulators' are motivated by money from lobbyists, and not just for vehicles either, plus they can be bought for cheap. Ad Hominem with zero substantiation. Prove it. the 'science' are biased 'studies' which are paid for by vested interests so that the results are what they want and 'prove' their product or industry is the solution. Ditto. And do make sure that your proving your assertion that this is the generalized mainstream condition and not the exception. (Ie, finding that it happened once is not proof that all studies are thus flawed). if the 'regulators' were interested in safety, they'd mandate stringent driver training and testing, which would save *far* more lives, and not just while in reverse either. backup cameras don't do anything for forward motion, which is the normal direction vehicles move. unfortunately, if they did require driver training, the usual lobby groups would object. Some governmental entities already do ... but training alone doesn’t cut it, if for no other reason than it isn’t as durable (see research on “perishable skills”). http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...20160617-snap- story.html Despite the growing prevalence of back-up cameras, federal data shows that this technology hasn't significantly cut down on cars backing into people and causing them harm. Don’t they have to be deployed first? ... Indeed, NHTSA will mandate back-up cameras in all passenger vehicles by 2018, a move it estimates will save between 58 and 69 lives each year once every car on the road has one. And that process could take a while. 58-69 lives per year out of ~35,000 is noise. Except that your stats are deliberately flawed: there aren’t 35,000 people killed in the USA each year by cars backing up over them: that stat is the total from all modalities. another example are anti-lock brakes, which were supposed to save lives by preventing skids and crashes. it turns out that they don't have a tangible benefit, and in some ways, they're worse: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811182 ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash involvements. The observed net effects are a 1- percent reduction of fatal crashes for passenger cars and a 1-percent increase for LTVs. Neither is statistically significant. But ABS is not without effect. Run-off-road crashes significantly increase while collisions with pedestrians are significantly reduced, as are collisions with other vehicles on wet roads. However, the mix of these collision types among fatal crashes is such that the added harm and the benefits cancel each other. But looking at the data set of fatal accidences for the presence of ABS in of itself be a flawed metric, because the accidents which happened to have been prevented due to ABS aren’t in the dataset you’re looking at. 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. seat belts do *not* interfere with the ability to turn and look out side or rear windows. That doesn’t answer the point made. Try again. anyone who cannot see out of their vehicle on all sides, for whatever reason, should not be driving until the issue preventing it is resolved. So how long ago did you take your own advice and stop driving? Be specific. 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. it's irrelevant what type of seats are in the cars i drive nor does it matter since the type of seat does not affect the ability to turn and look out the rear and side windows. you are grasping at straws. Dodge. It was asked so that we can provide photographic proof of just where your own damn car has blind spots...and you know that. So then, what's your response? Still waiting. Because the topology of the seat DOES make a difference too. no it doesn't. Oh, so you have x-ray vision to see THROUGH car headrests? And yeah, a 1969 bench seat that ends 3" below the shoulder does allow for great visibility over the shoulder and so forth... there aren't very many 1969 vehicles on the road anymore nor does a seat need to be below shoulder level to see over it. But it would partially explain your “I don’t have this problem” claim. ...but too bad they're no longer considered safe in accidents. in some ways, older vehicles are safer due to their greater mass than the typical car today. Wrong, because they lacked the engineering to dissipate energy, which results in a higher peak G impulse on its occupants, which is more deadly. a '60s era car will fare a *lot* better in a collision with a modern econobox, plus since it's not unibody, it would not be totaled. The car may...but not it’s occupants. You’re much more likely to be dead, such as impaled on the pre-breakaway steering wheel column in any event, the issue is not about 50 year old cars. Dodge, because they’re still street legal. 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 a car has headrests that blocks the view out of any window, then it's a poorly designed vehicle. *that* is what should be regulated. Better send your newer-than-50-year-old car to the crusher then. the solution is *not* to add a camera, but to redesign the vehicle so that there is better visibility. Sacrificing compartment integrity, and making the OEM unable to pass current crash safety regulations, resulting in a product he won’t be legally allowed to sell. Well done! except there's no money in that, so it won't happen. Still bitching about a cheap $30 camera...? the rear window of the amc pacer was designed for visibility, something which 'regulators' could have mandated on all vehicles more than 40 years ago. they did not. And the curvature of that glass cost a lot more to make than the little button camera you’re bitching about. if you think cameras are the solution, then remove all windows and substitute a 360 degree virtual reality display, which without any glass, the vehicle's structure could be significantly stronger. I’ll bet you $100 IRL that there will be windowless concepts and/or prototypes before 31 Dec 2021. Are you willing today to commit IRL cash with a third party holder to guarantee this wager offer that there won’t be any? -hh |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 00:40:10 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens 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. Sere http://www.dsource.in/course/basic-e...module-2/visua l-field-and-visual-obstruction or https://tinyurl.com/yabcu3ls "Visual Field and Visual Obstruction" Driver can turn both eyes and head to gain a wider field of view, and moreover can make use of peripheral vision to see objects or movements even without turning eyes. yep, although the translation is not very good. A blind spot is not a place where the driver id not looking. A blind spot is where the driver *CANNOT* see. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Rear back-up cameras mandated in new cars
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:37:17 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , -hh wrote: 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. 'regulators' are motivated by money from lobbyists, and not just for vehicles either, plus they can be bought for cheap. the 'science' are biased 'studies' which are paid for by vested interests so that the results are what they want and 'prove' their product or industry is the solution. if the 'regulators' were interested in safety, they'd mandate stringent driver training and testing, which would save *far* more lives, and not just while in reverse either. backup cameras don't do anything for forward motion, which is the normal direction vehicles move. unfortunately, if they did require driver training, the usual lobby groups would object. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...20160617-snap- story.html Despite the growing prevalence of back-up cameras, federal data shows that this*technology hasn't significantly*cut down on cars backing into people and causing them harm.* ... Indeed, NHTSA will mandate back-up cameras in all passenger vehicles by 2018, a move it estimates will save between 58 and 69 lives each year once every car on the road has one. And*that process could take a while. 58-69 lives per year out of ~35,000 is noise. But most of them will be small kids and you know the emotional loading which goes with doing anything to small kids. to put that into perspective, roughly 100 people are killed every *day* in automobile related fatalities in the usa alone, much more if you include the rest of the world. another example are anti-lock brakes, which were supposed to save lives by preventing skids and crashes. it turns out that they don't have a tangible benefit, and in some ways, they're worse: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811182 ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash involvements. The observed net effects are a 1- percent reduction of fatal crashes for passenger cars and a 1-percent increase for LTVs. Neither is statistically significant. But ABS is not without effect. Run-off-road crashes significantly increase while collisions with pedestrians are significantly reduced, as are collisions with other vehicles on wet roads. However, the mix of these collision types among fatal crashes is such that the added harm and the benefits cancel each other. 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. seat belts do *not* interfere with the ability to turn and look out side or rear windows. anyone who cannot see out of their vehicle on all sides, for whatever reason, should not be driving until the issue preventing it is resolved. 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. it's irrelevant what type of seats are in the cars i drive nor does it matter since the type of seat does not affect the ability to turn and look out the rear and side windows. you are grasping at straws. So then, what's your response? Still waiting. Because the topology of the seat DOES make a difference too. no it doesn't. And yeah, a 1969 bench seat that ends 3" below the shoulder does allow for great visibility over the shoulder and so forth... there aren't very many 1969 vehicles on the road anymore nor does a seat need to be below shoulder level to see over it. ...but too bad they're no longer considered safe in accidents. in some ways, older vehicles are safer due to their greater mass than the typical car today. a '60s era car will fare a *lot* better in a collision with a modern econobox, plus since it's not unibody, it would not be totaled. in any event, the issue is not about 50 year old cars. 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 a car has headrests that blocks the view out of any window, then it's a poorly designed vehicle. *that* is what should be regulated. the solution is *not* to add a camera, but to redesign the vehicle so that there is better visibility. except there's no money in that, so it won't happen. the rear window of the amc pacer was designed for visibility, something which 'regulators' could have mandated on all vehicles more than 40 years ago. they did not. http://d37jf9ptvshhdu.cloudfront.net...ntfh_amcpacer- _Read-Only_-xlarge.jpg if safety was important, 'regulators' would never have allowed this: https://dxsdcl7y7vn9x.cloudfront.net...-4F92-93F0-58A E9970C330_3.jpg if you think cameras are the solution, then remove all windows and substitute a 360 degree virtual reality display, which without any glass, the vehicle's structure could be significantly stronger. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |