Make Reversing Cameras Compulsory on all new vehicles. - Page 3

pottery beige · 29-09-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimka100

We all know that adding reverse sensors, decent colour screens, and rear cameras on all cars is going to make them more expensive, so having that in mind here is the question:

Person A has kids and they want safety for their kids.

Person B does NOT have kids, they DON’T want to pay for features they have no use for, frankly Person B thinks that Person A must to take care of their kids and there are Persons A issue.

Why does person B need to pay for child safety features when they don’t have kids? If Person A is serious about their child’s safety then they will buy a car with the appropriate safety features they require! Getting others to pay for it too is wrong …

i am person B... i do NOT need your bloody camera as i have situational awareness skills and such will not squash kiddies..... your cat better be on the ball though....

geckoGT · 29-09-2011, 02:27 PM

Let's keep on topic please. The next to mention cruelty to animals will receive an off topic warning.

**Dave R** · 29-09-2011, 02:37 PM

Compulsory on all new vehicles is completely over the top. That said, I think all large vehicles should have them. I drive one of two FGs day to day- one with reverse camera and one without.. the difference is significant. I never used to think much of cameras but now after having one, I would never buy a large car again that doesn't have one fitted.

eaglem · 29-09-2011, 02:47 PM

Another thing that can work in conjunction with a reversing camera or sensors is the reversing globe that beeps when reverse is selected. They are relatively cheap (bought one from Malz in Perth for $5.95 and I think Super Cheap sell them as well. They are loud enough to give warning to anyone behind the car.

graham7773 · 29-09-2011, 02:50 PM

What he^ said...When I went for my HR truck a few years ago, I passed first time out. The tester told me that if I had tried to look back instead of using my mirrors, he would have failed me on the spot. Just by the way, I hear heaps of people referring (correctly) to the bigger 4x4s as trucks. Some of them weigh 3 and more tonnes, heavier than some smaller trucks. IMO, people who own anything heavier than 1800kgs 4x4 or not, should have to qualify for a higher class of licence by doing a course.

**redxm** · 29-09-2011, 04:24 PM

We have had blinkers & mirrors as standard equipment on cars for years. People still dont know how to use them. One more bit of tech in the car will lead to a false sense of security

prydey · 29-09-2011, 04:41 PM

i'm amazed that there are people older than 40-50 in this world. how on earth did they manage to survive without all this technology to save them!!

the mind boggles.

gtxb67 · 29-09-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

i'm amazed that there are people older than 40-50 in this world. how on earth did they manage to survive without all this technology to save them!!

the mind boggles.

common sense - the human race was actually evolving for a while

**Giant Cranium** · 29-09-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

It's not about cameras - it's about stupid parents not knowing where their kids are. Why would you reverse when there's a 2 year old or 3 year old around the car - they should be in the car, or in the house. We have 2 x 8 year olds and 1 x 6 year old, and they really have little sense around the car, so when we are moving it, they are either in it, or well clear of it where we can see them.

mate of mine had a old 1 tonner and nearly ran over a toddler. was working on the parents house and then hoped in his ute and it wasnt till he started to move that he saw a kids head. found out that the kid was sitting on the tow bar. a reverse camera would have helped then

fmc351 · 29-09-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redxm

We have had blinkers & mirrors as standard equipment on cars for years. People still dont know how to use them. One more bit of tech in the car will lead to a false sense of security

You could argue that there is no basis for assuming the new tech would make matters worse by that same logic. The use of mirrors did not dumb down drivers or increase the number of accidents.

Maybe automatics are to blame.

irish2 · 29-09-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain awesome

mate of mine had a old 1 tonner and nearly ran over a toddler. was working on the parents house and then hoped in his ute and it wasnt till he started to move that he saw a kids head. found out that the kid was sitting on the tow bar. a reverse camera would have helped then

How so? He spotted the kid and prevented a problem by using his eyes.

Franco Cozzo · 29-09-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottery beige

cameras do not see all.. and possibly make the lazy even lazier these new fandangled people movers and their ground clearance can make them really cool things to hide or climb under.. nothing on the screen hit R for racing.... good idea but no substitute keeping an actual eye on the little buggers.....

The reverse camera we fit to our ambulances is useless I reckon, well the paramedics who drive them still manage to smash the rear step and reverse sensors with it all the time regardless of their reverse camera, reverse sensors and the reverse buzzer which goes spastic when you get close to something.

Its very hard to judge distances with reverse cameras, and 99% of them are on some crappy low resolution china special screen which makes it even harder because you can't see crap over the interferrance or low quality video.

The VE SV6 Commodore we have at work has a reverse camera, luckily it has markings, which are supposed to tell you how far you are away from an object (probably state what they are in the manual), but it won't tell you about their towbar or other low lying objects the sensors won't pick up which you can't really make out because of the crappy screen/camera combo.

aussie muscle · 29-09-2011, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

it seems to me that in most, if not all cases that having started reversing at the road, the view behind would be so much better. even if a child ran out of the house while reversing, the driver would be able to see them - providing they were looking

of course, this supposes that drivers can actually back into a driveway. i'm sure most can't.

i'm pretty good at backing with mirrors, because you can't see much out back of a XR8 with a bulge hard tonneau cover. that and we have reverse-in (rear to kerb) parking, so you soon learn how to back up.

i guess this idea will eventually get up, i mean how would you feel having killed your own child. i can't imagine what that's like.

**Jastel** · 29-09-2011, 07:51 PM

I am not a fan of "compulsory" anything by the goverment, there is far too much "Big Brother" in our lives already.

The technology will filter down slowly like everything else has. And then when it doesn't work at roadworthy time we can all just say, "But you can use the mirrors!"....NOT.

There are no such things as accidents, there are mistakes, and they may or may not have consequences.

geckoGT · 29-09-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

The reverse camera we fit to our ambulances is useless I reckon, well the paramedics who drive them still manage to smash the rear step and reverse sensors with it all the time regardless of their reverse camera, reverse sensors and the reverse buzzer which goes spastic when you get close to something.

Its very hard to judge distances with reverse cameras, and 99% of them are on some crappy low resolution china special screen which makes it even harder because you can't see crap over the interferrance or low quality video.

The VE SV6 Commodore we have at work has a reverse camera, luckily it has markings, which are supposed to tell you how far you are away from an object (probably state what they are in the manual), but it won't tell you about their towbar or other low lying objects the sensors won't pick up which you can't really make out because of the crappy screen/camera combo.

The cameras we have on our new cars are high resolution colour screens with clarity almost as good as my iphone4 and distance graduations marked in metres.

The reverse sensors on the other hand are a complete load of crap that malfunction so much that we no longer take any notice of them. Most of the time they will go nuts as if you are about to hit something when you are reversing on flat ground with no obstructions.

When looking at the number of ambulances with damage to rear step, consider the environment in which we work. Often tight driveways at night with all sorts of retaining walls, fences, post etc whilst we have some urgency to get going and in an area that was designed for turning a 4.5m car, not a 7+m ambulance.

Keepleft · 29-09-2011, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eaglem

Another thing that can work in conjunction with a reversing camera or sensors is the reversing globe that beeps when reverse is selected. They are relatively cheap (bought one from Malz in Perth for $5.95 and I think Super Cheap sell them as well. They are loud enough to give warning to anyone behind the car.

Agreed, fitted these to a car or two over time, when the car product warrants it.

Sure, people look around trying to find a truck lol. But the idea is at least they then see you. Something I guess. I expect the Global Technical Regulations folk at the UN will have a working party looking at this, it'd then flow on to the market as a standard requirment rah rah.

zdcol71 · 29-09-2011, 08:24 PM

Of topic somewhat. It's funny how peoples perceptions and thinking is so radically different across various topics.
There was a thread a while back around workplace health and safety legislation, and it seemed like the majority was all in favour of how ridiculosly protected we had become and how stupid HSE legislation was.
Most of the work places I am involved with now mandate reversing sensors/warning beepers on all vehicles, and also require all vehicle movements to be directed by "spotters". None of these vehicles is mandated to have reversing cameras in them. The decrease in workplace injuries attributed to vehicles seems to indicate that 2 possible ways to avoid these tragedies is to a) let people know you are reversing, and more importantly b) have a bloody good look !!

Keepleft · 29-09-2011, 08:28 PM

zdcole71 - Probably to reduce compensation payout liability.... mutter mutter..... :-)

**Silver Ghia** · 29-09-2011, 08:30 PM

I'm still trying to think why a reversing camera is so much better than the Ford factory integrated reverse sensors with graphics that I have in my XR50. I can still look over both shoulders while reversing keeping a good lookout for anything coming along from the sides and behind, and the beeping sounds are still there just in case something happens to be behind me. The sensors work perfectly each time.

zdcol71 · 29-09-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

zdcole71 - Probably to reduce compensation payout liability.... mutter mutter..... :-)

Hence I only alluded to the reduction in workplace vehicle related injuries, not insurance claims arising from same.

JC · 29-09-2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polyal

Also if people just use the camera then that does not solve the issue of a kids running behind the car...the dont run directly from the rear.....

Camera's are crap. Full stop. If you need them to park then I would suggest that sensors are good enough, they come in handy if you have a funny shape boot etc.

EDIT: for the above, Vans and trucks etc are different. But for SUV, sedans...come on.

I have a camera on the SUV (2 in fact), and one on the sedan, and they are bloody fantastic. We have a longish driveway that I reverse down each night (around 30 metres long??) and while I can do it perfectly well without the camera, the camera gives me better vision than either craning my neck around, or looking in the mirrors. Truth be told, I use all 3 to park my car. First I use the camera to check wide & long view to ensure no bikes or kids are in the way, then turn around and reverse down, then as I get close to the wall I park against, I use the rear mirror, camera view to ensure still no kids, and side mirror for gap to the wall.

I'm not against fitting cameras (my car's are proof of that - 2 cars with 3 reversing cameras between them) - what I am against is the suggestion that we need to legislate against carelessness, irresponsibility, negligence, a moment of accidental forgetfulness or whatever you want to call it. Might the camera have saved the 3 yo from the BMW SUV? Perhaps, but who says it didn't already have one and just wasn't being used by the driver?

creative · 29-09-2011, 09:20 PM

my boss has one of these on his lexus and I also think all new cars should have this technology as standard.

Whilst its all very well having these safety features on cars the biggest problem is humans... and this needs to be stamped out at learning time.

I am currently trying to teach the missus to drive. I told her very early on that she will have professional lessons and not just me teaching her. Whilst I try my best I have my bad habits and I dont want her to pick them up.

I believe that all learners MUST be taught by a professional instructor. Non of this family, sisters, aunts, boyfriend of the family teaching. The only way you get L plates on a car is through an instructor!

JC · 29-09-2011, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loftie

JC - I'm amazed that is your opinion on this discussion given that you are a parent. of multiple young kids... Despite how well you try to teach kids, as you would well know - they are blissfully unaware of how dangerous some simple situations can be.

I have 4 kids under 7, and can think of a number of situations where this could happen... For instance, times where I am in the car alone or with 1-2 of my kids, and the others are still inside the house (with my wife).... Then without me knowing as I concentrate on reversing, my 2 1/2 year old (who is very resourceful) has managed to open the front door, and run beside the car (which I wouldn't see anyway with a camera) and then behind it...

These accidents (which are accidents) most likely happen when the driver is unaware that the kids are right next to - or behind the vehicle. It's almost always an SUV or 4x4 - not a sedan - that is involved with these accidents. Obviously it is the higher driving position/reduced visibility that causes the accident to occur.

I think suggesting reverse cameras to be compulsory is a knee-jerk reaction.... but it does have some merit... Though in some cases, I'm sure that even a reverse camera may not have avoided the accident anyway. As I pointed out, my 2 1/2 year old would not be seen out of the windows of my Territory if he was standing beside, infront, or behind it... If he was to run beside the car, and then behind it - reverse camera or not, I probably still wouldn't have seen him until it was too late.

I think you can NEVER be too careful with kids... and teaching them strict rules inside and outside a car is very important... And I would hate to be in the same situation as some of these families who have lost their young child...

But just remember - Accidents do happen...

Sorry, but why are you amazed that I think parents ought to be responsible? Can't expect the kids to be, so it is the parent's role.

I have cameras on my cars to be able to see better - they are an aid in addition to the normal head checks and usage of mirrors. We have had 2 SUVs in the last 5 years (before that mostly sedans) and we wouldn't have an SUV without a camera - in fact my after seeing our setup, brother put one on his focus because the rear visibility is so poor.

I actually agree that cameras are good - what I disagree with is all these laws designed to legislate because of the stupidity of others. Pretty soon they'll make it illegal to trip down the stairs, with mandatory jail time for a toe stub, or 3 months home detention for dislocating a finger while trying to catch a cricket ball. How stupid do those things sound? About as stupid as mandating cameras for stupid people, IMO. Is it unfortunate that a kid was killed by being reversed over by his mother? Absolutely! Should the mother be allowed to hold a licence? Probably not. Does the father that was apparently playing ball with the son feel bad? Probably. But had he had more sense, he would've held the kid while the mother was reversing.

Just on the last bit, if I see someone get into a Holden, a camry or a subaru in a carpark, I seriously tell my kids to steer more clear of the car than they normally would.

imugli · 30-09-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

Might the camera have saved the 3 yo from the BMW SUV? Perhaps, but who says it didn't already have one and just wasn't being used by the driver?

The Police woman who attended the scene and spoke with reporters said it didn't have one.

Smoke Pursuit · 30-09-2011, 09:25 AM

If not they should all have reverse sensors standard...

Cars like the Mazda CX-7 are a joke to see out of and at one stage had neither reverse sensors or a camera, not sure if they have them now.

All my falcon utes in the last 4 years have had reverse cameras because they are so long and hard to see out of (especially with a hardcover / spoiler).

imugli · 30-09-2011, 09:25 AM

Thanks for your comments guys (& and girls),

As I said, I'm not normally one for Govt. intervention on many (any)thing, but see this as one occasion where Govt. interference would have no significantnegative impact on people's lives and their ability to make decisions for themselves, yet has the potential to have a great positive impact.

If you do agree with the idea, please take the time to sign the petition via the link in the first post.

Whitey-AMG · 30-09-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imugli

Thanks for your comments guys (& and girls),

As I said, I'm not normally one for Govt. intervention on many (any)thing, but see this as one occasion where Govt. interference would have no significantnegative impact on people's lives and their ability to make decisions for themselves, yet has the potential to have a great positive impact.

If you do agree with the idea, please take the time to sign the petition via the link in the first post.

A Noble cause no doubt.....but forgive me please for asking ? You don't have any business interests in reverse camera installations or the like ?

Not intended to offend / aggravate or belittle your cause.....just a genuine query. Not many people go to the effort of managing petitions unless there is some personal impact to them for the said issue at hand..........

Either way - keep us updated on what happens ?

2011G6E · 30-09-2011, 11:34 AM

I would make a sweeping generalisation that people who say "why don't they watch thier kids?", generally don't have kids themselves...or they've been extremely lucky and not had a close call...yet...

The latest one that happened, the police said the poor mother did everything right...she watched her two kids walk off up the footpath with her husband before moving the car, but it appears the kid raced back down the footpath to chase a ball. If you have kids around the 2 to 3 age bracket, you will know that they have the reflexes and acceleration of a cheetah. One second they're in a "safe spot", and the next they're in danger.

I just bought a set of reversing sensors in a kit from China off Ebay...$16 with free postage. Any manufacturer that claims they would blow out the cost of a car by a huge amount is talking out thier fundamental orifice. Cameras aren't much dearer, thought a little harder to fit.

All four wheel drives and SUV's should have a camera fitted as standard, all cars should have reversing sensors as standard and a camera available at low extra cost.

This is probably the one time I won't scoff if someone says "Please think of the children"...

BlueFG2 · 30-09-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaniSS

Have you guys seen the way people reverse these days? They look forwards and use the reverse mirror and side mirrors to go backwards. How can you reverse safely while you are facing the front of the car?

I turn my whole body around almost 180degrees, put my left arm around the passengers seat and look right out the back window and use my right hand to manoeuvre the car as I reverse. I have never had any problems or hit anything in my life while using this method.

next time i drive the ranger i'll give it a shot, despite there always being a full load of tools in the back making the rear window impossible to see out of.

imugli · 30-09-2011, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ESP

A Noble cause no doubt.....but forgive me please for asking ? You don't have any business interests in reverse camera installations or the like ?

Not intended to offend / aggravate or belittle your cause.....just a genuine query. Not many people go to the effort of managing petitions unless there is some personal impact to them for the said issue at hand..........

Either way - keep us updated on what happens ?

Hey Mate,

No offence taken, and happy to state for the record that I have no involvement whatsoever with reverse camera installations, sales or manufacturing.

Reason I've started it is simply because, as I say, I cannot always control what my kids are doing at other peoples' houses. I know what I do when my ignition is turned on, but not what others do. I don't know what I would do if I lost my boy (as I'm sure all parents here can attest to). For mine, I agree that Governments should stay out of peoples' lives as much as possible. There are some things though, that aren't "Nanny state" laws (they don't preclude you from making a decision regarding the way you choose to lead your life), that I feel go beyond the "protecting the stupid from themselves". I see this as potentially "protecting my boy from the stupid".