Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SmashTagLives t1_j6c8m8x wrote

Reply to comment by reid0 in Ford recalls 462,000 SUVs over rearview camera issue by Sorin61

Incorrect. Unless you run over baby night-crawler, or you are backing up through a playground, you have no excuse for terrible, criminally negligent driving.

And if I wasn’t clear, I’m saying that cameras are a good thing. A very important new safety feature.

But if you need a camera to avoid killing children, you shouldn’t be driving at all. It’s situational awareness. It’s knowing the difference between being in a school parking lot, or pulling out from a lone cabin, and everything in between.

Cameras are great, but the people that need them shouldn’t be allowed on the road.

−1

reid0 t1_j6c9rcj wrote

No need to be silly. There are physical limitations to what you can see using your mirrors. Children are famously unpredictable and will, completely without the knowledge of a driver, end up in blind spots. Pets too. That’s irrefutable. If you had no knowledge that there was a child in the area, and said child had found their way behind your vehicle before you started to reverse, and despite your best efforts to check your mirrors you reversed and hit that child, that’s an accident, and not the driver’s fault. Those types of accidents happen, particularly in vehicles with poor visibility, and that’s exactly why those cameras are now mandated.

2

SmashTagLives t1_j6cew2y wrote

I’m not being silly whatsoever. Im saying the deaths you’re talking about are almost certainly all caused by incompetent drivers that have no business owning a car.

And you think cameras are mandated for safety? Now who is being silly. If the auto industry, or the government actually cares about safety, they wouldn’t go to “camera” for it.

They would do things like “maybe cars shouldn’t be allowed to exceed the speed limit by 100 miles an hour” or even “hey, maybe motor bikes shouldn’t be a thing”.

But instead of adding a breathalyzer to every car decades ago, they’ve added cameras to really Make a difference!

I think you need a camera to pull your head out of your ass

1

reid0 t1_j6cgpxo wrote

You are being silly, and escalating your silliness as you go, it would appear.

Accidents without fault happen all the time, including between capable, attentive drivers. Count yourself lucky if you’ve never been involved in one, but the laws of physics apply to us all. Wrong place, wrong time and you’ll be telling a different story.

There are laws to prevent people from going 100 miles over the speed limit. You can have your license revoked for doing so. Motorcyclists are generally required to take additional tests, face tighter restrictions for things like blood alcohol level, and in most places, are required to wear additional safety devices such as helmets. Breathalysers are often mandated for drivers with histories of drunk driving.

But of course, none of that has anything to do with the fact that humans can’t see through cars. That inability was resulting in accidents, which is why reversing cameras were mandated.

> The regulation requires rearview cameras and video displays on new models, a move aimed at preventing accidents in which pedestrians — often children — are run over because a driver can't see them as they back their vehicles.

1

SmashTagLives t1_j6ch7fo wrote

I’m not being silly. And I contend it is you sir, that is becoming sillier.

Extra protective gear? Yeah, a helmet is gonna save a dude going 200 riding a rocket into an F150.

We also have Laws like negligible man slaughter, but we got the cameras anyhow. So why aren’t there breathalyzer in every car? Could it be because booze is taxed? Or because auto companies know people won’t buy a car with one if they can get one without?

If you think cameras have been put in place because the government wants people to be safe, you’re very silly indeed. And if you think that the auto industry cares about human lives over profit, you’re a regular clown.

1

reid0 t1_j6chosz wrote

A camera improves a driver’s visibility of what’s behind their vehicle. That, in itself, improves the capacity of a driver to determine if it’s safe to reverse without hitting something.

You can descend into ever sillier arguments to pretend otherwise but that is a safety feature. It has been mandated, which means all new cars now have a safety feature which they didn’t previously have to have.

Having access to a safety feature does not make you a worse driver.

1

SmashTagLives t1_j6gzahd wrote

That’s what you say. I say I’ve seen different. I say that the screen detracts from the actual skill it takes to be aware of your surroundings. I say that the screen removes you from the visceral Reality of commanding a motor vehicle. I say that if you take a bad driver and give them a camera, they will be equally as bad. But, now they will pass a test easier.

You say it doesn’t, but you really aren’t basing that on anything other than “you think”. It’s not like you are Giving me raw data about the reduction in vehicle fatalities. Only the data of morons running over kids backing out Of their driveway. You really think a camera can help this person? They are the people looking into the camera as they hit the gas instead of the brake.

And you have to admit, I made a point. Those cameras aren’t there because car companies or the government give a shit about people being safe. Because if they did, they would mandate bangs they would make an actual impact

1

reid0 t1_j6h5v4z wrote

The problem is you didn’t make a valid point.

The people who are trying to drive safely make use of the tools available to help them do so. A tool which improves visibility by definition allows those drivers to reduce their chance of having an accident.

And of course, the evidence supports that.

You can keep ranting your conspiracy theories about ulterior motives all you want, but the motive behind the mandating of cameras doesn’t change their effectiveness.

1

SmashTagLives t1_j6h7z7x wrote

“The evidence supports this”...

The evidence supports my point; which is that 50 times a week in the United States, people who shouldn’t be driving any car, no matter how many, or how few cameras it has, have no business driving whatsoever. Do you disagree?

Oh and remember, the ages of the baby road kill is 12-24 months. 12-24 months. I contend this age group supports my baby night crawler theory. Because I’m the father of a three year old. And there weren’t many times he was quick enough to surprise someone with or without a camera in their car. Because they can barely walk.

So it may stand to reason that it’s the parents or elderly family members running over relatives. At BEST it would be a neighbor. I mean how far can a 1-2 year old make it in the time it takes for their caregiver to see them, or the driver to back out of the driveway they LIVE IN.

you are saying “these cameras save lives” and I’m saying “No they don’t, the assholes that need them aren’t even paying attention”

I make a point. Admit it

1

reid0 t1_j6h8ji5 wrote

You can keep waffling but you’re not making a point.

Cameras improve the chances of a careful driver from reversing into something that they otherwise couldn’t have seen without the camera.

That’s a simple, irrefutable truth.

Ensuring that every new vehicle offers that additional safety device allows the driver access to that additional level of accident prevention.

The evidence supports that.

Instead of making up random quotes and then assigning them to me despite me literally never having said them, you’d be better off looking at the research on the matter.

1

SmashTagLives t1_j6h9z7v wrote

I’m quoting the evidence you posted?

And you say it yourself “improve the chances of a careful driver”

I’m saying that the careful driver shouldn’t need a camera to avoid running over a child.

The evidence you posted from that class action lawsuit site, cites this evidence. I’m not “waffling” (unless you’re using that word incorrectly) because I haven’t changed my mind.

I’ve been steadfast in my claim that cameras enable poor drivers in a similar way that automatic parallel parking does. Not in the silly way you think, but in the way that it removes the operator from learning how to be careful actually driving a vehicle. And the more it enables lack of skill and awareness.

You completely ignored my direct questions in my last reply, about the drivers running over their babies, the statistic you sent me, then mocked me for “quoting”. Who are they?

Instead you respond with statistical platitudes and boring verbs that have two different continental definitions.

So I ask again, you think that the babies being killed are gonna be saved by cameras?

Or are you going to try again to poorly slap together a pathetic little jab, vaguely refer me to “the stats” and drop another buzzword to avoid my questions

1

reid0 t1_j6hckak wrote

You didn’t cite anything. If you want to cite something, then cite it. If you want to quote me, then be accurate.

You are not basing your beliefs on evidence. You want me to concede that your unproven beliefs, based on your unscientific personal evaluation and anecdotes is somehow relevant. It’s not relevant. It’s not proven. It’s not measurable. It’s not evidence.

Every study on the subject that I’ve found shows that simply having a reversing camera reduces the likelihood of a hitting something while reversing.

You want to imagine that simply having a camera makes people worse drivers, but that claim is not supported by any evidence. The actual evidence shows the opposite.

If you have some evidence to backup your unfounded claim, then provide it.

1

SmashTagLives t1_j6hd182 wrote

My original point, was that if you need a camera to not kill a child, you should not be driving.

Do you disagree

1

reid0 t1_j6hd9tn wrote

Your original point, and I quote:

>You joke, but I took my test in a VW westfalia camping van. I’m a better, more alert driver for it.

>I admit that cameras are an important safety measure and very helpful. But I contend they don’t make the driver more capable, they make them less capable. They teach the driver to focus on the screen instead of checking all surroundings. The camera should only be a small part of it.

>Source: every single person under the age of 25 I have ever been in a car with.

Your original point is that cameras make people worse drivers. The evidence indicates the opposite is true.

1

SmashTagLives t1_j6hjtih wrote

You’re splitting hairs. You know I meant “cameras enable poor drivers” just as much as I meant that they can indeed make a driver less attentive than they otherwise would be. And again, I’m basing this on how everyone I know drives. Before, and after, and the ones only with cameras.

It is an opinion and a theory, difficult to quantify a metric for.

So now that all of that is settled, answer my question.

1

reid0 t1_j6hl4wu wrote

Ah yes, after being caught trying to ignore the fact that you just lied about your original point, now I’m supposedly splitting hairs. And I’m doing that by speaking to exactly what you claimed and by providing actual research study results to back up my claims, which directly disprove yours.

You can call it a theory, or an opinion, or whatever else you want, but it remains unsupported by facts. And, as mentioned, the facts we have access to indicate that the exact opposite is true.

And you understand that you just randomly claiming that your theory is difficult to measure or prove doesn’t actually make that true, right? It’s not a particularly difficult thing to study or analyse. The thing is, the other related studies have effectively already disproven your theory without requiring a separate, singular study.

1

SmashTagLives t1_j6hqvwl wrote

Dude, just humor me. Answer the question.

1

reid0 t1_j6hr14v wrote

I don’t want to humour you. I want you to stop being silly.

1

SmashTagLives t1_j6huz66 wrote

Stop saying silly and answer the question.

1

reid0 t1_j6hyu7p wrote

Acknowledge that you were, and are still, being silly.

1