|
dissss posted:Its just the (somewhat awkward looking) Peugeot front - standard across all their recent models Hey, uh, dude? You got something in your nose, dude. It's just, like, hanging out.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
gi- posted:When will the nanny state stop? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/business/us-rule-set-for-cameras-at-cars-rear.html When the people stop falling for cheap ploys to get votes and start demanding real solutions to actual problems Didn't they just mandate stability control that can't be turned off on all new cars starting in 2013?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
We just had a discussion in the car picture thread about SUV bumper height -> high beltlines -> poor visibility -> mandatory cameras at cost to the consumer
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
Gotta buy a full size 7,000lb 7-passenger SUV to keep my babies safe, and since it's so big I don't have to watch where I'm going anymore! Certainly not when I'm backing out of my driveway. Also, The NY God drat Times posted:SUV's Seriously? redgubbinz fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 09:47
|
|
|
I get the stability control thing because hey, that's lifesaving tech without an easy substitute for most people. You can make arguments for stricter licensing requirements and people learning better car control, but let's face it, this is AMERICA god drat it and people got a right to drive whatever they want whenever they want and all of those ideas are D.o.A. Stability control is also not that expensive to implement. The backup camera thing is retarded. It basically came about, if I remember correctly, because some congress person backed over their kid and killed them. How is it this difficult to both check the area around the vehicle before getting in and then to loving crane ya neck around to look backwards? High beltlines aren't just due to SUV bumper heights, there's also a significant component of improved side impact protection standards which require a higher steel/glass ratio for an enclosure, regardless of impact height.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 13:41
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Hey now, that front end is 95% indistinguishable from a Mazda 3. Don't you forget it. They look really different in the flesh. The Peugeot RC is much closer to a TT in overall shape than the Mazda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
Personally I think the RC is much nicer looking that the TT (personal opinion) but it's French so welp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Brigdh posted:When the people stop falling for cheap ploys to get votes and start demanding real solutions to actual problems It's actually not a terrible idea, I've almost been backed into by a few SUVs because the rooftop of my S2000 barely comes up to the glass line on most newer SUVs. There's been a few cases where it's just a moron who doesn't check their mirrors but there are a few that legit just could not see poo poo and had a hard time judging where my car is. Of course now there will be people who will hit poo poo because they only use the camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The backup camera thing is retarded. It basically came about, if I remember correctly, because some congress person backed over their kid and killed them. How is it this difficult to both check the area around the vehicle before getting in and then to loving crane ya neck around to look backwards? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I get the stability control thing because hey, that's lifesaving tech without an easy substitute for most people. You can make arguments for stricter licensing requirements and people learning better car control, but let's face it, this is AMERICA god drat it and people got a right to drive whatever they want whenever they want and all of those ideas are D.o.A. Stability control is also not that expensive to implement. It's not just because this is America and people have a right to drive, it's because it's American and you have to drive to get anywhere unless you're lucky enough to live in a major metro area with decent public transportation. Once the ability to drive isn't an economic necessity for 90% of the American populace then we can start legislating stricter license requirements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Just due to America's population distribution that's a fairly ridiculous goal. It's one I support, but it's not going to happen. Edit: even here in the Greater Washington DC Area which has comparatively robust public transit infrastructure people are still driving a lot
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Ineptus Mechanicus posted:Gotta buy a full size 7,000lb 7-passenger SUV to keep my baby safe, and since it's so big I don't have to watch where I'm going anymore! Fixed for the all too common case. People feel that they can't be safe unless they drive the biggest thing on the road so you get people that can barely drive a small car piloting a Suburban to carry their one kid and their "stuff." I do just fine with my kid in my STI and my wife's Vibe. We can take us two, our two dogs, the boy, and all of our stuff for the weekend in either of our cars with no problem so it's not that people really need the space. I agree with the post above saying we should have varying licenses for the larger SUVs and trucks because they are harder to drive and putting just any driver behind the wheel becomes a danger to those of us who don't drive huge vehicles. I'm constantly dodging SUVs and trucks on the road that are oblivious to my presence and at least I have the sense and ability to get out of the way. I understand the need of people to drive in this country due to our lack of public transportation, but a small car up to Mazda5 size would satisfy that need for the vast majority of the population and if they really need a truck then they could get licensed for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Brigdh posted:When the people stop falling for cheap ploys to get votes and start demanding real solutions to actual problems So, the article states, "For the 2012 model year, 45 percent of vehicles offer a rearview camera as standard equipment, according to the automotive research Web site Edmunds.com. It is an optional feature on 23 percent of models." So these cameras have been standard on almost half of new vehicles for half a year. Google says that 13.3 million vehicles were sold in the US in 2011. With over 3 million cars with backup cameras on them on the road already (not even counting the pre-2012MY cars that had them), you have to ask: so why aren't they already touting impressive data showing the huge decrease in rearward visibility-mediated accidents?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
I wonder what % of those reversing accidents occur in vehicles with rear cameras installed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:So these cameras have been standard on almost half of new vehicles for half a year. Google says that 13.3 million vehicles were sold in the US in 2011. With over 3 million cars with backup cameras on them on the road already (not even counting the pre-2012MY cars that had them), you have to ask: so why aren't they already touting impressive data showing the huge decrease in rearward visibility-mediated accidents?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:So, the article states, "For the 2012 model year, 45 percent of vehicles offer a rearview camera as standard equipment, according to the automotive research Web site Edmunds.com. It is an optional feature on 23 percent of models." I get your point but that's still only like 2% of the total US car parc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:So, the article states, "For the 2012 model year, 45 percent of vehicles offer a rearview camera as standard equipment, according to the automotive research Web site Edmunds.com. It is an optional feature on 23 percent of models." Because you're introducing it into a pool of 150+ millions vehicles that dont have them and deaths/injuries aren't gauged year by year but over a long time. In a 20 year period airbags and seat bets have massively reduced the number of death/injuries per mile but the overall number still remains pretty consistent. Year to year can be a fluke, 10 years is a trend. Muffinpox fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
I nearly got backed into by an SUV because they couldn't get into my building's parking garage (whoever was supposed to buzz them in wasn't there, I guess) and they decided to back up the incline. In turn, I nearly backed into a guy that was jogging behind my car because I freaked out and hit reverse as soon as I saw the SUV start moving toward me. But I noticed him and stopped thanks to my rear-view camera. Should I have looked behind me? Of course, but I was in a panic reflex. I should've just laid on the horn and then safely backed onto the street to let the guy out. Safety equipment isn't always about dealing with normal circumstances, it's often about salvaging a situation where someone's already hosed up. Really, of all the laws to complain about, I just don't understand why you'd take issue with this one. Better visibility is a win for everyone, and we have the technology to do it relatively inexpensively compared to the price of a new car. If you don't like it, don't look at the camera image. PT6A fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
My suggestion would be to make cars you can see out of in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
High beltlines and cars with built in DVD players makes make wonder if the current generation of kids will grow up and have no clue how to drive anywhere. It must suck being stuck in the back unable to look out and actually see anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Really, of all the laws to complain about, I just don't understand why you'd take issue with this one. Better visibility is a win for everyone, and we have the technology to do it relatively inexpensively compared to the price of a new car. If you don't like it, don't look at the camera image. Problem is, the backup camera requires an in-dash LCD. I specifically don't get cars with navigation systems so I don't have a big ugly LCD sitting in the middle of the dash. I guess they are an inevitability, though. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Problem is, the backup camera requires an in-dash LCD. I specifically don't get cars with navigation systems so I don't have a big ugly LCD sitting in the middle of the dash. I guess they are an inevitability, though. No it doesn't. They are starting to put hidden LCDs in rearview mirrors now. When it's not on, it's invisible, but when it's on it shows through. There was an example in the source article.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Problem is, the backup camera requires an in-dash LCD. I specifically don't get cars with navigation systems so I don't have a big ugly LCD sitting in the middle of the dash. I guess they are an inevitability, though. Cars are starting to go towards hidden/popup screens for this reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7P1IZUIO9g&t=11s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKhp6SlGbf4&t=27s
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
sanchez posted:High beltlines and cars with built in DVD players makes make wonder if the current generation of kids will grow up and have no clue how to drive anywhere. It must suck being stuck in the back unable to look out and actually see anything. Automakers already complain that the millennial generation isn't buying and that they care more about their cellphones than driving. I guess they're right because driving for most people terrible and tedious; getting stuck in traffic, going to walmart and getting hosed at the dealer when buying or servicing a car. Not to mention that anything having to do with cars (roads, highways, gas stations etc) is dirty, ugly and depressing. My personal conspiracy theory is that the high beltlines and seats, coffin interior, angry face front ends and GPS DVD Twitter distractions of new cars are partly there to shut out the surroundings because they're so cluttered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
MATLAB 1988 posted:Automakers already complain that the millennial generation isn't buying and that they care more about their cellphones than driving. I guess they're right because driving for most people terrible and tedious; getting stuck in traffic, going to walmart and getting hosed at the dealer when buying or servicing a car. Not to mention that anything having to do with cars (roads, highways, gas stations etc) is dirty, ugly and depressing. The tedium is in large part due to low speed limits, IMHO. Crawl along at 55mph, and it's tempting as hell to try to do something else to stay sane. On the other hand, someone driving 150 is going to be giving 100% full attention to driving, and not screwing around with their phone. That driver will only spend 1/3 as much time on the road, reducing congestion in the process. *And* gets home sooner, and it thus able to spend even more time on their phone/whatever than if they'd have tried to do it while driving in traffic. Automakers would sell tons more cars, too, as people upgrade from their rolling roadblocks to cars able to cut their commute time in half. It's win-win all around! grover fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I nearly got backed into by an SUV because they couldn't get into my building's parking garage (whoever was supposed to buzz them in wasn't there, I guess) and they decided to back up the incline. In turn, I nearly backed into a guy that was jogging behind my car because I freaked out and hit reverse as soon as I saw the SUV start moving toward me. But I noticed him and stopped thanks to my rear-view camera. Should I have looked behind me? Of course, but I was in a panic reflex. I should've just laid on the horn and then safely backed onto the street to let the guy out. Safety equipment isn't always about dealing with normal circumstances, it's often about salvaging a situation where someone's already hosed up. Because in most places, you are supposed to actually turn your head around and look out the rear of your car when backing up and not use your review mirror, except thats what a significant portion of the population does. Now you will be encouraging them to look at their dash or review mirror. I admit I've only seen one rear view camera in person and a handful on tv/the internet, but they are not wide angle cameras. They only show you what is immediately behind you, which is only a small part of what you should be seeing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Brigdh posted:I admit I've only seen one rear view camera in person and a handful on tv/the internet, but they are not wide angle cameras. They only show you what is immediately behind you, which is only a small part of what you should be seeing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
grover posted:It's a shame there's no way for car-to-car communications to tell someone to STOP TEXTING BEFORE YOU KILL SOMEONE, JESUS CHRIST!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:It's not too hard to find a CB with an external speaker output...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
grover posted:Is it legal to shine a laser pointer on their phone and wag it around as a reminder?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:About as legal as rolling down your window and firing a flare gun at them. Flare guns are for signalling hazards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
grover posted:It's a shame there's no way for car-to-car communications to tell someone to STOP TEXTING BEFORE YOU KILL SOMEONE, JESUS CHRIST! The double-edged sword of somethingawful is you often can't tell when someones taking the piss but the following part I have to point out regardless: quote:On the other hand, someone driving 150 is going to be giving 100% full attention to driving, and not screwing around with their phone. I wish this were true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Brigdh posted:I admit I've only seen one rear view camera in person and a handful on tv/the internet, but they are not wide angle cameras. They only show you what is immediately behind you, which is only a small part of what you should be seeing. The Infiniti G37's is wide angle and shows a little template for where the car will go on the current steering input. Nissan's big SUVs can have four cameras showing both behind you and a fake overhead view.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:The Infiniti G37's is wide angle and shows a little template for where the car will go on the current steering input. This is becoming a sort of defacto industry standard I think. It seems like it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:This is becoming a sort of defacto industry standard I think. It seems like it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
A Mazda rotary hybrid sounds like a pretty good idea on paper. A sporty one could even work, given the light weight of the ICE and the way that the high torque electric motor and the free-revving rotary engine would balance each other out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Brigdh posted:Because in most places, you are supposed to actually turn your head around and look out the rear of your car when backing up and not use your review mirror, except thats what a significant portion of the population does. Now you will be encouraging them to look at their dash or review mirror. Yes, and I agree that in the situation I gave, I should've turned checked my blind spots and turned my head and looked out the rear window. Like I said, I panicked, and I did a stupid thing that, thanks to my rear-view camera, didn't cause me to back into a jogger. Under ordinary circumstances, I do turn my head, and only use my backup camera to judge distance when backing into a parking spot or parallel parking. I think we are all in agreement that it is no replacement for a car with proper visibility and looking behind you properly, if for no other reason than it can get completely covered in poo poo during the winter, so you can't rely on it in all circumstances. HOWEVER, it can save your rear end if/when you're already in the process of doing a stupid thing, and it's not intrusive -- as others have mentioned, it can be displayed in the corner of your rear-view mirror (as it is in my car), and it's invisible when not on. It also saved my rear end when I accidentally pushed down on the gearshift when I stopped at a light, because it indicated that I'd shifted into R instead of 1st (yes, I was a moron, and it hasn't happened since). So, there's no reason not to have it, and every reason to have it. As worrisome as the nanny-state instinct is, I can't really argue with the logic behind this regulation. EDIT: And it will only take a semi-aware driver a little while to figure out that it's much easier to look out the rear window than to view a tiny camera image. I also haven't seen anyone mention the possibility that one's rear window is partially or fully blocked by cargo or people, in which case the rear-view camera affords you greater visibility. PT6A fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
I loving hate children. Here's a video of the BMW tri-turbo system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95vQpR2jMcQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So, there's no reason not to have it, and every reason to have it. As worrisome as the nanny-state instinct is, I can't really argue with the logic behind this regulation. How can you say there are no reasons to not have it, when you didn't even attempt to think of reasons to not have it? Let's say it becomes a legal responsibility to have a rear view camera with display. Does your car then need to be 25 years old to avoid it, like emission laws in California? How long is this technology expected to last without the need for repair? Do you have to get it inspected every 2 years, and repair it if it doesn't pass, or it's deemed non-road worthy? Is it legal to remove? Do you make it illegal to remove? Do you have to pay to have it calibrated every so often? Does it need an automated wiper blade when it rains so your vision isn't obstructed? Are all citizens going to pay extra DMV fees to regulate and maintain this? How does this affect the bottom 25% of the population that have trouble keeping their cars mechanically working, let alone electronically? If the camera malfunctions and you unknowingly rely on false information, whose fault is it in an accident? Honestly, it's reasoning like yours that our country is so hosed, because we have decision makers that believe they are making good choices, without analyzing the whole picture. Look, I'm not here to say rear-view cameras are bad, or any other safety feature that has or will come out in the future is bad. Rear-view cameras are an amazing realization of digital imagery and should be applauded for being implemented in the auto industry. I'm just saying that mandating a relatively NEW technology is not a good idea. This isn't the same as seat belts where it is accessible to everyone, cheap to implement, and has a proven outcome on lives saved. When rear-view cameras are as reliable, effectual, and as cheap as other major safety features, then I would consider consider them in American law. In the end, I believe there are a lot more pressing safety matters than cameras in cars. Cell phones, DVD players, shops that provide illegal tints, cars on the road that are safety hazards themselves, actual drivers, etc. If you want to spend tax dollars on making roads safer, make driving tests and behind the wheel tests more stringent. In the spirit of the thread, is it kosher to talk about what we would like to see in new cars and vehicles? I can see vehicle computers being the next big computer boom. With the efficiency that computers have achieved today, realtime monitoring of virtually all components could be achievable in the near future. I'd love to see real time, real information, from my car, from the factory. Modern screens that give you all the information you need to take care of your car. They will tell you whats wrong, what parts are needed, tools needed, the average repair cost in a range, closest mechanic, your wife's grocery list, etc. Loan Dusty Road fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I loving hate children. Hashal posted:In the spirit of the thread, is it kosher to talk about what we would like to see in new cars and vehicles? I can see vehicle computers being the next big computer boom. With the efficiency that computers have achieved today, realtime monitoring of virtually all components could be achievable in the near future. I'd love to see real time, real information, from my car, from the factory. Modern screens that give you all the information you need to take care of your car. They will tell you whats wrong, what parts are needed, tools needed, the average repair cost in a range, closest mechanic, your wife's grocery list, etc. grover fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 14:13
|
|