From 2014 onwards, a lot of cars will have reversing cameras as standard

Owen

Thanks to a new US Directive, any car sold in the States will have to have Backup Cameras as standard, which means unless manufacturers have different specs for the same cars (Which is entirely possible), we could see the same thing ending up in our cars.

Problem is the price of these systems. In a BMW for example, on an e90, to get the display screen necessary for a reverse camera, you have to order up one of the expensive communiciations/entertainment packages. So does that mean in time we'll have to have both the price of the camera, and the package to pay for too?

Course, Renault have it now on their Scenic with the ad on TV featuring the Rabbits from the Wii - which is hilarious. "New Renault Scenic, with a Reversing Camera the Primera had 10 years ago".

Zubeneschamali

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Problem is the price of these systems.

Makers charge silly money for these things as options. If they are designed in as standard, they won't be as expensive. As you say, the Primera had one years ago.

There aren't any cars sold here in US spec anyhow, but I suppose the European safety authorities might take it up.

Absurdum

They should, I have one on mine and it's great!

Atomic Pineapple

Why? Cant people reverse their cars without the need for a camera these days? What benefits does making these standard have?

Seth Brundle

draffodx wrote: »

Why? Cant people reverse their cars without the need for a camera these days? What benefits does making these standard have?

It means that big fat americans won't have to exercise by turning around.
Joking aside, unfortunately people will learn to depend on these and won't turn around when reversing.

Owen

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If they are designed in as standard, they won't be as expensive.

I dunno ... anytime BMW added in additional equipment as standard, the price of the vehicle always went up.

Atomic Pineapple

kbannon wrote: »

Joking aside, unfortunately people will learn to depend on these and won't turn around when reversing.

That would be my concern too, and it would be my opinion that people should be able to reverse perfectly safely without the need to use a camera, as an optional extra for people who want it I can understand but as a standard piece of equipment I don't get it.

Leonard Hofstadter

I can just see Americans sueing the car companies becasue the reversing camera 'did not see' the car behind or other such rubbish.

While electronics can often be a good thing (I mean who wants to go back to the days of cranking an engine by hand?), this is one of those instances where technology is anything but a good thing.

Driving is an art, and it is not something that can be learned overnight.

Why are people so obsessed with dumbing things down? Are people really that brain-dead these days that they cannot do something as easy as reverse a car? How does allowing the driver to be less vigilant make roads safer and keep up driving standards?

Seth Brundle

I wouldn't ay that it is a bad thing as it may help a driver spot a child.
However, thescreen should be placed on the rear parcel shelf and not on the dashboard.

Joe 90

kbannon wrote: »

It means that big fat americans won't have to exercise by turning around.
Joking aside, unfortunately people will learn to depend on these and won't turn around when reversing.

As far as I can see a lot of people just move their eyeballs between the mirrors when they are reversing.

stimpson

The missus used to have a Primera as a company car and I found the camera to be genuinely fantastic. You could reverse to within a centimeter of what was behing you with no effort whatsoever. And for those of us who have chronic back/shoulder pain not having to turn around is a godsend. Again, if it saves the life of a child or two even better.

I'm sure the more macho Motors posters will put a bit of insulating tape over the camera to show off their reversing skills.

langdang

stimpson wrote: »

Again, if it saves the life of a child or two even better.

Never mind the chisellers, tis the Joe Duffys of the world we need to protect

Tea 1000

I'd rather see infrared forward cameras being standard instead. People insist on speeding in fog and pedestrians insist on wearing dark clothes, so we may as well look for other fixes to those problems instead of trying to keep telling them.

stimpson

langdang wrote: »

Never mind the chisellers, tis the Joe Duffys of the world we need to protect

If I saw Duffy in my rearview camera my foot would "accidentally" slip off the clutch. Repeatedly.

Max_Damage

Reversing cameras make lazy and bad drivers.

They are handy on a truck, but definitely not necessary on a car.

stimpson

Max_Damage wrote: »

Reversing cameras make lazy and bad drivers.

How so? If you have better visibility of whats behind the car that can only be a good thing.

Guy:Incognito

stimpson wrote: »

How so? .

The more things added to cars over the years , thats the type of attitude you see from some people.

Sure look at the amount of rubbish spouted in any thread related to automatics. At this stage I'm starting to think automatic cars are responsible for the world economy, kids poor upbringing these days and the catholic church.

Max_Damage

stimpson wrote: »

How so? If you have better visibility of whats behind the car that can only be a good thing.

It's easier to gawk at a screen than learn to use your mirrors correctly. People will become over-reliant on it.

Absurdum

Max_Damage wrote: »

It's easier to gawk at a screen than learn to use your mirrors correctly. People will become over-reliant on it.

Not really. I've been using one for a year and I haven't forgotten what a mirror is, nor have I hit anything.

stimpson

Max_Damage wrote: »

It's easier to gawk at a screen than learn to use your mirrors correctly. People will become over-reliant on it.

It's not used instead of mirrors. It fulfills a different purpose in that it gives far more visibility of whats directly behind you than a rear view mirror.

limklad

draffodx wrote: »

Why? Cant people reverse their cars without the need for a camera these days? What benefits does making these standard have?

Have you seen the More Obnoxious parking Thread?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055438379

limklad

Max_Damage wrote: »

It's easier to gawk at a screen than learn to use your mirrors correctly. People will become over-reliant on it.

Absurdum wrote: »

Not really. I've been using one for a year and I haven't forgotten what a mirror is, nor have I hit anything.

I have to agree with Max Damage on this. If it there then certain lazy people will heavily depend on it. When reversing you meant to use more than mirrors, you are meant to look back in both directions to check blind spots that mirrors do not see.
Rear view camera are a handy accessory to find 2-3 year old kids hiding behind a vehicle that you cannot see from your rear view mirror and are not high enough to see through the rear window. I had one occosion that my next door neighbour kid jump from his parents car to behind mine when I swapped between mirrors to gentle squeeze into the driveway. His Father roar for the kid to get out of the way and to stop jumping in front of cars. His dog is well behaved though after a bit of training. He should train his kid though.
The down side of rear view camera is they do not check objects moving from either side until it is too late.