I just backed over my kid, it must be the cars fault!

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
Yes, I'll have to find that other guy in the US in 2008 with the slogan "Yes we can". :rolleyes:

Try to play politics all you want, but anyone who doesn't have it in for a specific political party can see that both major parties have a hand in this. Republicans and Democrats, doing stupid things together.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,870
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
"Yes, it can be done" is not quite the same as "Yes, we can".
Building a CPU can be done, however we can't build a CPU because we are no specialists. Or, to put it in American union context, building cars properly can be done yet it does not mean they can build cars properyly.
In SoCal, the UFW supporters did use "Yes, We Can" on English signs, as did many local candidates. The UFW official signs could always be distinguished by their literal translations.

Yes, I'll have to find that other guy in the US in 2008 with the slogan "Yes we can". :rolleyes:

Try to play politics all you want, but anyone who doesn't have it in for a specific political party can see that both major parties have a hand in this. Republicans and Democrats, doing stupid things together.
I believe I mentioned that they could be found in both parties. There's just more of them in the Democratic Party, and specifically, the wing of the Democratic Party running the House, Senate and now the White House.
 
Last edited:

DubyaStep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
2,944
Location
Tampa, Florida but now in Casselberry for school
Car(s)
Ford Thundercougarfalconbird
lets just eliminate drive-thru's and the distracted eating/drinking while driving issue will be solved. think about it, the "fat voters" that seem to cause the issue to begin with are just to lazy to get out of thier car and go inside. if food wont come to thier car window then they just wont leave the house, they will stay close to thier food! the problem this will create however is then they will sue people because they feel they deserve the right to be able to get fat from thier car windows and they will be offended or even say that its dicrimination or something then pour hot coffee in their lap and ect.... i love this country...
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,870
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Forgot one:

And Spectre - that "motorcycle" hurts my head. Wow. Just wow.
Would it surprise you to know that the woman who came up with that idiocy served on the board of the Consumer's Union, publishers of Consumers' Reports through 2008, as well as being president of Nader's Public Citizen outfit?

She is also responsible for the "Objects In Mirror" warning on every passenger-side rearview mirror, among other idiocies such as the mouse-motor automatic seatbelt/garrote, and worse.


Edit: Here's some additional supporting evidence of "Yes, We Can" being used prior to the 2008 Presidential elections. Last line of the brief.
 
Last edited:

rickhamilton620

has a fetish for terrible cars
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
16,750
Location
Yoe, PA
Car(s)
2012 Kia Forte EX
To be fair, today's swoopy coupe like designs with really high trunklids and tiny rear windows can make it an absolute bitch to see anything close to the car's rear when reversing: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/12/2010-best-and-worst-vehicle-blind-zones-and-role-of-rearview-cameras.html


It is hilariously ironic that the Suzuki Aerio did horribly in the blind spot test, I don't know which model they tested but if it was the hatch then that's even worse.

Yes, I'm all for the whole personal responsibility thing, but shit happens. I think that parking sensors are a more cost effective alternative than the camera, plus it'll still force (sort of) people to physically look behind while reversing, unlike the camera which will probably cause many to fixate on the screen 100% of the time, instead of doing the proper combination of both physically turning to look and then turning back to glance at the display as a guide.

The mirror mount systems that manufacturers install on lower end models w/out navigation seem to be a better idea than the "in-dash" design, although they scream "cost-reduced" in terms of appearance.
 
Last edited:

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,118
Location
Germany
Car(s)
1979 Opel Kadett | 1972 Ford Country Sedan
As I said before, I was mocking Democrat/leftist voters. "Yes we can" didn't originate with the Obama Presidential campaign, you know. :p
It's Bob the Builders catchphrase, too.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,452
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I think that's funny, I have little problem figuring out whats behind my car. The part I have trouble with is not scraping my rims on the curb :p Rear view cameras are not hugely expensive but I agree with a simple sensor idea. I drove a friend's 550 that had one and it was very nice and helpful, its also a good way to train you to feel where the car ends since you can correlate sensor data (he had a thing that went green/yellow/red) with what you are seeing.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,220
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
:+1: on the sensors. The Octavia has DIY sensors with a display in the back, so you can turn your head and have a look at the display to get more info than just beeps. Most built-in sensors or cameras have their display in the satnav/DVD screen in the center console :no:
 

Mr. Nice

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
2,436
There are some cars being made today that you can't see out of the front of very well, let alone the back. All the safety measures for roll-over collisions has caused there to be less area for actually viewing the world outside of the car. This applies to safety measures added for rear-end collisions as well. There really have always been cars with styling issues that caused them to have blind spots, though now the number of cars with poor lines of sight has increased because of high trunk lids and thick pillars.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,870
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
There are some cars being made today that you can't see out of the front of very well, let alone the back. All the safety measures for roll-over collisions has caused there to be less area for actually viewing the world outside of the car. This applies to safety measures added for rear-end collisions as well. There really have always been cars with styling issues that caused them to have blind spots, though now the number of cars with poor lines of sight has increased because of high trunk lids and thick pillars.
So, you're claiming that regulations have made problems worse and not better? :p
 

Mitlov

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
1,374
Location
Medford, Oregon, USA
Car(s)
2011 Civic Si, 2002 SV650
Let's get away from the politics for a moment. Is this actually such a bad thing? I don't think it is. I think it's a good thing.

It's not expensive and doesn't compromise driving dynamics

This isn't the backwards motorcycle, which would have destroyed the dynamics of motorcycle riding. This isn't going to add $2,000 to the cost of each car, like others have said. It's more like mandatory LATCH tethers in the back seat. I'd be surprised if it added $100 to the cost of each car, and the weight is inconsequential, and it has no other effect on how the vehicle drives.

All you need is a two inch by three inch screen, a cheap ol' webcam, and a little electric turret like side mirrors use to adjust. That's it. On cars with a "vehicle information display" or some such thing, the screen is already in the car. It's cheap. It's light. It doesn't interfere with driving. Is that really so awful?

It actually does add safety

Somehow, in the past ten years or so, designers decided that visibility doesn't matter. Vehicles got higher, beltlines started to slope up from the front to the rear, and windows turned into gunslits. A vehicle that lets you see a four-year-old walking right behind your vehicle is now arguably the exception, not the rule.

Sure, you shouldn't drive down your driveway without knowing where YOUR kids are. But how about grocery store parking lots? School parking lots? You have to pick up your annoying brother at kindergarten. You strap him into the back seat, get in the car, and start backing up. If his friend comes running over to give him something, and runs behind your vehicle to get over to his door, are you going to see the kid? If you've got a modern 4x4 or a modern sporty car with an upswept window line and/or a big-ass wing, don't count on it.

There are other benefits

This little screen is not going to be black whenever you're not reversing. Manufacturers inevitably will tie it to the stereo. Now, when you plug your mp3 player in, you'll actually have a screen to scroll through tracklists and playlists on.
 

thevictor390

Teen Wankeler
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
11,888
Location
Massachusetts
Car(s)
'17 Mazda MX-5 RF, '89 Toyota Blizzard SX5
There are some cars being made today that you can't see out of the front of very well, let alone the back. All the safety measures for roll-over collisions has caused there to be less area for actually viewing the world outside of the car. This applies to safety measures added for rear-end collisions as well. There really have always been cars with styling issues that caused them to have blind spots, though now the number of cars with poor lines of sight has increased because of high trunk lids and thick pillars.
The best car I've ever driven in visibility-wise is my sister's 4-door Vitara. Unfortunately, it also has paper-thin doors and is terribly prone to rolling over....
 

Mitlov

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
1,374
Location
Medford, Oregon, USA
Car(s)
2011 Civic Si, 2002 SV650
There are some cars being made today that you can't see out of the front of very well, let alone the back. All the safety measures for roll-over collisions has caused there to be less area for actually viewing the world outside of the car. This applies to safety measures added for rear-end collisions as well. There really have always been cars with styling issues that caused them to have blind spots, though now the number of cars with poor lines of sight has increased because of high trunk lids and thick pillars.
So, you're claiming that regulations have made problems worse and not better? :p
Poor visibility is a styling problem, not a result of safety regulations. A Honda Fit has better IIHS crash test ratings than a Chrysler 300, and it's mostly glass, whereas the 300 is the classic "gun slit" design.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,870
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Poor visibility is a styling problem, not a result of safety regulations. A Honda Fit has better IIHS crash test ratings than a Chrysler 300, and it's mostly glass, whereas the 300 is the classic "gun slit" design.
IIHS crash test ratings tend to be a little squirrelly and here's why - they don't rate just on safety but on how much it costs to repair. So, if you crashed a tank into their little barrier and there was no injury to the passengers but you bent a $3000 light bracket, the tank would get a poor rating. This despite the fact that the tank was not materially harmed, nobody was injured, and it demolished their crash barrier.
 

Mitlov

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
1,374
Location
Medford, Oregon, USA
Car(s)
2011 Civic Si, 2002 SV650
IIHS crash test ratings tend to be a little squirrelly and here's why - they don't rate just on safety but on how much it costs to repair. So, if you crashed a tank into their little barrier and there was no injury to the passengers but you bent a $3000 light bracket, the tank would get a poor rating. This despite the fact that the tank was not materially harmed, nobody was injured, and it demolished their crash barrier.
They test both repair costs and safety, but those are separate tests. I'm looking at the safety ratings. Compare:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=664 (Chrysler 300 side impact test)

Injury measures:

Driver ? Measures taken from the dummy indicate that rib fractures and/or internal organ injuries would be likely in a crash of this severity. A fracture of the pelvis would also be likely, and loading to the shoulder was excessive.

Rear passenger ? Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Head protection:

Driver ? The dummy's head was hit by the intruding barrier. This hit did not produce high head injury measures, but head impacts with intruding objects such as other vehicles, trees, and poles should be prevented.

Rear passenger ? The dummy's head was hit by the pillar behind the rear passenger door. This pillar is required by federal standard to provide some protection for occupants' heads.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1054 (Honda Fit side impact test)

Injury measures:

Driver ? Measures taken from the dummy indicate that a fracture of the pelvis would be possible in a crash of this severity. The risk of significant injuries to other body regions is low.

Rear passenger ? Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Head protection:

Driver ? The dummy's head was protected from being hit by any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a side curtain airbag that deployed from the roof.

Rear passenger ? The dummy's head was protected from being hit by any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a side curtain airbag that deployed from the roof.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,220
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Poor visibility is a styling problem, not a result of safety regulations. A Honda Fit has better IIHS crash test ratings than a Chrysler 300, and it's mostly glass, whereas the 300 is the classic "gun slit" design.
The Fox's rear visibility was horrible compared to the Octavia, yet the Octavia is much safer.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,870
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Then they've just recently started breaking that out, as they used to only provide overall "good, fair, poor," etc. ratings and didn't separate anything.

Also, IIHS doesn't measure rollover damage. And side impact, especially below the beltline, is not mitigated by the structure above the beltline, so I'm not sure how the IIHS tests are relevant to this discussion.

FMVSS216 governs roof crush (i.e., rollover) protection and it continues to be revised upwards in terms of capacity. I haven't read the latest reg (they just upped it again) but prior to it, the requirement was for the vehicle to be able to withstand 1.5 times its own weight on its roof without collapsing. The last time I looked, the new spec was going to be 3 times its own weight. It's one reason why the Crown Vic will be exiting production, they just can't make that behemoth comply with the 3X rule without a complete redesign that no longer makes sense - and it already has some pretty hefty A, B and C pillars. Edit 2: You can, unfortunately, hide an entire CB650 in the blind spot generated by the B-pillars alone.

Edit: And while I'm at it:

Let's get away from the politics for a moment. Is this actually such a bad thing? I don't think it is. I think it's a good thing.

It's not expensive and doesn't compromise driving dynamics

This isn't the backwards motorcycle, which would have destroyed the dynamics of motorcycle riding. This isn't going to add $2,000 to the cost of each car, like others have said. It's more like mandatory LATCH tethers in the back seat. I'd be surprised if it added $100 to the cost of each car, and the weight is inconsequential, and it has no other effect on how the vehicle drives.

All you need is a two inch by three inch screen, a cheap ol' webcam, and a little electric turret like side mirrors use to adjust. That's it. On cars with a "vehicle information display" or some such thing, the screen is already in the car. It's cheap. It's light. It doesn't interfere with driving. Is that really so awful?
[citation needed] - please estimate cost for a 180/180 (remember, it's supposed to be fixed and not movable) camera and a large enough screen for older adults to make out useful information on it. That would be about a 7" or 8" screen, by the way.

Edit 3: And the camera has to be waterproof, weatherproof, UV shielded, 12VDC powered, and oh, yeah, have auto exposure. It will also have to work for at least 5-7 years (warranty) if not more, and in addition it will have to be night vision capable. So a cheap little webcam isn't going to work.

It actually does add safety

Somehow, in the past ten years or so, designers decided that visibility doesn't matter. Vehicles got higher, beltlines started to slope up from the front to the rear, and windows turned into gunslits. A vehicle that lets you see a four-year-old walking right behind your vehicle is now arguably the exception, not the rule.

Sure, you shouldn't drive down your driveway without knowing where YOUR kids are. But how about grocery store parking lots? School parking lots? You have to pick up your annoying brother at kindergarten. You strap him into the back seat, get in the car, and start backing up. If his friend comes running over to give him something, and runs behind your vehicle to get over to his door, are you going to see the kid? If you've got a modern 4x4 or a modern sporty car with an upswept window line and/or a big-ass wing, don't count on it.
Uh... you've NEVER been able to see what's behind and below your beltline in most SUVs. You couldn't in my Wagoneer, you can't in my Pathfinder. In fact, one of the "ran over my kid" lawsuits was someone here in Texas who ran over their (daughter?) with a Pathfinder, then sued Nissan because "it didn't have a camera".

You also couldn't see out the back with many of the large wagons of yesteryear, if you had passengers. And the Chrysler minivans weren't any better.

But only recently does it seem to be a problem....

There are other benefits

This little screen is not going to be black whenever you're not reversing. Manufacturers inevitably will tie it to the stereo. Now, when you plug your mp3 player in, you'll actually have a screen to scroll through tracklists and playlists on.
So now you'll be stuck with whatever crap and unreliable unit they put in instead of being able to easily swap it out for a much better aftermarket unit, or add more features later by the same means. Brilliant! I have this problem NOW with the XJR, and you want everyone else to have to deal with it, great!
 
Last edited:
Top