alt Hacker NewsIt is crazy how many things are downstream of the structural issue where US regulations favor ginormous SUVs and pickups where this is a problem, but if we introduced legislation to fix this we would end up ruining US automakers which have pivoted almost entirely to this segment alone
Replies
It's not just ginormous SUVs with this problem, though, right? You're not going to see a 18 month old out the back window of your compact hatchback if they're too close to your car. Especially now that windows seem to be tinier than they used to.
This has nothing to do with SUVs. A 3 year old is difficult to see behind ANY vehicle.
Personally I don't own a huge SUV, but I feel backup cameras are a godsend. You're so much better off looking from the point of the actual back of the car to judge the distance to the car parked behind you.
The perk of not having to twist your body around while steerins is also pretty nice.
Someone in another thread unironically called a midsized SUV a "matchbox". The vehicle in question has a size comparable to a Toyota 4Runner.
Was a great example of the ridiculous expectations some of us Americans have on ridiculously huge vehicles.
deaths from people backing up over their kids predated "ginormous SUVs".
Wait until you hear what kind of vehicles the CAFE regulatory framework has incentivized US automakers to build.
It wouldn’t be HN without a commenter shoehorning the topic of a thread into proof of their pet problem. See also any topic even remotely tangential to city planning.
While I agree with you that the issue is far worse with larger vehicles, I do find that backing up in my wife's 2011 camry (without a backup camera) feels significantly less safe than I feel backing up my 2017 accord with a backup camera. I'm all for fixing the structural issue you are referring to, but I think the requirement for those cameras is sane in an age where the added cost to the manufacturer is miniscule.