Hacker News Reader

Comment by javajosh | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feel strongly anti-screen in the car. I feel so strongly about it that I drive an old car. I want an electric car eventually, and I hope that the automakers start building all cars, including electrics, with fully tactile control surfaces (didn't Honda say they'd eliminate screens in their cars? What happened with that?). It looks less Star-Trek sexy, but it also works 50x better.

You know who gets this? Airplane pilots. They use screens but with a great deal of care.

View on HN

The difference is that cars are mass-produced while airplanes are effectively bespoke.* And everything-on-the-touchscreen is cheaper to manufacture than physical knobs, so saving 25 cents per car matters. Airplanes are much more expensive than cars because they're all basically made by hand, so they can afford to spend more money on a better human interface.

I'm not suggesting touchscreens in cars are "a good thing", but I get the economics.

*Boeing makes around 700 aircraft per year. GM makes that many cars every hour.

Oh I am aware that screens are generally a lot cheaper. Plus you can update them over the air! (OTA updates being another anti-feature I do not want on any vehicle that I own or operate).

Avionics are going touch too:

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/166058

Not to mention the fact that literally every pilot has an iPad mounted in the cockpit for foreflight. Pilots fucking love touchscreens, avionics just change very slowly.

They aren’t removing the screens - they’re removing the touch functionality of the screen.

Screens are vital for safety - how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?

Aeroplane pilots use an absolute ton of screens, front and centre.

> how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?

Turn your head and look behind you.

You have blind spots doing that - that’s how children get run over and why it’s illegal to sell a new car without a screen these days.

I often mow my yard nowhere near a child however my mower is unable to mow in reverse due to some regulations. I'm dissatisfied I'm held to a safety standard which does not apply to my use. Should I be wearing a seatbelt too, because some people fall off? Some burden should fall on parental supervision, rather than x million reverse cameras etc that people don't require.

Not if you move properly. The idea is to know where a car’s blind spots are and to move your head to look around.

It’s tragic how kids get run over, but it’s a tiny amount out of a country of 300 million.

When I had toddlers, I would make sure I could see them in front of the car before I would back out. If I didn’t know where they were, I didn’t back up.

Not a perfect system, of course. But the idea that rear cameras are a necessity is silly.

Wow. I guess I’m really old and remember the days of using the rear view and side mirrors to back up.

No mirror lets you see right behind the back bumper. It’s dangerous.

And yet drivers managed to (mostly) not back into kids for over 100 years, without rear cameras. You walk around the car before you throw it into reverse. The screens fix the "mostly" problem, but they're not a substitute for driving skill.

> managed to (mostly) not back into kids for over 100 years, without rear cameras

They reckon the mandatory backup camera law saves 95 lives a year.

Getting out of the car would save 95 lives, too

> Getting out of the car

Some cars do have remote-control drive features these days, so you can reverse it from outside the car, but that's a super high-end feature (designed for getting in to and out of extremely tight city parking spaces) and relies on the chips that are in shortage, so that's not a solution.

We are but muggles, so I don't think we need to worry about teleporting children appearing in the time it takes you to get back in the car. You know your blind spot is clear and can see where your future blind spot is now.

This is like arguing against seat-belts because you think you can brace yourself sufficiently.

Seat-belts are have basically no downsides. Backup cameras trade back over accidents for accidents involving cross traffic.

Kids also used to stand in the back while being driven around. I certainly did. Not only were there no car seats, there weren't even seatbelts in the back. Putting kids and their toys in the back of a station wagon for a road trip used to be a thing. Everyone mostly made it out alive, and yet we still have laws against all of the above now, everywhere in the world.

I don't really remember it being an endemic issue of people getting run over by backing up cars that had that small blindspot. Could have been an issue of unattended children/pets or tall car/short people, but I think it was more a big convenience boost.

> but I think it was more a big convenience boost

They don't make laws to force cars to add features for convenience.

Laws in what country?

The backup camera? At least the EU and the US.

I guess Skoda was breaking the law when they made the citigo. That didn't even have radar reversing sensors as standard.

Did it come out before the end of 2021? I'm guessing yes. That's when the EU law comes into effect.

Oh, so this law isn't even in force yet? No wonder I'm not aware of it.

Most people are idiots/lazy, and I say that on both sides (walkers and drivers). I see it more as making a robust solution a law, but doesn't necessarily benefit me to the extent that I want a mandated backup in my car personally.

That's a false equivalence - just because it's not an 'endemic' issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I don't see why things getting run over by cars (think of immovable things as well) shouldn't be fixed?

The stats are clear. Back-over accidents are directly correlated with a) large vehicles and b) the high belt-lines and "as close to a truss as we can get away with" body lines that make modern vehicles "safer".

It's now mandated by law that new cars have back-up screens. That's a helpful safety feature, but I fear it's also teaching new drivers that one cannot back up a vehicle without a screen. If such drivers find themselves pulling a trailer, driving a rental truck that has no screen, or driving an ordinary car with a bike rack on the back that obscures the camera's view, they'll suddenly find themselves unable to reverse the vehicle. Don't get dependent on the screens; learn to use the mirrors and swivel your head.

No amount of swivelling your head allows you to see the blind spot right behind you - not using a screen is really dangerous which is why they made them mandatory.

And yet making them mandatory does not mean they will suddenly appear everywhere, so it's still a good idea to have a backup plan (npi).

It sounds to me like you think I'm against backup cameras, but I like them. My concern is that they are not always going to be present and working, so it's still a good idea to learn to safely reverse a vehicle without a camera. Speaking as someone who frequently drives fire trucks, ambulances, and large RVs, it's simply incorrect that it's somehow impossible to safely reverse a vehicle without a camera. Cameras are helpful tools but training and care should still be a driver's #1 safety priority.

> No amount of swivelling your head allows you to see the blind spot right behind you - not using a screen is really dangerous which is why they made them mandatory.

I've worked in the auto Industry for a large part of my life in some form, and even when cameras are installed their are a lot of owners (mainly older) who don't use them.

I can use them or not since I've spent enough time staging cars, so while it's a useful tool to have them it's specious reasoning to think they are an absolute answer to all accidents that happen when you back up. It's just as odd as thinking as somehow cars with auto-dimming headlamps when the turn signals are on are what was necessary for others to see you want to turn--I have no problem seeing this even on motorcycles as I ride and tend to be rather vigilant to these lights just to not get hit. It's akin to thinking that all cars must have a self-parking feature.

Honestly, I place more blame on mobile phones for needless accidents than anything else on the road these days, second only to tired or careless drivers. Both of which I have been guilty of at some point, too.

> how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?

Always-on silicon dioxide transparent amorphous solid with a sublayer of vacuumed deposited silver: a mirror.

You have deadly blind-spots when you rely on mirrors.

Then use your eyes and neck joint to check your blind spots? You'd fail a UK driving test if you relied entirely on your mirror (or camera, for that matter) when reversing.

Unless you have a three-metre articulated neck you are not going to be able to get your head out the car and round the back to see right behind your own car while driving it - I can't believe people aren't aware they have blind spots there? That's how small children get run over.

Why do you think they made backup cameras mandatory? Why do you think they believe they save lives?

Who made them mandatory? When and where? You have other blind spots, too, and manufacturers know that relying on a camera makes drivers neglect their other blind spots - Skoda cars even pop up a toast notification saying "Look around, is it safe to move?" to try and discourage lazy drivers thinking the computer is a replacement for a brain.

But all this feels like a moot point, anyway. I understood the main argument to be advocating the use of physical controls, not the removal of safety sensors and cameras.

> Who made them mandatory?

US, Canada, EU (I think they allow an alternative 'detection system'), possibly others.

I'll be another voice so that it's not just Chris :)

Backover accidents are real. Cameras help a lot. Arguments about "but they are not in all cars" forget that seatbelts, airbags, and ABS were also once in that category.

If you are worried about drivers not being hardcore enough and relying too much on cameras: do you know how to use a choke? What about a crank start? An unsynchronized gearbox?

Your last line reminds me of Dom Toretto. "Granny shifting, not double clutching like you should..."

Yup. I have never driven a car where you have to double-clutch but I know they exist. Most people probably don't even know this and yet are still good drivers. They get out of driving what they want to get out of it. Not everyone has to drive a vintage car to be called a driver.

(And yes, I know, also trucks)

I hope you spend a very, very, long time wearing a next brace as the result of reversing into traffic. It would be fitting. Cameras have blind spots too. They're just different ones.

How do you do that in a perfectly legal street car like a lamborghini aventador?

It's funny, but I wasn't reading authors very closely in this sub-thread, and my general impression was a lot of mirror hate and fear. But then I noticed that it's ALL coming from you, Chris.

TBH I have never heard anyone, not once, talk about mirrors being dangerous or about this even being an issue. Yet to hear you say it our children's blood is running in the street.

Who are you, and why are you pushing this so hard?

> TBH I have never heard anyone, not once, talk about mirrors being dangerous or about this even being an issue.

Then you're under-informed. They introduced laws about requiring backup cameras in multiple countries - I obviously didn't legislate them myself!

https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/car-backup-camera-la...

> 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries are caused every year by backover crashes

No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid these fatal accidents.

People saying they want cars without screens are like people arguing for cars without seatbelts because they find them uncomfortable.

>Then you're under-informed.

Always an excellent (if mis-spelled) rejoinder, if the burden of proof is on you, and you are failing to meet it.

>They literally introduced laws

You've claimed this 5 or 6 times in this sub-thread, and yet I've not seen a single reference or link. Here, you link to "fatherly.com", which I will not visit. Link to something reputable, ideally the law itself, or major news coverage of the law.

>210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries

I know a case is weak when they start quoting absolute numbers at me on national issues. The order-of-magnitude of people in the US is 10^8. 200 dead is close to the noise floor on unlikely death. Literally 1-in-a-million. It's like the number of people that die from snake bites and shark attacks and lightning strikes.

>No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid these fatal accidents.

Here's where you get to the actual danger of what you are saying. Because screens do not come without considerable cost, not just in terms of hardware, but in terms of distraction. Do you think the number of fatalities caused directly or indirectly by screen-use-while-driving will exceed 200? (I would bet it's at 20k right now).

BTW I will carve out an exception - it's probably a good idea to have a dedicated backup screen, as with a 3rd party dashcam you can install yourself. However this is a very different beast than the center console infotainment center that, for that brief moment it becomes vital safety equipment, becomes a massive, constant, deadly liability to the safety of everyone within eyeshot.

> which I will not visit

This is a bizarre reason to refuse to understand something - you can find these laws yourself in seconds, either the original legislation, or references to it in the media, by Googling for them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-required-...

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ189/pdf/PLAW...

> I know a case is weak

Well take it up with the US and EU governments! I didn't write the laws - I'm just telling you what it is and why they introduced it.

You have to follow the law - and have a backup camera and screen in a new car - for other people's safety whether you like it or not! Just like you have to wear your seatbelt.

> I didn't write the laws

Not sure what your angle here is, but you clearly aren't an unbiased commenter. You have gone on and on about how many lives this law has saved, and how dangerous it is to drive without a screen and so on. So yes, I do expect you to make a better case rather than walk around acting as if yours is the foregone conclusion, obvious and right (of course, because it's for the children!)

You still have not responded to my central claim that these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.

My position is supported by the professionals in the US, Canada, and EU who spend their entire working lives studying safety issues and trade-offs and making recommendations for legislation.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811024.pdf

> a statistically significant 28 percent reduction in crashes

You:

> You still have not responded to my central claim that these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.

Them:

> no evidence to support the hypothesis that driver’s backing behavior (i.e. speed and acceleration) was influenced by the presence of absence of an RV system

People said the kind of things that you're saying about seatbelts when they came out - they thought they'd get trapped and didn't want to wear them. At some point you have to listen to the studies not just gut instinct.

You are ignoring my claim.

Let's assume that these screens eliminate 100% of all deaths and accidental injury from backing up.

My point is that does not outweigh the number of deaths that are caused when the screen distracts the driver and causes a crash. This happens frequently, at higher speeds, and with worse consequences. Worse, I bet these crashes are grossly under-reported because no-one is going to admit being distracted by a screen, and so accepting liability.

As for gut instinct, mine has nothing to do with it. I have been in enough close calls with other distracted drivers, and I have seen the PSAs about not driving distracted, to know that it's a 10 kdeath/yr issue, not a 100 death/yr issue.

I'm going to disengage because there's something about this whole interaction that doesn't sit right with me.

> not outweigh the number of deaths that are caused when the screen distracts the driver and causes a crash

You could disable the screens while driving forward or at higher speed if you think that's important for safety. But we shouldn't remove them.

I actually think it's a good idea to leave the screen in for rear/parking, and disable it while driving at higher speed.

And I feel the same for the baseband chip (phone and data), speaker, noise-notification in phones. Yes I'm punishing passengers, waze, etc, but the #1 (observed) danger these days to me, cyclist and pedestrian, is the driver's phone. It's such a problem, I feel we're not being serious about it.

The technical issue is that the center rear view mirror cannot see below the bottom of the rear windshield. And so small children, perhaps on bikes etc, aren't visible in the mirrors.

It it possible to mitigate this by visually checking that blindspot before you get in the car, and keeping aware to make sure nothing sneaks into it while you're getting in? Sure, just like it is also possible to backup with no mirrors whatsoever by getting out of the vehicle and surveying your surroundings.

But on the whole, enough people don't do this that backup accidents are indeed an issue.

What my neck really wants is an auxiliary backup camera that you can stick on a towed trailer.

(Also I'll just chime in here - "screw touchscreens". The damn things should be illegal for any function the driver might need to used while driving. Software defined display screens are fine, but should be fully navigable through straightforwardly-predictable states using directional buttons on the steering wheel)

Take your exaggeration and shove it.

It's not hard to keep track of what is entering and exiting your blind spots so everything is accounted for. This is how every trucker does it.

Yet still 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries are caused every year by backover crashes. We can fix most of those with backup cameras and screens. But people here want to remove those screens.

Leaving aside the extremists, most people here seem to want to remove mostly touchscreens that replaced electro-mechanical under-the-wheel commands. I actually agree with those 'takes'. Completely removing any screen seems some kind of butlerian djihad. Leave the screen, doesn't have to be huge, or to be seen by anyone else than the driver, put it somewhere useful for safety. And make it not flashy, not attention grabbing when driving.

> how do you back-up safely without a screen

The way they’ve been doing it for the past 100 years?

> how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you what’s behind you?

The older style of parking sensors based on ultrasonic sensors which use beeps and a diagram of the car to indicate what’s behind you and how far away is superior to a camera and doesn’t require a screen (could be done with a few LEDs if necessary)

If you have to look at a camera in front of you to back up, you can’t see everything else in the field of vision behind you that’s not covered by the camera. Furthermore screens have much worse resolution and dynamic range than your eyes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com