Hacker News Reader

Comment by jim-jim-jim | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, I'm not touching EVs until Mazda makes a dumb and cute one with physical buttons and dials.

Mazda is kind of lagging, but there are relatively cheap EVs with physical buttons now. It's not all Tesla-style luxury stuff.

Example: https://www.miniusa.com/model/electric-hardtop.html

They all do seem to have some sort of screen though, sorry.

I think the screen is more or less mandatory because backup cameras are mandatory.

Yep, and touchscreens are vastly better with Android Auto.

I strongly disagree. My biggest issue with the Polestar was its jank android auto interface.

I think I worded that poorly. I meant that Android Auto with a touch screen is much better than Android Auto with buttons.

Some Android Auto setups are bad either way, though, tbh.

What? Why/where are backup cameras mandatory? If you can't drive/park without assistive cameras you shouldn't have a drivers license, period.

the US? Since like 2017 or earlier. They aren’t for parking, they are so people don’t run over toddlers when backing up

The United States for one (new cars only).

Also: the backup camera is very nice. I can survive without one but it is oh so nice. I can hook up a hitch in one go.

I've heard mandatory backup cameras have to do with the rear end collision safety ratings which seem to only be able to be passed by building up the back end of the car leaving a much bigger blind spot when you are backing up.

Backup cameras were required because of a string of tragic “family member backs over own child in driveway” incidents. If it saves one life… and all that is easier to sell if it’s toddlers.

Well, also they're cheap as hell and there's zero reason they shouldn't be in everything.

Frankly I think all cars should come with those birdseye camera systems - it's 4 cameras and makes parallel parking a breeze.

Chicken or egg

The US and Canada since 2018. The EU since 2022 (for new models: existing models get until 2024)[1].

As for why in the US: literally too many kids being killed by their parents in SUVs and trucks [2].

[1] https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/StV/Roadtraffic/...

[2] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/110th-congress...

The auto industry is pushing ever larger SUVs, which often don't even have the sightlines in front of the vehicle to see a kid standing on the sidewalk in front of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...

I feel like the solution to this would be to mandate a certain degree of visibility all around a vehicle. I mean, the backup camera on the vehicle I recently rented became borderline useless after a couple days, because of constant rainy weather ensuring the camera was always completely covered in dirt and mud. The image was like if you took a 160x120 photo and scaled it up and then applied some kind of "splatter dirt" filter on top. I just didn't even use it, because looking out the actual windows (like I always do) was more effective. If a vehicle is designed in such a way to literally not even allow proper visibility, that should exclude its acceptance onto the market.

> If a vehicle is designed in such a way to literally not even allow proper visibility, that should exclude its acceptance onto the market.

I mean, 100% agree on that.

As for the usefulness of backup cameras... I don't have one myself but I've rented a few cars with them and they do give you significantly more visibility when backing up than the rear window can provide, even in a reasonably sized sedan. But sure, rain might interfere. I don't think the fact that it's not perfect means it's not useful.

I have a VW Golf and they solved the rain problem by hiding the camera in the hatchback latch. It pops out when you need it and hides away behind the badge when you don’t.

I haven’t priced out what replacing that little motor will cost someday.

I have a Toyota Verso, and the backup camera is close to the tailgate handle, beside the license plate. No moving parts etc, and rain per se isn't a problem, however it tends to get dirty in foul weather. I have a habit of just wiping the lens with my thumb every now and then, works well enough.

And yes, it definitely makes parking in a tight spot easier.

Nobody is going to disagree that windows should give as much visibility as possible and people should know how to drive with them, but it's not physically possible to see something (or someone) on the ground close behind your car without a camera. I'd recommend testing with a traffic cone or something, I think you might be surprised how far back a little kid has to be before you can see them in the mirror even in a small car.

If you won't use them, you should at least be happy that other people have them so they don't back into you. Cars are dangerous.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/03/the-danger-of-bl...

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/rearview-cameras-reduce-pol...

The problem is crash test requirements require cars be built in a way that limits visibility. Giant pillars in case of a roll over, and lots of air bags stuffed everywhere.

Something had to give, and that thing was visibility.

i almost crashed the other day because a car was "hiding" behind the A(?) pillar. I was driving through the same intersection I do every day, looked both ways and made sure no cars were coming from another close by intersection. It was clear, or so I thought. When I turned left onto the road I suddenly had a car on right. It must have been perfectly behind the A-pillar when I approached the intersection and when I started to turn left. Scary.

The camera on your rent car seems to garbage. My car's camera works on 99% of the time. It's better to design a car with better view, but also rear camera is a huge upgrade for safety.

I imagine the "360 degree view" cameras that are being introduced in luxury cars will make their way down to all cars eventually.

[1]:https://youtu.be/Vs0HCITcP-4?t=936

I have a $14,000 Suzuki kei car from 2016 which came with that 360 parking view, so the technology itself isn't expensive or really that exclusive.

This was my first car after getting my driver's license so I'm afraid I'll never be able to park in a car without it...

They're mandatory in the US, Europe, China and India for starters. At this point it's probably harder to find a country where they aren't.

As for why, the safety data shows that cars with backup cameras are safer for the public than those without, same as seatbelts, airbags, or any number of other safety technologies. You shouldn't need any of them, but they're there to improve the situation when reality inevitably fails to meet our expectations.

That’s just as ridiculous as saying headlights shouldn’t be required because you shouldn’t be driving somewhere where you can’t see the road clearly. The point is that the tech makes driving easier and safer and at some point the tech is stable enough that it makes sense to require it.

"Why do cars have seat belts? People should be able to drive without crashing!"

Is what you just asked. Safety features are just that: they enhance passenger and pedestrian safety because humans make mistakes.

Also mirrors right? If you “can’t” drive without assistive mirrors, you shouldn’t have a driver’s license, period. In fact, anything mandated after the first Model T rolled off the line is dumb.

The Japanese car companies including Mazda are way behind on EVs, Nissan arguably excepted.

The MX-30 EV is very expensive and has a tiny battery and consequently terrible driving range. It’s a city-only vehicle.

The Japanese auto industry, more than anywhere else, is on a burning platform.

> Nissan arguably excepted

Why arguably? The Leaf is awesome. Nissan blazed the trail with bidirectional charging.

They let their rollout lag significantly, pinning things on one model for a long time. There was likely some internal corporate politicking involved.

Leaf is decidedly not awesome. The lack of liquid cooling means it runs into thermal limits very easily and battery degradation has been a real issue for them. CHAdeMO is arguably the better spec, but since it's a dead plug for north america and can't handle AC people with leafs are going to find themselves tethered very close to home.

If someone needs a commuter only car they are okay, but I think I'd get a bolt over a leaf if I wanted a cheap used commuter EV.

Yes. It would be fine if the Leaf was cheaper. But at least around here, Leaf costs Tesla money, and getting worse product for the same money makes no sense.

One reason to argue about Nissan is how much they've let their head start stagnate.

The Leaf was Ghosn's baby and some of the ouster of Ghosn was Japanese Nissan leadership getting cold feet about EVs (because none of their Japanese peers cared about EVs "so why should they?") right at the point in time where they should have accelerated. (The EV concerns being on top of/correlated with conspiracy theories that Ghosn was too friendly with French-owned Nissan sibling Renault because they were just about all-in on EVs and Ghosn was hoping for early economies of scale, faster, but that looked to Japanese investors too much like a French coup for Nissan ownership. Also, my favorite alleged part of that conspiracy was Ghosn saw Nissan of America as an SUV/Truck-loving albatross around Nissan's neck and suggested that the very profitable division get renamed back to Datsun to make it easier to pull the ripcord and jettison the entire division once EVs started to get popular enough and its absurd profits became absurd losses.)

I don't know if the truth will ever come out how much of a crook Ghosn was or was not, versus the spin of the Japanese court system and many conspiracy theories that came out of all that, but that saga definitely seemed to put the breaks on Nissan's EV efforts at a bad moment and they do seem to be lagging behind where they should be considering their head start with the Leaf. It's a fascinating story no matter what the facts were on the ground.

>Nissan arguably excepted.

I.e. the underdog who didn't have a well oiled money printer jeopardize by bringing self-competing EVs to market.

I would LOVE a full EV Mazda 3. Mazda 3 was and still is my first car and I'd love to stay in the family (rust issues aside).

Unfortunately they have a history of lagging in this space, either due to mentality or just the fact that they don't have the money to transition over without help (hence them partnering up with Toyota).

Fun fact: One of their chief designers: Franz von Holthausen just happened to become the lead designer at Tesla! Him leaving Mazda was well documented back in around 2010. He talked about how was frustrated that at Mazda any green initiative was always nothing more than a side project. Hopefully things have changed now.

I think its coming. At least I'm assuming our local Mazda dealer isn't planning a DCFC installation because they think the MX-30 will suddenly become popular in the southeastern US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com