Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwalv | Hacker News Reader

Up until a couple years ago my car didn't even have a camera. We just looked out the window, which is still an option.

It is a much worse option than it used to be. Visibility out of the rear windows from the driver's seat has gotten worse over the years.

So industrial design with poor usability gets complemented by bad electronic devices. Progress?

> So industrial design with poor usability gets complemented by bad electronic devices. Progress?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chesterton%27s_fence

It's for safety in case of roll-over and for better aerodynamics due to increased emissions standards and in the case of EVs, increasing the range.

So cars get safer through more competent structural design and are enhanced by reliable camera systems that allow for better visibility than craning ones neck around 120 degrees.

what are they getting for the poor visibility tradeoff compensated by electronics? I have no idea. If it's safety, then yes, that would be progress.

Safety, and aerodynamics (i.e. energy efficiency).

Dismissing it as "design with poor usability" is very facile. It's trade-offs between different goals, all the way down.

Or it’s just cheaper to build

Cost is yet another trade-off.

Those pillars that hold the roof up are safer if they're sturdy, but sturdy means wider and that obstructs the driver's field of vision a bit, and weighs more. "strong and slender" is possible, but it costs more. It all inter-relates.

(strong, narrow, cheap), pick any 2.

There does come a point where you start to appreciate what Polestar is doing on one of next years models (the Polestar 4): give up on the idea and change direction; no rear window at all, just a camera.

The failure mode is pretty horrible though.

And I'm not only thinking about damaged camera. Humidity, weather etc. often makes these cameras completely useless.

You'd have to have wipers for your camera-lens and probably heating or something as well to even approach the utility of a window - short term.

Because none of that is ever going to fail, and it isn't cheap either.

I don't think that I said that the Polestar 4's lack of rear windows is a slam-dunk sure-fire hit. Rather just that we can appreciate the attempt to side-step the issues with rear-window visibility with a very different design.

It is IMHO a bold move, which will attract fans and haters. Neither of us know for sure how it will play out; if the potential issues outweigh the rest. The implementation details clearly matter. In a couple of years we will see if it's a genius innovation, a terrible misstep or somewhere in-between. Until the vehicle ships and is on the road for some time in some volume, we won't know for sure.

While I agree I kind of think this should be nailed down before such a departure.

After all, on a high-end vehicle a back-camera that hasn't sorted this is just a gimmick.

Maybe they have, all my experiences indicate otherwise though I don't have much experience with new expensive cars.

Lens washdown is rather common now on vehicles.

Trucks drive just fine with no rear view at all other than side mirrors, so cars can do that as well.

On the highway, sure. But generally whenever I see a truck back up in the city, there will be someone outside directing the driver.

You don't see lots of truck parking in parallel unassisted on streets with pedestrians and cyclists, but I do this all the time.

Hmm? They specifically taught me in driving school how to parallel park using just the side mirrors.

Truck drivers are pros, though, while we're just annoying traffic jam fodder.

They can't see what they can't see. Being a pro makes no difference.

Reminds me of the 18 wheeler at the traffic light. He got red while waiting for his left turn and decided to back up instead of "going for it" once oncoming traffic had seized.

The minivan behind him got crushed like it was made of sticks. Luckily he heard the noise after a while and stopped backing up. Not a pretty sight. I had the side view so I was like "WTF is he doing?" when he started backing up. Well he couldn't the minivan who had snuck up behind him.

Lesson: when behind a truck make sure you can see the drivers face through his mirrors. Then you have a chance that he is going to see you. If you can't see his face, assume that he can't see you. Move away.

Americans don't care about the prices of their cars and neither do American safety regulations.

This is correct. It's easy credit all the way down. Cheap cars (Chevy Spark, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio) are basically all slowly being discontinued in NA, meanwhile luxury pickups sell like hot cakes.

It's safety. Same with thicker pillars which are worse for visibility but made thicker for rollover protection.

You don't see small kids right behind your car this way. I believe this was the main reason why rear-view cameras were made mandatory on new cars.

Also, because the cars now are gigantic, compared with old cars.

Even the Mini Cooper is huge now.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mini Cooper is now a light truck. Everything is larger because manufacturers are gaming the footprint regulations to get by with worse emissions and DOT isn't serious about revamping CAFE to stop that behavior.

A large majority of cars in traffic don’t have a back camera. Either because they’re old or because they’re cheap (I don’t think a back camera is usually a standard feature at least where I’m from…)

In the US a backup camera is now required by law

For new cars, I guess.

In the EU, it’s similar. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...:

All new vehicles sold from May 2022 must be fitted with advanced safety features, including:

- monitors that detect when a driver has become drowsy or distracted

- emergency stop signal to help prevent rear-end collisions

- rear-view camera or parking sensors

- alcohol interlock system to prevent drunk driving.

These systems will help reduce serious accidents on Europe’s roads.

It seems that the only part that got implemented out of that draft was drowsiness/inattention detection. At least that's what I read from the document in "Commission adoption" section of that page.

> alcohol interlock system to prevent drunk driving.

Wait, what? _All_ new vehicles need to have this? Or do they just need to be constructed such that one can be installed easily?

The car must be built to allow for the installation of a breathalyser, i.e. some standardised interface. Doesn't really affect you unless you're ordered by a court to use one.

Looks like EU law, so considering the wording, probably every new car.

Also, see:

https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/statistics-and-an...

Edit:

The actual text:

> Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council requires motor vehicles of categories M and N to be equipped with certain advanced vehicle systems, including driver drowsiness and attention warning systems. It lays down in its Annex II basic requirements for the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the driver drowsiness and attention warning systems.

I rather have no car at all than go back to that.

That would be better for the planet anyway.

Disclaimer: Not a joke. I've never owned a car.

I agree and in modern countries with proper transportation there is no reason to own a car.

If you have e.g. outdoors activities in sparsely populated areas as a hobby, having a car gives you a lot more freedom than being dependent on public transport. Buses may work if you're only going to locations that are popular enough but that may limit your options. Of course you could also rent but that could become expensive or cumbersome if you do it often enough.

Also, if you live in a sparsely populated area, public transport with good coverage often isn't really economically (or ecologically) feasible, even in countries that have good public transport in cities. A bicycle might be an option if distances aren't too great but relying on it exclusively probably takes more than an average person is willing to take on. Weather conditions could be poor, you might regularly need to transport groceries for an entire family, etc. All of that is entirely doable within a few miles in a bikeable city but it's potentially a lot less so if distances are greater.

I've never owned a car, I bicycle some thousands of kilometres per year (probably more than I drive most years), and I wish people didn't automatically consider owning a car a necessity even when it actually isn't. But I can definitely see reasons for owning one.

Well, there is a reason, but you won't like it.

Convenience :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com