Make Reversing Cameras Compulsory on all new vehicles.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The cameras we have on our new cars are high resolution colour screens with clarity almost as good as my iphone4 and distance graduations marked in metres.

The reverse sensors on the other hand are a complete load of crap that malfunction so much that we no longer take any notice of them. Most of the time they will go nuts as if you are about to hit something when you are reversing on flat ground with no obstructions.

When looking at the number of ambulances with damage to rear step, consider the environment in which we work. Often tight driveways at night with all sorts of retaining walls, fences, post etc whilst we have some urgency to get going and in an area that was designed for turning a 4.5m car, not a 7+m ambulance.

Your QLD ambulances must have better monitors and cameras as the ones we fit is absolutely hopeless for Victorian ambulances, you could see better drunk.

We know the issue with the sensors going nuts on flat ground with no obstructions, its because the ones we fit are crappy and seem to pick up the ground more than anything else and the way the rear step is and how the sensors are positioned but the heads of the department don't give a crap about it so we have to do it the same.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

of course, this supposes that drivers can actually back into a driveway. i'm sure most can't

that is the problem isn't it. most cannot back either into or out of a driveway (or anywhere). a camera will not help these people because they would just look at the screen. no need to use mirrors or your neck to see anymore - we have a camera

we do have a camera in our rav 4 and for parking, it is amazing. however it is not the be all/end all to driveway safety. precautions are needed long before the car is entered

I understand that kids are unpredictable, but that is why we were given eyes and hands . . . they are not for perving and holding beers. accidents happen, but geez, how many warnings do people need to take responsibility for their kids

[prydey]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I would make a sweeping generalisation that people who say "why don't they watch thier kids?", generally don't have kids themselves...or they've been extremely lucky and not had a close call...yet...

i would probably fit into the category of 'why weren't they more aware of their kids' but....

i do have kids of my own. i have not had any close calls and yet that isn't by accident. i grew up as one of 6 kids. my dad drive's semi's. would always be backing them in to our property every day. not once was there ever a close call, or incident. nor with the family car. brother has 4 young kids. no near misses their either. none of it by accident.

if there are kids around, you have to be extra cautious, and speaking for my own (and family's) experience, there is no moving of cars unless all kiddies are in view and being held onto by an adult if they are too young to know any different.

i might sound harsh, but thats my view.

yes, these are very tragic incidences and if it happened to me i have no idea how i would get on with my life, but... why was it only becoming heard of in the last 5-10 years or so?? i'm not one to blame the equipment.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I would make a sweeping generalisation that people who say "why don't they watch thier kids?", generally don't have kids themselves...or they've been extremely lucky and not had a close call...yet...
.

I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I was not allowed out of forward sight, of a rearward moving vehicle without being belted.

[imugli]

As a matter of interest, I just found this -

http://www.nrma.com.au/keeping-safe-...y-tables.shtml

showing the minimum distance a car has to be from an object the size of a small child to see it in the rear view mirror.

As you can see, it's not just an SUV thing. The Mazda 2 sedan has to be 15 METRES in front of an object before it's seen in the rearview mirror.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by imugli

as you can see, it's not just an SUV thing. The Mazda 2 sedan has to be 15 METRES in front of an object before it's seen in the rearview mirror.

you should try driving a coupe - not much vision in any direction

[imugli]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

you should try driving a coupe - not much vision in any direction

Drove my sister's 350z a couple of times when she had it. Agree completely.

[Thornie]

Originally Posted by JC

It's not about cameras - it's about stupid parents not knowing where their kids are. Why would you reverse when there's a 2 year old or 3 year old around the car - they should be in the car, or in the house. We have 2 x 8 year olds and 1 x 6 year old, and they really have little sense around the car, so when we are moving it, they are either in it, or well clear of it where we can see them.

This exactly. I chuck my little one in the car if i have to move it and I am home alone if the missus is home i make sure she is locked inside

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by RaTTuS

This exactly. I chuck my little one in the car if i have to move it and I am home alone if the missus is home i make sure she is locked inside

Can't your missus be trusted around cars, you have to lock her inside?

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

you should try driving a coupe - not much vision in any direction

But thats just the thing, we did survive before camera's, sensors and driving aids (ESP, DSC bloody ABC)...

[th2408au]

I see Ford have just stopped fitting reversing cameras in their XR and GT range, why would they do that. Crazy

[sudszy]

most likely cameras are going to be a plus, but what would be the guidelines on how they are to be used. Regulatory bodies would need to have those guidelines in place before making them compulsory.

Just some questions off the top of my head?

How would they be incorporated into a driving test?

At what stage does one look over their shoulder while backing rather than looking at the screen?, or is the idea that using the mirrors and the screen totally replaces looking around.

Do people become a little disorientated looking at the screen and managing to steer in the right direction while reversing? ie what is left on the screen is on the right side of the rear of the vehicle.

My thoughts would the camera is there there to check nothing is hiding up close to the car before backing and then look over the shoulder out the back window, or even through the rear side windows when reversing out of a 45 deg park etc. i could see that for myself it would be better to have the monitor on the rear shelf so that I could take in the whole picture without constantly turning around.

[Stav]

Being an installer of reverse cameras and sensors I have to say that the combination of both does save lives.
Its not about knowing where your kids are because kids are kids. If the driver does not pay attention to the best safety devices then nothing will help them. In saying that 4wd and alot cars utes do need them without a doubt.

[imugli]

Originally Posted by sudszy

most likely cameras are going to be a plus, but what would be the guidelines on how they are to be used. Regulatory bodies would need to have those guidelines in place before making them compulsory.

Just some questions off the top of my head?

How would they be incorporated into a driving test?

At what stage does one look over their shoulder while backing rather than looking at the screen?, or is the idea that using the mirrors and the screen totally replaces looking around.

Do people become a little disorientated looking at the screen and managing to steer in the right direction while reversing? ie what is left on the screen is on the right side of the rear of the vehicle.

My thoughts would the camera is there there to check nothing is hiding up close to the car before backing and then look over the shoulder out the back window, or even through the rear side windows when reversing out of a 45 deg park etc.

For mine it would be the latter. Use it to check. If the screen displays in the rear view mirror, you don't have to take your eyes of either...

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by imugli

For mine it would be the latter. Use it to check. If the screen displays in the rear view mirror, you don't have to take your eyes of either...

I personally would rather the screen in the middle of dash, the rear view mirror and the 2 side mirrors. the camera is very rarely in the exact centre of the car (and doesn't always point directly out either) so the rear view mirror will give a better overall view of what is behind. as sudszy suggested, the camera is to make sure there is nothing directly behind the car. some cameras are angled down to give some depth perception, so the rear view mirror comes in handy too

[Stefan]

As a father of two toddlers I could not imagine what there parents have to live with having run over and killed their own child.

In the construction industry (Teir 1 major projects anyway) we take safety so seriously on our sites we cannot move machinery unless people are totally isolated and accounted for. If any staff member observes this rule broken the job will STOP and the incident is investigated. We take zero chances.

I told my wife she is not to reverse the car unless she is 100% certain were our kids are. If there is any doubt get out of the car and make sure they are safe. If the child was with me when she gets in the car but then does not see me with the child as she is reversing 30 seconds later stop and make sure where the child is. No ifs, no buts.

Kids can't be brought back!

[JC]

Originally Posted by imugli

Hey Mate,

No offence taken, and happy to state for the record that I have no involvement whatsoever with reverse camera installations, sales or manufacturing.

Reason I've started it is simply because, as I say, I cannot always control what my kids are doing at other peoples' houses. I know what I do when my ignition is turned on, but not what others do. I don't know what I would do if I lost my boy (as I'm sure all parents here can attest to). For mine, I agree that Governments should stay out of peoples' lives as much as possible. There are some things though, that aren't "Nanny state" laws (they don't preclude you from making a decision regarding the way you choose to lead your life), that I feel go beyond the "protecting the stupid from themselves". I see this as potentially "protecting my boy from the stupid".

I hadn't thought of it like that - protecting my kids from other less attentive adults (thought I'd be nice and not continue the stu... word).

I'll be signing your petition.

[imugli]

Originally Posted by JC

I hadn't thought of it like that - protecting my kids from other less attentive adults (thought I'd be nice and not continue the stu... word).

I'll be signing your petition.

Many thanks, JC. Appreciate it.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Stefan

As a father of two toddlers I could not imagine what there parents have to live with having run over and killed their own child.

In the construction industry (Teir 1 major projects anyway) we take safety so seriously on our sites we cannot move machinery unless people are totally isolated and accounted for. If any staff member observes this rule broken the job will STOP and the incident is investigated. We take zero chances.

I told my wife she is not to reverse the car unless she is 100% certain were our kids are. If there is any doubt get out of the car and make sure they are safe. If the child was with me when she gets in the car but then does not see me with the child as she is reversing 30 seconds later stop and make sure where the child is. No ifs, no buts.

Kids can't be brought back!

There is no common sense in safety protocols on construction anymore. Most sites have almost completely banned any form of ladder. If a ladder is to be used you need to get it inducted into the job, then every time it is moved even 1 inch you need to re fill out the hazards card, and sign off on the location of said ladder. You need to install barricades and signage just to work at ground level, inside a building, where there is no plant. People wonder why construction costs are so high these days.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by irish2

There is no common sense in safety protocols on construction anymore. Most sites have almost completely banned any form of ladder. If a ladder is to be used you need to get it inducted into the job, then every time it is moved even 1 inch you need to re fill out the hazards card, and sign off on the location of said ladder. You need to install barricades and signage just to work at ground level, inside a building, where there is no plant. People wonder why construction costs are so high these days.

It is there to make sure you go home to your family at the end of the shift.

Explain the mother of the 16 year old kid that was killed on his first day at work on a construction site that it was way to expensive to use a EWP so we used a plank and a few milk crates instead.

[geckoGT]

Let's get back on topic, it is about reverse cameras and not work place safety.

[2011G6E]

The reverse camera in our G6E is amazing...I've seen comments about how cameras don't show everything...if they're talking about a Falcon, do they have a different type of camera to mine? Mine shows a very wide angle view behind the car, and focus is that close to the back of the car that when I fit the towball, you can see directly down onto the top of it to line up the hitch. If I'm parking reversing back to a painted line, you can look straight down the bumper to see the line in line with the rear bumper, so it shows everything from many meters back to directly underneath the camera.

Combining the side mirrors and the camera shows everything for many meters around...best invention since sliced bread.