Topic: Backing News: Compulsory Cameras are Here

[quadzilla]

How well will a camera work under these conditions?

[tortoise]

Mine would work perfectly.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

How well will a camera work under these conditions?

Mine would work perfectly.

It's funny, because that is the exact vehicle on which it would work perfectly.

[KD]

I like having a back up camera and it's about the only use i get outta my nav screen..lol.  It's great for backing up my kayak trailer to the launch area.  One thing that really irritates me with mine is the banner messages that get displayed by default every time i start the car.  There are two of them that get displayed across the top of the screen and each last for about 5 seconds. They are basically info messages that indicate bt connection to the phone is either successful, or unsuccessful and are useless imo. They block the entire field of view in that area, which is the most useful part when trying to see the target area.    Ten seconds seems like forever when there is a queue of cars sitting behind wondering what is the delay. 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

I also like the back-up camera on the van:

- It makes it easy to hook up the trailer
- When reversing into a parking spot, I know exactly when to stop so as to not hit the car parked behind me
- When backing OUT of a parking spot, it gives me a vantage point where I can see SOME of the cross traffic (whether vehicular or pedestrian), giving me a general indication on whether it is safe to go.

[SKYMTL]

How well will a camera work under these conditions?

Who cares?  That amount of snow provides a perfect cushion for any and all mishaps when parking.   

[Noto]

I never get the hate towards mandating more safety tech. Why not rip off the side mirrors, turn signals,  and seatbelts while we're at it.  [emoji14]

Most drivers do not have the skill or interest to be as good as many on this forum. It's not a knock, it's just not their interest. Just like I don't aspire to be a great chef when I make dinner, or a fashion icon when I get dressed, or a fantastic landscaper when I (finally) cut the lawn. These are daily tasks in life I need to complete, but I'm not passionate about, so why do more than I have to? Driving is my interest so I aspire to be better at it and may not need as many assists - but others do.

I'd say seatbelts save many thousands of lives per year.

A reverse camera...when you already have a rear view mirror, 2 side mirrors and a big ole back window? Not so much IMO.

Agreed, but saving even 10 lives a year is worth it.

There are better ways to save 10 lives per year IMO.

They're not mutually exclusive.

again, I'm just using the CVP van as my default because of how many I sell, and how cash strapped these customers are. would they like a camera? yes. is it worth having to take out a basic radio that costs nothing and rarely brakes, to put in a touchscreen, a camera, and all the wiring and such required?

if I use the cheapest one of the van screens, on ebay from china or something, you are looking at 800 (I find that is a good way to guess the actual cost... find the lowest price from 3rd parties with knock offs as they price it just to the point the original manufacturer can't touch). add the camera and you add more cost and complexity... even if it is just a grand more in total, it just means that money will be passed on to the final consumer... that is increasing the price by nearly 5%... since I see these buyers every day, I like to think I know a bit about them.... that 5% is a huge hit to them.

most of the people in this forum have cars that already have it due to price points and such, so they aren't affected... easy for us to say "put it on everything! even if it just saves one life!" go to some frugal site where they are all buying 6k cars or maxing out budgets on versa notes and such and finding ways to save even 1% on a car and they will feel very different.

in the end, I like to think my perspective is pretty accurate to many car buyers... yes, they want toys.... but more important is spending less money. priority is spending less today, secondary is spending less down the road... adding a camera makes both situations worse.

I'm not going to picket or anything, as change will come no matter what. but those who think this is a great thing period, end of story, are blind to the realities of the majority.

If the cost per vehicle to bring it into compliance rather than Dieselgate was something paltry like $31.  Maybe it was $131, I can't remember... But I assure you that even FCA isn't paying $800 to put in a backup camera.  It's likely less than $50, and I'd guess much less.

[tpl]

I happened to walk around our Honda dealer today while the FIt was being serviced.   Every vehicle had a camera, most of them in the same place as that Lexus picture above.

I would think that putting it inside the rear window within the sweep of the rear wiper if fitted and carefully between two of the heating elements  would be better.

[OliverD]

again, I'm just using the CVP van as my default because of how many I sell, and how cash strapped these customers are. would they like a camera? yes. is it worth having to take out a basic radio that costs nothing and rarely brakes, to put in a touchscreen, a camera, and all the wiring and such required?

if I use the cheapest one of the van screens, on ebay from china or something, you are looking at 800 (I find that is a good way to guess the actual cost... find the lowest price from 3rd parties with knock offs as they price it just to the point the original manufacturer can't touch). add the camera and you add more cost and complexity... even if it is just a grand more in total, it just means that money will be passed on to the final consumer... that is increasing the price by nearly 5%... since I see these buyers every day, I like to think I know a bit about them.... that 5% is a huge hit to them.

The reality is that it costs FCA nowhere near a grand to add a touchscreen, camera, and the associated wiring a car. Keep in mind that Apple can sell an iPad, which no doubt has superior hardware and includes a larger touchscreen (with a very high resolution) and two cameras, for something like $400 with 30% profit margins. I'd be shocked if the actual hardware costs FCA more than $150 or so.

[OliverD]

I happened to walk around our Honda dealer today while the FIt was being serviced.   Every vehicle had a camera, most of them in the same place as that Lexus picture above.

I would think that putting it inside the rear window within the sweep of the rear wiper if fitted and carefully between two of the heating elements  would be better.

The window glass would distort the view though, I would think. It might work but you wouldn't have the wide-angle effect that most of these cameras give you.

[tenpenny]

If you need a camera to back up a Corolla, then you shouldn’t be driving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tooscoops]

again, I'm just using the CVP van as my default because of how many I sell, and how cash strapped these customers are. would they like a camera? yes. is it worth having to take out a basic radio that costs nothing and rarely brakes, to put in a touchscreen, a camera, and all the wiring and such required?

if I use the cheapest one of the van screens, on ebay from china or something, you are looking at 800 (I find that is a good way to guess the actual cost... find the lowest price from 3rd parties with knock offs as they price it just to the point the original manufacturer can't touch). add the camera and you add more cost and complexity... even if it is just a grand more in total, it just means that money will be passed on to the final consumer... that is increasing the price by nearly 5%... since I see these buyers every day, I like to think I know a bit about them.... that 5% is a huge hit to them.

The reality is that it costs FCA nowhere near a grand to add a touchscreen, camera, and the associated wiring a car. Keep in mind that Apple can sell an iPad, which no doubt has superior hardware and includes a larger touchscreen (with a very high resolution) and two cameras, for something like $400 with 30% profit margins. I'd be shocked if the actual hardware costs FCA more than $150 or so.

you guys are smarter than this.... adding a feature to a car does not just add the most basic materials cost. and they aren't going to R&D a new screen and such to make it work, they will use the existing one that definitely set them back more than the 150-50 you guys are claiming... the labour to install, the future warranty costs, the overstock of the non-screen radios that are now defunct...

there is so much more (to everything in this world) than just on the surface...

[Fobroader]

If you need a camera to back up a Corolla, then you shouldn’t be driving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hallelujah!!

[OliverD]

again, I'm just using the CVP van as my default because of how many I sell, and how cash strapped these customers are. would they like a camera? yes. is it worth having to take out a basic radio that costs nothing and rarely brakes, to put in a touchscreen, a camera, and all the wiring and such required?

if I use the cheapest one of the van screens, on ebay from china or something, you are looking at 800 (I find that is a good way to guess the actual cost... find the lowest price from 3rd parties with knock offs as they price it just to the point the original manufacturer can't touch). add the camera and you add more cost and complexity... even if it is just a grand more in total, it just means that money will be passed on to the final consumer... that is increasing the price by nearly 5%... since I see these buyers every day, I like to think I know a bit about them.... that 5% is a huge hit to them.

The reality is that it costs FCA nowhere near a grand to add a touchscreen, camera, and the associated wiring a car. Keep in mind that Apple can sell an iPad, which no doubt has superior hardware and includes a larger touchscreen (with a very high resolution) and two cameras, for something like $400 with 30% profit margins. I'd be shocked if the actual hardware costs FCA more than $150 or so.

you guys are smarter than this.... adding a feature to a car does not just add the most basic materials cost. and they aren't going to R&D a new screen and such to make it work, they will use the existing one that definitely set them back more than the 150-50 you guys are claiming... the labour to install, the future warranty costs, the overstock of the non-screen radios that are now defunct...

there is so much more (to everything in this world) than just on the surface...

Of course. But there's no way that the average touch screen in a car today has a material cost higher than $150. The material cost of an iPad's display and touchscreen was < $100 USD six years ago.

Also, we're talking about models that already have a backup camera in some configs. So the R&D has already been paid for.

[Arthur Dent]

The fundamental issue is - some people want a convenience (and safety on large vehicles) feature. That is fine. What is annoying is that they think everyone should have it because they themselves want it.

[Firm]

I do find them useful in certain situations, but certainly not enough to justify mandating them....but I really just came in here to say that 90% of them get filthy within 5 minutes of winter driving rendering them useless. Even a good rainstorm can land a few water droplets on the lens, making it utterly useless.

I drive a different new car every week (well, most weeks), so I can state the above with some confidence. Exceptions being the Golf (which works great BTW) and the handful that have a washer; Cadillac XT5 for example has a washer fluid jet for the camera lens.

[OliverD]

There have been several lawsuits in the U.S. where people have ran over children in their driveways and sued the manufacturer because their car did not have a rear-view camera. To me these lawsuits are silly but they are obviously very costly for the industry. So it's not surprising that they have become federally mandated.

[UnknownJinX]

I don't get why people are so angry about it. This is a very good thing.

I get that you don't normally back into something, but the one time I backed into a wall and scraped the bumper as it was a dark night, it turned out to be an expensive repair bill. I installed a set of backup sensor right after. It's not cheap, but cheaper than fixing up the bumper.

And like said, children and animals are impossible to see no matter how good of a driver you are. It's a blindspot.

[tenpenny]

I don't get why people are so angry about it. This is a very good thing.

I get that you don't normally back into something, but the one time I backed into a wall and scraped the bumper as it was a dark night, it turned out to be an expensive repair bill. I installed a set of backup sensor right after. It's not cheap, but cheaper than fixing up the bumper.

And like said, children and animals are impossible to see no matter how good of a driver you are. It's a blindspot.

Because some of us are capable of driving, and shouldn’t be forced to pay extra for people who can’t drive.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[UnknownJinX]

I don't get why people are so angry about it. This is a very good thing.

I get that you don't normally back into something, but the one time I backed into a wall and scraped the bumper as it was a dark night, it turned out to be an expensive repair bill. I installed a set of backup sensor right after. It's not cheap, but cheaper than fixing up the bumper.

And like said, children and animals are impossible to see no matter how good of a driver you are. It's a blindspot.

Because some of us are capable of driving, and shouldn’t be forced to pay extra for people who can’t drive.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You can be a good driver but still make mistakes. That's why we have safety belts and airbags. I would imagine when safety belts became mandatory, people are probably saying "Oh, I am a good driver, I don't need those."

And just because you are a good driver, doesn't mean you have X-ray vision and can see through your trunk and hatch. It's a blindspot you can't see, simple as that. You can see most adults easily, but kids and animals are usually well in these blindspots. That's what the camera will mainly help you see.

I wouldn't think it's an expensive system. It's for sure cheaper than a bumper repaint or a medical bill. If it saves you from one mistake, it pays for itself. Heck, the backup camera was standard on Honda Accords for a few years now.