At some point, I think we have to start asking if the addition of non-critical features like having a favicon for each radio station is worth the increased attack surface.
Mixing the car radio and actual critical systems (backup camera) doesn't seem like a great idea. Especially when the car manufacturer doesn't control the entire system. I know nothing about the supply chain for car radios, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was all made by some secondary supplier, so Mazda doesn't even necessarily have the code to the section they need to patch.
But, I'm honestly more surprised that it's a Mazda specific issue. I would have expected for the same bug to hit multiple infotainment systems.
At least in my car (2013 Chevy Volt), the backup camera is on an internal KVM-type switch.
The moment I switch into reverse the camera forcibly takes over the infotainment screen. You can occasionally see the signal flicker when the switch happens.
But also… a backup camera is hardly critical equipment. It’s there for situational awareness (and a good idea), but doesn’t replace the mirror. And since nobody drives in reverse at high speed, stopping is always an option if it malfunctions.
On many newer cars, the backup camera is approaching critical equipment. With the rising safety standards, the visibility in cars, especially out the back, has gone down significantly. Incidentally, this is very apparent on the Mazdas that I've owned. My old old Protege had good visibility out the back, an early 10's 3 had passable visibility out the back, and the now handful-of-years-old 6 has atrocious visibility out the back, to the point where more than half the field of view is obscured.
That’s still not critical. The backup camera is not used as a rear view mirror replacement and the ability to back up, let lone back up safely, is not required for safe operation of the vehicle.
Brakes are critical, steering is critical. Reverse and everything that entails is not.
That’s not critical ffs. Federal law requires all kinds of things that are not critical (I.e. does not even result in a fine for operating it on the road with it broken). Side curtain airbags, reverse, a rear view mirror, etc are all not critical nor legally required to operate a vehicle on the road.
Manufacturer mandates for general safety have only a small overlap with what is critical.
Federal law also requires manufacturers to use too little water in all your home appliances. That’s clearly not “critical.”
Edit: I really don’t understand why I’m getting downvotes on this. Is it because people are so glad the federal government is in their bathroom making these “critical” decisions for you?
My point is that the federal government makes all kinds of decisions that are obviously not “critical,” and that includes in the auto industry.
> Brakes are critical, steering is critical. Reverse and everything that entails is not.
The statistic is that every year, in the U.S. alone, over 2000 kids are run over by vehicles reversing. I had to read what you wrote a half-dozen times, but in hindsight the dissonance makes perfect sense.
In the vast majority of the US, being able to safely back up _is_ required for the safe operation of a vehicle. I recall my drivers license test included a driving-in-reverse section. You will also frequently need to be able to back out of a parking spot, or a driveway. Even if its not critical, its as close to critical as can be. When your rear view mirror and your side mirrors combined cannot give you enough visibility to safely back up, a rear-view camera quickly becomes critical.
Backup cameras are great for avoiding things low to the ground but do give a false sense of security. I managed to back into a fan box at about head level in a parking garage because I became too reliant on the camera alone. If I had turned around to look behind me I could have avoided a thousand dollar repair.
The Netherlands used to have national championships reverse driving for many years on the official race track at Zandvoort (part of the Formula 1 circuit).
My Seattle Mazda was hit by this bug. The backup camera still functions for the most part, although it does flicker and occasionally blank for a second or two (presumably while the system reboots). Annoying, but not horrible.
> I know nothing about the supply chain for car radios, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was all made by some secondary supplier, so Mazda doesn't even necessarily have the code to the section they need to patch.
You are correct that in general the automotive OEM's farm out the various components of the vehicle to suppliers. In that case, they probably also have some sort of support contract in place that ensures the supplier will address issues like this in a timely manner for the duration of the warranty period for the vehicles it is included in.
Backup cameras are going to become critical beyond "learn to drive properly" very soon. My college aged son has literally never driven a car without a backup camera. I taught him to use his mirrors after checking the camera for obstacles the mirrors can't see but I'm sure he's already developed the habit of simply relying on the camera. I'm pretty much there and have 30+ years of driving without them.
Where I live you could fail your driver's test if you look at the rearview camera while reversing. You can glance at it before you start the manoeuvre but if you take your eyes off the road while the vehicle is in motion, you get the silent note taking.
Some cars are designed around having that camera in exchange for rear visibility. Generally for better aerodynamics. It likely pays for itself in fuel pretty quickly.
Great, another feature that will save dozens to hundreds of lives (disproportionately of young children) every year, while adding only a few bucks to the bill of materials for cars that already have a display screen.
I do wish parents would stop teaching kids to take the short route over the carpark on the way to school. They save a couple of meters but walk behind cars backing out of the car garages... The back camera is handy but you won't see them if they walk on your side of the lane, too close to the 90 degree edge of the car.
And to make it more fun, our car has an overlay on the left edge with a top down view of the sensors around the car. That one blocks the view completely in that edge. And has a black background window that slowly fades away.
I think parents who have lost their children to cars backing out of driveways while children are playing on the sidewalk would disagree with your description of 'unneeded'
It wouldn't be an issue if we went back to making cars small enough you could see out of them. Legally requiring a certain level of rear visibility would be a good thing (and, sure, in some cases a camera might be the best way to achieve that) - and throw in some pedestrian collision safety requirements while you're at it. Legally mandating the expensive gadget-based way of doing things seems horribly shortsighted.
Wouldn't the entire rear of the car and the rear seats have to be glass to exempt a car from having the camera?
A bigger rear window wouldn't have let me see the toddler who'd wandered a short distance off from his parents in a car park and was standing right behind my car.
Also demanded by customers. A well implemented backup camera is much better than trying to use a small rear view mirror or twisting around to look out a small rear window. The backup camera can give you a wider field of view including low down where a small child might be. It is also much brighter in the dark than your eyes normally see.
This doesn’t mean that I am not also checking the surroundings but the backup camera is such a big improvement that I would not buy any car without one.
I've read that people ride more dangerously, and are tested by car drivers less carefully, when wearing a cycle helmet. Perhaps there's a similar effect here -- I think we do tend to rely on safety equipment and ignore due diligence.
Electronic KVM switches are pretty ancient tech. So getting access to the screen/input between different hardware modules shouldn't be that complicated. They just don't want to pay for the parts and additional complexity.
But, I'm honestly more surprised that it's a Mazda specific issue. I would have expected for the same bug to hit multiple infotainment systems.