[moonterrace]

2019 car here, equipped with a rear camera. Been driving for 43 years and I refuse to use the cam. The thing that bothers me is now I have to check the mfg connectivity TOS and must opt out instead of opt in to what data is transmitted - it’s ridiculous. Don’t get me started on the ever increasing software subscription services these manufacturers are trying to levy on consumers.

[Tarball10]

What does refusing to use the rear view camera have to do with data collection? Those were added because kids were getting run over and killed by reversing vehicles. It seems irresponsible to not check it (along with all the other normal checks you do when reversing).

[Waterluvian]

Reverse cameras are one of the best things to happen to automobile safety in a long time. The automatic obstacle detection and braking is so great. I’m delighted that it’s such a success that it’s standard in every new car.

[woobar]

It is now standard (at least in the US) because it was mandated by law (in 2007). USDOT took some sweet time to implement it, but it was required by 2018.

[fatnoah]

> Reverse cameras are one of the best things to happen to automobile safety in a long time.

I agree, but I feel like cameras have made everyone feel the need to back into parking spaces, resulting in an epidemic of slightly askew cars that make it more difficult for everyone else to park. It's a small price to pay for increased safety, but it's stilkl annoying.

[Silhouette]

I feel like cameras have made everyone feel the need to back into parking spaces, resulting in an epidemic of slightly askew cars that make it more difficult for everyone else to park.

Where I come from (the UK) drivers are routinely taught to reverse into most types of space or small driveway and drive out forwards because it is better for both manoeuvrability and driver vision. If you can't manage to perform some basic manoeuvres involving reversing during your driving test then you fail. We do not have an epidemic of slightly askew cars in car parks and the worst offenders for less than parallel parking are often the drivers who were too lazy to reverse in and instead tried to swing in forwards when they didn't have enough space to straighten up properly afterwards.

[JohnFen]

> I feel like cameras have made everyone feel the need to back into parking spaces

As a bicyclist, I hate it when people do this, and it's become increasingly common.

The problem is that people don't look when they pull out of parking spaces, so when I'm on a bike in a parking lot, I keep a close eye on the backup lights so I can avoid that car. When people park head-out, that critical signal is no longer visible to me.

I've nearly been hit by people pulling out of spot they parked head-out in a couple of times now as a result.

[seanmcdirmid]

360 overhead parking views fix that problem, but they aren’t mandated yet.

[fatnoah]

Good point. I find that view to be far more useful than any other, though I'm never sure if that's my video game bias showing or not.

[seanmcdirmid]

I have a hard to park situation in my garage, so both are very useful.

[Waterluvian]

Hmm I can see that being a thing. I’d find it annoying. I don’t feel like I see the trend in my locale.

I do like that the camera makes lining up cars easier (if you’re competent and care) I get these lines that curve when my wheels are turned. And I use them to line up with the space. It actually makes backing in feel nicer… makes me look like I know what I’m doing….

Or am I the person you’re talking about! ;)

[User23]

Refusing to use the backup camera is one of those peculiar boomerisms. Every boomer I know refuses to use them and everyone that I know that refuses to use them is a boomer.

[JohnFen]

I know a lot of boomers, and none of them avoid using backup cameras. Generalizations are error-prone.

[orwin]

> Those were added because kids were getting run over and killed by reversing vehicles

If you cannot see kids by looking at your rear window and using your side mirrors (don't know how they're called in english), your clearance might be too high and your mirrors poorly set.

[karlshea]

That just isn't true. There are many cars where it's impossible from within the car to see certain places behind it without the rear camera, no matter how your mirrors are set.

[Silhouette]

There are many cars where it's impossible from within the car to see certain places behind it without the rear camera, no matter how your mirrors are set.

I have never seen any car where it is possible. The entire rear section of the vehicle would have to be transparent and any passengers or cargo behind the driver would have to turn invisible when you went into reverse.

[orwin]

If you have a HGV or a bus, i understand why you would need a rearview camera. Or with an utility vehicle with high or now windows. I doubt that's what OP is driving though, i would guess he has a normal car and does not need to do heavy duty.

When i'm driving my father's utility vehicle, i can only use my side mirrors, so i'm extra careful, but with any normal car i ever drove, even large one like a Xantia, i don't see how i could have missed anybody who can move on two legs.

The only time I've used a rearview camera was on my SO "new beetle", and we both find it quite useless (i was seeing better turning my head).

[Tarball10]

All vehicles have rear blind spots when it comes to short objects (i.e. children), with SUVs and pickups being significantly worse than standard cars.

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

[seanmcdirmid]

Even standard cars are bad these days. I don’t get much from my review mirror at all, especially compared to the Subaru I had in the late 90s. Pillar placement in a unibody might have something to do with it, rear windows also seem smaller.

[SoftTalker]

That's why you check behind the car (and all around it) before you get in and start moving.

[loeg]

Kids are mobile.

[modeless]

You can't see out the rear window in any new car because the bottom of the window is always ridiculously high (I assume for safety in rear end collisions).

[bryanlarsen]

The main reason is that it makes you feel safer. Psychologically you feel more protected with metal between you and the outside world than glass.

[PragmaticPulp]

Rear view cameras are a safety feature. You’re not sticking it to anyone by refusing to look at it.

I understand that you’re upset about data collection, but refusing to use a basic safety feature is a pointless protest. The only people who might be harmed are those around you.

Please reconsider.

[hgdcbbc]

Aren’t rearview cameras required now for new cars in the United States for safety reasons? Hope you don’t live around anyone too short.

[xyst]

TIL: https://www.thedrive.com/news/20612/rearview-cameras-are-now...

In the good ole USA, vehicles are also getting larger (massive market to satisfy the insecurities of millions of Americans) and manufacturers are pushing them down American throats to get around the CAFE regulations. [1]

Since they are getting larger, this means the view from the front is obscured. In most SUVs and trucks, 8-9 children can be sitting in front of a modern truck or SUV before you see a child's head. There's been some talk about forcing FRONT view cameras as well. [2]

It's absolutely disgusting. I hate cars. I hate how transportation is largely car centric.

[1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/04/04/buttigiegs-new-emissi...

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

[switch007]

Children should obviously carry a 10ft orange flag whenever they’re around cars. If not, it’s their fault if they get hit.

/s

[voz_]

I don’t get this. The rear view camera on my 2019 vehicle is a joy to use. What data could it transmit that I or anyone cares about? I truly don’t understand the privacy obsession. Most people don’t matter, and chances are there’s absolutely no novel or interesting data gathered.

[NoRelToEmber]

> What data could it transmit that I or anyone cares about?

The question is what data does it need to transmit. The answer is none. Rear cameras and tracking are entirely unrelated, though I'm sure car manufacturers will try to convince us tracking is essential for a camera to function. They'd try to convince us tracking is essential for windshield wipers, if those weren't around since long before tracking.

> Most people don’t matter, and chances are there’s absolutely no novel or interesting data gathered.

Spoken like someone who never had to worry about politics, and whose current political system is only free of corruption and tyranny (to some extent) thanks to the actions of people who did have something to hide. Actions your attitude makes much harder.

It's like pollution. One day you or someone will find some information of public interest, for example a spy agency targeting dissidents, an industrial farm illegally using antibiotics to speed growth while antibiotic-resistant bacteria decimate hospital patients, or a million other such things. You'll try to leak it anonymously to the press, because the international conglomerate you work for could retaliate, but you'll realize you can't so much as back out of your driveway without ten cameras recording your face and of everyone around you and selling your network of contacts to ten different information brokers, that then sell it on to governments or private security forces. You can't get within a mile of a journalist without that being recorded somewhere.

Contacting anyone with your phone is even worse - because you've set up your phone with "nothing to hide" in mind.

[FollowingTheDao]

Correct. All this is not going to matter until it suddenly does.

[ern]

I recall reading/seeing somewhere that rear windows are getting smaller in newer models, so you could be putting pedestrians at risk by not using the rear camera.