[kube-system]

I have tried this before but I have never been able to make the bumper transparent.

The reason this law exists is because small children (e.g 3ft tall) were getting run over.

Seriously, go put a large suitcase immediately behind your rear bumper and try to see it without a camera. You can't.

[kazinator]

If you put a child size doll right under the rear wheel, can you see that in the camera? Or under a front wheel, for that matter?

Solve the problem completely or else admit that it's just for twits who can't parallel park.

[kube-system]

> Solve the problem completely

That's just simply not how safety engineering works. Safety features mitigate risk, none of them solve it.

[kazinator]

That is false. Safety engineering sometimes only mitigates risk, but often reduces it to practically zero, such that people have to be deliberately negligent to prevail in bringing about a safety incident. E.g. elevator holds 15 people, yet 45 somehow jam themselves in as a stunt.

Partial safety mitigation isn't so much how safety engineering works; it's how it ducks out of working due to non-engineering reasons. If any safety issue remains, that means engineering was not done in that regard: the safety engineers were excused from the requirement to design anything for that risk.

[BanterTrouble]

Do you believe, that I believed that I could see through the bumper?

[kube-system]

No, I believe your flippant answer was made with disregard for the need to do so.

[BanterTrouble]

I had a flippant stupid reply. So they got a stupid flippant response.

Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.

If you have parking sensors it will alert you to something walking behind you anyway.

The point being made is there are way to deal with this without the need for a rear camera.

[ceejayoz]

> Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.

You can.

And then the kid/pet moves. They do that.

[BanterTrouble]

The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. That for some reason you are other people don't believe can be done at all. This is patently false.

Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!

[ceejayoz]

> The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk.

Yes, like a backup camera.

> Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!

The number who will is well above zero.

(This critique also applies to your proposed mitigations, yes?)

[kube-system]

Of course, ideally people see the child and do not hit it. When atypical incidents happen, we call them accidents, and when they start happening at rates we find unacceptable we often engineer solutions to make those accidents less likely.

This is why we have seat belts instead of telling people "you idiot you should have used the brakes!"

[BanterTrouble]

Don't patronise me. You've done it twice now. I find it extremely irritating.

The point being made is that many of these things can be mitigated by better driver training or driver aids which are much simpler & cheaper (I am likely to fit parking sensors in my older cars, kits are cheap).

[ceejayoz]

> mitigated by better driver training

Oh, well, if it's that easy! Just retrain 1.2 billion people, some of whom still don't know how to tie a shoelace reliably.