| HN Mirror

> 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.

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!

> 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?)

> Yes, like a backup camera.

Well you've just twisted what I said because you are getting angry. So we will leave it there.

Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?

Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?

> you are getting angry

If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.

> Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?

You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk and decided to get a quick jab in at me. That was disingenuous. I don't appreciate it.

> Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?

Driver awareness can be done through other means than re-training.

> If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.

I never said that and obviously don't believe that. Funny how at the start of this reply you were pretending you weren't engaging in that behaviour. I wouldn't bother replying, you won't get another one.

kube-system 359 days ago

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!"

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).

> 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.

> Oh, well, if it's that easy!

They have been mandating that in most UK countries for decades and it is definitely one of the reasons why roads are safer now.

> Some of whom still don't know how to tie a shoelace reliably

Your true colours finally show. All the people are too stupid to learn how to do anything. BTW this is called the "Bigotry of low expectations".

> Your true colours finally show. All the people are too stupid to learn how to do anything.

All? No. Some? Absolutely. Five minutes on the road demonstrates it.

Probably should have had better driver training ;-)