[BanterTrouble]

> 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".

[ceejayoz]

> 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.

[BanterTrouble]

Probably should have had better driver training ;-)

[ceejayoz]

Yes, they should.

If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)

Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.

[BanterTrouble]

> Yes, they should.

So you accept that better driving training would be better.

> If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)

As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they die.

If you implement better driver training. Then newer driver have to do that training. So over the overall minimum standard improves.

A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard. It is a band-aid over a bigger problem.

> Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.

Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.

[ceejayoz]

> So you accept that better driving training would be better.

Oh, certainly! But it needn't be exclusive. (And "teach people better" is a lot harder than running a wire to a $30 camera.)

> As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they.

They drive far, far too long on average. I'd love to see an annual requirement to pass a driving test over 60, but… old people vote.

> A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard.

Sure. It improves the "backing up" bit only.

> Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.

Both are safety mitigations, for different aspects of driving.

I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.

[BanterTrouble]

> Oh, certainly! But it needn't be exclusive. (And "teach people better" is a lot harder than running a wire to a $30 camera.)

But earlier you were pretending that it was the case. Interesting.

Do you not remember?

> I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.

Are you saying the mandated camera doesn't stop someone from reversing over you or that the hummer doesn't have the camera, but won't kill you because the camera is mandated by law in other vehicles?

I am not sure what to make of this statement.