| > 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. |
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.