Smile, your on back up cam

Loading thread data ...

the long term effects will be devastating the already abysmal visibility from thick pillars and ever rising beltlines would drop nearly to nil putting driver in near total dependance of the new electronic nanny

when when the rear view cameras fail due to advanced age on 10+ year old cars or due to dirt in some conditions the driver will be back to basics. Except she is in a uhaul like situation when it's nearly impossible to tell what;'s going on behind.

What next? "I'm backing up" chime on passenger cars?

Reply to
AD

One of our rigs could really use on BUT in talking to other depts. that have them on newer rigs the universal complaint is that they get covered with crud in a very few minutes and become useless. Maybe locate a washer nozzle where it could rinse the lens would help.

Been on a few over the years. From the bell on the hub to modern piezo types.

Reply to
Steve W.
[snip]

the most popular mod around here: headlight washer nozzles disconnect to avoid gobbling up the washer fluid at uber rapido speeds.

I guess the rear camera washer (if so equipped) would follow the suit.

If the camera on a tractor type of a rig get crud covered in no time at all I wonder what would happen to the most universally lower sitting cameras on passenger cars (and suvs/smaller trucks). Not.

jaw popped in amazement. thought it was a truck only thing

Reply to
AD

Water bead on camera makes it useless.

I always wonder why a backup camera screen is not in the right place in automobile or small truck, in the rear. While looking back, you also get multiple view.

Greg

Reply to
gregz

I'm sure the law makers will specify to the dot where the camera should be in the new electronic nanny mandate.

Reply to
AD

AD wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@x18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:

Which has become necessary on account of the side-intrusion mandate.

The side-intrusion law is the the reason why the pillars are so thick, and why the beltlines are so high, and why the windows are so small,

Reply to
Tegger

Yesterday, at a pawn shop I saw a dash cam still in the box. A guy who works at pawn shop told me forty dollars for the dash cam. I decided I don't need it.

Reply to
JR

We learn from The Ancients that good car design is actually possible:

formatting link
from the pre-low-flush-toilets era.

Reply to
AMuzi

AMuzi wrote in news:keh1uk$vms$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Low-flush toilets? Now you've done it: Tegger is in rant mode!

We just moved into a new unit at work. One of the (American Standard) toilets turned out to be non-functional, a problem I traced to the flush valve's sealing ring. The toilet was still under the 10-year warranty, so I was able to order a new part for free from American Standard through a local jobber. The counter man warned me that the new part would be different from the original, since the new part had been "ugraded" from the original.

Little did I suspect that the "upgrade" consisted of adding a tower to the valve that prevents the bottom gallon in the tank from flowing into the bowl! Instant "low-flush"! Now it's basically useful for #1 only! And no aftermarket parts available for this toilet. Arrgh!

Reply to
Tegger

18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:

next step: put bars on the windows

Reply to
AD

tegger, where does the law say that pillars have to be thick, that beltlines have to be high and that windows be small? you keep repeating that comment, but the nhtsa documents i've looked at say nothing of the sort.

Reply to
jim beam

do morgan still sell in the u.s?

Reply to
jim beam

AD:

I think the solution is to stop designing cars according to what looks fashionable(higher beltlines, taller trunk, lower nose, 40" tailfins, etc) and design according to what WORKS(affords good outward visibility, protection in crash, aerodynamics, etc).

I'd rather have the govt mandate sensible design than placement of cameras!

Back to basics, people.

Reply to
thekmanrocks

fashionable(higher beltlines, taller trunk, lower nose, 40" tailfins, etc) and design according to what WORKS(affords good outward visibility, protection in crash, aerodynamics, etc).

You want a motorised camel ???

Reply to
bugalugs

bug: "- show quoted text - You want a motorised camel ???

Reply to
thekmanrocks

[snip]

probably your back to basics statement

In Capt.Obvious mode:

me thinks tegger was making a point in the neighbouring branch that the "good outward visibility" conflicted with "good side protection", hence visibility had to go

that and what looks fashionable probably gets folks laid (females prefer larger antlers I guess, sometimes making some of their own) and hence that ugly shit with castle windows that looks like it just went off an industrial press (greetings chrysler 300) roams the streets

Reply to
AD

AD: "probably your back to basics statement

In Capt.Obvious mode:

me thinks tegger was making a point in the neighbouring branch that the "good outward visibility" conflicted with "good side protection", hence visibility had to go "

AD: I am very conservative. Not Washington DC conservative, no, far from i t. Common-sense conservative, understand?

Cars can have good 360 outward visibility and be safe too. Ever heard of s ide-impact beams in the doors? Today's cars are like sitting in bathtubs compared to what was out 20, 30 years ago. The only vehicles that I can se e cameras justified in are trucks & SUVs.

Most accidents could actually be avoided if window area was large enough fo r drivers to see out of. Now do you get where I'm coming from?

And DON'T GET ME FRICK'N STARTED on electric door locks and those IDIOTIC a utomatic transmissions with the new serpentine shift patterns!!! I'm alway s putting the car in NEUTRAL because of that HAREBRAINED idea. WHAT THE FU CK ever happened to a straight P-R-N-D-3-2-1?!

Reply to
thekmanrocks

Common-sense conservative, understand?

side-impact beams in the doors? Today's cars are like sitting in bathtubs compared to what was out 20, 30 years ago. The only vehicles that I can see cameras justified in are trucks & SUVs.

drivers to see out of. Now do you get where I'm coming from?

automatic transmissions with the new serpentine shift patterns!!! I'm always putting the car in NEUTRAL because of that HAREBRAINED idea. WHAT THE FUCK ever happened to a straight P-R-N-D-3-2-1?!

it requires an interlock that costs a few cents more.

Reply to
jim beam

You want to go back to basics so one size fits all. You go back and get a horse, get the committee to design it and you get a camel. To go faster you motorise it. You have 360 degree viability, no rear view camera, fully air conditioned, no tyre wear, the possibilities are endless. (to score you might even be able to tape a set of fake antlers to the camel) And all very Eco-friendly. The Greens will love you.

Reply to
bugalugs

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.