$9 Solutions to $2 Problems

TMetzinger said:
The doors DO move when you pull the handle. But not super quickly, and the result is that people tend to yank on the handle again, reversing the first command.

It's a case of people expecting something different than what they get, and reflects poor design, not a problem with the people.
Click to expand...
Gotcha!
 
John221us said:
I disagree with this one. It is based on the rear blind spot of the vehicle. The purpose is to keep little kids from getting run over. All vehicles should have this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/business/us-rule-set-for-cameras-at-cars-rear.html
Click to expand...

Why? My car has radar with audible warning tones so I can look backwards, and hear if there is something I don't see. It's a better design. With the camera, you have to look forward to see the monitor, on which you cannot see as much as if you simply turn around and look.
 
PPC1052 said:
Why? My car has radar with audible warning tones so I can look backwards, and hear if there is something I don't see. It's a better design. With the camera, you have to look forward to see the monitor, on which you cannot see as much as if you simply turn around and look.
Click to expand...

Then there is my car, turning around has you looking down a tunnel with tiny windows. Facing forwards and using the mirrors shows more. Gotta know how to use your car, and often times they are different.

Test drove a Volvo with blind spot monitors, they only went off after the object was fully in the mirror and the warnings light was IN THE MIRROR! Useless and distracting
 
You know you can put most modern AVIONICS in this category. Take off the "aviaition cert" part, and it would be a fraction of its cost.
 
Anthony said:
You know you can put most modern AVIONICS in this category. Take off the "aviaition cert" part, and it would be a fraction of its cost.
Click to expand...
I think you are being too modest. It seems most avionics -- and for that matter most aircraft parts in general -- are $900 solutions to $2 problems. And most of the problems are $20 problems.
 
Flight Attendants. They could be replaced by a safety video and a soda machine.
 
bartmc said:
I don't trust a soda machine to protect me from the peril of people leaving their cell phones on.
Click to expand...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I once got told I couldn't have my GPS on in flight.... Yeah, probably banned, but REALLY??? There are probably THREE of them (or more) in the cockpit! Not to mention every phone that got turned on after takeoff, or never got shut off....
 
Threefingeredjack said:
God I miss PSA...........:sad:
Click to expand...

251986_4163961976733_320209877_n.jpg
 
PPC1052 said:
Why? My car has radar with audible warning tones so I can look backwards, and hear if there is something I don't see. It's a better design. With the camera, you have to look forward to see the monitor, on which you cannot see as much as if you simply turn around and look.
Click to expand...

So, you get out of your car and look, if there is a beep? I don't believe that radar system is less expensive than the camera, especially on a Prius, that already has the screen. One of the main arguments for them is that they are cheap. Kids are slippery and can easily disapear into the blind spot of many vehicles, especially SUVs and cars like the Prius, that have a high window in the rear.
 
My recent experience with the whole 'airworthiness directive' system has put it in the category of $9 fixes to non-problems....
 
John221us said:
So, you get out of your car and look, if there is a beep? I don't believe that radar system is less expensive than the camera, especially on a Prius, that already has the screen. One of the main arguments for them is that they are cheap. Kids are slippery and can easily disapear into the blind spot of many vehicles, especially SUVs and cars like the Prius, that have a high window in the rear.
Click to expand...

I think it's kind of a dumb idea, personally. Looking forward to drive in reverse makes as much sense as looking rearward to drive forwards. Also, the LCD screen renders a two-dimensional display with no depth perception; so if people are tempted to use it for, say, parallel parking, it'll probably cause more accidents.

On vehicles with high rear windows, a downward-facing mirror mounted along the edge of the roof would be better.

Best of all would be for parents to take responsibility for the little details of child-rearing such as, for example, not letting toddlers play behind parked cars.

But I guess I'm showing my age again...

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
On vehicles with high rear windows, a downward-facing mirror mounted along the edge of the roof would be better.
Click to expand...

My goodness Rich...

A simple, cheap, effective and perhaps to some, aesthetically ugly solution that doesn't use $200 worth of ready-to-break electronics from China.

Are you sure you're not a Russian aircraft designer? ;)
 
RJM62 said:
I think it's kind of a dumb idea, personally. Looking forward to drive in reverse makes as much sense as looking rearward to drive forwards. Also, the LCD screen renders a two-dimensional display with no depth perception; so if people are tempted to use it for, say, parallel parking, it'll probably cause more accidents.
Click to expand...
Ever used one? Mine gives me a field of view approaching 170 or so degrees. The image is overlaid with markers the show exactly where the center line and sides of the vehicle will be. It also senses any object within six feet or so, beeps and highlights the area of the screen where it thinks the obstruction is. It makes backing into anywhere, or getting into and out of tight parking spaces, extremely easy. Between the backup camera and the side mirrors, it lets me maneuver a super-crew cab 4WD F150 like a car.

I first put a backup camera on my old pickup after I whacked a light pole while backing out of a spot in a park. It was directly behind my left shoulder, where I didn't see it in the rearview mirror, the side mirror OR when I looked over my shoulders -- both of them. ****ed me right off. The repairs cost me $2400. A nice in-dash nav system with a backup camera cost me around $500 and a few hours' work. Guess which one I wish I'd done first?
 
RJM62 said:
I think it's kind of a dumb idea, personally. Looking forward to drive in reverse makes as much sense as looking rearward to drive forwards.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, many people are used to looking in the mirror part of the time while backing up. Maybe they should reverse the video left-to-right, so that it mimicks a mirror.
 
DaleB said:
Ever used one? Mine gives me a field of view approaching 170 or so degrees. The image is overlaid with markers the show exactly where the center line and sides of the vehicle will be. It also senses any object within six feet or so, beeps and highlights the area of the screen where it thinks the obstruction is. It makes backing into anywhere, or getting into and out of tight parking spaces, extremely easy. Between the backup camera and the side mirrors, it lets me maneuver a super-crew cab 4WD F150 like a car.

I first put a backup camera on my old pickup after I whacked a light pole while backing out of a spot in a park. It was directly behind my left shoulder, where I didn't see it in the rearview mirror, the side mirror OR when I looked over my shoulders -- both of them. ****ed me right off. The repairs cost me $2400. A nice in-dash nav system with a backup camera cost me around $500 and a few hours' work. Guess which one I wish I'd done first?
Click to expand...

I haven't used one since the early 1980's when I worked at JFK. Some of the ground equipment had them, but I suspect they were crude compared to today's technology.

I'm just one of those people who were taught that you don't look in a mirror to back up (except, of course, when driving a truck or something along those lines that has no rear visibility from the cab). It's one of my pet peeves.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I'm just one of those people who were taught that you don't look in a mirror to back up (except, of course, when driving a truck or something along those lines that has no rear visibility from the cab). It's one of my pet peeves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was taught that too. I was twisted around looking out the rear window when I bumped the light pole. I've got a much better view now.
 
DaleB said:
Yeah, I was taught that too. I was twisted around looking out the rear window when I bumped the light pole. I've got a much better view now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my opinion is wrong, then. I'd have to actually use one of the modern cameras to know whether I like it. I thought the old ones were pretty much useless, at best.

It still rubs against my grain, though, to back up using a mirror, even though I got accustomed to it when I was driving trucks and never hit anyone / anything in the process.

-Rich
 
John221us said:
So, you get out of your car and look, if there is a beep? I don't believe that radar system is less expensive than the camera, especially on a Prius, that already has the screen. One of the main arguments for them is that they are cheap. Kids are slippery and can easily disapear into the blind spot of many vehicles, especially SUVs and cars like the Prius, that have a high window in the rear.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are asking. The beeps come from a specific car speaker (or speakers) depending on where the object is in relation to the car, so you can hear the direction of the obstruction. The beeping cycles faster as the car gets closer to the object, until there is a solid tone if there is something almost touching the car. No, I have never gotten out to look just because I hear a beep/tone. I can tell when I am close or almost touching something (and I can tell the difference) just by the sound. It is a really elegant system. Don't know for certain the cost for the system as it was a factory option, and I bought the car used.

My point is that it is stupid/short-sighted to madate the video camera feature when it is not the greatest design, and there are other designs that are better. The video camera option encourages the driver to focus on a small screen, looking forward, rather than allowing the driver to look outside and see the bigger picture. You can easily focus on the image on the dash, and miss that you backed out into the path of the car comming from the side. If you are looking back and to the sides, the video is useless. In some applications (think box truck, panel van), I can see the video camera option as being useful. But to mandate it for all cars is silly.

We can debate whether to madate something to help the driver avoid wayward children when backing up. But if we are going to madate a system, the video camera isn't what I would mandate.
 
Last edited:
I used to have to back ambulances and fire apparatus, and we didn't have cameras in them. Once a year, I had to go through an EVOC (Emergency Vehicle Operator's Course), which included weaving through cones, backward, using only the side mirrors (no view with the rear-view mirror, that on many ambulances has been removed anyway). One time, I backed into a concrete pillar at a hospital. Bent the bumper just enough that you could see it only if you looked for it.

Because of the experience with backing with mirrors in those vehicles, I do so with my car, as well (I've added small convex mirrors, and I can see a car next to me in the corner of my eye at the same time it leaves the mirror), but I think it sure would be nice to have a camera on the back of the car, where below the trunk level is the only thing I can't see, and wouldn't be able to see even if I turned around.
 
hopmedic said:
I think it sure would be nice to have a camera on the back of the car, where below the trunk level is the only thing I can't see, and wouldn't be able to see even if I turned around.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's even more of an issue in a pickup.

So one cold winter morning I went out to the garage, got in the truck, opened the garage door while starting the engine. Nothign in the rearview, noting in the side mirrors... twisted around, looked out the rear window, reverse, ease the foot off the br... BUMP! One of the kids had parked his Focus RIGHT up against the garage door.

Of course, had I put the door up before getting in the truck I'd have known that. Had it not been 20 below, I'd have done just that. Fortunately nothing was damaged, but we took several steps to make sure THAT never happened again.

Rich... when you get some time to spare, drop by a Ford dealer. Tell them you want to test drive or just take a look at a new F150, either a Lariat or a Platinum with the in-dash nav and backup camera. You can tell which ones they are, the Ford emblem on the tailgate will look a little like a chroma barnacle - it sticks out about an inch and a half, the camera lens is underneath it.

You'll be amazed. The video image is not just fed to the monitor, it's got some pretty heavy processing power doing overlays and object detection. I can parallel park this behemoth without even glancing out the back window. It's really pretty impressive, if you haven't seen it. I don't know if other manufacturers have something similar, the Ford system is the only one I've used. I started out thinking it was a useless and possibly dangerous gimmick too. I was wrong. :)
 
Captain said:
Why not multiple freqs then? Clnc A, Clnc B, and Clnc C. A lot cheaper than making every plane equipped to receive PDC's.
Click to expand...

Now you have three times as many transmitters/receivers and people to do the job. PDC is definitely cheaper when you consider it is only a small part of the overall ACARS system. It is also a lot faster. What I don't get is places like LGA that require you to confirm the PDC on Cleareance Delivery. That can take forever but I guess it is still better than giving all the complete readbacks.
 
RJM62 said:
Perhaps my opinion is wrong, then. I'd have to actually use one of the modern cameras to know whether I like it. I thought the old ones were pretty much useless, at best.

It still rubs against my grain, though, to back up using a mirror, even though I got accustomed to it when I was driving trucks and never hit anyone / anything in the process.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I've gotten to the point where it's hard to turn my head far enough to get a good look. I do the best I can, but I supplement that with use of the mirrors.
 
PPC1052 said:
I am not sure what you are asking. The beeps come from a specific car speaker (or speakers) depending on where the object is in relation to the car, so you can hear the direction of the obstruction. The beeping cycles faster as the car gets closer to the object, until there is a solid tone if there is something almost touching the car. No, I have never gotten out to look just because I hear a beep/tone. I can tell when I am close or almost touching something (and I can tell the difference) just by the sound. It is a really elegant system. Don't know for certain the cost for the system as it was a factory option, and I bought the car used.

My point is that it is stupid/short-sighted to madate the video camera feature when it is not the greatest design, and there are other designs that are better. The video camera option encourages the driver to focus on a small screen, looking forward, rather than allowing the driver to look outside and see the bigger picture. You can easily focus on the image on the dash, and miss that you backed out into the path of the car comming from the side. If you are looking back and to the sides, the video is useless. In some applications (think box truck, panel van), I can see the video camera option as being useful. But to mandate it for all cars is silly.

We can debate whether to madate something to help the driver avoid wayward children when backing up. But if we are going to madate a system, the video camera isn't what I would mandate.
Click to expand...

www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/.../BackoverAvoidanceTechStudy.pdf

NHTSA tested several systems currently available as original equipment on vehicles and aftermarket products to evaluate their performance and potential effectiveness in mitigating backover crashes. The backover prevention technologies that are currently offered by vehicle manufacturers are marketed as"parking aids," which are designed to assist attentive drivers in performing low speed parking maneuvers. Some aftermarket systems using similar technologies are being marketed as safety devices.
Testing showed that the performance of sensor-based (ultrasonic and radar) parking aids in detecting child pedestrians behind the vehicle was typically poor, sporadic and limited in range. Based on calculations of the distance required to stop from a typical backing speed, detection ranges exhibited by the systems tested were not sufficient to prevent collisions with pedestrians or other objects.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/backover.html


Rearview video cameras hold the most promise for reducing backover crashes, and a federal law is expected to result in their installation in all vehicles. In the past, such cameras were marketed primarily as parking aids, not safety devices. The systems display the area behind the vehicle on a screen, which usually is mounted on the instrument panel as part of a navigation system.
Other types of parking aids that rely on radar or ultrasonic sensors have also been studied for their ability to prevent backovers but are considered less reliable for this purpose. These systems produce audible or visual signals to warn a driver if an object is detected behind a reversing vehicle. The signals may intensify as the distance between the vehicle and the object or person narrows. A NHTSA evaluation conducted in 2006 found that eight sensor-based systems could detect a moving adult when the vehicle was stationary, but all of them performed inconsistently and had areas where children weren't detected.9
Some newer systems combine cameras with radar or ultrasound sensors.
To reduce backover crashes Congress in February 2008 required NHTSA to amend the safety standards to expand the required field of view of motor vehicles. Although NHTSA has yet to finalize the regulation, the agency says cameras are the only currently available technology that could meet the requirement.10
 
Captain-
Although I haven't read this thread, I want to thank you for passing along that phrase. I learned it yesterday and I've used it at work probably 4X since to communicate my point. It works very well.
 
There is also that "you know you are an engineer when..."

You spend two hours fixing a free toy from a Happy Meal.
 
John221us said:
To reduce backover crashes Congress in February 2008 required NHTSA to amend the safety standards to expand the required field of view of motor vehicles. Although NHTSA has yet to finalize the regulation, the agency says cameras are the only currently available technology that could meet the requirement.
Click to expand...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving+Safety/Child+Safety/Keeping+Kids+Safe+-+Backover

"Many cars are equipped with detection devices like backup cameras or warning sounds, but they cannot take the place of you actively walking around your car to make sure your children are safely out of the way. Do not rely solely on these devices to detect what's behind your vehicle."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash Avoidance/2006/NHTSA-2006-25579-0001-2.pdf

Estimates 183 fatalities per year due to backover accidents, with approximately half of the victims under 16 years of age.

How many fatalities would be prevented?
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Rear_Visibility_NPRM_12032010.pdf
Interesting that the NPRM estimates the fatalities at 292 per year or 207 depending on which part of the NPRM is read. The NPRM estimates the fatalities would be reduced: "we believe the annual fatalities that are occurring in backing crashes can be reduced by 95 to 112."

Even if the NPRM's estimate of less than $200 cost per vehicle is true, let's do the math. How many cars in the US? There are some 250,000,000 registered vehicles in the US (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html).

From the NPRM: "Based on the composition and size of the expected vehicle fleet, the total incremental cost, ... to equip a 16.6 million new vehicle fleet with rearview video systems is estimated to be $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion annually."

Two billions dollars annually to save an estimated 100 people annually, or twenty million dollars per fatality.

Twenty millions dollars per fatality prevented.

Perhaps there are more cost effective methods available.

edit: Is this technological solution made in the US or would this annual expense be more money sent overseas?
 
Last edited:
Bob Noel said:
Two billions dollars annually to save an estimated 100 people annually, or twenty million dollars per fatality.

Twenty millions dollars per fatality prevented.

Perhaps there are more cost effective methods available.

edit: Is this technological solution made in the US or would this annual expense be more money sent over seas?
Click to expand...

That's more cost effective than the TSA...

Probably mixed and it also depends on what kind of car you buy. Ford does the development for that sort of thing in-house just up the street from here. Not sure where they buy the actual camera / display. I would be reasonalby confidant that Toyota does the work in Japan and buys from one of their Japanese suppliers. Of course, for some models, the $0.25 it costs for labor to install it during final assembly stays here in the U.S.
 
alfadog said:
There is also that "you know you are an engineer when..."

You spend two hours fixing a free toy from a Happy Meal.
Click to expand...

The hard part is grinding the end of a screwdriver to be a good fit in those triangular screw heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top