$9 Solutions to $2 Problems

[alfadog]

The hard part is grinding the end of a screwdriver to be a good fit in those triangular screw heads.

The voice of experience. LOL!

 

[airguy]

The hard part is grinding the end of a screwdriver to be a good fit in those triangular screw heads.

JB Weld the offending screw to a piece of scrap, then replace it with a real screw.

 

[alfadog]

The hard part is grinding the end of a screwdriver to be a good fit in those triangular screw heads.

I have a set of drivers to fit various "security" fasteners. The set has maybe 50 drivers. I don't know offhand if it has the triangle drivers.

These are nice:

 

[hopmedic]

Sitting in front of a mirror?

Nope! I was watching these guys:

The hard part is grinding the end of a screwdriver to be a good fit in those triangular screw heads.

JB Weld the offending screw to a piece of scrap, then replace it with a real screw.

I have a set of drivers to fit various "security" fasteners. The set has maybe 50 drivers. I don't know offhand if it has the triangle drivers.

These are nice:

BAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[PPC1052]

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

Having both used the radar system, and seen the video camera system in place, I do not believe the camera system really is safer, but admittedly, I have done no study on it myself. What I can tell is that the conclusion is based on assumptions about how people operate their vehicles. While I recognize that making these assumptions is necessary to performing such studies, and I don't fault a study merely because it makes assumptions, it is prudent to bear in mind that those assumptions may or may not be accurate assumptions. For example, many of the required crash tests do not accurately model what occurs in typcial car accidents because they don't account for offset impacts. All of this is to say that without knowing more about the studies, I am skeptical, based on my own eye-witness observations, but I also recognize that mere casual eye-witness observation is not a rigorous study of the issue.

But even if we assume the conclusion to be true, why lock ourselves in to the camera option with a mandate, when other systems can potentially be better? If you mandate the feature, then there will never be any improved system.

The post outlining the $20 million cost per death prevented really gets to the heart of the issue. I know that some people will cringe at placing a $20 million figure on a life, but we do it all the time, we just don't realize it. I don't recall the exact figures, but my recollection that most safety decisions we make place a much lower value on each life saved. Thus, by comparison, this safety mandate is over-kill.

 

[gismo]

What is the purpose for "electric folding side mirrors" on a car?
I hear this in ads like it's the new sliced bread. I don't get it.

I actually found a use for them. Occasionally when it threatens to hail we park three cars in my garage which isn't really big enough. I need the mirrors to back the car in as close to the wall as possible but I have to fold one mirror in when coming past the garage door opening. Of course I could just roll the window down and fold it in by hand if it's the left side that needs to get out of the way.