Started By
Message

re: Should backup sensors/alarms be required instead of cameras on new cars?

Posted on 5/26/18 at 9:38 am to
Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
72104 posts
Posted on 5/26/18 at 9:38 am to
Yes. There's a reason many industrial sites require backup beepers and none require cameras
Posted by t00f
Not where you think I am
Member since Jul 2016
102122 posts
Posted on 5/26/18 at 9:45 am to
You can turn the beep/alert off as easy as not using the cameras.

Can’t imagine not using the camera but it came at a higher cost having the all around view.
Posted by LazloHollyfeld
Steam Tunnel at UNC-G
Member since Apr 2009
2108 posts
Posted on 5/26/18 at 9:46 am to
You should let your husband drive
Posted by tigerinthebueche
Member since Oct 2010
38054 posts
Posted on 5/26/18 at 9:50 am to
Why not both?
Posted by Mike da Tigah
Bravo Romeo Lima Alpha
Member since Feb 2005
61834 posts
Posted on 5/26/18 at 10:14 am to
quote:

Yes. There's a reason many industrial sites require backup beepers and none require cameras


Because people usually walk aimlessly with their head in the clouds?
Posted by STEVED00
Member since May 2007
23159 posts
Posted on 5/26/18 at 10:23 am to
Cameras are an enhancement to the required mirrors which Is your primary protection (visual) for hitting something that is not in front or side of you while driving. The audible proximity sensor alarm is a secondary audio protection if your primary visual protection fails you (probably bc you were not using it).

I just think a true secondary level of protection is a better requirement than an enhanced primary level of protection if the powers that be were to require additional protection be installed on new vehicles.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram