Sure, but the question was an entreaty of the void wondering how they’re legal in the US when they seemingly violate US vehicle regulations regarding driver visibility. They weren’t designed for the non-US market, so it’s not exactly a shock they’re not street legal in those markets.
(I actually did go and look up the answer after that comment, and the explanation is that they were able to demonstrate in the Model S that their blindspot cameras were both reliable and comprehensive enough that they could supplement the physical mirrors, which has honestly been a huge win and has lead to something of an explosion in modernizing NHTSA regulations. While they are fascists and the cars have aged like something that doesn’t age very well, this spurring on of regulatory agencies did clear the way for broad rapid adoption of now-common features like ADAS, driver awareness monitoring systems and integrated blindspot cameras. There’s talk that they’re going to make reverse cameras mandatory on new cars soon, which will be nice as well. None of this is the result of the cybertruck, to be clear. That thing, and tesla, and especially musk, are all still awful. It’s just an interesting peek at how the the vehicle regulatory landscape has changed shockingly quickly.)
Are there actual studies demonstrating that all those cameras are really as effective as a car with good driver view and mirror coverage? After all, things don’t get easier if there are even more locations you have to look at for getting a good picture of the environment.
Well no not exactly, every study I’ve found shows they’re far more effective than a car with just mirrors. Which does make sense! Having to fully shift your attention away and manipulate your head vs. glancing down both keeps all the things you need to be monitoring at least in your peripheral vision, and is much faster than fully turning your head.
I was coming from the point of pedestrian safety, one of the key reasons that the Cybertruck had no chance of becoming street legal in the EU. The first and third link is not relevant for that, the second link is not just about video monitors but active assistance systems but also does not really discuss pedestrian safety either.
Additionally, none of these links discusses the comparison of a car with good view lines with a car with terrible view lines, compensated by camera systems. Assistance systems can also enhance cars with good view lines as well, so it would be relevant to compare that as well.
NGL, this is starting to feel a little sea-lion-y. I don’t know if anyone has done a study that satisfies the requirement of explicitly determining if poor visibility + camera improves beyond good visibility, because I don’t think that would be possible to quantify. However it’s trivial to show that it increases visibility to beyond what is available from a standard car (and that blind spot systems improve pedestrian and cyclist safety) and all the previous studies I provided demonstrate that it provides increased driver awareness, so if we want the facile-but-still-correct answer then yes it absolutely does.
That is part of the problem that I described, pedestrian safety being an afterthought in the US, not just in a regulatory way, also as far as research is concerned, especially in regards to driver safety.
I am aware that my request regarding comparison of well designed and poorly designed cars regarding driver view, is rather specific but I think it is the relevant question. The question wasn’t if assistance systems can enhance safety it was if they can make up for the loss in safety due to poorly designed cars. The studies you provided did not talk at all about pedestrian safety, or did I miss something?
The question was indeed about how assistance systems, in particular blind spot cameras, can enhance safety. That was the entire premise of what I said, and was what I was discussing until you shifted the goalposts while dismissing those sources as irrelevant. Hence the sealion bit - it may well be you failed to communicate here, but you’re doing a poor job of making that clear if so.
That is part of the problem that I described, pedestrian safety being an afterthought in the US, not just in a regulatory way, also as far as research is concerned, especially in regards to driver safety.
Ah! Could you then perhaps show me the EU research on this topic? I utterly forgot that continent existed when looking up sources on this. Sarcasm aside, it’s maddening that both the recent UN and EU guidelines laying out that vehicles add blind spot cameras/monitoring systems fail to cite any studies as their rationale for the changes.
Oh it’s largely the design, the things have absolutely shit visibility especially for close in driving. No idea how they’re even street legal.
They aren’t, in most of the developed world. In the US they are because there pedestrian safety is an afterthought at best.
Sure, but the question was an entreaty of the void wondering how they’re legal in the US when they seemingly violate US vehicle regulations regarding driver visibility. They weren’t designed for the non-US market, so it’s not exactly a shock they’re not street legal in those markets.
(I actually did go and look up the answer after that comment, and the explanation is that they were able to demonstrate in the Model S that their blindspot cameras were both reliable and comprehensive enough that they could supplement the physical mirrors, which has honestly been a huge win and has lead to something of an explosion in modernizing NHTSA regulations. While they are fascists and the cars have aged like something that doesn’t age very well, this spurring on of regulatory agencies did clear the way for broad rapid adoption of now-common features like ADAS, driver awareness monitoring systems and integrated blindspot cameras. There’s talk that they’re going to make reverse cameras mandatory on new cars soon, which will be nice as well. None of this is the result of the cybertruck, to be clear. That thing, and tesla, and especially musk, are all still awful. It’s just an interesting peek at how the the vehicle regulatory landscape has changed shockingly quickly.)
Are there actual studies demonstrating that all those cameras are really as effective as a car with good driver view and mirror coverage? After all, things don’t get easier if there are even more locations you have to look at for getting a good picture of the environment.
Well no not exactly, every study I’ve found shows they’re far more effective than a car with just mirrors. Which does make sense! Having to fully shift your attention away and manipulate your head vs. glancing down both keeps all the things you need to be monitoring at least in your peripheral vision, and is much faster than fully turning your head.
Effectiveness of a blind spot visualization system with a video camera for safe lane changes
Effects of blind spot monitoring systems on police-reported lane-change crashes
Study of Automated Vehicle Technology Using Nationwide Databases Found Blind Spot Monitoring Reduced Collision Claim Frequency by 2.13 Percent.
I was coming from the point of pedestrian safety, one of the key reasons that the Cybertruck had no chance of becoming street legal in the EU. The first and third link is not relevant for that, the second link is not just about video monitors but active assistance systems but also does not really discuss pedestrian safety either.
Additionally, none of these links discusses the comparison of a car with good view lines with a car with terrible view lines, compensated by camera systems. Assistance systems can also enhance cars with good view lines as well, so it would be relevant to compare that as well.
NGL, this is starting to feel a little sea-lion-y. I don’t know if anyone has done a study that satisfies the requirement of explicitly determining if poor visibility + camera improves beyond good visibility, because I don’t think that would be possible to quantify. However it’s trivial to show that it increases visibility to beyond what is available from a standard car (and that blind spot systems improve pedestrian and cyclist safety) and all the previous studies I provided demonstrate that it provides increased driver awareness, so if we want the facile-but-still-correct answer then yes it absolutely does.
That is part of the problem that I described, pedestrian safety being an afterthought in the US, not just in a regulatory way, also as far as research is concerned, especially in regards to driver safety.
I am aware that my request regarding comparison of well designed and poorly designed cars regarding driver view, is rather specific but I think it is the relevant question. The question wasn’t if assistance systems can enhance safety it was if they can make up for the loss in safety due to poorly designed cars. The studies you provided did not talk at all about pedestrian safety, or did I miss something?
The question was indeed about how assistance systems, in particular blind spot cameras, can enhance safety. That was the entire premise of what I said, and was what I was discussing until you shifted the goalposts while dismissing those sources as irrelevant. Hence the sealion bit - it may well be you failed to communicate here, but you’re doing a poor job of making that clear if so.
Ah! Could you then perhaps show me the EU research on this topic? I utterly forgot that continent existed when looking up sources on this. Sarcasm aside, it’s maddening that both the recent UN and EU guidelines laying out that vehicles add blind spot cameras/monitoring systems fail to cite any studies as their rationale for the changes.