No guides on the rearview camera?

Here one from the Volt. Curves with steering input to show projected path. Nice.

 

You would have seen her in your rear view mirror unless she was laying down in which case she deserved to be run over.

Sorry, I just think the camera is much ado about nothing.

 

Zdenok said

"I have those guide lines displayed, if I can remember, it can be switched on/off through touch screen when you are in reverse."



I want the super imposed guidelines. Is there a way?

Wade

 

We got the camera and plan to put it to good use.
Yes it is worth it.

Some seem to differ.
Lets just hope no one gets hurt w/o using it, or someones Prius
does not suffer damage from anything in its reverse path w/o using it.

 

On the UK non PIP Prius Nav, I have these curving as you turn the steering boxes in yellow, showing where you will go with the steering angle applied, superimposed over fixed boxes in green showing where you would go reversing straight back. These can be turned off/on on the screen when you put the car in reverse. You can see the rear bumper and there are short red lines at each end showing you when you will hit something with the bumper. There is also the park assist selection when you put it in reverse. This is on the 2010 T-Spirit which originally had the Intelligent park assist as standard, dropped on the 2012 and sold as an extra as part of the technology pack. I agree with the OP, the camera has far less use if it doesn't have the guide lines. I drove a Toyota Auris Hybrid which has a reversing camera in the rear view mirror and this only had the fixed straight back green boxes and found it of little use.

 

You mean those lines as in the image attached? My Prius has them but I don't know how to turn them on or off.
Parking spots are very small over here, therefore the red line is nice as it tells me the closest I can reverse towards an obstacle.

 

You missed part of the posting:

This scenario matches a number of the child backover tragedies, where the child had not yet developed the mental maturity to beware of danger, but had developed the mobility and speed to enter the danger zone after the driver directly inspected it but before the vehicle was actually moved. I hope you don't really believe they deserved it.

 

The grid is only available on the package V with ATP and is for calibration, not for use while backing-up. Entering this calibration mode disables navigation and the radio and the rear camera display remains activated in park and in foreward drive. There are some threads that describe the finger dance on the display needed to access this calibration mode for ATP. Warning - If you access this calibration mode, be careful you don't change something that you didn't intend to change. It is easy to screw-up the calibration of the back-up camera in this mode.

 

There are very few deaths caused by this, and absolutely no statistics that indicate these tragedies would be avoided because of a back up camera. The camera does nothing. It takes an observant driver.
Accidents happen. That's why they are called accidents. Why is this such an important issue to some of you? How have we managed to drive for the last 100 years without this becoming such a major issue until now?

There are far more important safety issues. I'll bet half of the people supporting these cameras have texted while driving, so please let's put this in the proper perspective.

 

Calling unintentional injuries "accidents" gives the false impression that they are unavoidable. Improvements in vehicle and highway engineering have cut risk of motor vehicle-related deaths in half in the US since the 1950s. This decline represents one of the most significant public health accomplishments of the past Century. Improved engineering and technology are no substitute for good judgement, but together they prevent more injuries and deaths than either, taken alone.

 

Ah, so now with back up cameras installed will that make the accident avoidable? And if it's avoidable does that make the "accident" no longer an accident? You're going down a very slippery slope. I can see the lawsuits coming down the pike.

You want to do something for safety? Prevent a drunk driver from driving a car. Don't bother defending a camera that may, or may not even save one life. You cannot engineer, or legislate good judgement. The camera is not some revolutionary safety device that we all can't afford to live without.




---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?wjtlyb

 

Humans don't have x-ray vision to look through the solid low parts of the vehicle to detect what has changed in the few seconds between when they could actually check, and when they actually move.

'Accident' is usually a euphemism, a cowardly cop-out to avoid having to think or do anything about causes and crash prevention.

(1) Our tolerance of highway bloodshed and other mortality causes has been continuously dropping over that hundred years. Back then, when life expectancy was not much over half what it is today, there were much more important issues to deal with.

(2) Since the mid 1990s, the explosive popularity of SUVs lead to greatly reduced rearward visibility and increased deaths from this cause. Then cars joined the parade by raising their average beltlines and butts and fattening the C pillars, adding to the problem.

Been there, forbid that already, and the citations are rapidly piling up.

 

Sorry, but it's just my opinion that a camera is more of a gadget than a lifesaver. I believe in collision avoidance detection, or proximity sensors which would give your vehicle that x-ray vision. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera caused more injury as each person learns how to use it. When they first came out I watched my neighbor look only at the camera, and back up into oncoming traffic. He was so enthralled with his new gadget he didn't bother to look side to side. I'm sure he was not the first, nor the last person to do that.

Sorry, but you're way off here. There truly are accidents. They are not cop outs. Anything that is not done on purpose, and with forethought is an accident, not a cop out.

Maybe our tolerance for highway bloodshed has dropped, but the incidents of bloodshed on our highways have not dropped. Check out your latest road rage stats. There are still plenty of people driving under the influence, and of course cellphones. People on cellphones are as dangerous as drunk drivers, but for God's sake, please protect millions of lives by installing a back up camera on every car by 2014. Please, give me a break. (not talking to you, but our government)

Again, collision avoidance detectors, or proximity sensors are all that is necessary, and for much less cost to the consumer.

 

"The longer you own the car the less you will use it." Not true. I have owned my Prius for over three years and I still use it. It is an additional safety device.

 

I know this discussion will never end because just about everyone on this forum has a back up camera. I'm sure the rest of the world can sleep well tonight because we have backup cameras. Millions of pets, kids, and old people tying their shoes have been saved by our beloved back up cameras. What a wonderful world we live in.

 

No, you are way off. Vehicle crashes are mostly the result of misconduct or avoidable error, not fate or acts of God. The term 'accident' is truly a euphemism, and seriously interferes with safety improvements.

Yes, please do check out the highway bloodshed rates. When I was young, motor vehicles and traffic fatalities exceeded 54,000 per year. Now, with many more drivers rolling up more than twice as many total miles, fatalities have been cut to under 33,000 per year. How can you say this isn't a drop?