Back up camera/warning worth its weight in gold!

[wifes2011xlt]

Kudos to you for being an advanced driver and trying to get others on board with your safety mindedness but IMO, you would be more effective if you left out the fear-mongering part. In fact, IMO, using that tactic is a sign of desperation to prove a point.

And if that's what advanced driver courses are predicated on, I'm not drinking the kool-aid...

 

[markls8]

Kudos to you for being an advanced driver and trying to get others on board with your safety mindedness but IMO, you would be more effective if you left out the fear-mongering part. In fact, IMO, using that tactic is a sign of desperation to prove a point.

And if that's what advanced driver courses are predicated on, I'm not drinking the kool-aid...

Not really fear-mongering, just trying to convey the potential gravity of one's actions. It is easy to adopt an attitude that it will always happen to somebody else, and not to me. The statistics are easy to dismiss as merely numbers to most of us, but they are way more than numbers to the people (no matter how many, or how few) to whom these incidents happen. I merely point out the resulting consequences because they are so easily missed otherwise. And human actions are driven by their consequences. Mostly.

For example, witness the impact on young drivers that placing wrecked vehicles in which someone was fatally injured from a drunk driver on display has. (Drunk driving, a Criminal offence here, has been in decline over the years for a number of reasons). It hits home the reality and seriousness of the situation, in a way that is not easily otherwise recognized. It's more appropriate to call things like this reality-mongering, and not fear-mongering, sorry if someone finds it distasteful, I am NOT out to offend.

Sorry you feel that way, however, suit yourself, you would not be the first person to cut off their nose to spite their face. I suppose one reason why there is presently such a race on to bring out autonomous cars is that it eliminates irrational decision making from the driving equation. A huge number of lives will be saved every year.

And make no mistake, I am not delusional in thinking that a short diaphanous posting on this forum is going to have a positive impact on overall driving habits. But that's no reason for me to not discuss the topic, because it just might make someone think about it, that hasn't before.

I can. It's easier. Backing into a spot that's 10' wide is harder than backing out into a roadway that is 20'+ wide.

That's it. It's easier.

A very valid point JE– it can be easier to drive in forward, so there is an upside to it. I stand corrected, it has even more in common with playing Russian Roulette than I had originally stated.

Sorry to digress so far off your topic Kirsten (your point is well-taken, BTW), I hope you've been on forums enough to not be asking yourself “what kind of a Frankenstein thread have I created”.

 

[dco43054]

Not really fear-mongering, just trying to convey the potential gravity of one's actions.<clip>

I'm really trying not to have this sound like a "screw you", but really? Way too dramatic.

I was actually thinking about this thread when I was in a parking lot yesterday and preparing to park. Some twit came screaming around a corner into a drive aisle and would have run into the side of my Explorer if I would have decided to back in.

To each his/her own based on best judgment and conditions.

 

[wifes2011xlt]

You misunderstand me. I'm not spiting anything. I actually think the statistics you spout have some merit. I agree that the tragic events like the ones you parrot are the reality for a very small portion of the countless occurrences when a driver goes in reverse and shouldn't be ignored. Where we differ is that you place way more merit on them than I do. The stats that you gush over to make your point are prevalence rates, i.e. how often things have occurred in the past. Do they serve some predictive capability? Ofcourse, which is what makes fear-mongering so easy and so believable for some, but anyone who actually understands statistics, data analysis, the scientific method knows that at its purest, the real statistic is that the chances of anything happening at any given time is always 50/50.

You, on the other hand, would have people believe that they will be less at risk if they back into a spot, while I say the same level of risk exists, i.e. the chances of an adverse event occuring for either method is equal. Which is more safety minded? Assuming you are at risk of an accident with either method, or (borrowing your words) "playing Russian Roulette" and only assuming you are more at risk when employing one method over another?

I wonder what the statistic is for those that have been called out for fear-mongering but deny it with some sort of rationalization but then proceed to additional fear mongering?

 

[markls8]

I'm really trying not to have this sound like a "screw you", but really? Way too dramatic.

I was actually thinking about this thread when I was in a parking lot yesterday and preparing to park. Some twit came screaming around a corner into a drive aisle and would have run into the side of my Explorer if I would have decided to back in.

To each his/her own based on best judgment and conditions.

It sounds like we agree, dco, you were doing as suggested; whenever you are in a situation where you can logically and easily back in first, do it. In this specific instance you used your best judgement and had a reason not to back in, and didn't. You applied appropriate, simple logic, seems like it could have been my choice in the circumstance as well. Note that at no time in my postings above did I ever say it was appropriate to do it every, or even nearly every, time.

I think that anyone who could arrive at the conclusion to back in first by logical thinking and risk management has arrived at it, once presented with the data. But there will always be the certain (maybe small, I admit) group (and that may well be no one on this forum) that doesn't respond to logic and needs the drama of burning a finger on the stove to find out that it's hot.

That's the target group to whom the drama of the wreck on display was necessary and effective at conveying the message. I've been at accident scenes with significant trauma, and my thoughts have centred on how a very small thing that a person can do wrong can have such catastrophic effects, and how that small thing done differently, with a little forethought, could so easily have prevented such trauma.

(You didn't sound like a “screw you” to me, BTW).

 

[markls8]

wifes2011xlt wrote:

" but anyone who actually understands statistics, data analysis, the scientific method knows that ... "

...you mean you, maybe?

wifes2011xlt wrote:

" ...at its purest the real statistic is that the chances of anything happening at any given time is always 50/50."

Really?* Now that we've heard the "pure" word from someone “who actually understands statistics, data analysis, the scientific method”... I think I will continue to stick with what my statistics and physics professors taught instead, thank you.

(Or is there a typo there somewhere I missed)?:roll:

But imaginary voodoo statistics and conspiracy theories aside, the more frequently you drive and park (that's why it becomes significant, and is recommended for fleets as a best practise) the more likely an often-repeated negative action is going to work against and bite you. Just like in Vegas, the odds, be they small, still favour the house.

I do see that if one doesn't like the message, the attempt can be (ad hominem) to shoot the messenger. However I do not consider that to be an effective way of arguing a point or changing the message. It remains.

*I'm sure that there are more than a few seasoned lottery ticket buyers who would disagree with you!

ps. Google "Schrodinger's Cat".

 

[wifes2011xlt]

Actually, I'm not attacking the messenger, you are. I'm arguing against the message itself. You question my knowledge of stats, I question the stats you spout. There is a difference. When someone starts to try to take someone down with personal attacks, that, IMO, is always a(nother) sign of desperation.

Gambling and Lotto, really? you said it yourself, the odds are stacked against you from the beginning because of house rules. Obviously if odds are stacked, the 50/50 chance goes out the door. Not really the same as pure, environmental , with so many uncontrollable forces at play as in daily driving.

I've always given you credit for your point of view. I've always understood your point. I can appreciate your statistics because, yes, I understand them. Now you attack my knowledge of stats with very little basis (P.s. Google 'actuarial science'). When you do that, you're alienating the one person on this thread that has actually been able to appreciate your argument and give you kudos even though your views differ from mine. That's called understanding.

How about we try to wrap this up, ok?

You're point of view: Back up into a spot whenever possible, there is less risk when you do this.

My point of view: Backing up or pulling in has the same level of risk. Take just as much caution with either method.

I'll even give you the last word. Go...