Car blind spot monitoring and rear cross traffic system

[Lurking]

I have a car without such system (2013 Honda CRV) and want to add blind spot detection ("seeing" a car traveling into my blind spot) and rear cross traffic alert ("seeing" object moving into my path when backing out).

Can anyone advice on what is good? I found the following:

 

Boyo VTLB SD1  for $350 is license plate mounted and also has a good camera. Would be the easiest to install. One concern is, it only sees 180° unlike corner-mount sensors that may see a bit more forward. Since i also need a new camera, this seems to be a good value. 

Eway 77GHz blind spot system (they also have a cheaper 24 GHz version)  for $400  this is corner-mounted 

Brandmotion RDBS-1500 for $800

Rydeen BSS-One for $500   but from the descriiption it isn't clear if it has cross-traffic alert (it doesn't say). And it may have the same 180° view limitation as the license plate system. ti seems to be easier to wire and install than the 2-sensor systems and also has GPS integrated as opposed to a separate GPS sensor.

Rydeenn BSS3 for $600 is their standard 2-sensor 24 GHz ssytem

I also found Pioneer systems, but they make it pretty clear they want professional installation and tie into the CAN bus etc. that may be a bit beyond of what I want to do. 

 

I think I can mange the installation, but really want a good system that isn't annoying. and since installation is so involved, I can't just buy it, and then return. I'm also not sure which of the above would be best for service, spar parts etc. 

 

Can someone advise on what system is good and what pros and cons the systems have? Is 77GHz really that much better? is a license plate or other single sensor system as good as corner-mount?

[Needfuldoer]

If you set your mirrors up properly, a regular car shouldn't have any "blind spots". If you can see your own car in your mirrors, they're pointed wrong. You want there to be as little overlap as possible between the side mirrors and the rearview.

 

 

My car has the systems you said you want, but they're more of a nuisance than a help. Seeing an orange light come up in the mirror is okay so you don't necessarily have to look at the mirrors to know something's there, but a lot of the time it goes off for dumb reasons (like driving against a jersey barrier). Reverse cross-traffic alert has helped maybe once in the four years I've had it, most of the time it just starts beeping like mad because it detects something moving far away. (It's especially paranoid about cars driving on the road at the end of the parking lot, where I won't be reversing anyway.) 

 

Just get a good back-up camera with a fish eye lens.

[danomicar]

24 minutes ago, Lurking said:

really want a good system that isn't annoying.

in my experience these systems are much more hassle than they are worth. I definitely feel the advice shared by the poster above is your best solution. 

[Bitter]

23 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

If you set your mirrors up properly, a regular car shouldn't have any "blind spots". If you can see your own car in your mirrors, they're pointed wrong. You want there to be as little overlap as possible between the side mirrors and the rearview.

 

 

My car has the systems you said you want, but they're more of a nuisance than a help. Seeing an orange light come up in the mirror is okay so you don't necessarily have to look at the mirrors to know something's there, but a lot of the time it goes off for dumb reasons (like driving against a jersey barrier). Reverse cross-traffic alert has helped maybe once in the four years I've had it, most of the time it just starts beeping like mad because it detects something moving far away. (It's especially paranoid about cars driving on the road at the end of the parking lot, where I won't be reversing anyway.) 

 

Just get a good back-up camera with a fish eye lens.

Great advice, I added blind spot mirrors to both of my cars in addition to having the mirrors set mostly correctly. Not all cars have enough mirror adjustment range or large enough mirrors to get full coverage like that.

[Lurking]

6 hours ago, Needfuldoer said:

If you set your mirrors up properly, a regular car shouldn't have any "blind spots". If you can see your own car in your mirrors, they're pointed wrong. You want there to be as little overlap as possible between the side mirrors and the rearview.

 

My car has the systems you said you want, but they're more of a nuisance than a help. Seeing an orange light come up in the mirror is okay so you don't necessarily have to look at the mirrors to know something's there, but a lot of the time it goes off for dumb reasons (like driving against a jersey barrier). Reverse cross-traffic alert has helped maybe once in the four years I've had it, most of the time it just starts beeping like mad because it detects something moving far away. (It's especially paranoid about cars driving on the road at the end of the parking lot, where I won't be reversing anyway.) 

 

Just get a good back-up camera with a fish eye lens.

Thanks for the response. I actually have set up my mirrors like you said. And unlike newer cars, my car has large mirrors and good visibility. I'm also good with looking over my shoulder and using the blinker (unlike most drivers here!). During day when overcast, or when the sun is high, it really isn't an issue. I'm also someone who scans all 3 mirrors frequently to be aware what may be going on. But in adverse conditions like when the sun is low (especially from the left), cars cast long shadows, in fog, or at night. Here you also have cars that drive at night without light and pass you on the right. So there is an excuse to add radar in ADDITION to what you said about mirrors. Obviously there is the 001% of time where I may not pay attention. 

 

My car has a wide-angle rear camera and it works fine under good light conditions. but at night, or when the sun shies from behind, it is nearly useless. I'm separately working on getting a better camera with lower light rating. but that still may not help with glare. 

 

My wife actually has both systems and it is really nice. Maybe the yellow lights blink falsely sometimes, but when I don't plan to make a lane change, i don't pay attention to them. The blindspot only blinks, but the rear cross traffic makes a noise. That actually is how I found out her car has it when there was a pedestrian who I did not see. I realize one should not rely on electronics, and car designers shouldn't use them as an excuse to design bad visibility into newer cars. But they can be a good ADDITION to good driving habits. 

 

My understanding is the blind spot system buzzer only activates (makes noise) when the blinker is turned on. That should prevent annoying noises. When the blinker is off, it only will show the yellow light when it detects something. 

 

 

[IRMacGuyver]

If you need those "driver aids" you shouldn't be driving in the first place.  Pay attention and learn to drive.

[Sarra]

3 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

If you need those "driver aids" you shouldn't be driving in the first place.  Pay attention and learn to drive.

Or just get Extra Sensory Peripheral Vision? Heard a cop say someone claimed to have this, and it was the reason he didn't need to actually check his blind spots. o.x

 

Having driven professionally for 8 years, and trained new drivers for 2 of those years, it's pretty sad how often people don't actually check their blind spots when changing lanes. One trainee of mine ran two vehicles off the road because of this, it was pretty embarrassing. I ended up 'fixing' this with training, but he still didn't last (he quit, surprisingly, instead of getting fired).

 

Only thing I want for my truck is an always on reverse camera. I don't have a place for the display, though, so not gonna happen anyway. Always on would be nice when driving, especially when I got crap in the back and can't see out the rear window anyway.

[dalekphalm]

8 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

If you need those "driver aids" you shouldn't be driving in the first place.  Pay attention and learn to drive.

It's not about "needing" them, it's about how they can be useful to enhance your safety in addition to good driving skills. This reply isn't very helpful IMO.

[Lurking]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

It's not about "needing" them, it's about how they can be useful to enhance your safety in addition to good driving skills. This reply isn't very helpful IMO.

Correct, I want electronics for what I as a human cannot see or have a hard time to see. Like at night (with other cars not having lights on!) and other bad conditions. and as a driver I'm also not at a good position to see cross traffic when backing out. The camera, or radar sensor at the rear of the car are in a much better position to see. and again, darkness etc. Like having a helper who stands behind the car and gives directions. 

 

I'm 100% for good mirrors, looking over shoulder etc. I know electronics aren't a replacement for good driving. 

[Bitter]

10 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

If you need those "driver aids" you shouldn't be driving in the first place.  Pay attention and learn to drive.

Your car got power steering, power brakes, and antilock brakes? Two side mirrors?

[IRMacGuyver]

2 hours ago, Bitter said:

Your car got power steering, power brakes, and antilock brakes? Two side mirrors?

Some of them have some of them have not.  I don't need them.

[IRMacGuyver]

9 hours ago, Sarra said:

Or just get Extra Sensory Peripheral Vision? Heard a cop say someone claimed to have this, and it was the reason he didn't need to actually check his blind spots. o.x

 

Having driven professionally for 8 years, and trained new drivers for 2 of those years, it's pretty sad how often people don't actually check their blind spots when changing lanes. One trainee of mine ran two vehicles off the road because of this, it was pretty embarrassing. I ended up 'fixing' this with training, but he still didn't last (he quit, surprisingly, instead of getting fired).

 

Only thing I want for my truck is an always on reverse camera. I don't have a place for the display, though, so not gonna happen anyway. Always on would be nice when driving, especially when I got crap in the back and can't see out the rear window anyway.

I drove for Byod Brothers. 

[Needfuldoer]

13 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

It's not about "needing" them, it's about how they can be useful to enhance your safety in addition to good driving skills. This reply isn't very helpful IMO.

That's the difference. They're there to help the driver, but a lot of people seem to think "this will make the car pay attention for me".

[mr moose]

Call me old fashioned, but all this new tech keeping cars in their lanes and stopping you from having accidents, etc is probably making drivers more dangerous because they are losing the imminent danger of failing to be alert all the time.

 

My car is 22 years old, it does not have a reverse camera or rear facing sensors, I was backing out of a dark car park with very poor vision. Naturally I was doing it slowly and looking as best I could.  A man wearing dark clothes walked right behind the vehicle then proceeded to have a go at me for not looking at the camera or listening to the vehicles reverse warning (neither of which I have).  Honestly,  he thought he could just walk behind the vehicle and it would stop or I would be alerted to his presence and stop the vehicle.  

[Arika]

56 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Call me old fashioned, but all this new tech keeping cars in their lanes and stopping you from having accidents, etc is probably making drivers more dangerous because they are losing the imminent danger of failing to be alert all the time.

Maybe everyone staring at their phones all the time has made it impossible to have their neck in any position that isn't craned down.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Needfuldoer said:

That's the difference. They're there to help the driver, but a lot of people seem to think "this will make the car pay attention for me".

Sure, some people.

 

But some people also thought "Cruise Control" in the 80's and 90's meant they could have a nap and the car would drive for them.

 

Overall, most of these safety features - especially the ones that get mandated as mandatory (eg: backup camera), do increase driver safety and reduce collisions and other accidents.

 

For example, having a backup camera is likely better and safer for most people, when backing up.

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Call me old fashioned, but all this new tech keeping cars in their lanes and stopping you from having accidents, etc is probably making drivers more dangerous because they are losing the imminent danger of failing to be alert all the time.

I'm not convinced by this argument. Cars have always introduced more safety features over time. Some of them are silly and not that useful, some of them are life saving and crucial to road safety.

 

Drivers who are likely to not be alert at all times due to some safety feature, were already not being alert anyway. They were already being dangerous.

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

My car is 22 years old, it does not have a reverse camera or rear facing sensors, I was backing out of a dark car park with very poor vision. Naturally I was doing it slowly and looking as best I could.  A man wearing dark clothes walked right behind the vehicle then proceeded to have a go at me for not looking at the camera or listening to the vehicles reverse warning (neither of which I have).  Honestly,  he thought he could just walk behind the vehicle and it would stop or I would be alerted to his presence and stop the vehicle.  

I assume you didn't hit him, so that's good. Him being a moron doesn't really factor into it other than just pointing out the massive risks of operating a vehicle. Having a backup camera would have likely allowed you to spot him even easier, but it's great that you were able to see him anyway.

[Sarra]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Call me old fashioned, but all this new tech keeping cars in their lanes and stopping you from having accidents, etc is probably making drivers more dangerous because they are losing the imminent danger of failing to be alert all the time.

Having driven 8 hours a day, every work day, for the last 8 years, I agree, and disagree.

 

Tech that improves driver awareness is useful. Tech that lets the driver disconnect from the road is not.

 

Using your logic, I would argue that a manual transmission is safer than an automatic. I actually do believe that, always have, and always will. You're forced to pay attention when driving a stick, where you can ignore more of what's happening with an automatic.

[Lurking]

Aviation was much safer 100 years ago when the pilot still had full analog control. Now with all those electronics, planes are falling out of the sky all the time......

 

While I appreciate the discussion about the need. I also would like to know what type of system would be good. Or what pros and cons the ones I listed have. 

[OhYou_]

OEMs use a combination of 77ghz and cameras, usually camera for the cross traffic detection and 77ghz for the bsi
honda bsi is done in the mirrors, not the corner of the car. 
No idea what a corner system would perform like. 
I would ultimately go with what oems do when considering any safety system retrofit to a car, but it's hard to recommend something specific to you when you seem to want to depend on it for your safety.
it's also hard to recommend anything specific because the car was never fitted or optioned with it.

 

In short all I can really say for certain is to just sell the car and buy one with the system you want, otherwise please do research and form your own final decision.  
 

[Sarra]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

Aviation was much safer 100 years ago when the pilot still had full analog control. Now with all those electronics, planes are falling out of the sky all the time......

 

While I appreciate the discussion about the need. I also would like to know what type of system would be good. Or what pros and cons the ones I listed have. 

There's a lot of fallacy in your argument.

 

Let me point some things out: 100 years ago, there were maybe a few hundred, maybe thousand, planes in existence. In 2022, there are millions of planes, with the majority of them being general aviation (cessna, single engine propeller planes). 

 

There were no maintenance standards in 1922. Engine failures were common, and you had a higher chance of dyeing in a plane crash than getting struck by lightning. That is very much not the case in 2022.

 

Piston engine aircraft were the only option in 1922, but we have axial flow turbine engines today, which are MUCH safer, WAY more reliable, and sound super awesome.

 

1977 was the year on record with the most aviation fatalities, and it has never been even close to that level since then.

 

I could go on.

[Lurking]

4 hours ago, OhYou_ said:

OEMs use a combination of 77ghz and cameras, usually camera for the cross traffic detection and 77ghz for the bsi
honda bsi is done in the mirrors, not the corner of the car. 
No idea what a corner system would perform like. 
I would ultimately go with what oems do when considering any safety system retrofit to a car, but it's hard to recommend something specific to you when you seem to want to depend on it for your safety.
it's also hard to recommend anything specific because the car was never fitted or optioned with it.

 

In short all I can really say for certain is to just sell the car and buy one with the system you want, otherwise please do research and form your own final decision.  
 

Thanks. Good information. I always thought the mirrors would be the best location for Blind spot sensors. It looks like to do it right, it would take much more than what most after-market kits offer. Even if my car would have had the option of the monitors (it didn't), doing what OEM did would be very expensive (likely new mirrors etc.)

 

I considered buying a new economy car with a whole line of improved safety features (better lights, front radar and automatic braking, better crash worthiness...). But one things is, my car still is in good mechanical shape after only 64,000 miles. I explored that new car idea so much that I even talked to some dealers after picking a few car options. I was told ordering now will get me the car in 6 months to up to a year... On the upside, for the new cars I considered, I only have to go one trim level above standard to get all safety features. but moot point due to lack of availability, and my old car still being good. 

 

Maybe I just skip the radar things and prepare to buy a new car in 2-3 years. a "not so good" after market safety feature can even be more dangerous if not implemented right. 

 

I still maintain, if implemented, well, these systems can be a great addition to otherwise safe driving habits. 

[mr moose]

18 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Sure, some people.

 

But some people also thought "Cruise Control" in the 80's and 90's meant they could have a nap and the car would drive for them.

 

Overall, most of these safety features - especially the ones that get mandated as mandatory (eg: backup camera), do increase driver safety and reduce collisions and other accidents.

 

For example, having a backup camera is likely better and safer for most people, when backing up.

I'm not convinced by this argument. Cars have always introduced more safety features over time. Some of them are silly and not that useful, some of them are life saving and crucial to road safety.

 

Drivers who are likely to not be alert at all times due to some safety feature, were already not being alert anyway. They were already being dangerous.

I assume you didn't hit him, so that's good. Him being a moron doesn't really factor into it other than just pointing out the massive risks of operating a vehicle. Having a backup camera would have likely allowed you to spot him even easier, but it's great that you were able to see him anyway.

You missed the point,  he thought he could safely walk behind me because he thought the car had safety features that would alert me to his presence if not actually stop the car.   This is a case of technology causing people to become complacent.

 

 

Most of the safety improvements in cars during the last century were all passive, i.e seat belts that only work if you have an accident, ABS that only helps you break by taking away the human inefficiency in judging the break pressure required to prevent wheel lock up , and things like airbags that only deploy in an accident.   Sure there are some small things like reverse cameras and reverse sensors, but as my real world example shows they can indeed bread complacency.

 

I imagine lane change tech is leading to similar traits among some drivers.

 

 

[Sauron]

On 10/30/2022 at 3:48 PM, Needfuldoer said:

If you can see your own car in your mirrors, they're pointed wrong

You need to see at least the edge of your car, otherwise you can't really reverse safely. The rear view camera helps but even the best ones can't show you what's right on the edges where the wheels are. I can just look at the blind spot before changing lanes (and if you have good awareness of your surroundings you usually know if a car is there anyway, though you should still check), I can't really crane my neck in any way to see what's by my real wheels. In addition no mirror setup can cover 100% of the road beside you, you still need to look around to make sure since there could be a motorcycle or other small vehicles in unfortunate positions.

 

I don't know if a detector completely solves this issue but I imagine it helps. Still best to pay attention and look around.

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

Call me old fashioned, but all this new tech keeping cars in their lanes and stopping you from having accidents, etc is probably making drivers more dangerous because they are losing the imminent danger of failing to be alert all the time.

 

My car is 22 years old, it does not have a reverse camera or rear facing sensors, I was backing out of a dark car park with very poor vision. Naturally I was doing it slowly and looking as best I could.  A man wearing dark clothes walked right behind the vehicle then proceeded to have a go at me for not looking at the camera or listening to the vehicles reverse warning (neither of which I have).  Honestly,  he thought he could just walk behind the vehicle and it would stop or I would be alerted to his presence and stop the vehicle.  

This is why I seek eye contact with the driver before doing anything around a moving car (and vice versa I don't move my car if I can't look surrounding pedestrians in the eye or at least can clearly tell they are moving out of the way). Still I'd say having those sensors is a net positive since a lot of people will just not look where they're going or what they're doing anyway.

On 10/30/2022 at 3:26 PM, Lurking said:

I also found Pioneer systems, but they make it pretty clear they want professional installation and tie into the CAN bus etc. that may be a bit beyond of what I want to do.

Oh dear, leave the CAN bus be, it's a miracle those even stay up in stock configurations

On 10/30/2022 at 3:26 PM, Lurking said:

is a license plate or other single sensor system as good as corner-mount?

Considering where the "blind spot" usually lies I'd say a license plate mount wouldn't cover it very well. Mounting it there would probably serve as a warning if you forget to look in your mirrors but not increase their coverage.

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, Sauron said:

This is why I seek eye contact with the driver before doing anything around a moving car (and vice versa I don't move my car if I can't look surrounding pedestrians in the eye or at least can clearly tell they are moving out of the way). Still I'd say having those sensors is a net positive since a lot of people will just not look where they're going or what they're doing anyway.

 

I am definitely not saying we should be ditching all this new tech,  It definitely will save lives no doubt about that.  I'm just not convinced it won't also have a negative effect on many people.  I kinda liken it to how mobile phones now mean people can't remember phone numbers or shopping lists.  Back in the 80's and early 90's everyone would have memorized at least 10-15 phone numbers (3-4 family, 5 friends, school, doctors, 2-3 work related etc). Now the only number majority of people know is their own.

 

 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

You missed the point,  he thought he could safely walk behind me because he thought the car had safety features that would alert me to his presence if not actually stop the car.   This is a case of technology causing people to become complacent.

So the guy was a moron.

 

I'm not sure how common "backup alert sounds" are in Australia, but here in Canada, literally only certain classes of large delivery trucks might have those. I've literally never seen a regular car with a backup alert. Even most pickup trucks, and pretty much all SUV's wouldn't have that either. Cargo van, maybe.

 

I really don't think this is the slam dunk argument you're making. People are idiots. They were idiots before.

 

As noted, literally *no* car in Canada has backup alerts, and people still walk in front of your reversing car (eg: in grocery store parking lots) literally all the time and expect you to see them and stop.

 

This also happened all the time in the 90's when there weren't even backup cameras. This is not new.

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Most of the safety improvements in cars during the last century were all passive, i.e seat belts that only work if you have an accident, ABS that only helps you break by taking away the human inefficiency in judging the break pressure required to prevent wheel lock up , and things like airbags that only deploy in an accident.   Sure there are some small things like reverse cameras and reverse sensors, but as my real world example shows they can indeed bread complacency.

Your anecdotal example shows that it can cause the same idiocy I've seen for decades.

 

Blind spot sensors are passive in the sense that all they do is warn you if it detects an obstruction. Personally, I feel that Blind spot sensors and backup cameras in particular are incredibly valuable safety tools for modern cars.

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

I imagine lane change tech is leading to similar traits among some drivers.

For some, perhaps.

 

The thing of it is, many drivers were already shit drivers, and were already dangerous. You taking away safety tech doesn't magically just make these idiots pay more attention. No. They just end up in even more dangerous situations.

 

IMO it seems to me that your main issue is with whatever driver licensing laws you have (and many other countries have). Make the test harder. Make it require a certain number of hours driven with an instructor, etc. Have occasional retests every 10 years or something.

 

Banning safety tech will not save lives, even if you think it makes drivers more complacent.