[OT?] Reverse camera not working

[JoeJoe]

The reverse camera on my Hyundai ix35 is playing up. It is still under
warranty, so shouldn't be a problem to get it repaired, but I am trying
to save me the hassle of taking it to the garage...

It comes to life when you put it in reverse (with a beep to indicate
that it was turned on), and shows the back of the car with a rectangle
that indicates the safe area behind.

When parking yesterday I noticed that it stopped working - the screen
was completely dead (black), although it still beeps when the car is put
in reverse.

Every time I put the car in reverse today it either not worked at all
(black screen), or only showed the rectangle, but no picture. The
parking sensors (audio warning) are still working.

Could it be something as simple as a fuse etc that I can fix myself?

[Rod Speed]

"JoeJoe" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d_qdnafdyeI4-8HF...@brightview.co.uk...

Unlikely to be a fuse given that it sometimes shows the rectangle.

And you don’t want to fiddle too much if you want to get them
to fix it under warranty.

[Graham.]

It's a long-shot, but I've got something you could try.

I have a Skoda Octavia, and occasionly it falls victim of what I
presume is a software bug. It dosn't have a camara, just the reversing
sensors and on-screen graphics.

If I switch the ignition on while it is in reverse, the sensors and
graphics work, but when I come out of reverse, the screen is blank,
and I can't use the radio. The cure seems to be to repeat the
operation.

So, turn off the ignition, select reverse gear, turn on the ignition
and select neutral.

I'd be suprised if it works, but it's something to try.




--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[JoeJoe]

Just tried - nothing...

Garage it is then.

[The Other John]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 23:49:50 +0000, JoeJoe wrote:

> Could it be something as simple as a fuse etc that I can fix myself?

Check some joker hasn't stuck chewing gum on the lens? ;)

--
TOJ.

[JoeJoe]

1st thing I checked... ;-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <d_qdnafdyeI4-8HF...@brightview.co.uk>,

As a matter of interest, what is the advantage of a camera over ordinary
reversing sensors and the use of the mirrors?

--
*Cover me. I'm changing lanes.

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[charles]

In article <55f2ff1...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)

<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <d_qdnafdyeI4-8HF...@brightview.co.uk>, JoeJoe
> <n...@mail.com> wrote:
> > The reverse camera on my Hyundai ix35 is playing up. It is still under
> > warranty, so shouldn't be a problem to get it repaired, but I am trying
> > to save me the hassle of taking it to the garage...

> > It comes to life when you put it in reverse (with a beep to indicate
> > that it was turned on), and shows the back of the car with a rectangle
> > that indicates the safe area behind.

> > When parking yesterday I noticed that it stopped working - the screen
> > was completely dead (black), although it still beeps when the car is
> > put in reverse.

> > Every time I put the car in reverse today it either not worked at all
> > (black screen), or only showed the rectangle, but no picture. The
> > parking sensors (audio warning) are still working.

> As a matter of interest, what is the advantage of a camera over ordinary
> reversing sensors and the use of the mirrors?

It's much easier to get into a parking space.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Jonathan]

Are you sure the sensors are working. twice the sensors on my Skoda Roomster have fallen back inside the bumper.

Jonathan

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <55f30025...@candehope.me.uk>,

I'll take your word for it. Personally, don't see how. My ideal is a
nearside mirror that tilts down to show the kerb. The reversing sensors
tell you when close to anything behind.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

[Roger Mills]

I haven't got either, but I would have thought that it was easier if you
can *see* what's going on rather than having to interpret bleeps from
sensors - particularly if you're about to reverse into a concrete post.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

[charles]

In article <55f3074...@davenoise.co.uk>,

My camera view (Mazda) includes lines showing where you will get to in a
few yards' time ; you can see both sides at the same time rather than going
from one mirror to the other. You can also see what is actually behind.
Sensors can go off with a high kerb.

[Adrian Caspersz]

Nissan's 360 degree system used on the Qashqai is impressive. I've been
in one. The camera view is birds eye ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTgtPcxNRE

However, it's not rocket science. Could do the same on the raspberry
Pi's GPU with four web cams attached?

http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/avm.html

Such a system would work well on lorries for avoiding crush incidents.
Probably already is one. If not, have Nissan got exclusivity on this tech?

--
Adrian C

[John]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:55f2ff1...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <d_qdnafdyeI4-8HF...@brightview.co.uk>,
> JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> wrote:
>> The reverse camera on my Hyundai ix35 is playing up. It is still under
>> warranty, so shouldn't be a problem to get it repaired, but I am trying
>> to save me the hassle of taking it to the garage...
>
>> It comes to life when you put it in reverse (with a beep to indicate
>> that it was turned on), and shows the back of the car with a rectangle
>> that indicates the safe area behind.
>
>> When parking yesterday I noticed that it stopped working - the screen
>> was completely dead (black), although it still beeps when the car is put
>> in reverse.
>
>> Every time I put the car in reverse today it either not worked at all
>> (black screen), or only showed the rectangle, but no picture. The
>> parking sensors (audio warning) are still working.
>
> As a matter of interest, what is the advantage of a camera over ordinary
> reversing sensors and the use of the mirrors?

You get a much better view with a well done camera and you
can do much better with a camera than any sensors can do.

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article<d_qdnafdyeI4-8HF...@brightview.co.uk>,
> JoeJoe<n...@mail.com> wrote:
>> The reverse camera on my Hyundai ix35 is playing up. It is still under
>> warranty, so shouldn't be a problem to get it repaired, but I am trying
>> to save me the hassle of taking it to the garage...
>
>> It comes to life when you put it in reverse (with a beep to indicate
>> that it was turned on), and shows the back of the car with a rectangle
>> that indicates the safe area behind.
>
>> When parking yesterday I noticed that it stopped working - the screen
>> was completely dead (black), although it still beeps when the car is put
>> in reverse.
>
>> Every time I put the car in reverse today it either not worked at all
>> (black screen), or only showed the rectangle, but no picture. The
>> parking sensors (audio warning) are still working.
>
> As a matter of interest, what is the advantage of a camera over ordinary
> reversing sensors and the use of the mirrors?
>

It's much easier to back up to a trailer hitch.

[Bill Taylor]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:57:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <d_qdnafdyeI4-8HF...@brightview.co.uk>,
> JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> wrote:
>> The reverse camera on my Hyundai ix35 is playing up. It is still under
>> warranty, so shouldn't be a problem to get it repaired, but I am trying
>> to save me the hassle of taking it to the garage...
>
>> It comes to life when you put it in reverse (with a beep to indicate
>> that it was turned on), and shows the back of the car with a rectangle
>> that indicates the safe area behind.
>
>> When parking yesterday I noticed that it stopped working - the screen
>> was completely dead (black), although it still beeps when the car is put
>> in reverse.
>
>> Every time I put the car in reverse today it either not worked at all
>> (black screen), or only showed the rectangle, but no picture. The
>> parking sensors (audio warning) are still working.
>
>As a matter of interest, what is the advantage of a camera over ordinary
>reversing sensors and the use of the mirrors?

It's absolutely brilliant for coupling up a trailer. You can get
within a couple of cms first go, rather than having to keep getting
out to check. It also gives visual reassurance that the sensors are
working properly!

[charles]

In article <ec58bl...@mid.individual.net>,

and, what is more, as I realised tonight, you don't have to get out and
wipe the raindrops off the mirrrors and adjacent windows to see what's
behind you.

[JoeJoe]

They are still in place, but I must admit that I don't trust them at
present.

[Bob Eager]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 13:57:18 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <d_qdnafdyeI4-8HF...@brightview.co.uk>,
> JoeJoe <n...@mail.com> wrote:
>> The reverse camera on my Hyundai ix35 is playing up. It is still under
>> warranty, so shouldn't be a problem to get it repaired, but I am trying
>> to save me the hassle of taking it to the garage...
>
>> It comes to life when you put it in reverse (with a beep to indicate
>> that it was turned on), and shows the back of the car with a rectangle
>> that indicates the safe area behind.
>
>> When parking yesterday I noticed that it stopped working - the screen
>> was completely dead (black), although it still beeps when the car is
>> put in reverse.
>
>> Every time I put the car in reverse today it either not worked at all
>> (black screen), or only showed the rectangle, but no picture. The
>> parking sensors (audio warning) are still working.
>
> As a matter of interest, what is the advantage of a camera over ordinary
> reversing sensors and the use of the mirrors?

I specced a reversing camera for my latest car. I have a stiff neck (disc
problem) and lack of vision to the left (missing eye). Fine for normal
driving, but reversing is (literally) a pain.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[alan_m]

On 23/12/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> I'll take your word for it. Personally, don't see how. My ideal is a
> nearside mirror that tilts down to show the kerb. The reversing sensors
> tell you when close to anything behind.
>

I recently 'helped' a woman driver out of a parking space. She had to
reverse out but the rear sensors told her that she was just about to hit
something. In fact there was a good two thirds of a meter clear in which
to complete the turn.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 23/12/16 21:31, alan_m wrote:
> On 23/12/2016 15:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> I'll take your word for it. Personally, don't see how. My ideal is a
>> nearside mirror that tilts down to show the kerb. The reversing sensors
>> tell you when close to anything behind.
>>
>
> I recently 'helped' a woman driver out of a parking space. She had to
> reverse out but the rear sensors told her that she was just about to hit
> something. In fact there was a good two thirds of a meter clear in which
> to complete the turn.
>

Gender sensor in seat ...

--
Adrian C

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ec4vp8...@mid.individual.net>,

Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll take your word for it. Personally, don't see how. My ideal is a
> > nearside mirror that tilts down to show the kerb. The reversing sensors
> > tell you when close to anything behind.
> >

> I haven't got either, but I would have thought that it was easier if you
> can *see* what's going on rather than having to interpret bleeps from
> sensors - particularly if you're about to reverse into a concrete post.

The bleep is very easy to interpret. Gets quicker as you get closer and
goes steady to tell you to stop.

I never saw the point of them until I bought a car with one fitted. Then
found it so good I fitted a kit to my older car.

But I can't really see how a camera could add to it.

--
*If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? *

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 23/12/16 21:53, Charles wrote:

> and, what is more, as I realised tonight, you don't have to get out and

> wipe the raindrops off the mirrors and adjacent windows to see what's
> behind you.
>
...just off the camera lenses...

[Chris B]

On 24/12/2016 00:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ec4vp8...@mid.individual.net>,
> Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'll take your word for it. Personally, don't see how. My ideal is a
>>> nearside mirror that tilts down to show the kerb. The reversing sensors
>>> tell you when close to anything behind.
>>>
>
>> I haven't got either, but I would have thought that it was easier if you
>> can *see* what's going on rather than having to interpret bleeps from
>> sensors - particularly if you're about to reverse into a concrete post.
>
> The bleep is very easy to interpret. Gets quicker as you get closer and
> goes steady to tell you to stop.
>
> I never saw the point of them until I bought a car with one fitted. Then
> found it so good I fitted a kit to my older car.
>
> But I can't really see how a camera could add to it.
>

Innocent question, have you ever used a reversing camera? If not you
might not see the point of them until you drive a car with one
fitted.....and then you might be retro fitting one to your other car. :-)


In my opinion when working a camera is better than sensors, since it
will pick up things that a sensor wont (eg parking bay lines) but there
might be all sorts of expense/maintenance/reliability issues why overall
sensors might be considered a better solution.

--
Chris B (News)

[charles]

In article <o3kgt4$jvt$1...@news.albasani.net>,

there's only one lens - and it's shielded from the rain ;-)

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <o3leke$jin$1...@dont-email.me>,

Chris B <ne...@salis.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I haven't got either, but I would have thought that it was easier if
> >> you can *see* what's going on rather than having to interpret bleeps
> >> from sensors - particularly if you're about to reverse into a
> >> concrete post.
> >
> > The bleep is very easy to interpret. Gets quicker as you get closer
> > and goes steady to tell you to stop.
> >
> > I never saw the point of them until I bought a car with one fitted.
> > Then found it so good I fitted a kit to my older car.
> >
> > But I can't really see how a camera could add to it.
> >
> Innocent question, have you ever used a reversing camera? If not you
> might not see the point of them until you drive a car with one
> fitted.....and then you might be retro fitting one to your other car. :-)

Yes - I can see that. But it's not something that can be retrofitted
neatly. Unlike a bleeper which you don't need to see.

> In my opinion when working a camera is better than sensors, since it
> will pick up things that a sensor wont (eg parking bay lines) but there
> might be all sorts of expense/maintenance/reliability issues why overall
> sensors might be considered a better solution.

My tilting nearside door mirror shows the parking bay lines (or kerb)
nicely. It tilts down automatically when you select reverse. But this can
be disabled if needed.

Thing is I live in central London so often have to park in tight spots.
Sensors for the front of the car as well as the back would be a priority
before a camera. But as you said I've not actually lived with one to know
how useful it would be.

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

[charles]

In article <55f3743...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)

my current car has both

[Mark Carver]

On 23/12/2016 16:27, charles wrote:

> My camera view (Mazda) includes lines showing where you will get to in a
> few yards' time ; you can see both sides at the same time rather than going
> from one mirror to the other. You can also see what is actually behind.
> Sensors can go off with a high kerb.

..and may not necessarily go off if there's a bollard there, and if it's
lower than the rear window (which most are) you won't see it.

Reversing cameras are A Good Thing IMHO






--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

[Rod Speed]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote

> Chris B <ne...@salis.co.uk> wrote

>>>> I haven't got either, but I would have thought that it
>>>> was easier if you can *see* what's going on rather than
>>>> having to interpret bleeps from sensors - particularly
>>>> if you're about to reverse into a concrete post.

>>> The bleep is very easy to interpret. Gets quicker as
>>> you get closer and goes steady to tell you to stop.

>>> I never saw the point of them until I bought a car with one
>>> fitted. Then found it so good I fitted a kit to my older car.

>>> But I can't really see how a camera could add to it.

>> Innocent question, have you ever used a reversing camera? If not
>> you might not see the point of them until you drive a car with one
>> fitted.....and then you might be retro fitting one to your other car. :-)

> Yes - I can see that. But it's not something that can be retrofitted
> neatly.

Corse it can. There is no reason why the camera can't look like a
screw head etc and all you have to do is mount it symmetrically.

> Unlike a bleeper which you don't need to see.

You don’t need to see the ones mounted in the wing mirrors either.

>> In my opinion when working a camera is better than sensors, since
>> it will pick up things that a sensor wont (eg parking bay lines) but
>> there might be all sorts of expense/maintenance/reliability issues
>> why overall sensors might be considered a better solution.

> My tilting nearside door mirror shows the parking bay
> lines (or kerb) nicely. It tilts down automatically when
> you select reverse. But this can be disabled if needed.

And a camera can do that and much more as well.

> Thing is I live in central London so often have to park
> in tight spots. Sensors for the front of the car as well
> as the back would be a priority before a camera.

I don’t agree. A camera in each corner with automatic
switching of the one which is closest to something
outside the car like a wall or adjacent car would allow
you to see much more clearly if you are going to miss
it and it wouldn’t be hard to have that produce the
same audible effect you get with sensors.

Like most modern cars, mine slopes down
dramatically at the front and it is impossible
to see where the two front corners are when
sitting in the drivers seat. A camera at each
corner would make it much more obvious
if you have enough room to continue when
parking in a tight spot.

And those would allow you to see where the
road marking is too. Sensors don’t allow that.

And cameras would allow fully integrated dash cam
operation as well so you have full coverage of what
happened before the accident, and when some ape
tried to break into your car or some woman driver
managed to hit it when it was parked etc. No sensor
can ever do anything like that.

> But as you said I've not actually lived with
> one to know how useful it would be.

That's obvious and lack the imagination to work out the basics too.

[charles]

In article <ec7us5...@mid.individual.net>,

Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/12/2016 16:27, charles wrote:

> > My camera view (Mazda) includes lines showing where you will get to in
> > a few yards' time ; you can see both sides at the same time rather than
> > going from one mirror to the other. You can also see what is actually
> > behind. Sensors can go off with a high kerb.

> ..and may not necessarily go off if there's a bollard there, and if it's
> lower than the rear window (which most are) you won't see it.

> Reversing cameras are A Good Thing IMHO

I'm of an age that heated rear windows were a stick-on extra and some cars
had the heater as an optional extra. Cars have come a long way since then.

[Mark Carver]

On 24/12/2016 19:41, charles wrote:

> I'm of an age that heated rear windows were a stick-on extra and some cars
> had the heater as an optional extra. Cars have come a long way since then.

They have (was there a pun intend ?) Back in 50s my parents couldn't
afford a heater AND a radio, so they just opted for the radio.

[ARW]

On 23/12/2016 15:57, Roger Mills wrote:

>
> I haven't got either, but I would have thought that it was easier if you
> can *see* what's going on rather than having to interpret bleeps from
> sensors - particularly if you're about to reverse into a concrete post.

Nor have I - and I can park a Fiat Scudo with no rear windows into
places that others (mainly women) cannot park an Hyundai i10.


--
Adam

[Bob Eager]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 10:54:45 +0000, Mark Carver wrote:

> On 24/12/2016 19:41, charles wrote:
>
>> I'm of an age that heated rear windows were a stick-on extra and some
>> cars had the heater as an optional extra. Cars have come a long way
>> since then.
>
> They have (was there a pun intend ?) Back in 50s my parents couldn't
> afford a heater AND a radio, so they just opted for the radio.

I once had a Series I Land Rover that had what I believe was an
aftermarket heater.

I remember driving across Sussex one very cold night and deciding it was
time for the heater to go on. So, stopped at the traffic lights in
Hawkhurst, I got out, opened the bonnet, opened the tap that let hot
water into the heater, closed the bonnet, got back in and drove off.

Those were the days. Perhaps.

[Tim Lamb]

In message <eccb7r...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> writes

>On 24/12/2016 19:41, charles wrote:
>
>> I'm of an age that heated rear windows were a stick-on extra and some cars
>> had the heater as an optional extra. Cars have come a long way since then.
>
>They have (was there a pun intend ?) Back in 50s my parents couldn't
>afford a heater AND a radio, so they just opted for the radio.

I once drove a Morgan 4/4 in freezing fog from St. Albans to Birmingham
using a hot water bottle to keep a clear patch of windscreen!

--
Tim Lamb

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <ec7us5...@mid.individual.net>,

Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > My camera view (Mazda) includes lines showing where you will get to in
> > a few yards' time ; you can see both sides at the same time rather
> > than going from one mirror to the other. You can also see what is
> > actually behind. Sensors can go off with a high kerb.

> ..and may not necessarily go off if there's a bollard there, and if it's
> lower than the rear window (which most are) you won't see it.

I've had reversing sensors on four cars. One set aftermarket and fitted by
me. Have never reversed into *anything* since - provided you obey the
warning signal. I have occasionally had a false 'positive' but then you
can always get out and look at what's causing it.

Those who ignore those warnings are just as likely to not bother looking
at a camera screen.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

[Roger Mills]

On 26/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>
> I've had reversing sensors on four cars. One set aftermarket and fitted by
> me. Have never reversed into *anything* since - provided you obey the
> warning signal. I have occasionally had a false 'positive' but then you
> can always get out and look at what's causing it.
>

How close can you safely get to an obstacle without any danger of
hitting it?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <eccood...@mid.individual.net>,

Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> >
> > I've had reversing sensors on four cars. One set aftermarket and
> > fitted by me. Have never reversed into *anything* since - provided you
> > obey the warning signal. I have occasionally had a false 'positive'
> > but then you can always get out and look at what's causing it.
> >

> How close can you safely get to an obstacle without any danger of
> hitting it?

As close as I need to. I'm not going to spend ages carefully looking at a
reversing camera to get to 1mm or whatever of any obstruction. I can
already guess if my car will fit a parking space without needing to be
told.

--
*I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize *

[Mark Carver]

On 26/12/2016 15:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <eccood...@mid.individual.net>,
> Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I've had reversing sensors on four cars. One set aftermarket and
>>> fitted by me. Have never reversed into *anything* since - provided you
>>> obey the warning signal. I have occasionally had a false 'positive'
>>> but then you can always get out and look at what's causing it.
>>>
>
>> How close can you safely get to an obstacle without any danger of
>> hitting it?
>
> As close as I need to. I'm not going to spend ages carefully looking at a
> reversing camera to get to 1mm or whatever of any obstruction. I can
> already guess if my car will fit a parking space without needing to be
> told.

Good for you.

[Roger Mills]

On 26/12/2016 15:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article<eccood...@mid.individual.net>,
> Roger Mills<watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I've had reversing sensors on four cars. One set aftermarket and
>>> fitted by me. Have never reversed into *anything* since - provided you
>>> obey the warning signal. I have occasionally had a false 'positive'
>>> but then you can always get out and look at what's causing it.
>>>
>
>> How close can you safely get to an obstacle without any danger of
>> hitting it?
>
> As close as I need to. I'm not going to spend ages carefully looking at a
> reversing camera to get to 1mm or whatever of any obstruction. I can
> already guess if my car will fit a parking space without needing to be
> told.
>

So can I - but quite often the only available spaces are only *just*
long enough, and require several shunts to get in. My reversing sensor
is feeling (seat of pants) when the rubber cap on my towball touches the
car behind!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <eccvl2...@mid.individual.net>,

Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As close as I need to. I'm not going to spend ages carefully looking at a
> > reversing camera to get to 1mm or whatever of any obstruction. I can
> > already guess if my car will fit a parking space without needing to be
> > told.
> >

> So can I - but quite often the only available spaces are only *just*
> long enough, and require several shunts to get in. My reversing sensor
> is feeling (seat of pants) when the rubber cap on my towball touches the
> car behind!

Ah. Not sure how average parking sensors cope with a tow bar.

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ec7us5...@mid.individual.net>,
> Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> My camera view (Mazda) includes lines showing where you will get to in
>>> a few yards' time ; you can see both sides at the same time rather
>>> than going from one mirror to the other. You can also see what is
>>> actually behind. Sensors can go off with a high kerb.
>
>> ..and may not necessarily go off if there's a bollard there, and if it's
>> lower than the rear window (which most are) you won't see it.
>
> I've had reversing sensors on four cars. One set aftermarket and fitted by
> me. Have never reversed into *anything* since - provided you obey the
> warning signal. I have occasionally had a false 'positive' but then you
> can always get out and look at what's causing it.
>
> Those who ignore those warnings are just as likely to not bother looking
> at a camera screen.
>

Obviously one of your cars was not a Lexus 420. A friend has one and
the sensors did not pick up the bollard when he reversed into his usual
parking place! The after market sensors on the previously owned one, did
work. This was on day 2 of ownership!

[Capitol]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <eccood...@mid.individual.net>,
> Roger Mills <watt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26/12/2016 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I've had reversing sensors on four cars. One set aftermarket and
>>> fitted by me. Have never reversed into *anything* since - provided you
>>> obey the warning signal. I have occasionally had a false 'positive'
>>> but then you can always get out and look at what's causing it.
>>>
>
>> How close can you safely get to an obstacle without any danger of
>> hitting it?
>
> As close as I need to. I'm not going to spend ages carefully looking at a
> reversing camera to get to 1mm or whatever of any obstruction. I can
> already guess if my car will fit a parking space without needing to be
> told.
>

Next try backing up to a trailer hitch!

[Rod Speed]

"ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0178A.534937$WF4.1...@fx39.am4...

I havent either, but it would be more convenient to have some
assistance, particularly when hitching the trailer and so I don’t have
to be so conservative when driving forward into the tightest spots.

[Vir Campestris]

On 22/12/2016 23:49, JoeJoe wrote:
> It is still under warranty, so shouldn't be a problem to get it
> repaired, but I am trying to save me the hassle of taking it to the
> garage...

Don't mess with it. They'll claim you broke it.

Andy

[barb28n]

replying to JoeJoe, barb28n wrote:
Wel I have read all the comments, but other than pontificating about the
merits or ,no one has come upwith any sensible suggestions, I too have the
same problem, has anyone got any good ideas


--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/ot-reverse-camera-not-working-1178879-.htm

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 19/06/18 18:14, barb28n wrote:
> replying to JoeJoe, barb28n wrote:
> Wel I have read all the comments, but other than pontificating about the
> merits or ,no one has come upwith any sensible suggestions, I too have the
> same problem, has anyone got any good ideas
>
>

Sivnce bo one has te faintest idea whjat you are talking about without
visting a ruthelessly commercial site exploiting Usenet and representing
itself as owning it, the answer is no, and frankly why bother to research.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

[Terry Casey]

In article <pgd4fl$ea9$2...@dont-email.me>, t...@invalid.invalid
says...

>
> Sivnce bo one has te faintest idea whjat you are talking

> about ....

Could we have that in English, please?

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <MPG.3594292de...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Terry Casey <k.t...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In article <pgd4fl$ea9$2...@dont-email.me>, t...@invalid.invalid
> says...
> >
> > Sivnce bo one has te faintest idea whjat you are talking
> > about ....

> Could we have that in English, please?

Odd isn't it, one who claims to be the font of all knowledge can't spell
or type or understand a spell checker. Perhaps it's a Linux thing.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

[Brian Gaff]

Yes quote the thing you reply to if you must use a lame web site to post to
the newsgroup, then we might think its a message not a decade old as many
are.

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"barb28n" <caedfaa9ed1216d60ef...@example.com> wrote in
message news:xRaWC.491905$Qg7.3...@fx08.am4...

[Brian Gaff]

Wondur Y?

Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:570b0e0...@davenoise.co.uk...