> Yes, like a backup camera.

Well you've just twisted what I said because you are getting angry. So we will leave it there.

> Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?

You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk and decided to get a quick jab in at me. That was disingenuous. I don't appreciate it.

> Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?

Driver awareness can be done through other means than re-training.

> If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.

I never said that and obviously don't believe that. Funny how at the start of this reply you were pretending you weren't engaging in that behaviour. I wouldn't bother replying, you won't get another one.

You are coming across as weirdly unhinged about this.

> You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk…

Yes, I do. And I'm wondering why this one doesn't count.

> Driver awareness can be done through other means that re-training.

Such as?

(Ironically, the serious answer to this is "stuff like backup cameras". Which improve driver awareness when backing.)

> I never said that and obviously don't believe that.

You: "However the backup camera being required by law is absolutely ridiculous. You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head."

How do you use those two techniques to see things in the blind spot behind the bumper without its being transparent?