posted by
janrinok
on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:27AM
from the so-drivers-will-look-at-a-screen-and-not-where-they-are-going dept.
from the so-drivers-will-look-at-a-screen-and-not-where-they-are-going dept.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed rule Monday requiring all new light vehicles including cars, SUVs, trucks and vans - to have "rear-view visibility systems," in effect, requiring reversing or backup cameras.
The rule which would be final in 60 days would start phasing in on May 1, 2016 models and be at 100% May 1, 2018.
NCommander adds: Fixed the headline to show that this is a proposed rule, and not that its mandated (yet).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
NHTSA Proposal Requires All Vehicles Have Rear-View Cameras
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 58 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:51AM
I will have a camera on or in MY vehicle when I decide to install one,
otherwise there will be no cameras.
Technology will not prevent accidents, unless technology first eliminates
idiots whose stupidity and negligence contribute to accidents happening.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fishybell on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:58AM
When I was a kid a UPS truck backed up over a kid in our neighborhood, killing him. The UPS driver could never have seen a the three year old at the end of the cul-de-sac for the entire time he was backing up; the blind spot behind the vehicle is just too big. The same kind of accident happens all the time to people across the world, and I for one, would much rather have every vehicle include the roughly $200 safety item to save the hundreds of lives each year that are lost and prevent the thousands of injuries.
The other side of the coin is this will mean I take less time in parking lots waiting for people to back out of stalls. If the answer to people not knowing how to drive is to help them, I'm all for it. By no means are you being required to look at the camera. Feel free to put a piece of tape over it if you are truly paranoid, but I'll take the slight convenience for me and major safety upgrade for most SUVs and trucks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:07AM
and I for one, would much rather have every vehicle include the roughly $200 safety item to save the hundreds of lives each year that are lost and prevent the thousands of injuries.
So would you rather that was done in a cost effective way? Or is doing it for the kids worth squandering the wealth of society? There are many decisions like this where lots of our wealth is burned because it'll save the lives of a handful of people. The more we waste on poor risk management decisions the less wealth we have for everything else.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:18AM
Squandering the wealth of society!
Wow. Just wow. What else would you spend this 200 dollars on?
Backup cams are useful for more than just not running over kids and cats.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:10AM
-
Just for discussion, what uses? Kids seem to be the justification for so much of our stupidity, and I don't have the cat (or dog) disease, so I'd really like to know.
-
Squandering of wealth for nothing is a valid concern. Maybe $200 is nothing to you, but there will be real people who are unable to obtain vehicles and to hold jobs over that $200 added onto the cost of a ~ $14000 entry level car (used car blah, but the added cost is passed along one way or another). I'm guessing you drive something... bigger, but with the smugness, maybe it's a nice Prius. Nice that you can afford that, eh?
-
If the damn things are so useful, lets put them on motorcycles and skate boards and rascals and sneakers. And live feed it all to the PD and NSA because terrorists. Hyperbole maybe... but there are "cars" on which these cameras are equally absurd.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1) by iNaya on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:37AM
It has cost me much more than $200 reversing into things that I didn't know were there.
Maybe that's just me.
Maybe we shouldn't have police forces either. We spend a lot more than $200 each on them.
While we're at it, lets stop paying for an army as well. I'm sure no-one will ever want to take advantage of that.
And also, let's get rid of the EPA. I'm sure the free market will keep all the cities nice, clean, and pollution free. It's magical after all!
---
The cost will end up being a lot less than $200 per vehicle anyway. Economies of scale and all that.
And it's certainly not "squandering wealth for nothing". My car would be less likely to get reversed into, the stuff along my driveway would be less likely to get backed into.
There are advantages to them being on cars - it's really hard to see what is low and behind you. There would be no advantage having them on skate boards or sneakers - so that doesn't make for a very good slippery slope argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:28AM
> It has cost me much more than $200 reversing into things that I didn't know were there.
30 years of driving. I have never once, ever, reversed (backed) up into anything.
Why? Hmm... Maybe because I:
1) pay attention
2) look first, backup second
I'd say it is just you.
(Score: 1) by velex on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:28PM
This!
Use GOAL. Get Out And Look.
The toddler killed by the UPS driver above was a victim of failure to use GOAL.
That being said, if I ever drive a big truck again, I will likely be looking into getting a camera for the trailer, since that would help turn a backing maneuver that would be 15 to 20 minutes of GOAL into 5 minutes of looking at the rear camera. However, it doesn't obviate the need to GOAL at least once in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:43PM
Children move, dude. The ups driver can get out and look every time he backs up (100 times a day 6 days a week 52 weeks a year for years... That's quite worthwhile to save a one time $200 cost) and that won't stop a toddler from tricycling out from behind something else and into his path after he's walked back to his driver's seat.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:33PM
"It has cost me much more than $200 reversing into things that I didn't know were there.
Maybe that's just me."
No, it's not just you, there are plenty of idiots like you in the world.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:54PM
Then buy rear-view camera systems for your vehicles. Don't impose costs on the rest of us due to your poor driving behavior. It's worth noting that I've never had to pay damages for backing into objects. But then I both use a car with good visibility and maneuverability, and I look when I back up.
(Score: 1) by GmanTerry on Thursday April 03 2014, @07:18AM
Backing is one of the more dangerous things done in low visibility vehicles. I drove 4WD high clearance trucks when I worked maintaining electronic/microwave equipment on mountain tops. I worked for a large public utility and for the Dept. of Energy. I was a member of the Safety Committee. We had the policy to park in a spot where you can drive through and not have to back out if possible. My car came with a camera but I still drive through when I park so I do not have to back up. It has become second nature.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:49PM
What else would you spend this 200 dollars on?
Seriously, you can't answer this question yourself? It's not like the only thing we spend money on is safety improvements.
Food. Shelter. Safety improvements that have a far better ROI.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:12PM
I have seen systems where proximity sensors apply the brake for you. That might be better than the camera.
(Score: 1) by PlasticCogLiquid on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:32AM
I could have ran over a couple of kids on bikes riding along with their mother, I want to call her stupid as hell letting them ride past the cars at the gas station I was leaving but I guess it's not something you'd think about as you're riding along.
I'm a very careful driver, and I looked behind me, then double checked before I back up and two little kids on tiny bicycles went past on my side mirrors, I did not see them on my rear view because my cars rear end was taller than them. She probably has no idea that her two children almost got killed that day.
If I'd had a reverse cam I would have seen them. So I support this fully, no doubt in my mind. That was a scary moment for me the more I thought about it. Then, this is Florida too and people are totally fucking stupid when driving/riding any kind of vessel here. If I was a native Floridian then they'd be dead.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by starcraftsicko on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:42AM
This is why I don't like this particular (proposed, but nearly certain to be adopted) regulation:
-
Backup cameras are GREAT for some tight parking situations and if you are driving a vehicle with a huge blind spot. Vans. Large pick-ups. Anything to help. But.
-
In anything with a decent rear window, even some of the vehicles I just mentioned, a backup camera isn't the best place to look when backing a car (except in some special case parking situations). The best option is to turn your f_____g head around and look. Unless you have a fairly substantial disability, your vision + peripheral vision is going to give you more information and more context than any of your mirrors or a backup camera. Staring at the camera display is probably the least-safe thing you can do.
-
This is a one-size-fits-all solution that adds an unnecessary expense for those that opt out of a SUV for really no safety benefit.
-
Blah blah for the children blah blah.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1) by Hombre on Wednesday April 02 2014, @07:34AM
I would rather that we teach people that they need to be aware of their surroundings, realize that the world does not revolve around them, take the initiative and start accepting responsibility for their actions, and not walk behind the damn car.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:24AM
Most of the victims are pets & kids far too young for their brains to be capable of what you're expecting, regardless of how hard adults try to train them. It only takes one mistake or moment of inattentiveness from the person watching them for one to escape and wander into danger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:23AM
Wow, you were going great 'til the final 6 words. How about replacing them with "not drive a deadly vehicle into a space that you aren't 100% sure is free for you to do so"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lhsi on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:19PM
I would rather that we teach people that they need to be aware of their surroundings, realize that the world does not revolve around them, take the initiative and start accepting responsibility for their actions, and learn how to use the tonne of metal they are sat in properly so they don't kill anyone.
As mentioned, not all kids are going to have the brain capacity yet to be able to do all that. I would like to think that drivers do.
(Score: 1) by SrLnclt on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:05AM
While I believe this to be a good feature, making it mandatory is a waste of money that could be better used elsewhere. How many kids are injured or killed in the US each year from cars backing up? How many kids die from drowning each year? A few hundred dollars for each car sold in America could pay for a lot of lifeguards, and save a lot more lives in the process.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:31AM
False dichotomy.
Cams have more uses than just preventing back-over accidents.
The camera costs $35 retail, the display can be another $70. But chances are the auto maker will find other uses for that screen anyway. So instead of having to pay retail prices, making it required equipment mean the price will be actually closer to the bulk wholesale costs of these elements.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Popeidol on Wednesday April 02 2014, @06:19AM
That's one of those things we can do maths on. Let's do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation.
Economic value of a human life: estimates are usually over 5 million [wikipedia.org]. Verifying how they got these figures is beyond my skill and available time, so I'm going to have to run with it.
Cost of the camera: let's say $100, half way between the two guesses in the article.
$5000000/$100 == 50000.
So for the equation to work out economically favourably, this would have to prevent one fatality for every 50000 vehicles. That seems within the realms of reason.
The article estimates it'll save between 58 and 69 lives a year, which is around $300m, enough to equip around 3 million cars. This is substantially less than the 15-million-or-so new vehicles in the US every year, but my maths doesn't take into account the thousands of serious injuries it would prevent....nor the cars that are already sold with cameras.
I guess this is pretty inconclusive. While it may not be an obvious financial win, it's also clearly not throwing money away for no reason.
(Score: 2) by hankwang on Wednesday April 02 2014, @06:28AM
" , this would have to prevent one fatality for every 50000 vehicles. That seems within the realms of reason."
You are comparing per-vehicle costs to per-year costs. If a car lasts 10 years, it's one per 500,000 vehicles.
Later on, you do compare with yearly sales, though.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 2) by Popeidol on Wednesday April 02 2014, @06:53AM
Let me rephrase:
I'm comparing the absolute cost of installing the system per-car ($100) with the absolute cost of a human life ($5m). That means that, over the entire lifetime of those 50,000 vehicles, only one life needs to be saved to balance the cost. 500,000 would be a pretty decent guess if we're talking about vehicle-years.
I'm running a bit low on caffeine right now but it seems to make sense?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @07:00AM
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 02 2014, @06:33AM
The camera costs $35 retail, the display can be another $70
Plenty of cars already have a touch-enabled LCD screen. So that $70 won't be necessary. We are really haggling about a device that costs $30 in retail [sparkfun.com], in quantity one. A car manufacturer can probably get the whole thing for $10 in volume.
This is a good thing to have. You cannot have too much view around the car, especially where your direct sight cannot reach. Machines make our life better; use them.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:59PM
Except that there is no way drivers are not going to get conditioned to just look at the screen and stop turning their head.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 02 2014, @10:24PM
Except that there is no way drivers are not going to get conditioned to just look at the screen and stop turning their head.
If the camera has a fisheye lens and shows about 180 degrees in azimuth, then the driver gains nothing from turning around and looking directly into the rear window. Instead s|he can focus on watching the sides (for a bicyclist, for example) and the front end (which swings faster than the rear.) This requires only looking left and right, but not back. I don't know about others, but I'm not an owl and cannot turn my head 180 degrees. I have also to turn in the seat, which does not help when I want to observe other quadrants. I do get a good view of what I need to see, but it's cumbersome, and less patient people may cut a corner or two. A conveniently placed rear view screen will help them to be both comfortable and safe.
Generally, it is not a duty of the driver to look back. His duty is to drive safely. How exactly it is accomplished is left to physics and technology. Right now the best way to safely drive in reverse is by looking into the rear window, and by monitoring the front as you turn. This may change. Ideally, I'd like to have multiple cameras to synthesize a 360 degree view of the surroundings - this then can be plugged into a computer for additional awareness and for later connection to the autopilot. Google StreetView setup is a high-end implementation of such a camera.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 03 2014, @02:53PM
If it's a fisheye camera, fine. Are they? The video thumbnail on TFA looks like a very slight fisheye; definitely not 180 degrees. The shitty website wouldn't stop buffering the video even after I temporarily allowed the entire deluge of scripts so I don't know.
Unless if you're within like 5 inches of something on the side and doing an abrupt turn while backing (a situation I think I've probably never encountered short of parallel parking), I would contest the need to watch the front end of your car, too.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 03 2014, @09:03PM
Unless if you're within like 5 inches of something on the side and doing an abrupt turn while backing (a situation I think I've probably never encountered short of parallel parking)
It's very common while leaving tight parking spots [google.com], even if not using parallel parking. You must turn the car enough, while backing - but before you hit the car on the other side of the lot. The spacing to adjacent cars on the left and on the right is not 5", but often just enough for the driver to squeeze through. Land is plentiful and cheap only where nobody needs it. In cities they sometimes save every square inch, even if some older (and longer) cars cannot be parked there without using a crane. Most frequently this happens around small private businesses.
If the hardware is not adequate then drivers will be still required to look back - until proper cameras show up on the market.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:38PM
"False dichotomy.
Cams have more uses than just preventing back-over accidents."
That's right, I can take a camera and use it to penetrate your ass.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:57PM
I would prefer that added computer complexity *not* be added to my car. This is mostly because I *am* a programmer.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @06:33AM
It's not just a matter of kids getting killed. Backing up a little too far and smashing your rear bumper and/or damaging someone else's property by doing so is another thing that these cameras are supposed to help prevent.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:15AM
Meanwhile: Improved technology has reduced traffic fatalities, despite the drag on the statistics from morons like you.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:43AM
Careful what you wish for, it may be granted... in a way you didn't want. The govts usually have enough means to rams down our throat whatever they like: specifically for this case, you may have your car not fitted with any camera (wish granted), but your car may not be allowed to travel on public roads (you don't have a supermarket on your own land, do you?)
Yeap, right you are. I just can't wait for the time the govt will decree as mandatory the feed from the reverse camera be directed [xkcd.com] straight into the visual cortex of idiots (no, just kidding.... I'm sure I can wait however long for this, the longer the happier).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:55AM
The safety benefit is remarkably poorly justified (something like 13 lives saved per year) so I wonder, who's selling all those cameras?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mrbluze on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:03AM
Rear cameras will reduce insurance claims, so it's probably insurers who stand to gain the most, not squashed toddlers.
Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:27AM
I don't know about that.
It's not just lives, but property. Having had one for a year I can tell there is a huge difference in visibility. I can see *everything* with that lens. Nothing can hide unless it's small enough to fit in the sensor gap.
Two days ago I was reversing rather fast and not watching the screen and the alarm picked up something behind me. It saved me from damaging my bumper. The cement-rebar crap would've been fine, but costly.
Additionally you have guidelines on the screen that show true direction, distance, and where you will end up.
I see it as an indispensable tool clearly superior than a few mirrors and near dead reckoning for guidance. Should save us on average more than it costs I'm betting. Plus, it saved 13 lives.
From a Libertarian standpoint I can see the annoyance, but operating a car isn't exactly a right either. As far as restrictions and mandates go this one is relatively cheap and unobtrusive.
Not like when they neutered the Freon and A/C didn't work as good. I thought the South would rise again after that one. plenty of good ol' boys upset that they didn't have ice chips spitting out anymore. That was a life saver back then.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:07AM
Then maybe they should be mandating sensors, not cameras...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:25PM
Maybe they should be mandating a more stringent driving test to stop people who drive dangerously from getting a license in the first place.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:49PM
THIS, a thousand times.
Unfortunately, the way that roads and land zones are laid out here in the US, it's virtually impossible to live without a car unless you live in one of the few major metro areas that actually has good public transit service to both your home and your workplace. So you're going to incentivize driving without a license for those people who can't get one, and then they are completely unregulated and even more dangerous, and they're going to be everywhere (you know, like bad drivers already are). So it's pretty much unenforceable. I wish I had a good solution to this.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:46AM
I don't know who's selling them, but I'm sure they'll be made in China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by kwerle on Wednesday April 02 2014, @07:12AM
PROPOSED rule would start to phase in in 2016.
So the headline could read: NHTSA may require all new vehicles have rear view cameras in 2016
If I wanted inaccurate inflammatory headlines, I'd read /.
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday April 02 2014, @07:56AM
And fixed.
Still always moving
(Score: 1) by Leebert on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:20AM
Well... the grammar is still a little off. :)
(Score: 1) by kwerle on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:05PM
Holy shit, an editor improved a headline. I may be in love.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:01AM
just sayin
(Score: 2) by randmcnatt on Wednesday April 02 2014, @01:18PM
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
(Score: 1) by iwoloschin on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:02PM
So....they can see behind you? I'm not sure "they" particularly care about that.
On the other hand, this isn't such a bad idea. I got rear ended a few years back, while stopped at a red light. Having video would have made dealing with his terrible insurance easier. I'd want full control over it, obviously, but it'd be kind of nice to have built-in video for this kind of use.
Another thing that could be cool is integrating a license plate scanner, tied to a non-government database, to identify known "idiot" drivers. If you detect a known idiot behind you, you know to get out of the way and let them crash into someone else. Or, if someone is tailgating and acting like a jerk, you can just push a button to report their license plate to the database, for other road users' safety.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:07PM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 02 2014, @06:16PM
This.
Recent cars are all about getting 5 stars crash ratings, because passive security is an advertizable quantity while blind spot size isn't.
My problem with cameras is that people get lazy and don't check around, but a moving object can get behind you from the side quickly, especially if it's a kid.
I prefer the radar systems, where you look back (turn your head, people!) PLUS you get audio feedack should you miss something. They are very popular in Europe, and hardly exist in the US, despite being a whole lot cheaper than cameras.
(Score: 1) by SecurityGuy on Wednesday April 02 2014, @07:50PM
There was a PSA going around that showed an entire kindergarten class standing in front of an SUV. From inside the car, you couldn't see them. I tried it at home with my kids, who are not quite so numerous, but you could see the point by having them stand not right by the bumper, but progressively farther away until I could see the tops of heads start appearing. It's completely plausible that I could get 20 5 year olds in front of it and not see them.
I also have a neighbor who lets her ~3 year old run around. I never move my cars without doing a complete walk around first.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:00PM
The way I see it, a car is a tool, not a goal or a way of life. The better that tool can be, the more useful it becomes. Putting a rear-facing camera on cars makes them better tools. Having a self-drive option would be quite useful when you're too sleepy or had one too many or you're sick and need to go to the hospital but the ambulance wouldn't be able to reach you in time. Having a wifi node so your car can form an ad-hoc mesh network with others on the road and better optimize driving during rush hour would be great. Having a deployable drone in the roof so you can fly up and see why traffic is backed up for miles would be really useful.
So the question I ask is, if we can make our tools better and more useful, why wouldn't we want to do so? I really can't see the downside.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:42PM
The cost and the complexity. Sure my leather man is a screwdriver, knife and pliers all in one, but it's not as good as dedicated tools, and it costs more.
A rear view camera adds £500 to the cost of a £6k car, and then is another thing to get fixed for the mot. I have 3 perfectly good mirrors, and a rear window.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 03 2014, @04:08AM
And cars used to have manual handles to roll the windows down, but I for one like having power windows. And power steering, and a little control on the dashboard that lets me adjust the side mirrors. These are all additions we're used to now and accept as "normal," but they weren't once and many derided them when they were introduced. There are still lots of people who cling to manuals because they think they get better fuel economy or it gives them more discretion with how they drive, etc., etc. As to the cost, well, most buyers don't break those things out Chinese-menu style, they just buy the whole package at one cost because they like the feature set. My younger brother, who's an engineer at Ford, tells me all the time how their design process is predominantly driven by features. For example, the placement of cup holders, which doesn't affect the performance of the car at all, is hugely important. And one of their newest additions, a sensor in the rear bumper that pops open the trunk when you wave your foot under it (figuring your arms might be full of groceries, kids, etc) has tested extremely well with focus groups of suburban moms. Features sell cars.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday April 03 2014, @05:32PM
If features sell cars, there's no need to force this feature to be included via legislation.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 04 2014, @04:15PM
Car makers didn't used to include seat belts in their cars. That had to be mandated by regulations. Now automakers boast about their vehicles' safety features.
Washington DC delenda est.