Park Assist or Reversing Camera? Or both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick

:troll:

I'm sorry but it has to be said that your argument is flawed and ridiculous.

The Golf was less rear visibility than all of those cars. The size of the car has absolutely nothing to do with visibility when reversing.

I guess your xray eyes enable you to see children/pets/objects behind your car when reversing because the rest of us mere mortals either have to get out and check and rely on luck or use a camera/sensors to check for us.

---

here here x 1000 !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHW

here here x 1000 !!!!

---

This thread is now my 2010 funniest thread ever for sure lol.

What did people do in the days before all this technology .. god knows!

Even with sensors and cameras, reality shows that we get 10+ cars a week with damage from reversing into things, hitting things or nudging things. Strange what you see here...

But definitely why not, wouldnt argue in the sense if you can you can. But as the camera always says "check your surrounds first" as its only and indication. I'd go camera but no sensors personally.

http://www.vwwatercooled.com.au/foru...IMG_6351-1.jpg

Cracks in the road are the most dangerous things!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fuzion

What did people do in the days before all this technology .. god knows!

---

They ran over children and pets... unfortunately far too often!

lol @ the photo though :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoi polloi

Have Park Assist (no camera) coming on mine simply because I wanted the front and rear sensors - the Park Assist was a bonus. I passed on the camera because visibility out the back isn't too bad...

Regards,
- Anthony.

---

Anthony, and those others who did not option the ($500) RVC for their Mark VI GTI/R, with the benefit of hindsight gained since you took delivery of your car, would you have made the same decision again given a second chance?