backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by InCarExperts.. on Dec 12 at 9:37 AM


  (Source: dieselpowermag.com)
NHTSA pushes for the mandate to save lives while opponents such as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers reminds it of costs associated with implementing the rule

New regulations that require automakers to improve rear visibility in all new models by 2014 were proposed in December 2010, and now, the backup camera rule is part of the national debate about safety, federal regulations, and jobs.

The backup camera rule would require the installation of backup cameras in all new vehicles by 2014. It was proposed by President Barack Obama, and is a response to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Act, which is a 2008 law named after a young boy who was accidentally ran over by his father's car.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about 292 people die from back-over accidents per year. By implementing the backup camera rule, half of those lives would be saved annually.

While the backup cameras could clearly be beneficial, the topic is up for debate because opponents say the requirement would be too costly and would result in job losses.

According to an August 30 letter the president sent to House Republican leaders, the backup camera mandate is in the top five list of the five most costly rules under consideration at this time.

The backup camera rule could cost as much as $2.7 billion, and would equate to about $18.5 million per life saved. Adding the cameras to vehicles would tack on an extra $58 to $203 per vehicle.

"Congress built flexibility into this law to balance safety and cost, and unfortunately NHTSA has ignored Congress by mandating an expensive, one-size-fits-all solution for rearview cameras," said Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

So far, individual automakers have not said anything negative about the rule despite these costs. In fact, Ford plans to have backup cameras in all Ford and Lincoln models by the end of this year.

The backup camera plan calls for 10 percent of the United States' new fleet to meet standards by 2012, 40 percent to meet the standards by 2013, and all new vehicles to comply by 2014.

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Personal Responsibility
By tng on 11/25/2011 11:49:13 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
...a 2008 law named after a young boy who was accidentally ran over by his father's car...
Guess he will have to live with that.

I am constantly surprised by the crusading that goes on in the name of children by people who could have prevented a tragedy simply by taking a few seconds to be responsible.

I am not being pro or con back up camera here but it seems like an awful lot of money to spend because one guy feels guilty about something.




RE: Personal Responsibility
By corduroygt on 11/25/2011 11:53:59 AM , Rating: 4
Totally agree, besides these kinds of incidents prevent people who are dumb enough to not check where their kids are from propagating their genes through our society.

This is the path towards Idiocracy, have no doubt.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By drycrust3 on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Personal Responsibility
By corduroygt on 11/25/2011 5:57:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think your response shows a complete lack of compassion and understanding. In one sense you are right, if you are reversing you should be checking your mirrors, and all the children should have been inside, and someone should have been supervising the vehicle while it was backing, and the driveway should be straight and not curved, and someone should have been standing by the pavement to warn people there is a vehicle backing, and the vehicle should have had a warning buzzer sounding, and there should be overhead lighting to ensure there is adequate visibility 24 hours a day for all seasons of the year, etc, etc, etc. Or maybe you should park on the street, or have a driveway that has a separate entrance and exit, so you don't need to reverse at all.

No it just requires common sense and personal responsibility. Make sure you know where your goddamn kids are when backing up or take them indoors. Why the f*** do I have to pay for a rearview camera because some dumbass ran over his kid? I don't even have any kids!

You can't control everything in life so occasionally some kids will get run over by idiot parents backing up. I bet that dad makes sure to check behind the car before he's backing up now.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By michael67 on 11/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Personal Responsibility
By GuinnessKMF on 11/26/2011 8:59:47 PM , Rating: 5
Sheesh, after reading your post all it made me think was that they should take the money and spend it on education, anything so I don't have to read this type of crap anymore.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By drycrust3 on 11/26/2011 1:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why ... do I have to pay for a rearview camera because some dumbass ran over his kid? I don't even have any kids!


If you consider that you already pay taxes, and a fair amount of that, directly and indirectly, goes into the cost of bringing up children, then why object to something that protects the investment already made in that child and yet potentially doesn't cost you anything as a tax payer?
Since children are currently being hit by a reversing vehicles, then you are already paying for their hospitalisation or death. So unless the injury is just a scratch the cost of that injury (or death) is going to be more than the cost of fitting the camera, thus potentially the cost to you is less by fitting the camera.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By corduroygt on 11/26/2011 1:35:22 PM , Rating: 4
I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion. 14 Million cars a year * 200 bucks = 2.8 Billion dollars a year would be the extra cost of this measure. It'll be useful in protecting 100-150 kids from their idiot parents. I'm sure letting those 100-150 kids die costs less, and also forces people to pay attention when they're driving and not letting such idiots breed is always a plus.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By yomamafor1 on 11/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Personal Responsibility
By corduroygt on 11/28/2011 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's unreasonable to expect everyone to pay for it because you were stupid and made a mistake. Rear view cameras are options on many vehicles and those 100-150 people can just get one for their own vehicle without forcing it on everyone.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By BobfromLI on 11/26/2011 6:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
I just picked up a used Expedition. My son put in a fancy radio and we felt we needed, NEEDED a way to see what was behind us. The camera cost $14 retail. If there were no screen like the one that is used on nav systems, retail cost of systems is about $120. I figure that auto companies can do it alot cheaper. Even if I don't hit a kid, I might not hit another car or the fire hydrant my wife fought with (and lost to) two years ago.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Dorkyman on 11/26/2011 12:49:04 AM , Rating: 5
I know! I know!

We need to pass a law mandating that everyone outside needs to wear an airbag vest, so if/when they are about to fall down or collide with something the airbag will save them.

Sure it will be a hassle, but if just one child is saved, won't that be worth it?


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Dark Legion on 11/26/2011 1:27:02 PM , Rating: 5
Won't somebody please think of the children!!


RE: Personal Responsibility
By someguy123 on 11/26/2011 8:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
You idiot. Don't you realize that airbags can crush toddlers?

What we need is to encase all children in titanium bubble and cushioned with tempurpedic mattresses. Inside this bubble will be an additional black box, which will give us valuable information in case the titanium is somehow perforated.

All this will be provided by my company, which I coincidentally launched right before I wrote this bill. Remember, it's for the children.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Dr of crap on 11/28/2011 11:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
No, no, the future is coming.
You inject a GPS tracking device into the kid when born.
It will have cell phone ability with another part inserted into the ear. It will monitor your glucose level, HDL, LDL, exercise level, and food intake. From now on ALL people will be monitored!

Yes, some kids get run over.
Some commuters get into crashes on the freeway.
Some house burn to the ground.
You can't let the govt get into every little detail of our lives.
With the addition of the rear facing camera, we now have even more crap to deal with and still about 100 kids, but they reports, will be run over.
HOW WILL WE SAVE ALL THE KIDS!???!

And don't forget about the fools that will try and use the camera to switch lanes and merge. Oh yes, you think that sounds stupid, but it can happen. And maybe they'll only work if the car is in reverse, but that can be fixed as well.
You can fix stupid!


RE: Personal Responsibility
By MrTeal on 11/25/2011 12:06:55 PM , Rating: 5
See, this is why I constantly crusade for more coal plants being built. The tragic deaths of a couple kids recently after they were left outside in freezing weather without proper clothing while their drunk parent played video lottery terminals could easily have been prevented if we just warmed up the Earth enough to prevent freezing temperatures. Really, it's the only way of preventing something like that happening again.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By macawvet on 11/25/2011 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, that's pretty funny. Pretty soon the entire country will be like California-- overregulated with so many laws about what you can and can't do and what has to be on what where (like the no dashboard mounts for gps systems) that you'll have to have a law degree just to function in society.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Zoomer on 11/26/2011 8:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why not just outlaw freezing temperatures? The Little Johnny Anti Freezing Act. It'll be a felony for temperatures to fall below 30 F for more than 10 minutes.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/25/2011 12:15:40 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Guess he will have to live with that.

I am constantly surprised by the crusading that goes on in the name of children by people who could have prevented a tragedy simply by taking a few seconds to be responsible.

Personally I think backup cameras are a major safety RISK.

When you back up, you should not rely solely on your mirrors unless you're in a vehicle without rear windows. In a normal vehicle you should be looking backwards and to the sides, scanning in all directions behind you. The backup camera forces you to look forwards and has a limited field of view, causing you to potentially lose sight of oncoming dangers from the sides. BIG SAFETY RISK.

Two potentially better solutions would be to:
a) Mount the backup camera view in a drop down screen that faces the driver when they're turned around.
...or...
b) Simply ad a sonar/IR sensor that detects low lying objects in the car's path and alerts.

B is probably the cheapest, best, and least visually distracting solution.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By StevoLincolnite on 11/25/2011 1:04:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The backup camera forces you to look forwards and has a limited field of view, causing you to potentially lose sight of oncoming dangers from the sides. BIG SAFETY RISK.


Eyefinity backup cameras! *Runs to the patent office*


RE: Personal Responsibility
By dsx724 on 11/25/2011 4:42:04 PM , Rating: 1
If they want to implement camera, they should do it correctly and install a 180 rear panographic camera. The cost for parts should not exceed $80 ($10x3 CMOS sensors + $5 controller + $5 LCD driver + $50 16x9 LCD screen. The feature would be bad ass for those once in a while situations where you're backing out of a driveway.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Mortando on 11/25/2011 1:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
b) Simply ad a sonar/IR sensor that detects low lying objects in the car's path and alerts.

I agree, I never understood the approach of encouraging someone to look *forward* while backing up and giving such a small field of view so you can't see things approaching from the sides. For vans & trucks sure, but not if you actually have a decent view out the back.

I have the 'sonar/IR sensor'-type and it gives the best of both worlds; you can look back and scan a wider area *and* you get a notice if something is below your FOV.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Solandri on 11/26/2011 4:41:51 AM , Rating: 1
Not everything needs to be solved with cutting-edge technology. Just mount a fresnel lens on the rear window. Costs about $5. Doesn't have the problem of making people stop using their mirrors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OXf8KGC16M


RE: Personal Responsibility
By misuspita on 11/26/2011 9:27:26 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but why spend 5$ when you could spend 150? Makes the economy turn faster :P


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Shadowself on 11/25/2011 1:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Something about which Jason and I actually agree? Anyone check the current temperature in Hell?

Why can't people just turn around and look? I've been backing up that way for over 50 years. I've met a few young people who, when I saw them backing up, I asked why they were not turning around and looking out the rear window AS WELL AS checking all the mirrors. Their response was that it was not taught in driver's ed that way anymore. Turning all the way around and looking out the back window when backing up was supposedly thought to be too disorienting on the driver. What total BS.

People just need to take some responsibility and LOOK. Don't rely on technology to solve all problems for you.

What happens in 3-5 or 10 years when the backup camera does not work, or the display in the mirror fails? Will people take it in and get it fixed? No. The problem will just compound itself. People will have gotten used to relying on the display and then, without it, will just backup anyway!


RE: Personal Responsibility
By V-Money on 11/25/2011 1:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the IR would be a much better implementation. I have both a backup camera and IR on my car, and the IR has definitely saved me more times than the camera. I have to admit I do love having the backup camera though, because my rear visibility sucks so looking all around doesn't usually cut it. I still always look to the sides for other threats though.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By djdjohnson on 11/25/2011 1:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly why when I installed a camera/monitor in my truck, I installed the monitor in the headliner above the back window. It's ludicrous that car manufacturers are putting the screens in the front.

I can attest to the fact that putting displays in the front means drivers don't turn around. I've seen it plenty of times.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By macawvet on 11/25/2011 5:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yep-- I have ~$800 of damage to my car because I was looking at the camera and not behind me. Backed up into a garbage can the camera didn't see because of limited field of view. The IR sensors on the other car in the family would have warned me far better as they cover a wider angle and you still have to look backward.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By TSS on 11/25/2011 5:17:25 PM , Rating: 1
or, yknow, you could check the camera first, THEN check your mirrors, then turn your head completly around to visually back up.

Why is it assumed the person stares at the camera when backing up?

Let's ask the question nobody wants to ask then: How many of those deaths is because of stupid people not paying attention, and how many are "legitimate" deaths by smart, attentive people where a child was caught in a blind spot and was run over. Since nobody cares because "it was the drivers fault" if it was the driver not paying attention, lets ask that question and on the basis of that, make the decision to have to not have these cameras.

Why? Because they're a tool. To the smart, attentive people, it'll be an extra help and safety measure, added to the regular routine but not used exlusively (as in look at the camera, then look around to back up). To the stupid people not paying attention it won't help at all. And audio beep won't help either. An airhorn wouldn't even help because that would probably startle them and cause them to floor the gas. Aside from mounting a robot hand into the steering wheel that will bitchslap the driver when their not paying attention, nothing you do will help these drivers pay attention.

Oh and yes some people will start using these camera's blindly and not checking mirrors anymore. lazy falls under stupid when your operating a large movable object. My bet would be those people would stop checking the mirrors when they feel there's no need to with or without backup camera.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By jwin742 on 11/29/2011 3:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
The only time I've gotten CLOSE to being hit was when my friend was using the backup camera on his grandparents truck.
You don't look behind you when you use a backup camera so you end up missing anything that's not immediately behind you.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By VahnTitrio on 11/29/2011 10:42:57 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree. I think part of driver's training should be backing up a trailer: there's no better way to learn how to be properly observant when backing up than when you have to back a trailer in.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By MonkeyPaw on 11/25/2011 12:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
Same old story. You can make automakers do just about anything, but consumers have to pay for it. Ever price a new car, especially for a family? You're lucky to find something for under $20k. Oh, it's no big deal, just get a 6 year loan and a second or third job!

For some reason people want a zero risk, never fail society. Once you get there, there's no point in living anymore.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By lagomorpha on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Personal Responsibility
By Zoomer on 11/26/2011 8:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
People will just buy older cars that will fit into their budget. Congrats, you just made more people stay in older, less safer, less efficient, less reliable, less technologically advanced cars.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By nocturne_81 on 11/25/2011 12:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of seeing an ep of Oprah (ya, I know..) years back during which two parents recalled the gruesome tale of their toddler drowning in their pool after being left in the yard unattended.. I don't exactly know what the point was -- but they got their free trip to Disney Land. Point being -- it was horrible, but common sense had a much better chance of preventing the situation rather than something along the lines of a law madating rigid pool covers.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Homeboyjones on 11/25/2011 3:03:06 PM , Rating: 5
They just need to make the drivers test waaaaaayyy more difficult.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Reclaimer77 on 11/26/2011 10:36:51 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly! Just like that dumbass who put his kid in the back of his pickup truck, took off down the highway, and lost his son when he was thrown from the truck in an accident. Then he goes on a national crusade to pass laws barring the practice. Hey asshole, YOU killed your kid, not the lack of a law. Use common sense next time and get a grief councilor, don't make it a national issue.

Mandatory backup cameras? This is getting to be just too much! Give me a break. If mirrors and turning your neck to, you know, actually LOOK where you're going aren't enough then you shouldn't be driving.

I could almost understand making it mandatory that every company offer this as OPTIONAL equipment, well not really, but that would be one thing. But forcing this to be standard equipment!? Come on, no way.

Don't we have bigger issues for Congress to deal with?


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Reclaimer77 on 11/26/11, Rating: -1
Well
By sprockkets on 11/25/2011 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 4
I'd rather the NHTSA mandate HID or LED lights on all new vehicles. I'm tired of idiots doing it themselves when their halogen headlight optics can't handle the 2x light properly. Now that they are so cheap they are putting 4 in, and with 50w versions they blind everyone on the road.

Either that or they need to start enforcing the rule already in place that these are illegal.




RE: Well
By Iaiken on 11/25/2011 1:10:17 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not actually sure why you got rated down for this. It's well documented that using HID bulbs in a halogen headlight assembly results in excessive glare with no discernible increase in distance when compared to a proper HID assembly. In fact, in most cases visibility is decreased as the light is scattered in a 70-90 degree cone instead of projected in a 15 degree cone (see below).

http://members.shaw.ca/rossnichol/hidcomp.jpg

This results in your car being less safe because not only can you not see as far, but you also blind approaching drivers and increase your likelihood of being in a head-on collision.

If you can't afford self-cleaning, auto-levelling headlight assemblies then you can't afford HID bulbs. Period.


RE: Well
By sprockkets on 11/26/2011 12:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
I like your pic - and the left and right car is just how mine looks, factory HID on a mazda3. I'll have to clean the lenses soon to keep the light from scattering around.


RE: Well
By Flunk on 11/25/2011 2:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
I find that even factory installed HID lighting systems can create a lot of glare. I would personally prefer that no cars had them at all and I think that a lot of other people who drive low cars would agree with them, they're a road hazard.


RE: Well
By sprockkets on 11/25/2011 10:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen 1st gen cars and trucks with them, those that do not put them low enough or those dang acura's, those are a problem.

All the extra light is simply spread out really, or at least when done right.

Why not post some that you find annoying?


RE: Well
By Masospaghetti on 11/27/2011 12:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
NHTSA should not mandate HID systems, personally I think new halogens provide great visibility. The H9 and 9011/9012 styles provide about 2000 lumens - or about double that of a halogen installation 10 years ago, or about 3x the light output of a sealed beam halogen.

Those who install dangerous light systems in their car and are obviously blinding other drivers should get harsher punishment. Again, don't cap my choices because someone else is an idiot.


You people shock me
By gcor on 11/27/2011 5:49:00 AM , Rating: 1
Your lack of compassion is obvious. No comment needed really, is there?

Calling people idiots because of a simple error? Like you never made a mistake, ever. In this case, a simple error has massive consequences for people's lives.

The average 2 year old is less than 3 foot tall. One of those little suckers can be jumping up and down behind many car models and you won't see them in any mirror, or window. So, was it all down to driver error?

Have you ever tried to explain to a 1 or 2 year old why they shouldn't stand behind a reversing car? How you ever tried to keep a toddler from going where it wants without locks and chains etc? What if it's not your toddler? For your sake, every time you reverse near shops, I hope every parent around you has welded one of their hands to their toddler's.

The technology in question is ridiculously cheap today. Because the bottom of the windows in my lifted 4x4 are higher than many sedans, I added a retail reversing camera that plugs into my GPS for $27. It worked so well, I chucked another into my camper trailer to help reversing in really tight spots. Cheap and, frankly, too easy. If I can do it retail for $27, then car companies can do it for far less today. Due to cameras being mandated and economies of scale kicking in even further, it'd have to cost way less than $10 per car. In a few years, you could be talking about cents per car. The reduction in fender benders alone would wipe out that kind of cost. Saving kids would be for free.




RE: You people shock me
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2011 11:40:39 AM , Rating: 1
You're a freaking idiot if you believe that any significant number of those 200 something yearly incidents would have been prevented by cameras. The problem isn't that people didn't see, it's that they didn't LOOK.

Also wtf is a 2 year old doing untended behind a car anyway? My sister has a 2 year old, my niece. She's NEVER out of her parents field of vision or untended while outdoors.

Don't hand me this collectivist compassionate crap. 200+ incidents out of 330 million people!? NON ISSUE.

quote:
If I can do it retail for $27...


Then EVERYONE can, so why do we need them mandated by law?


RE: You people shock me
By gcor on 11/28/2011 6:23:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem isn't that people didn't see, it's that they didn't LOOK.

Sorry, but how did you know they didn't look?

quote:
...any significant number of those 200...

Even if one child is saved per year, I think it's probably worth it. Especially if the total cost of all cameras is less than the amount saved by a reduction in fender benders. I.e. at a societal, they are for free.

quote:
She's NEVER out of her parents field of vision or untended while outdoors.

I hate to break it to you, but your sister's kid does wind up out of her field of vision, because your sister cannot live her life with her eyes kept permanently on her child. Parents like her, and me, try our best to look after our kids, but little kids are incredibly senseless. Kid's first get mobility, but they don't get sense at the same time. They learn sense through trial and error. Provided the errors don't kill them that is. If a toddler decides to cross a highway to pick up the bright shiny thing, it will if it can.

So far my 4 and 5 years olds have made it through early childhood with only minor bumps and scrapes. In our last rental house, the landlord refused to allow us to put in child proof latches on the gates that opened along side the garage we had to reverse into or out of. In the long run, we fitted the latches regardless. But no matter how hard we've tried, the kids have wound up in crazy places they should never have been able to get to. Parents do their best, but kids are a handful and the world is a dangerous place for them. One small error can have huge consequences.

quote:
Don't hand me this collectivist compassionate crap. 200+ incidents out of 330 million people!? NON ISSUE.

Ask your sister if her daughter dying would be a non issue for her. In fact, ask yourself how you'd feel if your niece became pavement pizza.

quote:
Then EVERYONE can, so why do we need them mandated by law?

Like I tried to say, when cameras are mandated, the cost per car will come down hugely, due to economies of scale and being built in vs. post production.

Also, do you think wing mirrors and safety belts should be mandated or not? My mum and dad paid for after market ones of those back when I was a kid. Today we take them for granted, because they were mandated. How much do they cost? Wing mirrors are trivially cheap to manufacture. I'm guessing the majority of their cost is in the remote set up gadgetry to make them easier. Who even considers the cost of a simple mirror itself? I think reversing cameras will be the same, especially if they are mandated.


RE: You people shock me
By Reclaimer77 on 11/28/2011 1:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
LOL that's all you got? Lame Liberal talking point responses? Ask my sister, even if one life were saved, etc etc. Really?

You lose. Come back when you can offer more than emotional appeals. How old are you anyway?


RE: You people shock me
By gcor on 11/28/2011 5:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lame Liberal talking point responses?

Yeah, cause that's all I said.

My bad, thought I was having a discussion with a person interested in a rational discussion. So, yes, guess I lose.

Yawl take care now.


RE: You people shock me
By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2011 1:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
"If one child a year is saved, (massive sweeping national regulations) are worth it."

Did you not say that? It's not hard to get where I'm coming from. Seriously, ONE life?

I find it comical that you believe I'm the one not being rational in this. You provide the reasoning of a fourth grader!


RE: You people shock me
By gcor on 11/29/2011 4:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, cause that was the only thing I said.

OK, let me try to say the same thing again in a different way. Perhaps it'll make more sense for you.

Mandated cameras could easily cost absolutely nothing to anybody, as reversing cameras would have a greater saving through a reduction in fender benders than the cost of fitting the cameras.

Here's a little equation for you that puts the idea in another way:

Camera_costs < Camera_savings

Where:
Camera_costs = Total cost of mandated cameras (including production costs and government time in enacting the law)

Camera_savings = Total savings through reduced fender benders (including reduced panel shop work and insurance premiums)

Hopefully that idea is clear enough for you at this stage.

Moving on to the next part of my suggestion...

Assuming I'm correct in guessing that mandated cameras are effectively for free, and it saves one life per year, then of course I'm all for it.

Aren't you?

Mind you, I'm pretty sure you're just happily trolling along at this stage and aren't really interested in the debate as such. Anyway, it's been fun, so thanks for all the laughs.


dumber drivers
By vapore0n on 11/25/2011 11:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
NHTSA should be pushing for stricter driving tests rather than dumbing down the drivers.

Things that should be included in such tests:
- how to add gas to car
- how to replace tires
- how to look on all your mirrors before you start going reverse

Things that should not be part of test:
- how to put on makeup and drink coffee while driving down the highway

One day there will be a law that mandates car drives themselves. God knows were too dangerous to do it ourselves




RE: dumber drivers
By lagomorpha on 11/25/2011 1:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
My girlfriend's ex-boyfriend ran into a parked car during his driving test. He passed. He's probably not among the worst drivers in the Chicago area.


RE: dumber drivers
By Camikazi on 11/25/2011 5:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a min... how does that even happen? How can you hit a parked car during your driving test and still pass? That doesn't make any sense :(


RE: dumber drivers
By lagomorpha on 11/25/2011 8:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
He put the car into drive instead of reverse when he got in the car and hit the car in front of him. Illinois cops dont want to have to deal with it and just pass people.


Enough already
By GatoRat on 11/25/2011 12:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Greatly increasing gas mileage standards, things like a mandated backup camera, a myriad of highly marginal "safety" features and the protectionism of tires are driving up the price of cars in a major way.




Will people even use them
By slawless on 11/25/2011 1:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
Drive through the mall parking lot. How many people do you see get in the car, start the engine, put it in reverse, hit the gas, look..... in that order, often omitting step 5. If they dont look out the window they are not going to look at the display.

I used one once on a loaner car. found it very disorientating. but a single use is not a fair assessment.

This is nothing compared to the passive restraint systems they are proposing to stop people who are too stupid to wear a seat belt from being thrown from out of the car in severe accident.




Nonsense...
By Jeff7181 on 11/25/2011 9:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
If you can't back up in a car without hitting something or running something over you shouldn't be behind the wheel.




Ah good,
By icanhascpu on 11/26/2011 7:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
making people more dependent and less aware, one piece of mandated tech at a time.




Love mine
By PittCaleb on 11/28/2011 2:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
I parallel park all the time and couldn't do it without the camera (big car, tight downtown spaces).

What I find funny is the comment that adding $58-200 to the price of the car will cost jobs. Whose exactly?

Regardless as to if you believe this mandate should be here or not, seat belts, then air bags and a whole slew of safety equipment in cars was always looked at with skepticism at first - cost especially. By 2014, $50 will be nothing in the grand scheme of buying a new car.

FTR, I never ran over my kids before I had the camera. Did run over a Spiderman Dodge Ball which was just about as bad. Endless crying, especially because I refused to replace it since it was left out by said kid.




Legislate to death!.
By fteoath64 on 11/28/2011 11:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it that every time there is a small disaster that usually results in human stupidity or ignorance, that the government wants to legislate things ?.
It is not as if that will solve the problem but it actually creates more problems and complications that result in loss of money, time and a great deal of frustration!.

Tell the government to stay-out-of-this!.




Backup Camera
By InCarExperts on 12/12/2011 9:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
On pen and paper this looks quite expensive when only considering the # of lives they predict backup cameras will save against the total cost of the mandate but- can we put a price tag on saving lives? Plus, the installation can save people big money when considering individual benefits. In installing these devices not only will they protect children and people that walk behind vehicles but they prevent vehicular damage because in viewing what is located behind a vehicle, many drivers are going to avoid hitting things like poles, bikes, toys, or even other vehicles that may cause lots of damage. This damage can cost lots of money and we all know that putting in an insurance claim causes insurance to sky rocket so installing a backup camera helps people avoid getting into this situation.




modest proposal
By DockScience on 11/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: modest proposal
By Camikazi on 11/25/2011 10:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
Could be because having a high IQ doesn't mean you will drive well, I know quite a few very intelligent people who can't drive at all, I mean they are horrible drivers and I also know some not so smart people who are better drivers then me (with me being a definite standard of course :P). Seriously though, I don't know how you think that IQ has anything to do with driving skills, they aren't comparable.


RE: modest proposal
By Kurz on 11/26/2011 8:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
THIS: Like every skill it requires active attention and thought to improve and become a master. You might have talent, but it means nothing if you don't put forth your effort.


RE: modest proposal
By Skywalker123 on 11/26/2011 12:31:00 AM , Rating: 3
But then you'd have to ride a bike to work.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki