I agree that the manufacturers need to make visibility better. Honestly, with things like that becoming afterthoughts in design, and mandatory stability control, now backup cameras, etc, I don't think I could ever put up with a new car. And I'm only 18! I guess I better start stocking up on vehicles...
government regulations to require backup cameras
- Thread starter Nick R
- Start date
- Status
Airbags, antilock brakes/ stability control now backup cameras what is another 8 car payments eh?
Originally Posted By: crinkles
I think it's a great idea, some of the responses on here against it have been well, interesting, how could you not want to protect children from getting run over? even in the best outward visibility car (AND EVEN AFTER YOU TOOK DUE CARE TO DO A WALKAROUND _ THINGS CHANGE IN A SPLIT SECOND WITH KIDS) you cannot see a rugrat behind your trunk. Oh the horror, another gizmo that can break, oh no, some people would rather not have a gizmo break than drive over a child. get real!
Your argument doesn't hold water logically.
First off, just because one is against a government mandate for a camera does not follow that they are against protecting children, so please, stop wrongly painting folks who are against this sort of thing with your broad and inaccurate paint brush.
Second, your very argument proves that such measures really will not help. If things change as quickly as you suggest, a camera is not going to help, other than give you a better view of the carnage.
Finally, I DO want to protect the children and think there are other, far more effective means to accomplish that goal without a government mandated solution.
I think it's a great idea, some of the responses on here against it have been well, interesting, how could you not want to protect children from getting run over? even in the best outward visibility car (AND EVEN AFTER YOU TOOK DUE CARE TO DO A WALKAROUND _ THINGS CHANGE IN A SPLIT SECOND WITH KIDS) you cannot see a rugrat behind your trunk. Oh the horror, another gizmo that can break, oh no, some people would rather not have a gizmo break than drive over a child. get real!
Your argument doesn't hold water logically.
First off, just because one is against a government mandate for a camera does not follow that they are against protecting children, so please, stop wrongly painting folks who are against this sort of thing with your broad and inaccurate paint brush.
Second, your very argument proves that such measures really will not help. If things change as quickly as you suggest, a camera is not going to help, other than give you a better view of the carnage.
Finally, I DO want to protect the children and think there are other, far more effective means to accomplish that goal without a government mandated solution.
There was useless TPMS and now backup camera, what next ?
Originally Posted By: BBuzecky
If camera's can save even 1 life then I'm all for it, and I'd guess they'd save many more.
At $200 each for 10 million U.S. vehicle sales per year, that's a cost of $2 billion dollars annually. You could save a lot more lives investing that money in other ways, especially if the location of those lives isn't a concern.
My buddy has a back-up camera on his new 3/4-ton Dodge. It's not useful for viewing most of the time while backing up because peripheral vision is far better when simply looking back, but it is good to check it before moving and to determine distance when getting close to something. It does have benefits in some vehicles, but I wouldn't want to pay for it in my Mazda3. Visibility is good in that car.
If camera's can save even 1 life then I'm all for it, and I'd guess they'd save many more.
At $200 each for 10 million U.S. vehicle sales per year, that's a cost of $2 billion dollars annually. You could save a lot more lives investing that money in other ways, especially if the location of those lives isn't a concern.
My buddy has a back-up camera on his new 3/4-ton Dodge. It's not useful for viewing most of the time while backing up because peripheral vision is far better when simply looking back, but it is good to check it before moving and to determine distance when getting close to something. It does have benefits in some vehicles, but I wouldn't want to pay for it in my Mazda3. Visibility is good in that car.
If you can't back up, don't drive. You don't need cameras to hmelp you.
"Its for the children" like every thing these lunatics gin up that cost money.Better idea! Parents should teach their kids how to cross the street and pay attention when walking behind cars,something the majority of parents use to do soon as the kid could walk!
Sometime in 2015, when all new cars have the backup camera, somebody will have a camera that's fogged up or blocked with snow, and not bother to clean it, and run over a child. The government will then mandate backup-camera wipers and lens defroster.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
If someone needs a camera to back up their motor vehicle,said vehicle is either WAY too much for them,or they need to be riding a bicycle.
Agreed. Too many idiots are on our roads who lack the ability to maneuver their colossal vehicle. Automatic transmissions, rear-view cameras, blind-spot sensors, cars that parallel park themselves...etc. Driving skill these days is rare.
Here in NY State...in the rough winters we have here you'd think you'd see little sedans flipped over on the highway medians...nope, it's always the 4WD large vehicles people think will never lose grip of the road. People can't even understand simple physics.
If someone needs a camera to back up their motor vehicle,said vehicle is either WAY too much for them,or they need to be riding a bicycle.
Agreed. Too many idiots are on our roads who lack the ability to maneuver their colossal vehicle. Automatic transmissions, rear-view cameras, blind-spot sensors, cars that parallel park themselves...etc. Driving skill these days is rare.
Here in NY State...in the rough winters we have here you'd think you'd see little sedans flipped over on the highway medians...nope, it's always the 4WD large vehicles people think will never lose grip of the road. People can't even understand simple physics.
Originally Posted By: MoparDak05
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I'm gong to get bashed for it, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Oh sure there will be the "gubmint can't tell me what to do" fear mongering
If you get bashed for it, it is because you began this thread by bashing those who believe in limited government control/regulations, therefore turning it into a political argument. Implying illiteracy is not a step toward intelligent discussion.
+++++++++1 John--Las Vegas
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I'm gong to get bashed for it, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Oh sure there will be the "gubmint can't tell me what to do" fear mongering
If you get bashed for it, it is because you began this thread by bashing those who believe in limited government control/regulations, therefore turning it into a political argument. Implying illiteracy is not a step toward intelligent discussion.
+++++++++1 John--Las Vegas
Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: BBuzecky
If camera's can save even 1 life then I'm all for it, and I'd guess they'd save many more.
At $200 each for 10 million U.S. vehicle sales per year, that's a cost of $2 billion dollars annually. You could save a lot more lives investing that money in other ways, especially if the location of those lives isn't a concern.
My buddy has a back-up camera on his new 3/4-ton Dodge. It's not useful for viewing most of the time while backing up because peripheral vision is far better when simply looking back, but it is good to check it before moving and to determine distance when getting close to something. It does have benefits in some vehicles, but I wouldn't want to pay for it in my Mazda3. Visibility is good in that car.
I agree. I hate the "if it saves just one life then it's worth it" statements. Sounds too much like the gun control nuts.
Originally Posted By: BBuzecky
If camera's can save even 1 life then I'm all for it, and I'd guess they'd save many more.
At $200 each for 10 million U.S. vehicle sales per year, that's a cost of $2 billion dollars annually. You could save a lot more lives investing that money in other ways, especially if the location of those lives isn't a concern.
My buddy has a back-up camera on his new 3/4-ton Dodge. It's not useful for viewing most of the time while backing up because peripheral vision is far better when simply looking back, but it is good to check it before moving and to determine distance when getting close to something. It does have benefits in some vehicles, but I wouldn't want to pay for it in my Mazda3. Visibility is good in that car.
I agree. I hate the "if it saves just one life then it's worth it" statements. Sounds too much like the gun control nuts.
To clear the area around your car, this is all you need...
Originally Posted By: tonycarguy
Sometime in 2015, when all new cars have the backup camera, somebody will have a camera that's fogged up or blocked with snow, and not bother to clean it, and run over a child. The government will then mandate backup-camera wipers and lens defroster.
"Save the children", is really just a pretext to saddle everyone with more rules, regulations and expense. It's always easier to do when you have a good pretext.
Sometime in 2015, when all new cars have the backup camera, somebody will have a camera that's fogged up or blocked with snow, and not bother to clean it, and run over a child. The government will then mandate backup-camera wipers and lens defroster.
Backup camera is too expensive, the other solution is when you engage reverse to back out of a parking space the car/SUV makes a "beep beep" sound like some trucks do.
There is one thing I like every car has, the oil dipstick tube should extend all the way down to bottom of the oil pan so that an oil extractor can be used to change oil (and oil dipstick must be included with the car). Cartridge oil filter must be mounted on top of the engine for easy removal.
There is one thing I like every car has, the oil dipstick tube should extend all the way down to bottom of the oil pan so that an oil extractor can be used to change oil (and oil dipstick must be included with the car). Cartridge oil filter must be mounted on top of the engine for easy removal.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
I'm gong to get bashed for it, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Oh sure there will be the "gubmint can't tell me what to do" fear mongering, but I'm struggling to see how trying to protect children is bad.
If you don't know where your kids are and run over them while backing out of the driveway or a parking spot, you shouldn't be driving at all.
I have no problem backing up. I don't want to pay for a feature I don't need.
I'm gong to get bashed for it, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Oh sure there will be the "gubmint can't tell me what to do" fear mongering, but I'm struggling to see how trying to protect children is bad.
If you don't know where your kids are and run over them while backing out of the driveway or a parking spot, you shouldn't be driving at all.
I have no problem backing up. I don't want to pay for a feature I don't need.
Kestas
Staff member
The "Save the children" argument was used to raise State cigarette taxes in Michigan a couple years ago. The money is said to be used for children's health. It's emotional blackmail.
How are they going to regulate people to actually pay attention to what's going on these cameras? What about night, rain, fog and snow, will that be also regulated?
Maybe they will regulate that all kids must have a GPS tracking device on them all the time, so that parents know where their kids are. The insanity will just continue, but someone is making money on these regulations.
Maybe they will regulate that all kids must have a GPS tracking device on them all the time, so that parents know where their kids are. The insanity will just continue, but someone is making money on these regulations.
- Status
