government regulations to require backup cameras

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
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.

A regulation like this -- which, I can't resist stressing one more time, stipulates backup cameras OR GOOD REAR VISIBILITY -- simply helps reduce the likelihood that the manufacturers could be held responsible for an accident.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
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.


Excellent point. Same with the gun control crowd playing on the public's emotions.

 

[rslifkin]

The question is, will manufacturers actually re-design cars to improve visibility? If not, then it's effectively mandating the cameras.

 

[saberz]

You would think the economy being how it is they would want to move more cars, make more "bang" for the "buck" vehicles, or lower prices. But the prices just keep going up. I know we don't live in a world of "perfect" but as others stated things are getting a bit out of control.

Rising gas prices, rising costs of living/taxation, costs in general are going up.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Anies
You would think the economy being how it is they would want to move more cars, make more "bang" for the "buck" vehicles, or lower prices. But the prices just keep going up. I know we don't live in a world of "perfect" but as others stated things are getting a bit out of control.

Rising gas prices, rising costs of living/taxation, costs in general are going up.

This is largely due to consumer choice, though. People want combinations of things that are difficult to achieve: torque and heavy structures with fuel economy, high seating position with high dynamic safety, etc.

Plus, the prevalence of SUVs means that vehicles of all kinds have been forced to be made crash compatible with them. This means even the cheapest, lightest cars are still rather heavy and have relatively poor visibility for what they are -- and yet they must still achieve better fuel economy without sacrificing torque, which requires a lot more technical wizardry, driving up the cost even more.

Incidentally, folks blaming CAFE for the move to xw-20 oils would do well to take into account the other half of the equation: the kinds of cars people are buying. If they were lighter, automakers would have no trouble meeting current CAFE standards without having to squeeze out fractions of percentage points from things like engine oil. But I digress.

A free society involves the risk that some people will ruin things for the rest of us. In this case, too many people evidently lack the sensibilities required to avoid buying cars they can't see out of and running over their kids, and they are forcing us to choose between coughing up more money and letting innocent kids get killed. Unless we can find a more reasonable solution, a government mandate for proper rear visibility (one way or another) seems to be the least of all evils.

 

[Herz]

Great, more regulationst to increase price of cars, and more garbage that will break and cause people to rely on it instead of looking back.

 

[D189379]

Theres one on the Rdx. It gets covered by dust and dirt after a drive, rendering it useless unless you constantly clean it. If I decide to clean it, I can also check for children. They are a complete waste of money.

 

[odie]

The blind spot indicator be a better addition to all vehicles . We've seen a few crashes due to this .

 

[Vizzy]

NO...

NO MORE NANNY SAFETY AIDS.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Vizzy
NO...

NO MORE NANNY SAFETY AIDS.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
To repeat, for those who missed it:

Quote:
Auto manufacturers can get around the requirement by adhering to improved rear visibility requirements handed down by the DoT, but with current car design trending towards making outward visibility an afterthought, it's believed that most car manufacturers will go the backup camera route instead.


In other words, the requirement is only for vehicles that have horrible rear visibility. It's not for everyone.

I could do this all day.

 

[Falcon_LS]

One word - unbelievable. For crying out loud, if you cannot drive a large vehicle, then do not buy one. It's amazing how I see people driving monstrous SUVs and rely completely on parking sensors and cameras to park the thing!

 

[Summerwind]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
One word - unbelievable. For crying out loud, if you cannot drive a large vehicle, then do not buy one. It's amazing how I see people driving monstrous SUVs and rely completely on parking sensors and cameras to park the thing!


X10 Falcon!!

 

[rslifkin]

I agree. People are always shocked that I can back my Jeep into a parking space dead-center and straight almost every time, and can back up to within 2 - 3" of a wall without hitting it.

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
All vehicles by 2014 must have backup cameras installed to help reduce the number of child fatalities due to back-over (approx 1/3 of all automobile related child deaths)

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20313v


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.

Alot of new cars have horrible rearward visibility, and SUVs/Trucks are even worse. I'm all for this. In your driveway where you can keep your kids in front of the car, that's a different story. This would be great for like, wally world parking lot where kids run around like maniacs and visiblity all around is terrible when backing out.


I have one word for this requirement: disgusting.

It is absolutely DISGUSTING that they would mandate this technology.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
It is absolutely DISGUSTING that they would mandate this technology.

They're not mandating the technology. They're mandating rear visibility. You only need the camera if the vehicle doesn't inherently have good rear visibility.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
To repeat, for those who missed it:

Quote:
Auto manufacturers can get around the requirement by adhering to improved rear visibility requirements handed down by the DoT, but with current car design trending towards making outward visibility an afterthought, it's believed that most car manufacturers will go the backup camera route instead.


In other words, the requirement is only for vehicles that have horrible rear visibility. It's not for everyone.