government regulations to require backup cameras

[BBuzecky]

Originally Posted By: VNTS
More goverment intrusion.

If you dont want your kids to get run over, do a walk around on your car before you get in and back up and keep an eye on them.


Right, because the general public is going to do a walk around everytime they turn the key. That's about as naive as thinking everyone will come to a complete stop at a stop sign. If camera's can save even 1 life then I'm all for it, and I'd guess they'd save many more.

How exactly do you back up while watching your kids at the same time? Line them up in a row and have them still while you move the car?

Kids run around, that's how it's always been. Deadly mistakes happen in a flash. People rush to work, or just have a moment of lapse while driving and it ends up killing another.

Does everyone here very slowly back up and literally turn their bodies both directions to check for people? [censored] no, they glance at the mirrors and away they go. I'm all for it.

 

[Smokescreen]

This just in....gov't now requires all people to own the same car and to be driven by robot drivers.

 

[4ever4d]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
You can't fix stupid. With rear view cameras, many stupid people will just stare at the screen and start sideswiping stuff. We already have "side blind zone" sensors to help people change lanes because they refuse to turn their head and look.

OH how true!

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
This is ASININE. Good visibility to the rear quarters (5 and 7 oclock) is important for driving, merging etc.

This high beltline stuff is ridiculous and NOT necessary for side impact protection. (Just strengthen the B pillar and regular sized doors.) It is all for looks-- I'm talking to you, Chrysler.

And think of this... that Lexus SUV that critic rear ended had great visibility in front of it. But it surely had dark tinted rear windows (allowed on "trucks" but not cars) which blocked Critic's view two cars ahead, hurting his reaction time. Yet its driver probably won't get penalized for basically being a blinder on wheels.

When the Center High Stop Marker Light came out in 1986 I remember being in a line of cars and seeing through 4 or 5 of them at CHSMLs way ahead. Traffic at the time was all cars of normal height with clear glass. My how times have changed.

Good call. Well said.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
i think it is fantastic. i have a backup camera on my FX45, without it i could back up over an entire CLASS of kindergarten kids without noticing.

This is a good argument for the availability of the option. It's not a good argument for a government mandate that is binding on everyone.

Not everyone buys vehicles they can't see out of. Why should they have to pay for a solution to a problem they never would have had in the first place?

 

[d00df00d]

Okay, there may have to be some retractions in this thread, including by me. From the article:

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.


Guess that means all is well.

 

[cheetahdriver]

well, actually you can(fix stupid). the Fx50 adds cameras to the sides so you have a whole car "God's Eye" view.

 

[cheetahdriver]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Okay, there may have to be some retractions in this thread, including by me. From the article:

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.


Guess that means all is well.

that to me makes it PERFECT!

(although i still would like one on the miata. getting those extra 4 inches in parallel parking would be worth it..)

 

[AuthorEditor]

Quote:
Does everyone here very slowly back up and literally turn their bodies both directions to check for people?


I do--it was the way I was taught to drive. If I feel any slight resistance as I slowly back up I get out to check what it is. When I was much younger I was slowly backing up out of a tight parking space between two other cars. The parking lot was pitch black and someone dressed all in black tried to walk between my truck and the next car and I almost crushed them. If I had backed up fast I would have at least done some serious harm.

No matter what is legislated it's the nut holding the steering wheel that is the most important piece of equipment.

 

[SZR48207]

Friend's Nissan Titan has um, sonar sensors that beep when the rear of his truck is near anything. Pretty cool, especially since his truck is so dang big. If this is any cheaper, I think it'll work just as well as cameras.

 

[meangreen01]

Originally Posted By: cheetahdriver
i think it is fantastic. i have a backup camera on my FX45, without it i could back up over an entire CLASS of kindergarten kids without noticing.


LOL. You do realize the price of a modestly equipped, new compact car is approaching $20k, right? There's an increasingly larger segment of middle-lower/lower income class that can't even afford to get into these "lower-end" new cars.

Keep adding expensive mandated features and it just keeps pushing these prices up.

Sure, those of certain income brackets that are driving Infiniti's and such may choose to happily spend the extra $ for these features.

Maybe the cost of mandating these features should be spread out in a progressive fashion. Back-up cam tacks on $2500 to luxury vehicles. The poor guy that just wants a reliable, basic Corrola to slog to work in or drop the kids off at school gets it for nil.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: BBuzecky

Right, because the general public is going to do a walk around everytime they turn the key. That's about as naive as thinking everyone will come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

Does everyone here very slowly back up and literally turn their bodies both directions to check for people? [censored] no, they glance at the mirrors and away they go. I'm all for it.


Rather than make a blanket mandate that every car be equipped with cameras, why not mandate that drivers are at least smart enough to check behind the vehicle and maintain the sight picture as they back up? That way the drivers that aren't smart enough to look behind get to foot the bill, rather than make those of us who know enough to look behind and maintain a sight picture of what's going on around the vehicle pay for the incompetent drivers lack of skill?

Anyone dumb enough to "glance" at a mirror and "away they go" in reverse should have the privilege of driving revoked.

But then that would make them assume responsibility for their actions, and those of us responsible enough to look behind the vehicle first get to pay for those who aren't competent drivers.

If someone can't check behind a vehicle and maintain a sight picture of what's going on around it while backing they have no business getting a license in the first place.

 

[javacontour]

Where are the parents of these kids who are getting run over?

Why are kids not taught to not hang out in the streets or behind cars?

This is not a technology problem, but a parenting problem. Requiring cameras is not going to fix bad parenting. If your child is too small to know what to do around a driveway, then the child should not be outside without adult supervision.

I drilled into my daughters head that folks in parking lots and drive ways are not looking for you. They are looking for other cars, so YOU need to pay attention and make sure they don't hit you looking for or backing out of a parking spot or garage.

We don't need more technology, we need better parents as well as better drivers.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: VNTS

If you dont want your kids to get run over, do a walk around on your car before you get in and back up and keep an eye on them.

SIL has a CRV with back up camera, cant see [censored] out of it and she has already backed into two car and had to have the car repaired twice, so much for the usefulness of back up cameras.


Ill get popped for this one, but maturity cannot change physics and reality. Whether it is a kid behind a car or a teen pregnancy or any of these things, there IS personal responsibility for ALL, no matter what.

This is shifting liability onto the driver for poorly behaving kids. It also adds cost for the vehicle.


I REALLY like CHMSLs, and see their benbefit. ABS is OK, traction control Im indifferent, but this?!? I dont really like it. People should verify what is around the vehicle, go slow and be observent as part of being a responsible driver, parents need to be responsible for teaching and watching their kids, and vehicles need to provide good visibility all around. It should be on all parties to make sure that best practices are followed.

Like it or not, camera or not, if someone gets run over, no technology will change what happened. This may reduce it, but it is just another crutch for bad choices and poor skill. in a RCMSL, 3>2, so it was a benefit for all. Everything else that shows up (except maybe airbags/seat belts) is a crutch for stupidity and incompetence.

 

[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.

 

[cheetahdriver]

first of all, in the FX, it wouldn't matter if i could do a Linda Blair, the rear hatch is about 7 feet away and it is 4 feet off the ground. i can see the ground approx 20 ft away out the back.

second, Consumer's Guide shows 27 new cars priced below 15K, and 4 below 10k. a couple of these are pretty nice cars, (Honda Fit, Nissan Versa and Hyundai Accent) and for 12.5K you can get a Toyota Yaris.

third, as the post says, if you meet the DOT specs for rearward vis, you don't have to put the camera on.

forth, exactly how much is saving that toddler that ran behind you at walmart worth? it's worth quite a bit to me...

 

[JHZR2]

IMO this isnt a kid in the walmart parking lot issue. If a driver is not aware that there are people in the wal mart parking lot, they are an idiot. If the parents are not watching their toddler, they are an idiot. Doesnt make the result of a "situation" any better, but frankly, both are negligent if this happens in wal-mart.

The issue I see is backing from a driveway or similar where someone may be in a rush, may have reduced visibility, and an unwatched child may show up out of nowhere. Not an excuse for the driver, but more of a viable situation where there could be less obvious blame.

What happens when the rearview camera breaks, because it surely will in short order? Then will the car fail safety inspection? What about in states where there is no inspection, will drivers have double jeopardy?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: BBuzecky


Right, because the general public is going to do a walk around everytime they turn the key.


I do a quick glance around my vehicle every time I get into it actually.

Quote:

How exactly do you back up while watching your kids at the same time? Line them up in a row and have them still while you move the car?


I tell them to stay and make sure they are in a spot I can see them before backing out. I think that is a pretty logical parenting move..... You know, making sure your kids are safe before operating a motor vehicle. Sort of like making sure there is nobody in the water before firing up a boat.....

Quote:
Kids run around, that's how it's always been. Deadly mistakes happen in a flash. People rush to work, or just have a moment of lapse while driving and it ends up killing another.


Kids also require discipline and to be taught that cars are dangerous. And to never be in the way of vehicle that has somebody in it. This is just common sense.

Quote:
Does everyone here very slowly back up and literally turn their bodies both directions to check for people? [censored] no, they glance at the mirrors and away they go. I'm all for it.


Yeah, actually I do. I do a COMPLETE look around before pulling out of my driveway because our street has a lot of pedestrian traffic. And then I SLOWLY back out of the driveway. I do the same procedure when pulling out of a parking spot. Logic dictates that we slow down when our view is limited.

 

[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!

 

[Virtuoso]

Because I don't need a backup camera to keep my kids safe. Or someone elses for that matter. I make good, safe choices when driving in parking lots. IMHO if the parent's can't keep a theoretical leash on their kids, it shouldn't be up to me to strap my car with gizmo's to make it so.