Rear View cameras required as of 2014

[wwittman]

withOUT being forced into a multi-thouand dollar upgrade package

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/bu...s-rear.html?hp

[piperpilot964]

interesting

[CCLarry]

Here's the problem:

It seems that kids under 5 getting run over by stupid parents is a big issue for families with kids under 5. The $200 increase in car price (paid by the car buyer) will be borne by people without kids under 5 (the vast majority of car owners).

Another example where the government regulators come up with an idea they think should be forced on everyone. Why stop there? Why not outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, fat people, lazy people, dumb people.

Would it not be better for that same government regulator to spend the $1B on education of families with kids under 5 how not to back over their kids? It would cost a lot less, AND not violate the constitution.

[Seki]

interesting

X2

[10CC]

However, in a preliminary version circulated for public comment, regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle. At least some of the cost is expected to be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

Some of the cost? As if the automakers aren't going to use this to gouge buyers for at least an additional $750 on the MSRP.

[Tsquared]

Here's the problem:

It seems that kids under 5 getting run over by stupid parents is a big issue for families with kids under 5. The $200 increase in car price (paid by the car buyer) will be borne by people without kids under 5 (the vast majority of car owners).

Another example where the government regulators come up with an idea they think should be forced on everyone. Why stop there? Why not outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, fat people, lazy people, dumb people.

Would it not be better for that same government regulator to spend the $1B on education of families with kids under 5 how not to back over their kids? It would cost a lot less, AND not violate the constitution.

Careful there Larry. Logic doesn't play well in politically correct America. The One Million Moms (current membership - about 40,000) will be after you.

[aeproberts21]

Here's the problem:

It seems that kids under 5 getting run over by stupid parents is a big issue for families with kids under 5. The $200 increase in car price (paid by the car buyer) will be borne by people without kids under 5 (the vast majority of car owners).

Another example where the government regulators come up with an idea they think should be forced on everyone. Why stop there? Why not outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, fat people, lazy people, dumb people.

Would it not be better for that same government regulator to spend the $1B on education of families with kids under 5 how not to back over their kids? It would cost a lot less, AND not violate the constitution.

Yeah, because those without kids don't have neighbors with kids, or go to the mall where kids might be. I agree that requiring a back up camera is a waste, but not for the same reasons as you. My reasoning is that people end up using the camera instead of actually turning their head and ensuring that the coast is clear. The camera should be a supplement, not a replacement.

However, using your logic then cars should not require airbags either since they are not used by the vast majority of people who manage to avoid an accident. Just like an airbag is only worth the expense when you actually need it, I am pretty sure if your kid or your siblings kid, or your neighbors kid gets saved by a backup camera then it would be worth the $200.

[Johnny25]

Careful there Larry. Logic doesn't play well in politically correct America. The One Million Moms (current membership - about 40,000) will be after you.

Haha!

I'm going to develop a political system entirely derived from math...so that there are no wrong answers. Who wants to help?

[piperpilot964]

Ya know....regulations for safety are one thing...regulations for stupidity are completely another. People in a rush cause all sorts of bad things to happen. Planes crash, trains derail, boats flip, cars crash and things and people get run over. You can never eliminate stupidity or lack of attention to detail...ain't gonna happen.

[GeoVDub]

Haha!

I'm going to develop a political system entirely derived from math...so that there are no wrong answers. Who wants to help?

Do twelve orphaned puppies hold the same value as twelve invading cockroaches?

These are the problems you must overcome to effectively implement your system.

[CCLarry]

Yeah, because those without kids don't have neighbors with kids, or go to the mall where kids might be. I agree that requiring a back up camera is a waste, but not for the same reasons as you. My reasoning is that people end up using the camera instead of actually turning their head and ensuring that the coast is clear. The camera should be a supplement, not a replacement.

However, using your logic then cars should not require airbags either since they are not used by the vast majority of people who manage to avoid an accident. Just like an airbag is only worth the expense when you actually need it, I am pretty sure if your kid or your siblings kid, or your neighbors kid gets saved by a backup camera then it would be worth the $200.

You missed my point, but I'll give it shot..

The vast majority kids being backed over happen in the owner's driveway. How many five year olds are running around mall parking lots unattended? I teach my kids not to run behind cars. I am saying the $1B+ cost of this could save just as many kids as the cameras through education.

Cars should not have airbags based on my logic? Huh? Airbags ARE used by the vast majority of people (used to mitigate risk whether they deploy or not).

And you obviouly missed the point of my argument that government can't make the world safe through mandating away risk. There is not enough money in the world to do that. Educating people is money better spent.

[JLJetta]

If outlawing guns will stop criminals from commiting gun crimes, why not make it illegal for a child to be behind a reversing vehicle?

[mswlogo]

I think it's great idea.

If you don't like regulation, move to another country like Iran or something. See how you like it there. Send a postcard.

People keep b$tching about the dumbest things.

Obviously we have a few regrumplicans here.

[Boosted2003!]

This is nothing new. I knew about this like year and half ago. This idea is probably going to be pushed back too 2015 though.

[piperpilot964]

Uhhh. Iran regulates everything, even your religion. Do your really want to just regulate smarts out of people?

[mswlogo]

Uhhh. Iran regulates everything, even your religion. Do your really want to just regulate smarts out of people?

I think it's smart to see what's behind you.

[CCLarry]

If outlawing guns will stop criminals from commiting gun crimes, why not make it illegal for a child to be behind a reversing vehicle?

Outlawing guns doesn't stop criminals from committing gun crimes (a statistical fact). It only stops law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

You don't need to make things illegal to stop people from doing dumb things. Education is a better approach.

[CCLarry]

I think it's smart to see what's behind you.

I am 100% for your right to choose to buy a backup camera. You have to respect other people's right to choose not to.

[wwittman]

Here's the problem:

It seems that kids under 5 getting run over by stupid parents is a big issue for families with kids under 5. The $200 increase in car price (paid by the car buyer) will be borne by people without kids under 5 (the vast majority of car owners).

Another example where the government regulators come up with an idea they think should be forced on everyone. Why stop there? Why not outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, fat people, lazy people, dumb people.

Would it not be better for that same government regulator to spend the $1B on education of families with kids under 5 how not to back over their kids? It would cost a lot less, AND not violate the constitution.

yeah
another stupid government regulation idea. like:

seatbelts
airbags
emission standards
mileage standards

and you know, stuff like clean air and water, and safe drugs

damned government




the ayn rand crazies LOVE to scream "unconstitutional!", but the courts have consistently found these things are NOT.

[aeproberts21]

You missed my point, but I'll give it shot..

Cars should not have airbags based on my logic? Huh? Airbags ARE used by the vast majority of people (used to mitigate risk whether they deploy or not).

And you obviouly missed the point of my argument that government can't make the world safe through mandating away risk. There is not enough money in the world to do that. Educating people is money better spent.

I agree with the premise of your logic, and I even agree that it is a waste of money since, as others have pointed out, I think most of these accidents occur because people didn't look at all, and not because they looked and did not see a child.

However, I still think the airbag metaphor is the same thing. I have never used my airbags. I have bought and sold 5 cars and never deployed the airbag, but I still had to pay the additional cost of having it in my car because of regulations put forth by the US government. Why? Because the studies they performed showed that it would save lives so they forced them to put it every car. You might not have kids or have need of a back up camera, but I am assuming the studies they performed have indicated that it is worth the cost when compared to the lives they think it will save.

Education alone doesn't work. There are too many stupid people who don't pay attention. How many years have they been promoting messages about leaving your kid or your dog in the car during a hot summer day, yet every year you hear of it happening again.

I am not saying that I think a back up camera should be in every car, but I am saying that it is possible the studies performed have shown it is worth the cost.

[piperpilot964]

Airbags are there to protect you and passengers when operating...protect you from yourself, others, weather, or mechanical failures resulting in a crash, just like a seatbelt, only better. Passive and active occupant protection....sensible. RVC regulation is intended to protect others from your stupidity and lack of attention.

I for one have an issue with increasing costs for all to "allow" people to pay less attention and be in a rush rather than drive mindfully. Although an RVC is a good thing and I wanted and now have one. It was not so I didn't run over the neighbors kids (which would be sad, they are cute) and I don't think they should be required in EVERY car and costs passed on to others considering the limited application of the device. What, it gets used maybe 1% of a cars life and you are gonna require it? Typical knee-jerk US legislation/regulation.

[aeproberts21]

RVC regulation is intended to protect others from your stupidity and lack of attention. What, it gets used maybe 1% of a cars life and you are gonna require it? Typical knee-jerk US legislation/regulation.

Have you read the studies that proves your assumption?

I the key point made in the articles that I have read is that currently if you want a backup camera you generally have to pay a few thousand dollars to get the package that comes with a navigation system and upgraded stereo (varies by car) etc. Most cars do not allow you purchase just the backup camera without being forced into an expensive upgrade package.

Maybe a better solution would be to force all manufacturers to offer the RVC as a stand alone add-on. That would allow people to purchase the safety feature without having to spend thousands to get it.

[mswlogo]

I am 100% for your right to choose to buy a backup camera. You have to respect other people's right to choose not to.

I want Grandma and Grandpa not have a right to choose. Or the 16 old kid just learning. Just as I want them to have AntiLock Brakes and many other safety features required.

Yeah some drivers or cars don't need it. But some do that should just won't get it.

By the way my sister when she was a kid was rolling in a cardboard refrigerator box on the side walk when she saw her friend crushed by a car backing out of a driveway.

We all share the roads and it is not just YOU, you have to watch out for.

Cars get better and better over the years because of these terrible regulations.

If I could have got just the camera as an add on I would have. I don't think it's even an option on any CC with a Manual Transmission. I really appreciated the thread from the guy that went through adding one. If it was not so crazy complicated I'd do it. I feel pretty blind backing up in the CC.

[piperpilot964]

@aeproberts21....The studies indicate the numbers and types of deaths. They do not point to the cause other than, "they ran kids over while backing up". I submit the cause is lack of attention to detail and situational awareness and being in a hurry. Incidentally, this is the cause of most motor accidents. We can not legislate safety or safety features to prevent every human error from ending badly. I feel we should not require anything that costs the whole more just because a small percentage of people make an error. I agree a standalone option would make more sense but they are trying to make this a requirement for automakers much like airbags. Apples to oranges and a bad idea IMHO.

@msw...We all should have the right to choose. As for less experienced or substandard drivers, that should be handled another way with more required training and recurrent training for all. Driving is a privilege not a right...right? It is unfortunately treated more as a right though once you have that little card.

you're welcome...it was a fun write up, fun to do and I always felt blind backing up my CC which is why I added it.

[JLJetta]

yeah
another stupid government regulation idea. like:

seatbelts
airbags
emission standards
mileage standards

and you know, stuff like clean air and water, and safe drugs

damned government




the ayn rand crazies LOVE to scream "unconstitutional!", but the courts have consistently found these things are NOT.

Courts have ruled that slavery and rape of a married woman by her husband is legal/constitutional as well.

[wwittman]

Courts have ruled that slavery and rape of a married woman by her husband is legal/constitutional as well.

well, first off, when? how long ago?

and for another thing, they may indeed be 'constitutional', if also immoral and illegal for other reasons

the constitution doesn't originally give women or non-land owners the vote either.

the point is, that it's a tactic to just say "unconstitutional" when you don't LIKE something.

In a modern world government regulation serves a very useful purpose.
In fact, looking at what the banks did in the last 10-15 years, we obviously could use a lot more of it... but government trying to regulate for the public good isn't "unconstitutional" according to any actual constitutional scholars... only to the crazies.

meanwhile, know what IS unconstitutional? Waging war without a declaration of same from Congress.
and yet...


I"m going to bet that even this Supreme Court isn't going to say that mandating rear view cameras is "unconstitutional"

no matter what those great legal minds such as Glen Beck and Michael Savage say.

[piperpilot964]

Smart regulation is not bad...knee-jerk regulation is. When regulation serves the interest of only a small percentage, it is generally poor regulation. Unconstitutional...I love that one, the extremes on both end use that as a club when they don't like something, just like the use "patriotic" as a club to get people to join their point of view.

My main point is if we enact regulation to save us from every bit of our own stupidity we will all be carrying a little book of regulations around in our pockets. In the end how much will it cost all of us, including those with less stupidity?

[wwittman]

leaving the politics aside, *I* look at it as the good news that rear view cameras will be made available for the cost of the rear view camera added on... instead of ONLY as a part of a mandatory sat nav or other $2000 package.

[aeproberts21]

leaving the politics aside, *I* look at it as the good news that rear view cameras will be made available for the cost of the rear view camera added on... instead of ONLY as a part of a mandatory sat nav or other $2000 package.

I agree with you. If that is the final outcome then I am fine with it.