Rearview Camera Mandate by 2014

[GoFaster]

It also has to be remembered that providing all this technology will NOT save 100% of these incidents. The percentage in which it does help may be somewhat small ... and if implementing this technology causes other problems (by making people look at the screen instead of around their vehicle) the net benefit will be even smaller or possibly even counterproductive ...

[velociT]

Originally Posted by GoFaster

It also has to be remembered that providing all this technology will NOT save 100% of these incidents. The percentage in which it does help may be somewhat small ... and if implementing this technology causes other problems (by making people look at the screen instead of around their vehicle) the net benefit will be even smaller or possibly even counterproductive ...

Two years ago I watched a realtor back into a Toyota Camry.

Rear warning chimes were in full panic mode for at least 3 seconds before impact.

When your brain is off, a little camera is just going to get the carnage on tape.

[DPM]

I wonder if you folk that poo-poo the whole idea ever actually reverse into SMALL spaces? I seem to spend half my life trying to get into tiny corners and bays, never mind parallel-parking on busy city streets. I've both a camera and ultrasonics on the Forester and both have their own advantages.

For all that, tho, I'd tend to agree that it's not necessarily a safety issue directly; also that Mr M's Fresnel lens is a perfectly acceptable- and quite popular, here way of implementing the requirement. They work especially well in vehicles with more upright rear ends.

[GoFaster]

No argument that cameras in selected locations can be a convenience, particularly on certain types of vehicles. It's the government-mandatedness of this, which I don't like.

[MrMopar]

Once we get the cars so technologically advanced that they drive themselves (maybe 10 years from now) this will never be an issue.

[740GLE]

If they want to save lives, mandate every car has a bretholizer, blow above .08 BAC, car doesn't run, you'd save thousands of lives.

I'd probably be cheaper than the cameras too.

[MrMopar]

Originally Posted by 740GLE

If they want to save lives, mandate every car has a bretholizer, blow above .08 BAC, car doesn't run, you'd save thousands of lives.
I'd probably be cheaper than the cameras too.

You and the MADD crowd can take a hike.

Alcohol-ignition interlocks are about $1,000 installed and they're not fail-proof. Go read a few technical papers about how breathlyzers work and you will understand why a BREATH measurement is downright foolish to measure BLOOD alcohol content. It's nothing more than an estimation that can be wildly wrong. Read one paper and you will understand why I will NEVER blow into a breathlyzer for any reason.

AND they'd be a burden to people who don't drink and don't want to pay for a $1,000 device they'll never need to use.

[White Crow]

Originally Posted by MrMopar

As an additional note . . .

I'm kinda a "Look at the greater good and measure statistics" type of guy. When I see 200 people a year (out of 310 million) that get killed by people backing up I see something that appears to not really be a problem.

Unless it's one of your kids that got run over. I do see your point but that is what drives this stuff I have watched them cut majestic huge pines in school grounds because a kid was killed by a falling branch (true story mother eventually had the school cut all the trees). There are some things out there that you can not see any thing directly behind you such as big pickups/SUV for as much 30'.

[aja8888]

I'm currently in Santa Clara, CA on vacation with a rented Chev Equinox (nice vehicle BTW!) and the back up camera has been extremely useful in the Starbucks parking lot helping to avoid backing into other vehicles in the crazy coffee frenzy.

I should have bought Starbucks stock when it hit under 10/share back in '08 - 09.

[velociT]

Originally Posted by 740GLE

If they want to save lives, mandate every car has a bretholizer, blow above .08 BAC, car doesn't run, you'd save thousands of lives.

I'd probably be cheaper than the cameras too.

Lets just ban cars all together, to save thousands of lives... right?

This where thinking like this ends up. You cannot legislate people from being stupid.

[AndyBees]

Originally Posted by MrMopar

Federal Government to require rearview cameras in all new cars by 2014:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/28...-cars-by-2014/

The next day they announced they are delaying those rules:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...rules-delayed/

Text from the 1st article: In a draft paper, regulators said it would cost automakers between $160 and $200 to install the cameras and viewing screens in each new vehicle -- as much as $2.7 billion per year overall.

Can we PLEASE find a government regulator who can at least admit that it isn't going to cost the automakers a dime to install these cameras? IT WILL COST THE US CUSTOMERS $2.7 BILLION PER YEAR. I just can't stand government twits who act as if the customers of any product they regulate don't have to pay jack for what they are regulating . . .

That BS is sort of like JACKING UP the corporate tax rates .........Gees! Don't they understand that, we the consumer, will pay those taxes in higher prices on the Goods and Services provided by the businesses!

But, election after election, we send or return 535 dummies to Washington~! ...and, of course the Bureaucrats in the agencies just love to write Regulations.....they need those for Job Security!

[Dunno513]

Why stop at resisting technological changes...

I say remove all goverment of any kind. No taxes period.

I mean really... who needs anything... we're smart enough without being told what to do. No one will take advantage in any way with all the laws and regulations removed. No military... ahh.. whats to worry... we're Americans... the smartest people alive on this planet. No one should tell us what do do... especially what safety features are put on our vehicles.

LOL....

[MrMopar]

Originally Posted by White Crow

Unless it's one of your kids that got run over.

I am just crunching the numbers and comparing risks. There is such a small minority of people who have had a child backed over by a car, and a smaller minority of those people who would demand that the solution is rearview cameras in all new cars. Of all the people who had children backed over by cars . . . some of them surely own swimming pools. Risk comparison is all I am saying.

[MrMopar]

Originally Posted by AndyBees

That BS is sort of like JACKING UP the corporate tax rates .........Gees! Don't they understand that, we the consumer, will pay those taxes in higher prices on the Goods and Services provided by the businesses!

Except when corporations then shift the profits overseas to avoid US Corporate Taxes, or use tax avoidance strategies to structure their financial affairs to have a lower tax burden.

The current populist cry of "tax the 1%" comes out of the mouthes of people that don't understand a Laffer Curve.

[04Passat]

I really like the backup cameras. I've used them, they work well and I welcome the improvement; just as I'm pleased with the TPMS mandated 2009