Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had a rental car last month that came with a backup camera. There seemed to be a 2-3 second lag in catching objects. In other words, my eyes were much faster at seeing danger than the camera was. The only plus was that it made my reverse parking a bit less sloppy. Other than that I don't see it being of much use.
It's only absurd because it uses the logic that you were using and which you thought was so profound.
I submit there's nothing ridiculous about making dealing with a sometimes difficult and dangerous situation easier (and at low cost to boot). I see nothing absurd or ridiculous about that. Rather than argue against the merits of my case you commit the logical fallacy of appealing to the absurd and ridiculous; rather than deal with subtleties and nuances, and the article itself, you mock and make an appeal to emotion, as though there is no middle ground between no camera and having a flag man.
You also use the rhetorical trick of defining those who would like a camera as "bad drivers": the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Another attempt to subvert reasoned argument by emotion.
Does your magical backup camera do that? If so, it's marvelous.
Another absurd assertion. Has anyone made an argument that backup cameras can foresee the future? Do you win arguments with tavern louts using these cheap tricks?
As an assistive device, I'm all for it. As the only means of avoiding running over a child?
What is going to happen when the child crawls out from under the car where they've been hiding (say playing a hide and seek game or war or something like that) and the person runs over the child? Who gets the blame then, the camera?
The people that are running over children aren't looking period, the camera isn't going to change that most likely.
The fact that 200+ people back up over children when there are over 200 million licensed drivers in the US should be the clue that cameras aren't going to solve the problem. Those 200+ people out of the 200+ million are just irresponsible.
If ever there was something we, as a nation wanted to do to prevent deaths caused by people driving vehicles, put a engine start disconnect in ever vehicle made so that no one who had been drinking could drive. The technology already exists and can even be retrofitted.
Aren't there more than 200 people killed each year as the result of drink drivers?
In 2010, more than 10,000 people were killed by drivers who were drunk. Not to parcel flesh but we are willing to impose a backup camera mandate because 200+ children were killed by people too lazy to look around their car but unwilling to use any technology at all to prevent 10,000 people from being killed in the same timeframe?
Where does that logic come from? Note that almost the same number of children are killed by drunk drivers as are killed by people backing over them. We are willing to do something about one and not the other?
Another absurd assertion. Has anyone made an argument that backup cameras can foresee the future? Do you win arguments with tavern louts using these cheap tricks?
Oh, so your point of view doesn't have to meet the same standards that his does? And you call that "absurd"? You're terrible at this.
In 2010, more than 10,000 people were killed by drivers who were drunk. Not to parcel flesh but we are willing to impose a backup camera mandate because 200+ children were killed by people too lazy to look around their car but unwilling to use any technology at all to prevent 10,000 people from being killed in the same timeframe?
Where does that logic come from? Note that almost the same number of children are killed by drunk drivers as are killed by people backing over them. We are willing to do something about one and not the other?
Evidently.
Doing something about both is aces with me. But that both are not dealt with doesn't affect the merit of dealing with just one. But yeah, locking out drunks would be good. But that would probably be politically impossible; the anti dealing with drunks lobby is probably much stronger than the anti dealing with fender benders and dead kids lobby. Personally I think the cameras have their most use helping prevent fender benders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
