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.
1. This has nothing to do with a nanny state. The idea of this plan is not to protect you from hurting yourself, it's to protect other people from being run over by you. Feel free to call me a communist, but I think the idea that the government should regulate dangerous motor vehicles to protect other people from being killed by those motor vehicles is a good idea.
2. I'm not sure this is a good idea. I have a backup camera on my Prius. It has some value to it, but the depth perception is distorted, and it leads you to think that you have more safe space than you actually do. At a minimum, if there's going to be some distortion it isn't good for the distortion to make you think you're doing something safe when you're not.
1. This has nothing to do with a nanny state. The idea of this plan is not to protect you from hurting yourself, it's to protect other people from being run over by you. Feel free to call me a communist, but I think the idea that the government should regulate dangerous motor vehicles to protect other people from being killed by those motor vehicles is a good idea.
Motor vehicles, like firearms, are inanimate objects that by themselves are perfectly harmless, it's when you put them in the hands of people not properly trained to use them, or general idiots, that harm is done.
I'm as libertarian as they come and to call refer to this proposal as "NANNY STATE" is completely ridiculous. It just shows ignorance of the technology and how and why it is being used.
This does not take away anybody's freedom or rights, and it is worth the small cost of the system for the lives it will protect. Most of those who die in backovers are small children, many who dart out in front of the car right as it is backing out. This behavior will never be fully prevented and, like I said before, all cars have a 10'+ rear blind zone where most of these crashes are occuring. These systems won't prevent every backover accident, but will sure reduce them.
To answer jack's point about the depth perception, radar is extremely accurate with depth perception and combining it with the visual will answer this issue (color coded zones, audible alerts produced from information given by the radar).
I have not seen one sensible argument yet as to why these systems should not be in place. Good job NHTSA.
How many people are killed and injured by backing passenger vehicles in a year's time? 10? 14? 20?
There are much more pressing things to worry about. IMHO.
20yrsinBranson
Wrong again.
The fatality rate averages around 400-800 / yr with most being children. 25000+ people are injured annually. The "There are much more pressing things to worry about" comment could be made about any issue.
I'm as libertarian as they come and to call refer to this proposal as "NANNY STATE" is completely ridiculous. It just shows ignorance of the technology and how and why it is being used.
This does not take away anybody's freedom or rights, and it is worth the small cost of the system for the lives it will protect. Most of those who die in backovers are small children, many who dart out in front of the car right as it is backing out. This behavior will never be fully prevented and, like I said before, all cars have a 10'+ rear blind zone where most of these crashes are occuring. These systems won't prevent every backover accident, but will sure reduce them.
To answer jack's point about the depth perception, radar is extremely accurate with depth perception and combining it with the visual will answer this issue (color coded zones, audible alerts produced from information given by the radar).
I have not seen one sensible argument yet as to why these systems should not be in place. Good job NHTSA.
Not ONE sensible argument?
So to prevent 150 deaths (about half the annual total) - you are saying it is worth an extra $xxx per car?
There are about 10 million vehicles sold in the US per year. If the per car increase is $400, then the American car buyer will pay $4B per year. That is $26M per life saved. That reflects purchase only - not the additional costs over the lifetime of these systems, some of which will break and need servicing.
Some of those lives could be saved anyway, without adding complexity to a vehicles.
So do you support any automotive safety improvement that can save lifes at the cost of over $20M per?
By comparison, just for fun, almost 1 million fetuses are aborted per year in the US.
So to prevent 150 deaths (about half the annual total) - you are saying it is worth an extra $xxx per car?
There are about 10 million vehicles sold in the US per year. If the per car increase is $400, then the American car buyer will pay $4B per year. That is $26M per life saved. That reflects purchase only - not the additional costs over the lifetime of these systems, some of which will break and need servicing.
Some of those lives could be saved anyway, without adding complexity to a vehicles.
So do you support any automotive safety improvement that can save lifes at the cost of over $20M per?
By comparison, just for fun, almost 1 million fetuses are aborted per year in the US.
You might feel differently if you knew someone with a family member who died in a backover. In general, the masses are against new mandated safety features until someone they know gets hurt. There was backlash for seatbelts, airbags, and front bumpers - believe it or not. You are looking at this the wrong way, as if the possible added cost to the vehicle would be something that people would receive no benefit from.
Not only will hundreds of toddlers lives be saved, tens of thousands of people will be saved from injury. This decision was not made in a vacuum. The safety R&D of most of the major OEMs support this regulation and are developing better and more robust systems as we speak. The best I've seen is on the 2011 Fusion and Taurus SHO, the camera+radar works beautiful with minimal unnecessary intrusion.
Also, who are we to judge how much a life, or preventing someone from being injured, should be worth. Using your number, $400 per person is a small price to pay for a technology that will save hundreds of lives and tens of thousands of people from being injured. It is not a feature that people don't like, on the contrary, customer clinics have shown that most customers enjoy having a backup camera/radar system on their vehicle and are willing to pay a premium.
So NHTSA mandating a feature that most customers want anyway, adds safety and the major auto OEMs are in favor of. If the $400 extra will make or break a person's decision to buy a certain car, they should buy a cheaper model.
Personally, I love this feature. My Taurus SHO has a nice backup camera that has prevented me countless times in store parking lots and crowded areas from backing into things that I could not see with my own eyes. My Lotus is one of the shortest cars sold (149") and still has around a 10' blind spot directly in back. I'm thinking about putting in an aftermarket system myself.
More stupidity behind these regulations. The idiot that came up with this should be horsewhipped. Teaching people to PAY ATTENTION, walk behind the vehicle BEFORE backing up would be how to prevent the kind of accidents they want to avoid with this stupid new reg. Nothing like dumbing down drivers even more! GPS with tv size screens instead of real maps, now this,geez.
All of this mandatory "safety" crap just dances around the actual problem, drivers not paying attention, giving unsafe drivers one more thing to ignore isn't going to accomplish anything.
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.
GPS with tv size screens instead of real maps, now this,geez.
