• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras[W:26]

KevinKohler said:
If no one can afford newer cars, yeah. People will keep fixing the old beaters.
Click to expand...

Just because a car is older doesn't make it a beater. The best older cars inthe country are in LA
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063097683 said:
Based on your posts maybe you and your wife should consider your own advice.
Click to expand...

Based on your posts perhaps you should take my advice. Care to guess what that advice is?
 
jamesrage said:
I am not outraged. But if they should mandate that a car have anything it should be speed limiters. ********ing douche bag assholes speed all the ****ing time with at least ten-twenty miles over the speed limit.They act as though somehow those are really speed suggestion signs instead of speed limit signs.During non-rush hour traffic they ride up close enough behind your vehicle that if they were any closer then they would owe you dinner and a movie and it doesn't matter if you are doing the speed limit or just going 5 miles over the speed limit.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I'm that guy.

I try to avoid it though. Being close to the car in front of me is kinda scary, because I can recall times when I saw brake lights and not really having enough space to stop...

Edit: Of course I rarely if ever travel during rush hour.

Edit 2: Driving to and from work is the scariest thing I do every day. Wonder why I don't realize that more often...
 
Last edited:
tech30528 said:
Some pretty awesome resolution on those babies too isn't it? I don't mind backup cameras. Don't think they need to be mandated though. One thing I really like (does your Lexus have it Maggie?) is smart cruise. It gauges the speed of the car ahead of you when you have the cruise set and maintains a safe following distance, and if you steer around them or they turn it takes you back to the speed you were set at. Cool stuff. Of course I have none of these cool toys, my truck is 29 years old.

OK, it wouldn't be a political site if I didn't throw out some partisanship though.

If all liberals could see what was behind them they might not continue to make the same poor decisions

snicker snicker
Click to expand...

Ha! Sometimes we just can't help ourselves.

No, my car doesn't have that. The only other fancy things it has is auto-adjustable seats to two drivers, heated seats, radar on all four corners, and GPS. The new ones park themselves. :rofl
 
On a related note....

I've occasionally wondered why they don't mount rear-view cameras on semi trailers, with monitors in the cabs.

Isn't there a huge-ass blind spot behind those trailers? OR so the signs on some of them indicate...
 
Top Cat said:
Based on your posts perhaps you should take my advice. Care to guess what that advice is?
Click to expand...


Cheesy at best; just like your OP. I've never backed up and run over anything. You? Your wife?
 
Backup cameras are probably a necessary safety design addition to make up for the extremely dangerous safety designs that for crash tests require huge thick roof pillars and minimized window glass to maximize body structure - making visibility in new cars dismally restricted compared to cars prior to such standards. Get into a car from the 1960s. The visibility is GREAT. Get into most modern cars and it's almost like your peeking out through small slots - particularly bad to the rear.
 
MaggieD said:
Ha! Sometimes we just can't help ourselves.

No, my car doesn't have that. The only other fancy things it has is auto-adjustable seats to two drivers, heated seats, radar on all four corners, and GPS. The new ones park themselves. :rofl
Click to expand...

My wife's station wagon has early vintage proximity sensors all around it. The car seemingly was a reliability nightmare. Wouldn't go into gear (electronic gear shifting). So we'd have it towed to the dealer (80 miles away) and 7-10 days later we'd get it back with a $2000 repair bill claiming it was some failed computer system - a different on each time. Towing and rental car costs too. After getting ripped off a total of about $7000 - I found out that if that particular early model Merc is parked too close to something in front or behind it won't allow it to go into gear as a safety precaution. Meaning she had parked too close to the bushes, so wouldn't let it be put into gear. The dealer used that to rip her off 3 times. Thieving bastards.
 
joko104 said:
My wife's station wagon has early vintage proximity sensors all around it. The car seemingly was a reliability nightmare. Wouldn't go into gear (electronic gear shifting). So we'd have it towed to the dealer (80 miles away) and 7-10 days later we'd get it back with a $2000 repair bill claiming it was some failed computer system - a different on each time. Towing and rental car costs too. After getting ripped off a total of about $7000 - I found out that if that particular early model Merc is parked too close to something in front or behind it won't allow it to go into gear as a safety precaution. Meaning she had parked too close to the bushes, so wouldn't let it be put into gear. The dealer used that to rip her off 3 times. Thieving bastards.
Click to expand...

OMG. OMG!! They are thieves!!

For the last 20 years, when a car starts giving me problems, I trade it in. I'd been through quite a few GM cars until I switched to Lexus. I'm on my second one.

I'm getting ready to trade this one in (it's 7) because the back rear window doesn't operate. I figure I've gotten my $$s worth and if that's gone down, a computer module or two can't be far behind. *KnocksOnWood*
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063098278 said:
Cheesy at best; just like your OP. I've never backed up and run over anything. You? Your wife?
Click to expand...

Sure you haven't ever bumped anything. Credibility none.
 
American said:
As usual, you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I happen to support the idea, and I have a camera on my new car. Cue up more stupid unsubstantiated allegations from leftwingers.
Click to expand...

Perhaps actually reading the thread is in order before you open your hubacious piehole and drool all over yourself. Several of your ilk have spoken out against the idea. So yes, I was right as usual. You are embarrassing yourself yet again.
 
MaggieD said:
OMG. OMG!! They are thieves!!

For the last 20 years, when a car starts giving me problems, I trade it in. I'd been through quite a few GM cars until I switched to Lexus. I'm on my second one.

I'm getting ready to trade this one in (it's 7) because the back rear window doesn't operate. I figure I've gotten my $$s worth and if that's gone down, a computer module or two can't be far behind. *KnocksOnWood*
Click to expand...

Toyota/Lexus are all I ever drive.
 
I could see a possible benefit to this, if it allows you to record the footage in some way - could be used as evidence in a crash investigation, or to prove that someone rear-ended you, perhaps.

Edit: So long as it does not transmit that information to a central server or some ****. Maybe a "black box" of sorts for cars?
 
The Mark said:
There's no need to half-way ruin a potentially interesting discussion about an interesting topic by throwing partisanship in everyone's face right out of the box.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know. And I was right. Besides it really wasn't a shot. This is the type of thing that those on the right don't like.
 
Last edited:
Top Cat said:
Oh I don't know. And I was right.
Click to expand...
It's far better to let such things develop on their own though. That way only the people who throw their partisanship around look like partisan assholes.
 
The Mark said:
It's far better to let such things develop on their own though. That way only the people who throw their partisanship around look like partisan assholes.
Click to expand...

Frankly I don't give a flipping **** if you think so. Condescending independents are just as annoying.
 
joko104 said:
Yeah, and they also should put powder limits on ammo. "********ing douche bag assholes" shoot up into the air all the time with ammo that will travel over a mile. Ammo should be limited to an effective lethal range of no more than 100 yards for rifles and 100 feet for handgun for all those dangerous irresponsible assholes. The government let's people get away with too much and really needs to crackdown on people's conduct.
Click to expand...


You have a constitutional right to gun.You do not have a constitutional right to drive as fast as you want.Besides I am no firearms expert but I am pretty sure that limiting the effective lethal range could result in less penetrating power in the short range.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
OMG. OMG!! They are thieves!!

For the last 20 years, when a car starts giving me problems, I trade it in. I'd been through quite a few GM cars until I switched to Lexus. I'm on my second one.

I'm getting ready to trade this one in (it's 7) because the back rear window doesn't operate. I figure I've gotten my $$s worth and if that's gone down, a computer module or two can't be far behind. *KnocksOnWood*
Click to expand...

She has a thing for it. I had urged not to take it back to that dealer because I smelled a rat and to get rid of it. But she "likes it." Because of how high tech cars are - putting you 100% at the mercy of dealers, replacement as the warranty runs out now probably makes the most sense.
 
Top Cat said:
Frankly I don't give a flipping **** if you think so. Condescending independents are just as annoying.
Click to expand...
Why do you think I'm condescending?
 
jamesrage said:
You have a constitutional right to gun.You do not have a constitutional right to drive as fast as you want.Besides I am no firearms expert but I am pretty sure that limiting the effective lethal range could result in less penetrating power in the short range.
Click to expand...

I figured that'd be your response. I'm "pro-gun," but other than discriminatory laws the federal courts have for the most part declared it isn't a constitutional right - at least in terms of limitations. No court has overturned ammo power limitation and nearly all states - even favorable gun states - have MANY ammo limits ranging from no armor piercing to no bolos or razor loads for shotguns. If there was a law limiting velocity of bullets the federal courts would uphold it.

But my real point is the overall concept of "freedom." Driving fast is only dangerous when it is dangerous and only reckless when reckless. Passing generic all-situation laws to deal with the 1 in 1000 or 1 in 1,000,000 situations is what the government does. All guns laws are that way. Guns prevent a million crimes a year - but 2 school shooting and they are passing piles of laws for that 1 in 1,000,000 situation.

You don't like the government passing laws requiring healthy food (limiting sugar etc etc)? Yet that kills people. All sorts of stuff kills people. Driving fast on open roads with highly pleasurable to people and endangers no one but themselves. Yet you want cars limited to your driving situation. But you also want people in far Southwest Texas who won't see another a car for an hour and the land flat as a tabletop to be limited to what suits you. I suppose I should go thru the list of things you do that I don't that if anyone else did in any situation might endanger me and want that outlawed too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom