Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 125

Thread: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

  1. #71
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    I love my rearview camera!

    It is not a substitute for turning and looking over your shoulder, rather it provides a good view of the blind spot just behind the trunk... which can be very big if you have an SUV. With the camera, I can see my bumper and can even use it to back up within a couple of inches from a wall, all while staring at the dashboard.

    For me, it provides great peace of mind when I know young kids are nearby (like in a parking lot). Necessary? I don't know about that... before I had the camera, I would just be sure to back up VERY slowly until I knew the car was in an area I had just seen in the mirror.

    I mostly use the camera for parking. The screen superimposes a car-length image that adjusts as you move the wheel - which gives great information on where your car will be, how far from the curb, etc. as you back up.

    I thought it was a gimmick when I first bought the car, but it's something I'll definitely look for when I buy my next car.

  2. #72
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    I should add... the camera makes it soo easy to back in to driveways and parking spots, I could see it being a hazard for some drivers. I can back up MUCH faster with the camera than by looking over my shoulder. The temptation could make some people more accident prone than they might otherwise be.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    The cameras cost like $150 installed, and the requirement will only be fore *new* vehicles. Also, a cop has no way of knowing if your camera works or not and there's no proposal to make this a ticketable offense. The tax revenue will be... whatever the sales tax is on the camera. Bought in bulk and installed by manufacturers, you're probably talking $50 added to the price of the car. $100 tops.
    If you look at the proposal itself (I linked it somewhere in this thread) it says they estimate it will cost between $58 and $88.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Your chart shows a program that reduced fatalities by approximately 10,000/year. This would reduce fatalities by some fraction of 300/year.

    People are overlooking the fact that a rear view camera does not mean that all those deaths/injuries would be eliminated. People will still back up without using them or hit people even where they look at the cameras.

    Seatbelts save almost 10,000 lives per year at a cost of maybe $50/car. This technology would be approximately 100X less cost-effective than seatbelts.

    Look, I'm sympathetic to the argument of "think of the children!," but you can't just say that because something might save a few lives, it's automatically a good idea regardless of cost. Where do we draw the line? Should we require every car to have absolute and excessive top of the line safety features? Do you think that every car should cost $25k+?
    I wasn't insinuating that the table shows this program is effective, I was merely pointing out that as far as road deaths are concerned, other nations have arguably more effective systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    Not every good idea MUST be made into law.
    But obviously some should. In the interest of public safety we have police, fire, laws restricting the freedom of corporations to dump toxic waste in rivers, laws forcing them to install seatbelts, airbags, to have proper taillights, laws forcing people to stick to a strict code of conduct on the road. So evidently it's justified to restrict personal freedom in the name of public safety at least SOME of the time. There is obviously a spectrum, where one draws the line seems to be fairly subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    What's probably WORSE is people becoming overly dependent on these things and forgetting how to use mirrors and look over your shoulder. My guess? Problems may well increase.
    The cameras expose an obvious blind spot that cannot be seen by merely "using mirrors and looking over one's shoulder". Do mirrors make people overly dependent and prevent them from making a proper 360 degree assessment of their surroundings? On the contrary they facilitate it. I hold the same true for these cameras.

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator
    No it doesn't lower prices...increased demand = increased cost. Buying in bulk does not gaurantee lower prices either. That's just a scam started by big box club stores to justify forcing patrons into buying more volume when they don't need to. The car manufactures would be required to buy more.
    It also provides the possibility of a manufacturer not having to scour around selling these things individually to retailers, who in turn take their chunk of the pie. It also allows camera manufacturers to compete amongst themselves on who will get a massive contract from each given auto manufacturer.

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator
    My Dad's Suburban has the rear view camera. It is too grainy to see well and is located low on the console so it is very unnatural to use and even if you do look at it, you still can't really tell what you are looking at.
    Grainy? Low resolution? In order to see a kid it could probably be 32x32 pixels lol. They're not a small object, just small enough to be located in that blind spot. Animals and possessions too. I don't see how any amount of grain could prevent you from seeing a kid. My $1 Furthermore, your post assumes that they'll be using the same type of camera on the cars. If we could obtain a sample of the camera each manufacturer decides to use then we could make a judgment on whether or not it's unclear. 3.2 megapixel phones can be found for under $80 bucks these days, LCD screen, features and all. 3.2Mega pixels is MORE than enough, additionally, my old phone's camera takes video just fine. I don't see why we can't use cameras like these.

    [/quote="Kal'Stang"]Ya know I never thought that I would hear myself say this, especially considering how much I love technology but....I'm starting to think that people are relying on technology WAY too much. If something does happen to screw up the world and sends us all back to the stone age we're going to be in sorry shape.[/quote]

    I agree in certain cases. This is a case however where responsibility isn't being taken away from the driver, functionality is being added. A blind spot is being exposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    So go do it. Nobody is stopping you. The fact that you like something does not mean it should be mandatory for everyone.

    ...As discussed earlier, there are a couple of orders of magnitude of difference in terms of the impact of rearview cameras v. seatbelts.
    So you agree that there's a spectrum... and that seatbelts are on the acceptable side of this spectrum while you maintain that these cameras are not. Where do you draw the line?

    [/quote="apdst"]If it's required by law, on cars built after a certain date, it will be a ticketable offense, if it doesn't work; just like red turn signals, shoulder harnesses, license plate lamps, catalitic converters and ABS brakes.[/quote]

    The proposal suggests the cameras only being mandatory on new cars. It says nothing about you not being able to remove it. It's not a proposal concerning the consumer, but rather the manufacturer. If you're concerned about it becoming a ticketable offense then challenge that request if/when it comes, but I don't see how this is a concern with this proposal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang
    Actually I am yes. Airbags have been known to kill people and/or not deploy properly so six to one half dozen to the other in my book. As for seatbelts they can kill people also, they can also do more damage to a person than a person without a seatbelt on. I'm also against electric windows in cars.
    Electric windows? Since when are they mandatory? Seat belts are primarily dangerous when not used properly, for example when you use a standard across the chest seat belt on an infant. Proper child restraints are required.

    In 2006 two children died from airbag use, and no adults.

    "Airbags have killed 264 people since NHTSA became keeping a record of the deaths and injuries. On the other hand, NHTSA estimates that airbags have saved almost 20,000 lives."

    [quoteAuto safety regulations protect people other than yourself.[/quote]

    And yourself in the process

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor
    It is not a substitute for turning and looking over your shoulder, rather it provides a good view of the blind spot just behind the trunk...
    Exactly right. People are making this out to be an issue solvable by looking over your shoulder before you back out, but this is certainly not the case. In addition to backing over children, pets, etc, my dad (who has one of these in his car) reckons that it helps him when backing out in the parking lot to no end. It really does provide a significantly more accurate picture of how close you are to the car behind you than does a mirror.


    Just to end...


  4. #74
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    300 fatalities? In a country of over 300 million, that is nothing.
    There are also 18,000 injuries, not to mention the property damage. Considering how little it costs (or will cost by 2014), it seems like a worthwhile investment.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Yes drivers need to drive better. Now how do we make this happen? Oh, I know, make sure there's better equipment to prevent that! But you won't let us do that because it's "overstepping the government's role." Okay, what's your alternative? People obviously AREN'T being careful and, and people ARE being killed in this way, so we clearly can't just rely on people to do a better job by themselves. What can we rely on, then?
    So lets get this straight. People aren't turning and looking before they back up, but you expect them to look at a monitor before they back up? If they weren't turning and looking, why would look at a monitor. They are just going now, right? So why would they bother putting another step in there when they aren't bothering with it now?

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    So lets get this straight. People aren't turning and looking before they back up, but you expect them to look at a monitor before they back up? If they weren't turning and looking, why would look at a monitor. They are just going now, right? So why would they bother putting another step in there when they aren't bothering with it now?
    Firstly, in my above comment I made some typos in the code so some quotes aren't shown in quote boxes. I can't edit it for some reason. Nonetheless you get the idea. If a mod sees this post it'd be helpful to change it, but no biggie, I understand you're far too busy.

    Now... you can turn and look, use mirrors, etc all you like, it's not going to show you that blind spot. My dad's car works by the camera automatically being on when he goes into reverse. If there's a kid on screen your peripheral vision will pick it up (at least it would certainly be noticeable in his car), even if you don't take a quick glance down when you're adjusting the radio, changing gears, putting your wallet in the cup holder, or any of the other things I do when I get in a car. I haven't as of yet used it, though I have been in his car when he is.

    I'm curious, are people simply advocating that the government shouldn't mandate these in vehicles under 10,000lbs, or are they claiming that people shouldn't get them installed in their own time either because they're useless? Most of your arguments support both views.

  7. #77
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    Quote Originally Posted by SirPwn4lot View Post
    I'm curious, are people simply advocating that the government shouldn't mandate these in vehicles under 10,000lbs, or are they claiming that people shouldn't get them installed in their own time either because they're useless? Most of your arguments support both views.
    Oh the camera's aren't useless. I just don't think that the government should be mandating that they be installed in vehicles.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #78
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,863
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    Quote Originally Posted by SirPwn4lot View Post
    I agree in certain cases. This is a case however where responsibility isn't being taken away from the driver, functionality is being added. A blind spot is being exposed.
    And when people start becoming too dependant on these camera's? The calculator is a good example of "functionality being added". Now it's gotten to the point where kids can't even do simple math inside their heads without the use of one.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirPwn4lot View Post
    Electric windows? Since when are they mandatory? Seat belts are primarily dangerous when not used properly, for example when you use a standard across the chest seat belt on an infant. Proper child restraints are required.
    I didn't mean to imply that electric windows were mandated. I meant them as an example of a convience being used that can be dangerous. Electric windows were first installed so that people wouldn't have to take thier eyes off the road and still be able to "roll" down their window. These camera's are similar in that eventually people will become too dependant on them and when an error occurs people may be hurt/killed because of that dependency.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirPwn4lot View Post
    Exactly right. People are making this out to be an issue solvable by looking over your shoulder before you back out, but this is certainly not the case. In addition to backing over children, pets, etc, my dad (who has one of these in his car) reckons that it helps him when backing out in the parking lot to no end. It really does provide a significantly more accurate picture of how close you are to the car behind you than does a mirror.
    Not just looking over your shoulder no. Being aware of what is going on around you and your car before you get into the car is also a must. Just simply looking over your shoulder is not enough.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    And when people start becoming too dependant on these camera's? The calculator is a good example of "functionality being added". Now it's gotten to the point where kids can't even do simple math inside their heads without the use of one.
    A calculator is an example of functionality being simplified. At least the basic computational ability is. The graphing features of some senior high/university level calculators is adding additional functionality, and believe me (as someone who went through the system with those functionalities) they make a heck of a lot of difference as to what we can do. I can still do arithmetic just fine, although I am likely an exception to the rule, especially as far as the average level of numerical ability is concerned *toots his own horn*

    Our education system has been entirely transformed due to the advent of graphing calculators. The level of stuff that's in a mathematics final exam is well beyond the ability of someone from 30 years ago to do within 3 hours. This makes a massive difference for business productivity.

    I agree, basic arithmetical skills are still essential, and should be utilized where possible, but it's not practical to spend a few hours working out high end physics problems in your head. It just... isn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I didn't mean to imply that electric windows were mandated. I meant them as an example of a convience being used that can be dangerous. Electric windows were first installed so that people wouldn't have to take thier eyes off the road and still be able to "roll" down their window. These camera's are similar in that eventually people will become too dependant on them and when an error occurs people may be hurt/killed because of that dependency.
    What's your objection to electric windows exactly? What do you mean becoming too dependent on the cameras? Not using mirrors anymore? You can't see to either side of you with these cameras, nor do they give you a fantastic view of much behind you. It's impractical to use it as a replacement for side mirrors and basic over-the-shoulder turnarounds. The idea of them is to show you if there's anything immediately behind you on the ground, not if there's a car a few dozen feet behind you, and I seriously doubt anyone would consider using them for this purpose.

    Additionally, they are to be used as another factor in your backing out sequence. You look in a 180 degree zone infront of you, use mirrors to view either side of you, use the rear-view mirror to see high obstacles behind you, and the camera to see low obstacles behind you. Seems reasonable to me.

    Is this what you meant by people becoming too dependent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Not just looking over your shoulder no. Being aware of what is going on around you and your car before you get into the car is also a must. Just simply looking over your shoulder is not enough.
    Sure it is, but things can change in the time between you walking around to see if there's anything there and getting in your car, starting it up, adjusting your mirrors, radio, etc. Once you're in the car you cannot see in that blind spot. You just can't. That's why these cameras are useful. I don't think anyone's really disputing this, just whether or not the government should mandate the manufacturer installs them in new cars.

    Last edited by SirPwn4lot; 12-06-10 at 08:27 AM.

  10. #80
    Sage
    Crosscheck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,476

    Re: Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You're right. It's the same level of over-regulation.
    It is ironic that you mention over-regulation while you have an Army cavalry patch next to your name. Now, you want to talk about over-regulation.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •