• 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!

Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory

Ockham said:
Well that makes too much sense. Actually having to look in the mirrors AND turn and twist your body for an entire 1-2 seconds to look behind your vehicle before proceeding backwards!! The OURTRAGE at having to do something like that. Here's a better option:
Put a camera and an 8 inch drop down screen which pops out each time the car is put in reverse. The car will not move until the camera shows what's behind you and the operator presses an "acknowledge" button on the screen, which sends a signal to a sattelite that gives the vehicle a pass code which then allows the car to go to the next step. This is a loud beeping sound which we've all heard on large trucks and vehicles. Then the next step is for the driver to take press a button on the dashboard, which activates a small air horn that was installed into the vehicle by the manufacturer which sounds 3 times, at 1 second intervals. Once that is completed, the car is allowed to move backwards at a maximum of 1/2 mile per hour for up to 200 feet. A sensor is also installed in the rear of the vehicle such that, if any movement crosses the path of the sensor, the vehicle automatically stops, and the process must then be started from the beginning.

That will save 300 lives 100% of the time but would only be put into effect if people were REALLY concerned about those 300 lives. Just putting a camera in doesn't do squat.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to come around to you on this issue, although the issue isn't being able to look around, especially in large cars there is an obvious blind spot immediately behind the vehicle that the driver cannot view by "twisting their body around and looking for 1-2 seconds".

I'd still strongly encourage people to get such cameras installed, but perhaps the best way to do this is through strong support and more informative safety ratings that are easy for the consumer to find, rather than a mandate.

Maybe people should give feedback at that link I posted a few pages back.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, in some perfect world where every human being paid 100% attention and had 100% situational awareness 100% of the time, never making a mistake, we'd have no accidents.

In the real world, however, there's no way to be aware of everything all the time. No matter how careful you are, you can make mistakes or sometimes just not have a line-of-sight to the child behind your car. Even if every person was ultra careful all the time, there would still be accidents. It behooves us to take reasonable precautions in vehicle design to prevent this.
Click to expand...

Yes, no matter what accidents will happen. On that I agree with you. You do know though that this includes those camera's right? Also you did read the part where I have no problem with them being put in cars right? Your post comes across as being a bit snarky because for some reason you think I am against these camera's?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I heard about this. It's a great idea. It is not possible to see an object directly behind most vehicles.

I backed my truck out of the garage, wondering why it was making such a strange noise all of a sudden. When I looked, it was because the garbage can had been left behind it, and was dragging along. That was only a garbage can, no big deal, not a child.

Another thing we need on cars is front brake lights. When you're in an intersection waiting to make a left, and the light turns yellow, is that oncoming driver going to try to beat the light, or stop? Brake lights would tell you. If you're waiting to make a right at a stop, and the oncoming driver in the right lane has his blinker on, is he really going to turn? If his brakes aren't on, he probably doesn't know the turn signal is on. That would be such a simple thing, I wonder why no one has thought of it?
Click to expand...

It is if you look. If you can't see and you're not sure use G.O.A.L (get out and look).

This is just another overreaching government polciy, that will have less effect backing accidents and more effect on taking money out of people's wallets.

Just imagine all the tax revenue that will come in when these cameras stop working--and they will--and it costs several hundred dollars to get it fixed; the cops will have just another thing to write you up for.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, in some perfect world where every human being paid 100% attention and had 100% situational awareness 100% of the time, never making a mistake, we'd have no accidents.

In the real world, however, there's no way to be aware of everything all the time. No matter how careful you are, you can make mistakes or sometimes just not have a line-of-sight to the child behind your car. Even if every person was ultra careful all the time, there would still be accidents. It behooves us to take reasonable precautions in vehicle design to prevent this.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that people are going to look at the camera, 100% of the time. Rearview mirrors have been on cars almost from the day that cars started being built; and people still don't/can't use them properly. And, this camera is going to make a difference?
 
apdst said:
It is if you look. If you can't see and you're not sure use G.O.A.L (get out and look).

This is just another overreaching government polciy, that will have less effect backing accidents and more effect on taking money out of people's wallets.

Just imagine all the tax revenue that will come in when these cameras stop working--and they will--and it costs several hundred dollars to get it fixed; the cops will have just another thing to write you up for.
Click to expand...

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.

apdst said:
That's assuming that people are going to look at the camera, 100% of the time. Rearview mirrors have been on cars almost from the day that cars started being built; and people still don't/can't use them properly. And, this camera is going to make a difference?
Click to expand...

The camera provides you with a vantage point that rearview mirrors are incapable of, especially on larger vehicles like SUV's and trucks. No, I didn't assume people would look at the camera 100% of the time. Assuming any person will take any action 100% of the time is going to end poorly.

Yes, this will make a difference, and it's not an unreasonable demand.
 
It's a good idea in my opinion. It could cost you ~$120 extra to purchase a vehicle but well worth it.
 
bowerbird said:
If you have ever cared for a child killed this way (and I have) then you cannot argue with this
Click to expand...

Legislation by anecdote/emotion is never a good thing.

SirPwn4lot said:
Comparisons with the success of other auto-safety programs can be shown below:
NHTSA.jpg


Thanks, I hope this helps.
Click to expand...

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.

Your Star said:
This is no different than requiring cars to have seatbelts or air bags.
Click to expand...

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+?
 
RightinNYC said:
Your chart shows a program that reduced fatalities by approximately 10,000/year. This would reduce fatalities by some fraction of 300/year.
Click to expand...
Considering the investment is minimal, the technology already exists in many new cars anyways, it seems like a good idea to reduce fatalities and property damage.

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.
Click to expand...
Cameras would cost about $50 per car as well. I think you are seriously over-estimating the cost of the technology.
 
Kandahar said:
The federal government is getting ready to mandate that all new cars have rear-view cameras by 2014. Back-over crashes are responsible for 300 fatalities and 18,000 injuries per year...44% of which are children and 33% of which are the elderly.

Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory - latimes.com
Click to expand...
I don't mind them making them mandatory on new vehicles.

I prefer they don't try to force me to put one on my truck, though.
 
Hoplite said:
Considering the investment is minimal, the technology already exists in many new cars anyways, it seems like a good idea to reduce fatalities and property damage.
Click to expand...

Again, those aren't the only factors. There are 300 fatalities a year. That is a very small number. The cost of the investment is only one factor in evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Cameras would cost about $50 per car as well. I think you are seriously over-estimating the cost of the technology.
Click to expand...

No, I'm using the numbers provided in the articles in this thread. Even at $50/car, that still means it's about 1/100th as cost-effective as seatbelts. I think you are seriously overestimating the impact of this mandate.
 
Not every good idea MUST be made into law.
 
Harshaw said:
Not every good idea MUST be made into law.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand how legislation works.

1) I think something is a good idea.
2) I'd be willing to pay my share (maybe).
3) LITTLE KIDS are DYING.
4) ???
5) We have to pass a law that makes it mandatory for everyone.
 
RightinNYC said:
You don't seem to understand how legislation works.

1) I think something is a good idea.
2) I'd be willing to pay my share (maybe).
3) LITTLE KIDS are DYING.
4) ???
5) We have to pass a law that makes it mandatory for everyone.
Click to expand...

No, I get it. You left out:

6) See #3 until you're shamed into silence.
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, those aren't the only factors. There are 300 fatalities a year. That is a very small number. The cost of the investment is only one factor in evaluating cost-effectiveness.
Click to expand...
It's not JUST about fatalities, it's about injuries and property damage as well as insurance costs and repairs that come from accidents that these cameras could help prevent.

Look at it from a consumer standpoint; I may have to pay even an extra $200 for the system, but I save that when I avoid backing into someone else's bumper and having to pay for their repairs and my insurance premiums go up. That sounds like a good deal for me.
 
Hoplite said:
Considering the investment is minimal, the technology already exists in many new cars anyways, it seems like a good idea to reduce fatalities and property damage.


Cameras would cost about $50 per car as well. I think you are seriously over-estimating the cost of the technology.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the cost of $50.00 per car?

On cheaper cars they so not have screens to show what is on the camera so that will have to be added to the cost of the vehicle.

A screen or a special mirror will cost a lot more than $50.00.

Maybe the camera alone will cost that but not the way to view it insode the car.
 
Hoplite said:
It's not JUST about fatalities, it's about injuries and property damage as well as insurance costs and repairs that come from accidents that these cameras could help prevent.

Look at it from a consumer standpoint; I may have to pay even an extra $200 for the system, but I save that when I avoid backing into someone else's bumper and having to pay for their repairs and my insurance premiums go up. That sounds like a good deal for me.
Click to expand...

I drive many types of vehicles, new and old.

I can honestly say I do not back into other cars or anything else.

I doubt many people do.
 
Hoplite said:
It's not JUST about fatalities, it's about injuries and property damage as well as insurance costs and repairs that come from accidents that these cameras could help prevent.

Look at it from a consumer standpoint; I may have to pay even an extra $200 for the system, but I save that when I avoid backing into someone else's bumper and having to pay for their repairs and my insurance premiums go up. That sounds like a good deal for me.
Click to expand...

Or, you can just be careful. :shrug:

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.
 
Hoplite said:
It's not JUST about fatalities, it's about injuries and property damage as well as insurance costs and repairs that come from accidents that these cameras could help prevent.

Look at it from a consumer standpoint; I may have to pay even an extra $200 for the system, but I save that when I avoid backing into someone else's bumper and having to pay for their repairs and my insurance premiums go up. That sounds like a good deal for me.
Click to expand...

If it sounds like a good deal to you, you can buy a car with that feature. No need for the government to mandate it
 
Hoplite said:
It's not JUST about fatalities, it's about injuries and property damage as well as insurance costs and repairs that come from accidents that these cameras could help prevent.

Look at it from a consumer standpoint; I may have to pay even an extra $200 for the system, but I save that when I avoid backing into someone else's bumper and having to pay for their repairs and my insurance premiums go up. That sounds like a good deal for me.
Click to expand...

Good point; you've clearly done a complex cost-effectiveness analysis here, so I'll defer to your expertise and judgment.
 
Kandahar said:
Because these systems have a statistical track record of doing exactly that. And because it's not a simple matter of people not "checking behind the vehicle." A child is small; sometimes there is no way the driver can see them.



As soon as that is technologically and economically feasible, I'm sure we will do exactly that. And I would 100% support it.



Well I don't know when you grew up, but cars are far safer today than they ever have been before. Far more people per capita died in automobile accidents in previous decades. And personally I see that reduction as a good thing, not a reason to return to the "good old days" of high traffic fatality rates.
Click to expand...

Young children have always been small
yes cars are safer today
born in the 50's.
So what has changed from the 50/60's to now if we are having more kids runned over when people are backing? The topic is not about all traffic deaths, but backing accidents and mandating new techology to reduce running over kids. My point is the rear camera is ok, However, if people would pay attention, take care of their kids, we would not have these sad accidental deaths. Yes,more people live in city type environments. All the more reason to be aware of your surroundings. Heck, get out of the vehicle and make sure you know where the kids are or everything is clear before moving the vehicle.
 
i'm sure the auto industry loves this idea. more money in their pockets. useful? is it worth the cost?

mtm1963
 
SirPwn4lot said:
Having the buy cameras for each new car means they can buy them in bulk. This will naturally lower prices. The camera doesn't have to be particularly high resolution so relative to the cost of a car it'll be entirely insignificant.
Click to expand...

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.

Additionally, a lot of car manufacturers were going this way regardless. Toyota and Ford certainly were.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why this isn't needed. If the market place is taking care of the perceived problem, why give up a freedom?

My guess this was just a way for the Democratic wing of the corporate party to lessen the fallout.
Click to expand...

Most likely.
 
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.
 
mike2810 said:
Young children have always been small
yes cars are safer today
born in the 50's.
So what has changed from the 50/60's to now if we are having more kids runned over when people are backing? The topic is not about all traffic deaths, but backing accidents and mandating new techology to reduce running over kids. My point is the rear camera is ok, However, if people would pay attention, take care of their kids, we would not have these sad accidental deaths. Yes,more people live in city type environments. All the more reason to be aware of your surroundings. Heck, get out of the vehicle and make sure you know where the kids are or everything is clear before moving the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Increasing popularity of SUVs, which are vehicles with larger blindspots.
You're asking children to "be more aware of their surroundings" too, you know. Kids do dumbass stuff like chase after a ball or suddenly decide they're a snake and lie down on the sidewalk. No, we can't "just be careful." Nobody is always careful. It's impossible, we're human beings.

I can get one of these cameras for like a hundred bucks at Best Buy. Installed. Manufacturers buying them in bulk will add maybe 50 bucks to the price of the car. Those manufacturers who don't already do this standard anyway.

It's a reasonable precaution and is inexpensive. Are you up in arms about your airbag and seatbelts also?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom