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.
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.
Harshaw said:
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.
Harshaw said:
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.
ksu_aviator said:
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.
ksu_aviator said:
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.
RightinNYC said:
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.
Kal'Stang said:
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
eace
Taylor said:
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...
