• 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

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 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?
 
And then a whole new round of bitching about costs going up will commence.
 
Harshaw said:
And then a whole new round of bitching about costs going up will commence.
Click to expand...
Virtually all new cars are going to have a HUD of some sort and the parts that go into this kind of system are not expensive by any measure. I fail to see why this would add on more than a pittance to the cost of a new vehicle.
 
As a driver, it doesn't work for me. I can't change my focus fast enough back and forth to focus on the screen for the camera then back to reality.

For example the GMC Acadia has the rear view screen on the left side of the rear view mirror. It is like 1.5 inches square and a very small image. I couldn't make out anything that was on the screen.

I think cars, generally speaking, move forward much more than in reverse to require ALL cars to have them.
 
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.

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

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

I did a little digging and came up with the proposal itself, which you can find here.

Of notice is that they're not going to put it forward until 60 days after it's entered into the Federal Register. You can give feedback on the proposal here

The timeframe for implementation, if the proposal is accepted goes like this:

• 0% of the vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2012;
• 10% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012, and before
September 1, 2013; 12
• 40% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2013, and before
September 1, 2014; and
• 100% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014.


NHTSA Proposal said:
The incremental cost of such a system is
estimated to be $58 - $88, depending on the angular width of the lens. (We note that the cost
may well decrease over time)
Click to expand...

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


Thanks, I hope this helps.
 
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.

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

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

I did a little digging and came up with the proposal itself, which you can find here.

Of notice is that they're not going to put it forward until 60 days after it's entered into the Federal Register. You can give feedback on the proposal here

The timeframe for implementation, if the proposal is accepted goes like this:

• 0% of the vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2012;
• 10% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2012, and before
September 1, 2013; 12
• 40% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2013, and before
September 1, 2014; and
• 100% of the vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2014.




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


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

But but but my freedoms! to run over children
 
Mason66 said:
As a driver, it doesn't work for me. I can't change my focus fast enough back and forth to focus on the screen for the camera then back to reality.

For example the GMC Acadia has the rear view screen on the left side of the rear view mirror. It is like 1.5 inches square and a very small image. I couldn't make out anything that was on the screen.

I think cars, generally speaking, move forward much more than in reverse to require ALL cars to have them.
Click to expand...

My rearview camera is part of my GPS sysem, so it displays on a 6" screen. It's actually very handy. Especially in parking lots for one last look to make sure the guy directly behind you isn't backing out of his parking space at the same time you are. Mine also gives a full 180 view....so I can sneak my car out of a parking space and take a peak at what's coming -- something THAT STOOOPID SUV PARKED NEXT TO ME PREVENTS ME FROM DOING!!!!!!!
 
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...

The Gov't needs to get the hell out of regulations! And drivers need to actually LOOK behind them! Heck EVERY time I leave my computer chair I look to see if there is a cat behind me so I dont hurt them! This is jusst another way the gov't oversteps its role!
 
Harshaw said:
And then a whole new round of bitching about costs going up will commence.
Click to expand...

Well, of course. It is our first amendment right to bitch all we want about such things, whether there is any validity to our bitching or not.
 
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...

This is a ridiculous argument for raising the price of cars. If you carry this argument into every aspect of human life we we all end up trying to walk around in suits that look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy in case we fall down.

I have been driving longer than many here have been alive and I have yet to back over anything or any one.

I did kill a cat once but the dumb ass cat was under the hood and the fan took a toll.

Should there be a camera under the hood just in case?

At some point we need to draw a line and say enough is enough.

Personal responsibility has got to take over at some point and we need to recognize the limits of Government control and stop the nanny state before they find a way to control the way you brush your teeth.

If you move your tooth brush from left to right rather than up and down you are in violation and subject to a fine.

We could put a sensor in all tooth bushes that would alert the tooth police if it detected the wrong motion.

After all tooth decay can lead to heart problems and could have a negative impact on public health costs.

Give me a break.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
The Gov't needs to get the hell out of regulations! And drivers need to actually LOOK behind them! Heck EVERY time I leave my computer chair I look to see if there is a cat behind me so I dont hurt them! This is jusst another way the gov't oversteps its role!
Click to expand...

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?
 
The Giant Noodle said:
The Gov't needs to get the hell out of regulations! And drivers need to actually LOOK behind them! Heck EVERY time I leave my computer chair I look to see if there is a cat behind me so I dont hurt them! This is jusst another way the gov't oversteps its role!
Click to expand...

Yeah well just saying "drivers need to look behind them" doesn't bring those 300 people back to life whom they ran over. And it doesn't cure the injuries of the 18,000 people they injured. :roll:
 
I agree, but actually I think it's even more justified than those laws. At least if you choose to forgo seat belts and air bags, the only life you're risking is your own. Without the rear-view cameras you're actually endangering others.
 
Councilman said:
This is a ridiculous argument for raising the price of cars. If you carry this argument into every aspect of human life we we all end up trying to walk around in suits that look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy in case we fall down.

I have been driving longer than many here have been alive and I have yet to back over anything or any one.

I did kill a cat once but the dumb ass cat was under the hood and the fan took a toll.

Should there be a camera under the hood just in case?

At some point we need to draw a line and say enough is enough.

Personal responsibility has got to take over at some point and we need to recognize the limits of Government control and stop the nanny state before they find a way to control the way you brush your teeth.

If you move your tooth brush from left to right rather than up and down you are in violation and subject to a fine.

We could put a sensor in all tooth bushes that would alert the tooth police if it detected the wrong motion.

After all tooth decay can lead to heart problems and could have a negative impact on public health costs.

Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Thank you for affirming my post just above yours.
 
Paschendale said:
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?
Click to expand...

You said it, " People obviously AREN'T being careful ". What makes you think they will look at and use the camera anymore than checking behind the vehicle and using mirrors? Lets just mandate that all vehicles are made to drive themselves. Lets let a computer take away all responsibility of driving. Makes me wonder how I lived as long as I have. No seat belts growing up, no backup camera, no child seat, etc. Oh wait, maybe it was because my parents were responsible and safe.(lol).
 
mike2810 said:
You said it, " People obviously AREN'T being careful ". What makes you think they will look at and use the camera anymore than checking behind the vehicle and using mirrors?
Click to expand...

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.

mike2810 said:
Lets just mandate that all vehicles are made to drive themselves. Lets let a computer take away all responsibility of driving.
Click to expand...

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

mike2810 said:
Makes me wonder how I lived as long as I have. No seat belts growing up, no backup camera, no child seat, etc. Oh wait, maybe it was because my parents were responsible and safe.(lol).
Click to expand...

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.
 
mike2810 said:
You said it, " People obviously AREN'T being careful ". What makes you think they will look at and use the camera anymore than checking behind the vehicle and using mirrors? Lets just mandate that all vehicles are made to drive themselves. Lets let a computer take away all responsibility of driving. Makes me wonder how I lived as long as I have. No seat belts growing up, no backup camera, no child seat, etc. Oh wait, maybe it was because my parents were responsible and safe.(lol).
Click to expand...

It is an idea I like. If we have the technology, why not utilize it? You are probably still fuming over the regulation to have windshields.

As for growing up with seat belts. When I was 4 yrs old I was in a fatal head on collison. We didn't have seat belts in those days and I was tossed around like a rag doll with both legs broken and mulitple lacerations. The other car crossed the white line so the accident had nothing to do with my parent's safe driving.
 
mike2810 said:
You said it, " People obviously AREN'T being careful ". What makes you think they will look at and use the camera anymore than checking behind the vehicle and using mirrors? Lets just mandate that all vehicles are made to drive themselves. Lets let a computer take away all responsibility of driving. Makes me wonder how I lived as long as I have. No seat belts growing up, no backup camera, no child seat, etc. Oh wait, maybe it was because my parents were responsible and safe.(lol).
Click to expand...

I'm entirely okay with automated cars. We'd still get where we need to go, probably faster and cheaper than we do now, and with fewer, if any, accidents. Where's the downside?
 
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...

Ironicly every one of those things that you mention is easily fixed by simply paying attention and taking a few extra precautions. All without having to have extra's installed into your car.

First let me state that I have no problem with these camera's being installed. I just think that they're useless and promotes laziness.

No child would be ran over if people simply LOOKED before they even got into a vehicle. Look around the area, note who is around and their locations. If there are children around and close enough to your vehicle to get behind it before you back out then warn them to stay away. (good idea to let them know why as they will more than likely actually listen then.) If the child is small enough to need supervision then let the supervising adult know what you are doing and you just want to insure the childs safety. Do this even if you have to go up to their front door and pound on it.

If there is an elderly walking along the sidewalk then wait for them to pass. Even if they are half a block away. Better to be safe than them dead because you were impatient.

Last of all, before you even get into the vehicle walk around it to make sure there is no child hiding behind/under your vehicle and that there are no objects around it.

As far as your brakes on the front of the vehicle idea, simple idea is to just not go until they are at a complete stop. Not to mention if he's trying to race through a yellow light then your light is more than likely red. So if he endangers you by racing through a yellow light then you are doing something illegal, like trying to jump ahead a few seconds before the light turns green.

For people turning right, if there are no stop lights then legally he has the right of way. Come to a complete stop and let him do his thing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Ironicly every one of those things that you mention is easily fixed by simply paying attention and taking a few extra precautions. All without having to have extra's installed into your car.

First let me state that I have no problem with these camera's being installed. I just think that they're useless and promotes laziness.

No child would be ran over if people simply LOOKED before they even got into a vehicle. Look around the area, note who is around and their locations. If there are children around and close enough to your vehicle to get behind it before you back out then warn them to stay away. (good idea to let them know why as they will more than likely actually listen then.) If the child is small enough to need supervision then let the supervising adult know what you are doing and you just want to insure the childs safety. Do this even if you have to go up to their front door and pound on it.

If there is an elderly walking along the sidewalk then wait for them to pass. Even if they are half a block away. Better to be safe than them dead because you were impatient.

Last of all, before you even get into the vehicle walk around it to make sure there is no child hiding behind/under your vehicle and that there are no objects around it.

As far as your brakes on the front of the vehicle idea, simple idea is to just not go until they are at a complete stop. Not to mention if he's trying to race through a yellow light then your light is more than likely red. So if he endangers you by racing through a yellow light then you are doing something illegal, like trying to jump ahead a few seconds before the light turns green.

For people turning right, if there are no stop lights then legally he has the right of way. Come to a complete stop and let him do his thing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
The Giant Noodle said:
The Gov't needs to get the hell out of regulations! And drivers need to actually LOOK behind them! Heck EVERY time I leave my computer chair I look to see if there is a cat behind me so I dont hurt them! This is jusst another way the gov't oversteps its role!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom