• 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]

Moderator's Warning:
The topic of this thread is not other posters. Cut out the personal stuff.
 
ocean515 said:
No outrage. Seems to me, eventually the Progressive Nanny State will push affordability of automobiles so far out there, only right wingers will be able to afford them.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the funny one?
 
WCH said:
Probably save more lives if they mandated alcohol sensors.
Click to expand...

Probably, but those to the left typically are not worried too much about results.. Just something to make themselves feel better.
 
Top Cat said:
Aren't you the funny one?
Click to expand...

A bit tongue in cheek, yes, but at what point do you think an affordable car can't be built?

How many regulations do you think auto makers can absorb before only the rich will be able to afford what the Nanny State allows people to drive?
 
ocean515 said:
A bit tongue in cheek, yes, but at what point do you think an affordable car can't be built?

How many regulations do you think auto makers can absorb before only the rich will be able to afford what the Nanny State allows people to drive?
Click to expand...

The same things were said about seat belts way back when. Then it was air bags etc.
 
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...

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.
 
They definitely need to require backup cameras because new vehicles are way to cheap to buy now. They should require at least $10,000 more in safety equipment in every vehicle, plus continuous GPS to be able to ticket everyone who speeds, drives too slow or does not come to a complete stop at stop signs, plus by tying into computer systems everyone who starts to change lanes or turns without first putting on their turn signal. This should be interim technology until everyone personally can be GPSed with a microchip implanted into the body.

It is pitiful how little government does to protect us from ourselves given all the technology now to police us for our own sake.
 
Top Cat said:
The same things were said about seat belts way back when. Then it was air bags etc.
Click to expand...

Well let's see. By 2025 the average MPG for every car sold must be almost 56mpg. For the largest market in the U.S., California, 1 out of every 5 cars sold must be ZERO emissions. The list goes on.
 
Top Cat said:
U.S. require new cars to have backup cameras - Mar. 31, 2014

Cue up the right wing outrage. My left wing self thinks this is a great idea. I suspect most of us have backed into something over the course of time.
Click to expand...

One thing I have noticed repeatedly, over the past few years, is that on those occasions when I have had to rent a car while my own car was down for repairs, the car that I rented had terrible visibility to the sides and rear. This has included, in the last several years, a couple of Toyotas a Kia, and most recently, a couple of Fords. On this most recent occasion, having noticed just what the attribute is that causes this poor visibility, I have taken notice that the majority of recent-model sedans all appear to have this same attribute—an aspect of cosmetic styling that results in much higher lower edges on the side and rear windows.

I don't know what it is, that has caused car manufacturers almost universally to make such a bad choice of cosmetics over safety, but surely this upcoming rear-camera requirement is a reaction to that. Rather than require such a rear camera system, perhaps it would make more sense to impose some basic visibility standards that my 1997 Ford Contour, and every other car that I have ever owned, have all easily met, but which newer cars do not. I can understand such visibility issues on truck/van/SUV-type vehicles, but I see no good reason at all why sedan-type vehicles ought to be so afflicted—no good reason why all modern sedans shouldn't offer visibility at least as good as what my Contour offers.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
One thing I have noticed repeatedly, over the past few years, is that on those occasions when I have had to rent a car while my own car was down for repairs, the car that I rented had terrible visibility to the sides and rear. This has included, in the last several years, a couple of Toyotas a Kia, and most recently, a couple of Fords. On this most recent occasion, having noticed just what the attribute is that causes this poor visibility, I have taken notice that the majority of recent-model sedans all appear to have this same attribute—an aspect of cosmetic styling that results in much higher lower edges on the side and rear windows.

I don't know what it is, that has caused car manufacturers almost universally to make such a bad choice of cosmetics over safety, but surely this upcoming rear-camera requirement is a reaction to that. Rather than require such a rear camera system, perhaps it would make more sense to impose some basic visibility standards that my 1997 Ford Contour, and every other car that I have ever owned, have all easily met, but which newer cars do not. I can understand such visibility issues on truck/van/SUV-type vehicles, but I see no good reason at all why sedan-type vehicles ought to be so afflicted—no good reason why all modern sedans shouldn't offer visibility at least as good as what my Contour offers.
Click to expand...

Styling is certainly one thing. However, I think if you look into it, automakers are being forced to build smaller and smaller cars in order to meet CAFE MPG standards, while still providing ever increasing safety and protection. At some point, roll over protection, and other standards, will begin to dictate what can be legally built and sold in this country, and what it will look like.
 
Top Cat said:
U.S. require new cars to have backup cameras - Mar. 31, 2014

Cue up the right wing outrage. My left wing self thinks this is a great idea. I suspect most of us have backed into something over the course of time.
Click to expand...

Another piece of electronics/communications equipment on modern cars designed to break down and be exorbitantly expensive to repair.

Perhaps if they only issued driver's licenses to people who could actually drive, self parking cars, self driving cars, back up cameras, talking dashboards, etc. etc. wouldn't be needed.
 
Hard Truth said:
Children and pets are often run over by cars backing up because they can be invisible in rearview mirrors. This requirement will probably save enough lives and prevent enough injuries to be worth the modest extra cost.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if people were more responsible parents and pet owners, there wouldn't be children and pets running around neighbourhoods and driveways unattended.
 
MaggieD said:
Right wing outrage?? Really?? Oh, well.

I have a back-up camera on my Lexus. Comes standard. The new ones (mine is 7 years old) have a wider angle back-up view. It's a good thing to have, in my opinion, although I certainly don't depend on it. But I don't depend on my mirrors either. Always a head swivel.
Click to expand...

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
 
ocean515 said:
No outrage. Seems to me, eventually the Progressive Nanny State will push affordability of automobiles so far out there, only right wingers will be able to afford them.

That will be definitely a plus in traffic plagued Southern California.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, how so?
 
Mason66 said:
My buddies car has one and it is completely useless. I turn around to look. I would never depend on a limited view to show me where I am going.
Click to expand...

IDK, Some of them are pretty awesome. I can see almost 180 degrees on a few, one in particular on a customer's Prius. It has green, yellow and red zones, high resolution, I can see the cables in the lift posts when I'm pulling one out after service.
 
tech30528 said:
If all liberals could see what was behind them they might not continue to make the same poor decisions

snicker snicker
Click to expand...

If I had a rear facing camera I would see all the conservatives trying to **** me in the ass with their typical nonsense.
 
Lutherf said:
Ridiculous.

People who don't pay attention to what they are doing aren't going to pay any more attention just because there's a camera. They'll still get in the car, crank up the stereo, and back over Junior while messing with their phone.

The government has been making a living trying to save people from themselves for decades and all it's done is make people believe that they have no need to be personally responsible for anything.
Click to expand...

I have a vendor who does antifreeze recycling, he is a good old southern boy at first glance, but he's a pretty sharp guy. One of my favorite quotes from him:

"Lawd knows we got to protect our idiots"

Classic.
 
Top Cat said:
Yeah, but I know how to put a sentence together in English.
Click to expand...

Right, but after you do, you don't have anything worth considering or even reading, most of the time.

One problem with back-up cameras is that people will become dependent on them and look around even less.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
One thing I have noticed repeatedly, over the past few years, is that on those occasions when I have had to rent a car while my own car was down for repairs, the car that I rented had terrible visibility to the sides and rear. This has included, in the last several years, a couple of Toyotas a Kia, and most recently, a couple of Fords. On this most recent occasion, having noticed just what the attribute is that causes this poor visibility, I have taken notice that the majority of recent-model sedans all appear to have this same attribute—an aspect of cosmetic styling that results in much higher lower edges on the side and rear windows.

I don't know what it is, that has caused car manufacturers almost universally to make such a bad choice of cosmetics over safety, but surely this upcoming rear-camera requirement is a reaction to that. Rather than require such a rear camera system, perhaps it would make more sense to impose some basic visibility standards that my 1997 Ford Contour, and every other car that I have ever owned, have all easily met, but which newer cars do not. I can understand such visibility issues on truck/van/SUV-type vehicles, but I see no good reason at all why sedan-type vehicles ought to be so afflicted—no good reason why all modern sedans shouldn't offer visibility at least as good as what my Contour offers.
Click to expand...

Just 2 words. Wind tunnel. All cars are designed ina wind tunnel and the design comes out the way it comes out.

Have you notices Little bumps on the headlights and mirrors? That is to direct the wind over the car no matter how ugly the Little car pimples are.

In a few years all the cars will be looking the same so it won't matter which one you buy.
 
TeleKat said:
Don't need it, I had one and never did like it. I suppose it's a matter of personal preference. The problem with mandating something like this is it completely overrides that ability to choose.
Click to expand...

Well, that's kind of the point. That's how we all ended up with tire pressure monitor systems.
 
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...

Do you really trust a computer controlled system? What happens when the computer goes crazy when you are using the "Smart" cruise control?
 
tech30528 said:
IDK, Some of them are pretty awesome. I can see almost 180 degrees on a few, one in particular on a customer's Prius. It has green, yellow and red zones, high resolution, I can see the cables in the lift posts when I'm pulling one out after service.
Click to expand...

I don't like having to focus on the small screen then refocus my eyes to long distances again. I think a heads up display is the best thing they have ever invented to help in nothaving to look down at the dash, especially at night, and then back at the road.

Maybe they should mandate heads-up displays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom