• 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

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.
 
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 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.

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.

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.
 
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.


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?

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.

:peace
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

I don't see how that's over-regulation, just a laughably absurd amount of overspending in an area that has little positive effect to the day to day wellbeing of the American people.
 
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.

Where the hell did that come from? Civilian society is supposed to be ran by a strict system, just like the military? God, let's hope that ya'll socialists never get your way on that one. Obama already has funding for his private army, so there's no telling where that might end up.

BTW, it's not an Army cavalry patch. It's the coat of arms for the 7th Cavalry Regiment. It's meant to be worn on the epaulettes and not the sleeve. Just in the interest of clarity.
 
The problem is that many people are NOT being careful. I am careful when behind the wheel ... more careful than I should have to be cause so many others are not... why should by safety be unnecessarily endangered because people are not paying attention to their driving... they would rather talk on their cell phones, smoke cancer sticks or other activity that takes away from their attention on the road. Just this morning, my wife and I were crossing the street (with the light) when we nearly got hit by an idiot making a left hand turn with a cell phone in his hand. Sure, cameras wouldn't mitigate that fact, but we need to, unfortunately, respond because so many others are not...

I am not decided on these cameras, but I am leaning on the side of requiring them... heck, I would prefer sensors that alert the driver is something (moving or not) is behind the car when it is in reverse. Many vehicles already have such a function...

If they're habitually not careful, what makes you think the rear-view cameras will help?
 
If they're habitually not careful, what makes you think the rear-view cameras will help?

Because they provide a clear view of what's in the blind spot right below and behind you, whether it be children, infants, pets or objects, and work as part of a system in conjunction with rear-view mirrors (viability high above the ground behind the car), side mirrors (either side of the car), and direct driver vision (the 180 degrees facing forward).

It's hard not to notice a kid when there's a picture of him or her right next to your reverse stick...

I thought someone said nobody is saying they don't work, only that the government shouldn't mandate them...
 
Last edited:
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?

So, do you think that cars would be just as safe if they didn't have rear view mirrors?

Sure, for the 10% or so who just don't look, and expect the rest of us to get out of the way, it wouldn't matter whether that unused mirror was there or not, but for the other 90%, it's a pretty important safety device, don't you think?
 
I mean ****, airbags, people aren't gonna crash 100% of the time! We don't need those.

Breaks that work? Pffft! People don't need to stop 100% of the time, let's get rid of those, it's government controlling my life!

Locks? again, why?!?! Its not gonna be alone 100% of the time, lets do away with those too!

You know what, lets do away with Child locks, again big government, personal responsbility, teach those little brats not to try to open the door!

Putting in a rear view camera so maybe I can check out that hot blonde in the car behind me, GET OUT OF MY LIFE GOVERNMENT!!! EVIL DOERS!
 
Because they provide a clear view of what's in the blind spot right below and behind you, whether it be children, infants, pets or objects, and work as part of a system in conjunction with rear-view mirrors (viability high above the ground behind the car), side mirrors (either side of the car), and direct driver vision (the 180 degrees facing forward).

It's hard not to notice a kid when there's a picture of him or her right next to your reverse stick...

I thought someone said nobody is saying they don't work, only that the government shouldn't mandate them...

It requires you to pay attention to the screen, hence my question about "habitually uncareful." :roll:

And as I said, it would not surprise me if, when rear-view cameras become the norm, incidences become more prevalent as people forget how to check mirrors, look over their shoulders, and generally be aware of the spaces around them.
 
As I said, the camera only gives you a narrow view of the back of your car below the back bonnet, where there's a blind spot. Do rear view mirrors stop people doing the same thing, given that they give you viability of the top half of the back of your car instead of the bottom?

I suppose if you wanted to you could create an intricate series of mirrors throughout the car to show you to the bottom half in a similar fashion if you REALLY want to.
 
As I said, the camera only gives you a narrow view of the back of your car below the back bonnet, where there's a blind spot. Do rear view mirrors stop people doing the same thing, given that they give you viability of the top half of the back of your car instead of the bottom?

I suppose if you wanted to you could create an intricate series of mirrors throughout the car to show you to the bottom half in a similar fashion if you REALLY want to.

Cameras have a wide angle view.


Here's a look at some of the best systems available:

No. 1: Infinit Around View Monitor on the Infiniti FX: This camera system is simply the best backup system available. It uses four super wide-angle cameras mounted on the front, rear and side of a vehicle and then runs all of the images through a computer to create a bird's eye view of the vehicle.

The first time you use it, you want to stop and look up to see if there is a satellite hovering overhead. Every object, completely surrounding the vehicle is shown. Additionally, it can be activated when driving slowly forward, such as pulling into a garage to make sure you hit nothing in front of you. Nissan Motor Corp., the owner of Infiniti, should start installing this on numerous vehicles in the future. Nissan already plans on using it on its all new Quest minivan, which debuted recently at the Los Angeles Auto Show.
 
I mean ****, airbags, people aren't gonna crash 100% of the time! We don't need those.

Breaks that work? Pffft! People don't need to stop 100% of the time, let's get rid of those, it's government controlling my life!

Locks? again, why?!?! Its not gonna be alone 100% of the time, lets do away with those too!

You know what, lets do away with Child locks, again big government, personal responsbility, teach those little brats not to try to open the door!

Putting in a rear view camera so maybe I can check out that hot blonde in the car behind me, GET OUT OF MY LIFE GOVERNMENT!!! EVIL DOERS!

Neither locks nor child locks are required by law. This is a pretty silly, hyperbolic rant anyway.

Besides, the question is never "why shouldn't the government do something?" It's "why SHOULD it do something?" It simply being someone's notion of a "good idea" doesn't cut it.
 
Neither locks nor child locks are required by law. This is a pretty silly, hyperbolic rant anyway.

Besides, the question is never "why shouldn't the government do something?" It's "why SHOULD it do something?" It simply being someone's notion of a "good idea" doesn't cut it.

Jet must have loved my suggestion then. :lol:
 
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.

$50. a car ?? Are you kidding?? A decent after market camera cost $200 to $300, then you have to either pay for someone to install it or install it yourself. And car manufacturers are famous of accessory markups. You can buy an upgraded radio/cd player for $100, but you'll pay the manufacturer $800 extra for a similar one.
 
$50. a car ?? Are you kidding?? A decent after market camera cost $200 to $300, then you have to either pay for someone to install it or install it yourself. And car manufacturers are famous of accessory markups. You can buy an upgraded radio/cd player for $100, but you'll pay the manufacturer $800 extra for a similar one.

A decent after market camera? Define. You don't need a DSLR Canon here, you need a small, relatively low resolution camera for seeing moderate sized objects. A super high resolution is not required.

[quote="The NHTSA proposal I linked that evidently no one reads, Page 13]However, rearview video is also the most expensive single technology. When installed in a vehicle without any existing visual display screen, rearview video systems are currently estimated to cost consumers between $159 and $203 per vehicle, depending on the location of the display and the angular width of the lens. For a vehicle that already has a suitable visual
display, such as one found in route navigation systems, 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, as discussed below.)[/quote]

Given that a significant number of cars today come with a visual display already, expect it to cost on average somewhere in between the two given values.

Come to think of it, this would seem to make it so that each car has a color multimedia display for the rear-view camera of course, but it could also be used for multimedia and GPS. I don't see why the manufacturers wouldn't want to capitalize on possessing these features, given that those things are mostly software driven, and they would have already put down the money for the hardware...

[quote="The NHTSA proposal I linked that evidently no one reads, Page 21]This language means that the revised regulation could be applied to passenger cars, low-speed vehicles (LSVs), multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), buses (including small school buses and school vans), and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Accordingly, we seek comment and data related to the issue of whether, if the agency remains unable to find such incidents, it could reasonably conclude that those vehicles pose no unreasonable risk of backover crashes and whether it would be permissible therefore it to exclude these vehicles from the application of the final rule. The agency invites comment on whether the absence of incidents might reflect operational conditions[/quote]

I think we should be attacking this more than anything else in the proposal.
 
Last edited:
So, do you think that cars would be just as safe if they didn't have rear view mirrors?

Sure, for the 10% or so who just don't look, and expect the rest of us to get out of the way, it wouldn't matter whether that unused mirror was there or not, but for the other 90%, it's a pretty important safety device, don't you think?

Is that rediculous comment your idea of an argument, in favor of rear-view cameras?
 
A decent after market camera? Define. You don't need a DSLR Canon here, you need a small, relatively low resolution camera for seeing moderate sized objects. A super high resolution is not required.



Given that a significant number of cars today come with a visual display already, expect it to cost on average somewhere in between the two given values.

Come to think of it, this would seem to make it so that each car has a color multimedia display for the rear-view camera of course, but it could also be used for multimedia and GPS. I don't see why the manufacturers wouldn't want to capitalize on possessing these features, given that those things are mostly software driven, and they would have already put down the money for the hardware...



I think we should be attacking this more than anything else in the proposal.

A low resolution camera will have greatly reduced visibility in low light conditions and in the rain and fog. It's all about safety, right?
 
A low resolution camera will have greatly reduced visibility in low light conditions and in the rain and fog. It's all about safety, right?

I'm not talking about a camera with a resolution that doesn't fit the screen, 800x600 video cameras have been very cheap for the past decade, and they easily fit a standard car screen pixel for pixel. Quality of imaging has also drastically increased in recent years, not just the resolution.

After all, my iPod Touch camera records real time video in HD 720p, a significantly higher resolution than any screen that would be installed as standard in a car, and it's picture quality rivals my stand alone video camera, even in low viability situations. Furthermore, they cost $229, including a 960x640 screen, touch abilities, wifi, the build quality, and the rise in price that comes standard with any Apple product. So cut all that off the price too.

Are they going to use an iPod camera in cars? No, but it's a good example of how video cameras can be extremely low cost without compromising much of any video quality.

Low resolution these days means it will fit your old 30" tube television.
 
Is that rediculous comment your idea of an argument, in favor of rear-view cameras?

It was a perfectly reasonable response to:

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
 
Back
Top Bottom