Viewing 44 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • BucNY

      Participant
      Post count: 111

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/All we have do is just pass enough laws and we'll be able to fully protect even the dumbest and most careless drivers. More laws and regulation designed to protect me from my own stupidity. My bet is I'm dumber than they are smart. I joke but you get the idea. That's the trend today. Self responsibility is a thing of the past. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Association, yeah i'd never heard of it either, has decided that in response to an outcry over people backing over children that the solution is to require car makers to have back up cams on all new cars.  In typical Goverment fashion, the actual problem is ignored and another useless safe guard is mandated to save us from ourselves. One would think the best response to not running a child over would be two fold. Parents keep your children away from moving vehicles and drivers ensure a child is not under your car or behind you when backing up. Problem solved though! No without any extra effort on the driver's part, he/she can quickly glance at his screen and avoid running over a child while not delaying his/her trip by a single second.Same misguided attempt at safety as the new guns laws. Let's not try to figure out why people are seemingly wanting to shoot each other. Let's just try to make guns harder to get, even though they really are no harder to get than before.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/All we have do is just pass enough laws and we'll be able to fully protect even the dumbest and most careless drivers. More laws and regulation designed to protect me from my own stupidity. My bet is I'm dumber than they are smart. I joke but you get the idea. That's the trend today. Self responsibility is a thing of the past. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Association, yeah i'd never heard of it either, has decided that in response to an outcry over people backing over children that the solution is to require car makers to have back up cams on all new cars.  In typical Goverment fashion, the actual problem is ignored and another useless safe guard is mandated to save us from ourselves. One would think the best response to not running a child over would be two fold. Parents keep your children away from moving vehicles and drivers ensure a child is not under your car or behind you when backing up. Problem solved though! No without any extra effort on the driver's part, he/she can quickly glance at his screen and avoid running over a child while not delaying his/her trip by a single second.Same misguided attempt at safety as the new guns laws. Let's not try to figure out why people are seemingly wanting to shoot each other. Let's just try to make guns harder to get, even though they really are no harder to get than before.

      even tossing aside the gun comparison and the fact that back up cams are not just for the scenario you reference, you're making a logically-flawed assumption that the two thing are mutually exclusive.  Using your logic there should be no seat belts because the "solution" is just to teach people to be better drivers.  See the flaw?  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, you dont do one OR the other . . . you do BOTH where the risk dictates ithttp://www.keithdpeterson.com/docs/proper-backing-techniques.pdfBack-up collisions killed 221 people in the US in 2007, and injured about 14,400. This is one of the most common types of non-traffic auto collision in which road workers and children 15 and younger are killed.[15][16]

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/All we have do is just pass enough laws and we'll be able to fully protect even the dumbest and most careless drivers. More laws and regulation designed to protect me from my own stupidity. My bet is I'm dumber than they are smart. I joke but you get the idea. That's the trend today. Self responsibility is a thing of the past. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Association, yeah i'd never heard of it either, has decided that in response to an outcry over people backing over children that the solution is to require car makers to have back up cams on all new cars.  In typical Goverment fashion, the actual problem is ignored and another useless safe guard is mandated to save us from ourselves. One would think the best response to not running a child over would be two fold. Parents keep your children away from moving vehicles and drivers ensure a child is not under your car or behind you when backing up. Problem solved though! No without any extra effort on the driver's part, he/she can quickly glance at his screen and avoid running over a child while not delaying his/her trip by a single second.Same misguided attempt at safety as the new guns laws. Let's not try to figure out why people are seemingly wanting to shoot each other. Let's just try to make guns harder to get, even though they really are no harder to get than before.

      even tossing aside the gun comparison and the fact that back up cams are not just for the scenario you reference, you're making a logically-flawed assumption that the two thing are mutually exclusive.  Using your logic there should be no seat belts because the "solution" is just to teach people to be better drivers.  See the flaw?  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, you dont do one OR the other . . . you do BOTH where the risk dictates ithttp://www.keithdpeterson.com/docs/proper-backing-techniques.pdfBack-up collisions killed 221 people in the US in 2007, and injured about 14,400. This is one of the most common types of non-traffic auto collision in which road workers and children 15 and younger are killed.[15][16]

      I'm not stating it would or would not make driving safer. I don't care to be honest. A child of mine would not be near a moving car and I make sure the same when I'm driving. As far as seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc...they should all be removed. Same with drug laws. We're allowed to eat deep fried fat turds, smoke cigarettes, cigars, drink alcohol to the point of killing ourselves. All that is fine. It's a choice people make. I'm for removing a large majority of "Safeguarfds" I've never been in an accident in my life. I'm a careful and aware driver. I've used a cell phone in my car for years before they outlawed that in NY.  The bigger issue, it may be more with NY than other states is the powers at be think they can make people safe from others stupidity. That will never happen. In the meantime I pay the price, literally and figuratively, for people driving around not paying attention to what their doing. You want to make a law? Make a limit on the number of incidents with your vehicle before your license gets taken away.Nope, don't fix the problem, IE people not paying attention when getting in a vehicle, but let's install a back up camera. Maybe some sensors would help to. How about automatic breaks to stop you when you're not paying attention, how about a steering assist for when you can't be bother to stay in your own lane. As if cars don't cost enough right now. Wait until they're mandated to drive themselves because people can't be bothered to pay attention to the ton vehicle their driving down the road at 75 mph.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      Oh by the way Vin. The cameras are only passenger car and truck types. Construction equipment like a dump truck or snow plow is not included in this mandate.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/All we have do is just pass enough laws and we'll be able to fully protect even the dumbest and most careless drivers. More laws and regulation designed to protect me from my own stupidity. My bet is I'm dumber than they are smart. I joke but you get the idea. That's the trend today. Self responsibility is a thing of the past. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Association, yeah i'd never heard of it either, has decided that in response to an outcry over people backing over children that the solution is to require car makers to have back up cams on all new cars.  In typical Goverment fashion, the actual problem is ignored and another useless safe guard is mandated to save us from ourselves. One would think the best response to not running a child over would be two fold. Parents keep your children away from moving vehicles and drivers ensure a child is not under your car or behind you when backing up. Problem solved though! No without any extra effort on the driver's part, he/she can quickly glance at his screen and avoid running over a child while not delaying his/her trip by a single second.Same misguided attempt at safety as the new guns laws. Let's not try to figure out why people are seemingly wanting to shoot each other. Let's just try to make guns harder to get, even though they really are no harder to get than before.

      even tossing aside the gun comparison and the fact that back up cams are not just for the scenario you reference, you're making a logically-flawed assumption that the two thing are mutually exclusive.  Using your logic there should be no seat belts because the "solution" is just to teach people to be better drivers.  See the flaw?  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, you dont do one OR the other . . . you do BOTH where the risk dictates ithttp://www.keithdpeterson.com/docs/proper-backing-techniques.pdfBack-up collisions killed 221 people in the US in 2007, and injured about 14,400. This is one of the most common types of non-traffic auto collision in which road workers and children 15 and younger are killed.[15][16]

      I'm not stating it would or would not make driving safer. I don't care to be honest. A child of mine would not be near a moving car and I make sure the same when I'm driving. As far as seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc...they should all be removed. Same with drug laws. We're allowed to eat deep fried fat turds, smoke cigarettes, cigars, drink alcohol to the point of killing ourselves. All that is fine. It's a choice people make. I'm for removing a large majority of "Safeguarfds" I've never been in an accident in my life. I'm a careful and aware driver. I've used a cell phone in my car for years before they outlawed that in NY.  The bigger issue, it may be more with NY than other states is the powers at be think they can make people safe from others stupidity. That will never happen. In the meantime I pay the price, literally and figuratively, for people driving around not paying attention to what their doing. You want to make a law? Make a limit on the number of incidents with your vehicle before your license gets taken away.Nope, don't fix the problem, IE people not paying attention when getting in a vehicle, but let's install a back up camera. Maybe some sensors would help to. How about automatic breaks to stop you when you're not paying attention, how about a steering assist for when you can't be bother to stay in your own lane. As if cars don't cost enough right now. Wait until they're mandated to drive themselves because people can't be bothered to pay attention to the ton vehicle their driving down the road at 75 mph.

      you need to find a small island to live on . . .lolKidding aside, this is a common, but totally misguided, comment by people who think as you do: " the powers at be think they can make people safe from others stupidity. That will never happen. In the meantime I pay the price, literally and figuratively, for people driving around not paying attention to what their doing." 1) The powers that be do NOT think that; 2) no one says it will ever happen perfectly; and, 3) you'd pay even more.In any event, you actually go on acknowledge that maybe laws can help: "You want to make a law? Make a limit on the number of incidents with your vehicle before your license gets taken away" In one sentence you say, in essence,  "it will never work, so why do it" but then you go on in the next sentence to offer a law that you think will solve the problem. So, in other words, you don't like the fit of the law, but acknowledge that a law could help -- just that it should be the law you suggest. The point is you don't do things to  increase safety and health and to prevent death ONLY if the action SOLVES the problem. The reason that is not the standard is because NOTHING is a perfect solution and because if you do as you suggest - ("All that is fine. It's a choice people make. I'm for removing a large majority of "Safeguarfds"") -- you will actually pay MORE . . . .  much more.  That is the point of Public Health or as you (correctly) phrase it, protecting people from their own stupidity. lol. Because we all do not live on islands, others stupidity costs SOCIETY (read: you and me).  Poor decision making leaves children without parents, spouses without bread winners . .  . all of which creates costs for the State (read: taxes) and all of which makes insurance more expensive . . . and that is before even getting to the human toll.  So, be careful what you ask for because even though it might be appealing to let the "dumb" kill themselves if they want to . . .  they also kill the "smart" and they also cost the "smart" a fortune . . . if left solely to their own devices.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Oh by the way Vin. The cameras are only passenger car and truck types. Construction equipment like a dump truck or snow plow is not included in this mandate.

      right, that is an issue WITH the law, which is a little different than your other comments.  Fix the law however you like, but suggesting it has no value or place in society is just wrong

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      I’m not suggesting all laws are worthless. I’m suggesting if you want to make things cars and or travel safer, get the idiots off the road rather than trying to  make everything so fool proof that even the most careless person would have trouble hurting anyone. The answer is simple, yet it’s never really addressed. Kids getting backed over a lot by parents and/or drivers not paying attention. What seems like the easiest solution? Not installing a back up camera. The simple answer is personal responsibility. That is the answer for many of the things that trouble our society and that was the driving issue behind my original post. It’s the driving force behind coffee companys having to proclaim their hot coffee is indeed hot coffee. It’s the reason car commercials have to proclaim “do not try this at home, a professional driver on a closed course…” Because the individual is never at fault anymore. You backed over a child? No, it’s not your fault. Your car company should have installed a camera for you so you could better see the child..Get what I'm trying to say here?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I'm not suggesting all laws are worthless. I'm suggesting if you want to make things cars and or travel safer, get the idiots off the road rather than trying to  make everything so fool proof that even the most careless person would have trouble hurting anyone. The answer is simple, yet it's never really addressed. Kids getting backed over a lot by parents and/or drivers not paying attention. What seems like the easiest solution? Not installing a back up camera. The simple answer is personal responsibility. That is the answer for many of the things that trouble our society and that was the driving issue behind my original post. It's the driving force behind coffee companys having to proclaim their hot coffee is indeed hot coffee. It's the reason car commercials have to proclaim "do not try this at home, a professional driver on a closed course..." Because the individual is never at fault anymore. You backed over a child? No, it's not your fault. Your car company should have installed a camera for you so you could better see the child..Get what I'm trying to say here?

      I do actually and I get your frustration, but I just disagree with the analysis.  Installing back up cameras is not the "easiest solution" nor is it a perfect solution, its is an acknowledgment that your solution ("personal responsibility")  makes sense, but is not realistic given human nature.  Sure the answer for many problems is to have better humans, and that is what we should be focused on, BUT not to the exclusion of doing other reasonable things while we wait for human beings to rise to a level of acceptable responsibility.Let me use one of your examples to illustrate: "Because the individual is never at fault anymore. You backed over a child? No, it's not your fault. Your car company should have installed a camera for you so you could better see the child.." Keeping that example in mind 1) its not about assigning fault its about safety and preventing death, if possible and 2) its not about the driver its about the child.  WE should do everything we can to make that driver a more responsible human, but those types of changes (if even possible) take decades .. .  so in the interim you take reasonable steps to save the child, not to educate the driver about responsibility.(Btw, you should read about the McDonald's coffee case you reference, it was not at all what you suggest. There's more to it than this, but this is a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      Yeah i remember that case. I also remember thinking where the hell is this world headed. Well fast forward 20 years and now we know.We've had a big push where I live with cell phone usage and MVA. We pass a law saying it's no illegal, to dangerous. Now I can no longer use my phone, without blue tooth that is. Same thing with this, I get it. It just doesn't work. I live/work nearby a college with many late teen, early twenties. I can say with a high level of confidence it has had little to no effect on those kids using the cell phone. Hell, it hasn't affect many adults as well.Driving is dangerous, many people killed and injured daily by bad drivers. Seat belts, air bags, collision testing, etc.... All safeguards to make a dangerous event safer. Guess what? I've never been in an accident in my life. I was almost hit head on by someone drifting over the center line. I was paying attention, saw them drifting and moved out of the way as they struck my drivers side mirror only then proceeded to T-bone the car behind me. People who pay attention and are reasonable drivers are involved in very few accidents, minus good drivers being hit at a red light by someone not paying attention, drunk, on medication etc... I may be involved in an accident one day, but it won't be me rear ending someone. I was taught to pay attention when my parents taught me how to drive.I don't mean to say that seat belts and air bags are a bad thing. Certainly they save innocent people from others. The greater point is as a society we spend an immense amount of time, money and effort trying to save a large percentage of our population against a small percentage of our population. Vin, you said 1400 people injured in back up incidents lets assume half of those are from construction/industrial accidents. So 700, which is still probably high, people injured out of every American that got in their car every time that year. What percentage is that? I bet its astronomically small. So we've again, made a law to safeguard a microfraction of 1% of our population from being back into or over. Again to re-iterate. If the NHTSA is really concerned about car related injuries make it more difficult to obtain and keep a license. For example Finland has a very difficult driving test that requires actually going to a driving school. All measures of death/injury related to motor passenger vehicles are substantially lower than ours in the US. Want to make things safer? Do it in a constructive way that might actually have an affect.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      Ban cars, problem solved

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Yeah i remember that case. I also remember thinking where the hell is this world headed. Well fast forward 20 years and now we know.We've had a big push where I live with cell phone usage and MVA. We pass a law saying it's no illegal, to dangerous. Now I can no longer use my phone, without blue tooth that is. Same thing with this, I get it. It just doesn't work. I live/work nearby a college with many late teen, early twenties. I can say with a high level of confidence it has had little to no effect on those kids using the cell phone. Hell, it hasn't affect many adults as well.Driving is dangerous, many people killed and injured daily by bad drivers. Seat belts, air bags, collision testing, etc.... All safeguards to make a dangerous event safer. Guess what? I've never been in an accident in my life. I was almost hit head on by someone drifting over the center line. I was paying attention, saw them drifting and moved out of the way as they struck my drivers side mirror only then proceeded to T-bone the car behind me. People who pay attention and are reasonable drivers are involved in very few accidents, minus good drivers being hit at a red light by someone not paying attention, drunk, on medication etc... I may be involved in an accident one day, but it won't be me rear ending someone. I was taught to pay attention when my parents taught me how to drive.I don't mean to say that seat belts and air bags are a bad thing. Certainly they save innocent people from others. The greater point is as a society we spend an immense amount of time, money and effort trying to save a large percentage of our population against a small percentage of our population. Vin, you said 1400 people injured in back up incidents lets assume half of those are from construction/industrial accidents. So 700, which is still probably high, people injured out of every American that got in their car every time that year. What percentage is that? I bet its astronomically small. So we've again, made a law to safeguard a microfraction of 1% of our population from being back into or over. Again to re-iterate. If the NHTSA is really concerned about car related injuries make it more difficult to obtain and keep a license. For example Finland has a very difficult driving test that requires actually going to a driving school. All measures of death/injury related to motor passenger vehicles are substantially lower than ours in the US. Want to make things safer? Do it in a constructive way that might actually have an affect.

      1) I think the stat I quoted also cited property damage2) again, I don't disagree that there are different views about HOW to achieve the goal, I was only saying that the goal was valid and its not enough to say "well, humans should be more responsible . .or smarter"  because they are not

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6677

      I’d have no problem if they were requirements in new cars.  Should have been done  years ago IMO.  Like to see them with cameras that not only face directly back but also show you what’s coming from either side.  Would have to have 3 monitors I guess Best thing one can do is try to avoid backing as much as possible even if it means having to park farther out or backing into your spot.  The amount one drives while backing is less than 1/10 of 1% but it accounts for something like 5% of all accidents. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      Backing into your spot still requires “backing”

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      Ban cars, problem solved

      Damn it, you are going to ruin my keyboard and screen..

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6677

      Backing into your spot still requires "backing"

      but you have a full view of what you are backing into seconds before.  I drove a step van or 24′ box truck for 13 years and my company made us all take tons of driving safety courses.  I’ve probably have done the Smith Defensive Driving course on backing about a half dozen times.  About 5-6 years ago my company started buying trucks with the backing cameras.  They help some. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      Am I the only one that thinks its crazy that we all just write off the idea that “humans should just be more responsible” as something that will never happen? When did this society crumble to the point where that’s the least likely thing to happen?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6677

      The govt already requires a lot of safety features on vehicles and forces us to wear seat belts.  Don’t really see this as being any different. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Am I the only one that thinks its crazy that we all just write off the idea that "humans should just be more responsible" as something that will never happen? When did this society crumble to the point where that's the least likely thing to happen?

      well except, no one writes it off . .lol . .  its a goal for sure BUT you cant say ""humans should just be more responsible" as a solution to Public Health issues because while you are waiting for humans to evolve there is a lot of preventable stuff going on.278px-Preventable_causes_of_death.pngThere have been public campaigns that have changed attitudes about smoking . .  and yet there are still many people smoking . .  . .and kills themselves AND OTHERS with smoke.  There  have been public campaigns that have changed attitudes about fitness/health and yet there are still people overeating and killing themselves and HARMING OTHERS by dying earlier than necessary and leaving behind dependents and by being on disability instead of working as a productive member of society etc.  Just keep going down the list . . . . and then try to think of a single preventable death issue that has been eradicated by modifying human behavior? I can thing of many that have been REDUCED . . with effort . . . No one says we should "write off" modifying human behavior, just that it is not a valid approach BY ITSELF

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 10626

      I saw this the other day.  I would venture to say,  just like everything else, people will get complacent with it, after the novelty wears off.  And the rate at which cars back into things and kids or whatever, will not change all that much.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      I would venture to say that you’re completely wrong. They’re not a novelty, they’ve been putting these on heavy equipment for a while now; you can expect every car to have them eventually, and they will reduce accidents.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      I would venture to say that you're completely wrong. They're not a novelty, they've been putting these on heavy equipment for a while now; you can expect every car to have them eventually, and they will reduce accidents.

      A dump truck is different than a Nissan Sentra.If you can't be bothered to pay attention to where you're drivng/backing your car. A back up camera isn't going to change your priorities. It will however affect the price you pay for a car and on top of that another way the government is sticking it's nose into my business.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      “If you can’t be bothered to pay attention to where you’re drivng/backing your car. A back up camera isn’t going to change your priorities.”These accidents usually occur due to an obscured view, a problem easily corrected by the camera (which, incidentally, are pretty cheap these days). Sorry if that interferes with your perceived right to run over people and things.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I would venture to say that you're completely wrong. They're not a novelty, they've been putting these on heavy equipment for a while now; you can expect every car to have them eventually, and they will reduce accidents.

      A dump truck is different than a Nissan Sentra.If you can't be bothered to pay attention to where you're drivng/backing your car. A back up camera isn't going to change your priorities. It will however affect the price you pay for a car and on top of that another way the government is sticking it's nose into my business.

      Putting aside that we are talking about human lives, many of which are under the age of 15, its weird that you only seem to see the cost of the camera as something you might bear, but you don't see the cost of losses as having any impact on you? Not all costs are direct and even though you are apparently infallible and hyper-vigilant and have x-ray vision (just kidding, obviously), not all human beings are as well-equipped as you .. .  you re already paying for those "children of a lesser god" humans through insurance premiums and taxes . . .  and anyway the OBJECT of the safety device is not you (i.e., the driver) . . . its the victim, which could be you or someone from your family, right?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 10626

      I would venture to say that you're completely wrong. They're not a novelty, they've been putting these on heavy equipment for a while now; you can expect every car to have them eventually, and they will reduce accidents.

      Very poor comparison Sir. On one hand, you have a professional heavy equipment operater, who is concerned about his safety record, lest he lose his job.On the other hand, you have soccer Moms, who are more concerned with how their makeup looks as they are backing out of the driveway. With 5 kids screaming in her ear, and checking that text that just arrived on her I-phone.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      Backing into your spot still requires "backing"

      but you have a full view of what you are backing into seconds before.  I drove a step van or 24' box truck for 13 years and my company made us all take tons of driving safety courses.  I've probably have done the Smith Defensive Driving course on backing about a half dozen times.  About 5-6 years ago my company started buying trucks with the backing cameras.  They help some.

      My car has one.  I don't even have to turn around.  It is amazing and I am actually better at backing up NOW than before I had the camera view.  There's also a sensor for objects...cars, pets, people, etc.  A bell sounds when you get too close to something.  There are also overlays that help guide the car.  I can park in places I probably wouldn't have tried before getting the new ride.  Everyone should have one.

      Please wait…

    • mckken27

      Participant
      Post count: 3

      Again to re-iterate. If the NHTSA is really concerned about car related injuries make it more difficult to obtain and keep a license. For example Finland has a very difficult driving test that requires actually going to a driving school. All measures of death/injury related to motor passenger vehicles are substantially lower than ours in the US. Want to make things safer? Do it in a constructive way that might actually have an affect.

      I agree with you there. I wouldn't oppose the camera or any other measure that prevents common accidents, but I also think that most of these 'minor adjustments' are a drop in the bucket. I don't know about Finland, but the wife has family in Germany and people there also have to go to driving school, it usually takes them a couple of months and a lot of money (up to 2000 euros) to obtain their drivers licenses. Actually I don't know if that means there are fewer accidents (would surely be interesting). In the long run, more awareness on the road is the goal, but until we get people there, apparently we need things like back up cameras to at least reduce these kind of accidents. And, as we here from some guys on here, those who already have a camera state that it has helped them.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Again to re-iterate. If the NHTSA is really concerned about car related injuries make it more difficult to obtain and keep a license. For example Finland has a very difficult driving test that requires actually going to a driving school. All measures of death/injury related to motor passenger vehicles are substantially lower than ours in the US. Want to make things safer? Do it in a constructive way that might actually have an affect.

      I agree with you there. I wouldn't oppose the camera or any other measure that prevents common accidents, but I also think that most of these 'minor adjustments' are a drop in the bucket. I don't know about Finland, but the wife has family in Germany and people there also have to go to driving school, it usually takes them a couple of months and a lot of money (up to 2000 euros) to obtain their drivers licenses. Actually I don't know if that means there are fewer accidents (would surely be interesting). In the long run, more awareness on the road is the goal, but until we get people there, apparently we need things like back up cameras to at least reduce these kind of accidents. And, as we here from some guys on here, those who already have a camera state that it has helped them.

      I agree as well, but I think one reason you might find some political resistance to making it tougher to get and maintain a license is because unlike Finland and Germany this is an expansive country with limited public transportation (except perhaps in the NE) and so access to a car is critical for things like work. I am not saying that I disagree with tougher standards, only identifying an issue. 

      Please wait…

    • mckken27

      Participant
      Post count: 3

      I agree with you there. I wouldn't oppose the camera or any other measure that prevents common accidents, but I also think that most of these 'minor adjustments' are a drop in the bucket. I don't know about Finland, but the wife has family in Germany and people there also have to go to driving school, it usually takes them a couple of months and a lot of money (up to 2000 euros) to obtain their drivers licenses. Actually I don't know if that means there are fewer accidents (would surely be interesting). In the long run, more awareness on the road is the goal, but until we get people there, apparently we need things like back up cameras to at least reduce these kind of accidents. And, as we here from some guys on here, those who already have a camera state that it has helped them.

      I agree as well, but I think one reason you might find some political resistance to making it tougher to get and maintain a license is because unlike Finland and Germany this is an expansive country with limited public transportation (except perhaps in the NE) and so access to a car is critical for things like work. I am not saying that I disagree with tougher standards, only identifying an issue.

      I'm not convinced that 'expansiveness' is the reason, it's not like people in Finland or Germany all cycle to work, they need their cars too ;) - Americans are just much more resistant when it comes to government meddling with their affairs. Same with gun laws, but let's not get into that here. I guess one way would be to integrate driving education into the curriculum of schools and or create more awareness on the subject generally.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      I’m on board with BucNY. Just how much stupidity and negligence can you protect people from?200 fatalities is sad, but it doesn't warrant mandating that all cars add cameras at a cost of (at least) several hundred dollars a piece.Now banning stuff like banning texting I condone. For one it costs nothing and you see people warbling down the road every single day because they are focusing on their damn phone and not the road. It causes thousands of accidents a year.3500 drown each year. Are we going to mandate that nobody is allowed near a pool, river, lake or ocean unless they are in possession of their Govt issues swimming certfiicate? How about every pool has to have a State registered life guard?Yea, yea, I know, sounds stupid right? But the point is you can't protect everybody from everything and this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the totem pole of things to get worried about.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I agree with you there. I wouldn't oppose the camera or any other measure that prevents common accidents, but I also think that most of these 'minor adjustments' are a drop in the bucket. I don't know about Finland, but the wife has family in Germany and people there also have to go to driving school, it usually takes them a couple of months and a lot of money (up to 2000 euros) to obtain their drivers licenses. Actually I don't know if that means there are fewer accidents (would surely be interesting). In the long run, more awareness on the road is the goal, but until we get people there, apparently we need things like back up cameras to at least reduce these kind of accidents. And, as we here from some guys on here, those who already have a camera state that it has helped them.

      I agree as well, but I think one reason you might find some political resistance to making it tougher to get and maintain a license is because unlike Finland and Germany this is an expansive country with limited public transportation (except perhaps in the NE) and so access to a car is critical for things like work. I am not saying that I disagree with tougher standards, only identifying an issue.

      I'm not convinced that 'expansiveness' is the reason, it's not like people in Finland or Germany all cycle to work, they need their cars too ;) - Americans are just much more resistant when it comes to government meddling with their affairs. Same with gun laws, but let's not get into that here. I guess one way would be to integrate driving education into the curriculum of schools and or create more awareness on the subject generally.

      well yes, I get your point.  German people definitely rely on cars, but I really cannot think of a European country where cars are as critical as in the US. In Europe, most rely on trains and buses and they have a very different view of public transport. In the US it is essential to have a car, but, again, I get your point.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I'm on board with BucNY. Just how much stupidity and negligence can you protect people from?200 fatalities is sad, but it doesn't warrant mandating that all cars add cameras at a cost of (at least) several hundred dollars a piece.Now banning stuff like banning texting I condone. For one it costs nothing and you see people warbling down the road every single day because they are focusing on their damn phone and not the road. It causes thousands of accidents a year.3500 drown each year. Are we going to mandate that nobody is allowed near a pool, river, lake or ocean unless they are in possession of their Govt issues swimming certfiicate? How about every pool has to have a State registered life guard?Yea, yea, I know, sounds stupid right? But the point is you can't protect everybody from everything and this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the totem pole of things to get worried about.

      Putting a camera in a car is not the same as banning people from swimming, lol, and no one is trying to "protect everybody from everything" and I would expect there would also be an insurance discount for driving a car with a camera, just like alarms, etc.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      I would expect there would also be an insurance discount for driving a car with a camera, just like alarms, etc.

      Which I am in favor of. Encourage "good" behavior not mandate it.All these "little" things add up, and before you know it a car is several thousand dollars more expensive. What about that poor minimum wage/low income worker the Govt is always talking about? How are they going to afford it? This strikes me as someone looking for something to do rather than any outcry or desperate need.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I would expect there would also be an insurance discount for driving a car with a camera, just like alarms, etc.

      Which I am in favor of. Encourage "good" behavior not mandate it.All these "little" things add up, and before you know it a car is several thousand dollars more expensive. What about that poor minimum wage/low income worker the Govt is always talking about? How are they going to afford it? This strikes me as someone looking for something to do rather than any outcry or desperate need.

      I agree there are diminishing returns that must be considered

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1505

      Four cameras and a receiving unit = $250.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6677

      Sure but them Toyota will charge you $750 for that $250 worth if camera equipment.  That’s how it works.  Or do floor mats really cost $150?

      Please wait…

    • mckken27

      Participant
      Post count: 3

      Well, I have to agree, the investment is just unproportional to the effect it might have (there’s really no proof that if everybody had a camera there would be no more of these accidents). It would probably be more effective to make everyone get a gym membership or force them to eat healthy:  http://www.statista.com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us-2011/  That way we might really weed out the weak, wouldn’t we?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      there's really no proof that if everybody had a camera there would be no more of these accidents

      how about just less?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      Well, I have to agree, the investment is just unproportional to the effect it might have (there's really no proof that if everybody had a camera there would be no more of these accidents). It would probably be more effective to make everyone get a gym membership or force them to eat healthy:  http://www.statista.com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us-2011/  That way we might really weed out the weak, wouldn't we?

      That was one of my original points. If we're really concerned about car safety, do something that would have the largest effect. How many deaths/injuries would this prevent. Making people be more aware and less distracted during driving is the best idea, but apparently a laughable concept. Start taking suspending a license for 6 months for texting while driving, taking it for 3 years for a DWI and things of that nature. Simply put, people who prove to not be responsible enough to drive are not allowed. But that's more crazy talk from BucNY.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Well, I have to agree, the investment is just unproportional to the effect it might have (there's really no proof that if everybody had a camera there would be no more of these accidents). It would probably be more effective to make everyone get a gym membership or force them to eat healthy:  http://www.statista.com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us-2011/  That way we might really weed out the weak, wouldn't we?

      That was one of my original points. If we're really concerned about car safety, do something that would have the largest effect. How many deaths/injuries would this prevent. Making people be more aware and less distracted during driving is the best idea, but apparently a laughable concept. Start taking suspending a license for 6 months for texting while driving, taking it for 3 years for a DWI and things of that nature. Simply put, people who prove to not be responsible enough to drive are not allowed. But that's more crazy talk from BucNY.

      It's not crazy, its just a non sequitur (and a strawman, really).  We can do all of those things you suggest, if you can get people to vote for them. The only thing that would be "crazy talk" and "laughable" would be taking that approach to the exclusion of other reasonable measures. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2594

      Four cameras and a receiving unit = $250.

      And I imagine cheaper leveraging this kind of scale

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2594

      Well, I have to agree, the investment is just unproportional to the effect it might have (there's really no proof that if everybody had a camera there would be no more of these accidents). It would probably be more effective to make everyone get a gym membership or force them to eat healthy:  http://www.statista.com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us-2011/  That way we might really weed out the weak, wouldn't we?

      NY started down that path and the right imploded

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2594

      Well, I have to agree, the investment is just unproportional to the effect it might have (there's really no proof that if everybody had a camera there would be no more of these accidents). It would probably be more effective to make everyone get a gym membership or force them to eat healthy:  http://www.statista.com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us-2011/  That way we might really weed out the weak, wouldn't we?

      That was one of my original points. If we're really concerned about car safety, do something that would have the largest effect. How many deaths/injuries would this prevent. Making people be more aware and less distracted during driving is the best idea, but apparently a laughable concept. Start taking suspending a license for 6 months for texting while driving, taking it for 3 years for a DWI and things of that nature. Simply put, people who prove to not be responsible enough to drive are not allowed. But that's more crazy talk from BucNY.

      Why do we spend so much money and traffic lights and police officers?  Responsible drivers should be able to make it thru intersections with no problem

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      Well, I have to agree, the investment is just unproportional to the effect it might have (there's really no proof that if everybody had a camera there would be no more of these accidents). It would probably be more effective to make everyone get a gym membership or force them to eat healthy:  http://www.statista.com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us-2011/  That way we might really weed out the weak, wouldn't we?

      That was one of my original points. If we're really concerned about car safety, do something that would have the largest effect. How many deaths/injuries would this prevent. Making people be more aware and less distracted during driving is the best idea, but apparently a laughable concept. Start taking suspending a license for 6 months for texting while driving, taking it for 3 years for a DWI and things of that nature. Simply put, people who prove to not be responsible enough to drive are not allowed. But that's more crazy talk from BucNY.

      It's not crazy, its just a non sequitur (and a strawman, really).  We can do all of those things you suggest, if you can get people to vote for them. The only thing that would be "crazy talk" and "laughable" would be taking that approach to the exclusion of other reasonable measures.

      In this case, the costs involved versus the obtainable results are not reasonable IMO.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Well, I have to agree, the investment is just unproportional to the effect it might have (there's really no proof that if everybody had a camera there would be no more of these accidents). It would probably be more effective to make everyone get a gym membership or force them to eat healthy:  http://www.statista.com/statistics/248622/rates-of-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us-2011/  That way we might really weed out the weak, wouldn't we?

      That was one of my original points. If we're really concerned about car safety, do something that would have the largest effect. How many deaths/injuries would this prevent. Making people be more aware and less distracted during driving is the best idea, but apparently a laughable concept. Start taking suspending a license for 6 months for texting while driving, taking it for 3 years for a DWI and things of that nature. Simply put, people who prove to not be responsible enough to drive are not allowed. But that's more crazy talk from BucNY.

      It's not crazy, its just a non sequitur (and a strawman, really).  We can do all of those things you suggest, if you can get people to vote for them. The only thing that would be "crazy talk" and "laughable" would be taking that approach to the exclusion of other reasonable measures.

      In this case, the costs involved versus the obtainable results are not reasonable IMO.

      that could be right and I think the analysis is skewed by the nature of the most common victims (i.e., small children injured/killed by own family)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 10626

      There is a Congressional investigation going on this week.  GM is trying to justify why they didn’t fix faulty ignition switches that resulted in a massive recall of over 2 million vehicles. That faulty switch even resulted in 13 deaths. The funny thing is, it would of cost  $0.57 cents per vehicle to fix it.  So, if they were that stubborn over spending 57 cents, no way they will absorb the cost of these back up cams. So unless the government is going to foot the bill, expect a pretty significant rise in car prices.

      Please wait…

Viewing 44 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.