all cars have backup cameras in 2018

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: JOD
I'm saying that resources are finite, and that are FAR bigger problems.

THANK you.

Really wish we could come off the bombast about the gene pool and confront the real issue, which is how best to allocate our resources.

 

[datech]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: MCompact
you can welcome/worship government regulations that seek to insulate the moronic from the consequences of their stupidity

Why do you keep harping on this?

This isn't about protecting people from their own stupidity. It's about protecting people from OTHER people's stupidity.




Yep, and even those that are detractors could somehow be involved with somebody that CANt drive, even though they can. Like maybe somebody they know or is related to gets run over by one of these unskilled drivers. I bet it would be worth the $30 bucks to them then.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

You understand that this is tantamount to a call for eugenics, right?

It's also completely off-point. The people doing the stupid things aren't the ones being injured or killed.


Just stirring one particular pot for giggles...
Still, it does apply in the sense that these regulations are "needed" because so many people are stupid, lazy, and want to blame anyone else for the consequences of their actions.

I fully realize that my comments regarding natural selection.are much more germaine to a discussion of the long term benefits of actions such as the repeal of mandatory seat belt and helmet laws.

Anyway, my work here is done, back to a discussion of future European sport coupe purchases for me...

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: JOD
Sure, it changes them. OK, call it $60.00 per car on average. It's still a mis-allocation of resources in my opinion.


So let me get this straight: you were making this an argument based on cost. Well, guess what? Your number just got cut by almost 60%, and you don't even bat an eyelash- you're still against it. Then why bring up money at all? Just say you're against it regardless of the cost.


Because I'm not against it regardless of cost?? Why are you pretending to know what I think--and why are you ignoring what I wrote previously? You seem to be imparting your own biases into what you "think I mean". If there were no costs associated with it, I'd be 100% for it. Guess what? That's not a realistic scenario, since mandating extra equipment has costs (and keep in mind we're only discussing cost of installation, not maintenance. I'm sure that's only a couple of dollars per car, but it still will add up--and it will be a hardship for some end users).

$40 to $50.00 a car is still a LOT of money when extrapolated over the number of cars sold, and there are MUCH more important issues to be dealt with than back-up accidents. Again, resources are finite. This consumes resources. It's my opinion that these resources could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: JOD
I'm saying that resources are finite, and that are FAR bigger problems.

THANK you.

Really wish we could come off the bombast about the gene pool and confront the real issue, which is how best to allocate our resources.


I'll admit, I'm hyper-sensitive to the driving and texting issue. As someone who spends a lot of riding near cars with nothing but a couple of hundred grams of spandex between me and the texters, I've almost resigned myself to the fact that this is how I'm going to meet my end.

I know the folks at NHSTA are acutely aware of the problem, but they're just not doing enough about it. So, when I see resources (NHSTA's own resources along with the costs of implementation), I just makes me cringe. Driving and mobile devices is the new drunk driving. But like I said before, it's a complex issue with complex solutions. I'm not saying that all other things should be ignored, but even at $50.00-60.00 per car, this is a lot of cash for what ultimately is very little gain.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: JOD

$40 to $50.00 a car is still a LOT of money when extrapolated over the number of cars sold, and there are MUCH more important issues to be dealt with than back-up accidents. Again, resources are finite. This consumes resources. It's my opinion that these resources could be better spent elsewhere.

So lets hear what other technical solutions can be done for $40 a car to prevent deaths and injuries related to cars?

As a cyclist probably you would like to have european pedestrian protection standards on our cars. Probably those would almost free to implement. More redesigning and have more design constraints than adding technology. Anything else?

How about eye focus detection technology? It tracks where you are looking and then could beep at people who are not looking at the road, either texting, or day dreaming, or falling asleep... Or even reports to your insurance company that you don't look at the road when you should be. That must not be too expensive to mass produce either. Maybe that should be the NHTSA next thing? It would probably save many more lives than back up cameras...

Ultimately, the self driving car will do the most good, but its not politically feasible to do that just yet... Technically I don't think we have too far to go.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: MCompact
you can welcome/worship government regulations that seek to insulate the moronic from the consequences of their stupidity

Why do you keep harping on this?

This isn't about protecting people from their own stupidity. It's about protecting people from OTHER people's stupidity.


+1.

Notice a pattern here?

1. MCompact blames drivers for the Toyota acceleration problem, but says nothing of Toyota for their design problems (and he conveniently avoided my questions in that thread regarding this).

2. MCompact blames pedestrians for car-pedestrian accidents, but says nothing of the drivers.

3. MCompact blames people walking behind vehicles for backup accidents, but says nothing of the drivers.

Then, when called on it, instead of addressing the one-sidedness of his arguments, he backpedals by saying he was "just stirring the pot". Uh-huh.

Well, at least he got one thing right- his arguments definitely gave me the giggles.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: d00df00d

You understand that this is tantamount to a call for eugenics, right?

It's also completely off-point. The people doing the stupid things aren't the ones being injured or killed.


Just stirring one particular pot for giggles...
Still, it does apply in the sense that these regulations are "needed" because so many people are stupid, lazy, and want to blame anyone else for the consequences of their actions.

That's not a defense of your point. It makes it trivial. ALL laws and regulations are ultimately due to stupidity, laziness, and a lack of accountability. That's the whole point.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Because I'm not against it regardless of cost?? [...]
$40 to $50.00 a car is still a LOT of money when extrapolated over the number of cars sold, and there are MUCH more important issues to be dealt with than back-up accidents. Again, resources are finite. This consumes resources. It's my opinion that these resources could be better spent elsewhere.


JOD- OK then, I'd love to hear what cost (practical and reasonable cost, other than free) you feel would be acceptable for this item (and whatever potential additional safety it might provide). Would also love to know your reasoning and justification for the specific amount you propose being acceptable versus, say, $40-50.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: JOD
Because I'm not against it regardless of cost?? [...]
$40 to $50.00 a car is still a LOT of money when extrapolated over the number of cars sold, and there are MUCH more important issues to be dealt with than back-up accidents. Again, resources are finite. This consumes resources. It's my opinion that these resources could be better spent elsewhere.


JOD- OK then, I'd love to hear what cost (practical and reasonable cost, other than free) you feel would be acceptable for this item (and whatever potential additional safety it might provide). Would also love to know your reasoning and justification for the specific amount you propose being acceptable versus, say, $40-50.


I think that's a really good question--but I'm not in a position to answer it. I do know that $40-60 dollars per car for the number of estimated lives saves is poor ROI. I realize it seems be callous to be putting dollar values on lives, but that IS the business of risk management. And I can guarantee that there are some statisticians at NHSTA who can give better answer than I can--but for now I'd say "much less than $40-$50.00".

To the poster's question above regarding where I think this money should be spent, my thoughts are that it should be spend towards installing technology that disables cell and wireless communication in a moving car. That would save lives per year--into the thousands. And the issue is only going to get worse. Unfortunately, it seems that technology is going the other way, cramming more communication INTO cars.

The only way to make cars 100% safe is to eliminate them entirely. But there are things that can be done to minimize the biggest risks. And right now, that's distracted driving.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: moving2
Reposting this as it did not get formatted correctly:

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Most sensible caregivers probably do not allow elderly people with dementia to wander behind moving vehicles. Elderly people without dementia are probably, or should be, aware of the fact that they should watch for moving vehicles.


Dementia? Nice try. It doesn't take dementia to have reduced alertness and reaction time. Spend enough time around a lot of old people and you'll see for yourself.



If mentally present and functional, it is on them to be aware of their surroundings and risks. Most older people I know with full mental function are aware of the fact that their reaction time is slower and take measures to stay out of harm's way. Even voluntarily giving up driving at night, or driving all together. Then again, I knew an old lady who should have known better who sued a restaurant when she tripped on a lighted stair. She didn't even really suffer significant injuries, but was all up in arms about it. Cash grab. I know another older lady, older than the one who tripped on a stair, who can back an E-350 without a camera.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
And I would venture to guess those features have done much more for safety than a camera image on a 3.5" screen. But I am not so sure all of those things should be mandated...pay for them if you want them. All of those things were innovated and went into widespread use without a mandate.


Really? Show me where widespread use of side impact protection AND passenger airbags were "widespread" in cars and light trucks before the mandates (leading up to the mandates does not count, as this was more a manufacturing practicality).


Seat belts first hit the US market in the 1950s. No state mandated their actual use until 1984 (New York). Most vehicles had them as options starting in the 1960s. Most every vehicle built in the 1970s rolled off the line with seat belts.

GM first introduced air bags in the early 1970s. They were not mandated until the late 1990s.

I don't know the full history of passenger air bags, but the Ranger had them as an option two years before they were mandated. They were standard in Explorers two years before being mandated. Side air bags were available in Explorers by 1999 or 2000, way ahead of any mandate on those.

As for side impact protection in general, not sure that's all that mandated? For a long time manufacturers upped it because they just didn't want to get bad crash test ratings. That isn't legislation, just competition. I am not sure if it was actually legislated at some point. I think roof crush standards were recently, but that has led to some of the hard to see out of blobs now on the market.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Obviously, with reversing accidents accounting for a whopping 0.67% of injuries, bigger things are at play here. In fact, that suggests to me that reversing isn't all that dangerous compared to driving in general, and isn't a real problem when looking at the bigger picture.


Obviously, with auto accidents accounting for a whopping 2.5% of deaths, vs. tobacco accounting for about 8x that many, bigger things are at play here. In fact, that suggests to me that driving isn't all that dangerous compared to peoples' habits in general, and isn't a real problem when looking at the bigger picture.

Resources should be put towards more comprehensive, stricter tobacco education. Resources should be put towards reducing tobacco use and making the penalties for it a greater deterrent. Put the resources toward tobacco INSTEAD of driving safety. Makes perfect sense, right?

Get my point?


Not really, tobacco more than ever is entirely a personal choice. Second hand smoke exposure in public has been reduced to practically nothing since legislation over the past decade has largely banned it in most public places, including businesses.

Every tobacco product sold in the US has an obvious, impossible to miss warning about the harm it can cause. Tobacco users pay higher insurance rates. Alcoholics don't, but tobacco users do.

There has been a large effort over the past 20+ years to educate the public about tobacco risks. It has almost constantly been stepped up and become more aggressive. It is an issue that is being battled head on, but now that second hand smoke and such have largely been eliminated as a risk for the general public, it is entirely a personal choice issue. You can't save people from themselves. I still dip somewhat regularly, knowing there are risks associated with it. If it kills me, I will blame nobody but myself, as each can I buy has a warning on it. Natural selection. At this point, it isn't even the fault of the tobacco companies. It is a personal choice, and a matter of personal responsibility.

Driving is somewhat of a necessity, and by default we can be impacted by the driving habits of others. You have conveniently dodged the issue of distracted driving though, a real problem that can actually have an impact on other people. It's easy to gloss over distracted driving, distractions built into cars, and horribly archaic driver education though, and catch the low hanging fruit instead. "Save the children!"
Quote:

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Statistically, old people have a lot of other things to worry about than being backed into. But yes, it is on them if they are functional to watch where they are going and watch for moving objects that could injure them. If they are not functional and are out wandering around behind cars, there is a bigger problem at play that a reverse camera won't fix, and they are likely getting into a lot of situations that are dangerous.


Yes, and due to commonly reduced eyesight, alertness, and reaction time vs. their younger counterparts, this makes them more vulnerable. And actually, yes, a reverse camera could potentially help to reduce this problem we are discussing, could it not?


If mentally aware, they should be aware of that and compensate for it.

If not mentally aware, there is a bigger issue at hand, and a reverse camera will not save them.


Quote:
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Anyway, if 31% of these accidents are children, and 26% are the elderly, does that mean 43% of these accidents are people who should really know better? The biggest at risk group is apparently not children or the elderly?


Interesting take. To me, it means that those particularly vulnerable (children and the elderly) make up the majority. But, if you want to cut into the numbers, then what percentage are physically disabled? Mentally disabled? Other factors we may not be considering?


Maybe, maybe not. Either way, with 15,000 total, it's not really much of a cause. Just pointing out the largest group isn't the kids or the old people you have been harping on.

But since you seem to think it is an important cause, are all of your vehicles equipped with reverse cameras?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I suspect pedestrians cause the vast majority!


But that could mean that some of those jaywalkers are not particularly bright- so we simply MUST protect them.

If it save just one idiot life, it's worth it!


Crossing on a "DON'T WALK" should result in a large ($1000+) fine. Third offense should bring either jail time or 50 lashes with a scourge.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: JOD

$40 to $50.00 a car is still a LOT of money when extrapolated over the number of cars sold, and there are MUCH more important issues to be dealt with than back-up accidents. Again, resources are finite. This consumes resources. It's my opinion that these resources could be better spent elsewhere.

So lets hear what other technical solutions can be done for $40 a car to prevent deaths and injuries related to cars?


One that wouldn't even cost that much: backup alarms. Maybe a wide-angle lens on the rear window. I suspect BOTH could be done for <$50!

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: JOD
Because I'm not against it regardless of cost?? [...]
$40 to $50.00 a car is still a LOT of money when extrapolated over the number of cars sold, and there are MUCH more important issues to be dealt with than back-up accidents. Again, resources are finite. This consumes resources. It's my opinion that these resources could be better spent elsewhere.


JOD- OK then, I'd love to hear what cost (practical and reasonable cost, other than free) you feel would be acceptable for this item (and whatever potential additional safety it might provide). Would also love to know your reasoning and justification for the specific amount you propose being acceptable versus, say, $40-50.


I think that's a really good question--but I'm not in a position to answer it. I do know that $40-60 dollars per car for the number of estimated lives saves is poor ROI.


JOD- why the dodge? If you are in a position to say that $40-60 is poor ROI, then you are qualifying yourself to judge ballpark costs. If $40-60 if poor, then what is acceptable to you? No experts needed here, since you've already qualified yourself by judging $40-60 as poor. If $40-60 is poor, then surely you have a practical number that is acceptable to you?

BTW, I agree with you on distracted driving education. The ban on cellphones without handsfree while driving does seem to be making a dent here in LA, in my experience.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
If mentally present and functional, it is on them to be aware of their surroundings and risks. Most older people I know with full mental function are aware of the fact that their reaction time is slower and take measures to stay out of harm's way. Even voluntarily giving up driving at night, or driving all together. Then again, I knew an old lady who should have known better who sued a restaurant when she tripped on a lighted stair. She didn't even really suffer significant injuries, but was all up in arms about it. Cash grab. I know another older lady, older than the one who tripped on a stair, who can back an E-350 without a camera.


Sorry, but that's a non-answer. In an ideal world, everyone will be careful- old people will be aware of their limitations and be extra careful while driving and walking behind cars. Drivers will be extra careful to watch out for old people behind them when backing out. So why do we need any safety devices if everyone is perfect? The backup cameras are to address the real word- not the ideal one you describe. Older people, like children, are inherently more vulnerable due to diminished senses, motor function, and sometimes even mental clarity. Just a fact of life and aging.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: moving2
Really? Show me where widespread use of side impact protection AND passenger airbags were "widespread" in cars and light trucks before the mandates (leading up to the mandates does not count, as this was more a manufacturing practicality).


Seat belts first hit the US market in the 1950s. No state mandated their actual use until 1984 (New York). Most vehicles had them as options starting in the 1960s. Most every vehicle built in the 1970s rolled off the line with seat belts.


It's no surprise every vehicle built in the 1970s rolled off the line with seatbelts, Why? Federal law requiring seat belts in cars (first lap belts, then more) went into effect on 1/1/68 for front outboard seating positions.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
GM first introduced air bags in the early 1970s. They were not mandated until the late 1990s.


Maybe you forgot, but this was the point you are supposed to be trying to support here:
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
All of those things were innovated and went into widespread use without a mandate


...how does the very limited and experimental introduction make your point about these features being "widespread" before being mandated in any way?


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I don't know the full history of passenger air bags, but the Ranger had them as an option two years before they were mandated. They were standard in Explorers two years before being mandated. Side air bags were available in Explorers by 1999 or 2000, way ahead of any mandate on those.


Sorry, but 2 years falls into practicalities of a redesign. Significant vehicle redesign is often required in order to fit airbags. Therefore, it makes sense to incorporate airbags into the redesign closest to a mandate, if for nothing else than to gauge market demand. In fact, one reason Ford gave for the Aerostar not being redesigned was due to the expense of a redesign required to fit a passenger-side airbag. You are the one who made the claim about widespread availability without a mandate. You have yet to support your claim. I'm still waiting.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
As for side impact protection in general, not sure that's all that mandated?


I am very sure it is. See FMVSS 214.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
For a long time manufacturers upped it because they just didn't want to get bad crash test ratings. That isn't legislation, just competition.


...and you don't think there's any correlation between the "2 years before the mandate" example you provided and the fact that a mandate was right around the corner? Just coincidence, eh? It was really only due to competition, nothing to do with vehicle redesign and the coming mandate? Apparently, you can bury your head in the sand if you really try.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Not really, tobacco more than ever is entirely a personal choice. Second hand smoke exposure in public has been reduced to practically nothing since legislation over the past decade has largely banned it in most public places, including businesses.
[...]
Driving is somewhat of a necessity, and by default we can be impacted by the driving habits of others.


Oh yeah? Tell that to the guy who lives across from me in my apartment complex. I get that 2nd hand smoke everyday, and so do a lot of other people around me. Tell that to the people that have to walk through the courtyard at work, where it's "safe" for the smokers to smoke. 2nd hand smoke is far from being eliminated from non-smokers' lives. And I live in SoCal. Everyone else in my circumstances can only have it worse. And BTW, bad driving is also a personal choice, and driving aids such as backup cameras can potentially help those with poor reversing skills to better see around them, especially these days with vehicles with high beltlines, large SUVs with limited view behind and toward the lower part of the vehicle, and overall more limited visibility in modern vehicles, in general.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
You have conveniently dodged the issue of distracted driving though, a real problem that can actually have an impact on other people. It's easy to gloss over distracted driving, distractions built into cars, and horribly archaic driver education though, and catch the low hanging fruit instead. "Save the children!"


I haven't dodged it at all, but please feel free to point out exactly where I have if you really think so- and, in response, I'll just paste what I've already written. I've stated that I support better driver education, including education about distracted driving. But backup cameras and driver education are not mutually exclusive. I'd be interested to know exactly what type of driver education you would propose.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
If mentally aware, they should be aware of that and compensate for it.If not mentally aware, there is a bigger issue at hand, and a reverse camera will not save them.


I already covered this above.

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, with 15,000 total, it's not really much of a cause. Just pointing out the largest group isn't the kids or the old people you have been harping on.

But since you seem to think it is an important cause, are all of your vehicles equipped with reverse cameras


I don't agree that 15,000 is not much of a cause (big surprise).

And I'm just pointing out that the biggest group IS the group I've been harping on- those more vulnerable among us- children and seniors. You can try to split it up to make your point, but you'll note I've been talking about children AND seniors, not children OR seniors, so your point is simply not valid. Sorry.

You've failed to acknowledge that federal vehicle safety mandates have helped put a serious dent in the overall vehicle fatality numbers you deem to be much more important. (I wonder why?) You've also failed to support your point about the safety features in question going into widespread use long before the mandates (again, just a few years before falls within vehicle design cycle practicalities).

As for backup cameras on my vehicles- my vehicle list is not up to date, but yes. All my vehicles have them (aftermarket).

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Crossing on a "DON'T WALK" should result in a large ($1000+) fine. Third offense should bring either jail time or 50 lashes with a scourge.


Jarlaxle- I wonder why you haven't commented on drivers who are at fault in vehicle-pedestrian accidents and what type of punishment they should receive. Oh wait, no I don't.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: moving2

Sorry, but that's a non-answer. In an ideal world, everyone will be careful- old people will be aware of their limitations and be extra careful while driving and walking behind cars. Drivers will be extra careful to watch out for old people behind them when backing out. So why do we need any safety devices if everyone is perfect? The backup cameras are to address the real word- not the ideal one you describe. Older people, like children, are inherently more vulnerable due to diminished senses, motor function, and sometimes even mental clarity. Just a fact of life and aging.


Life isn't perfect. There are inherent risks in living. Risks should be minimized within reason, but a relatively insignificant risk should not be the focus of safety legislation.

It is simply impossible to account for every situation an elderly person might find themselves in. It's an unfortunate fact of life. I haven't seen any evidence that having people reverse via a small screen is really any safer and would result in significantly fewer deaths/injuries than having them simply pay attention to what they are doing. Again, it is a matter of allocation of resources. Say all other more pressing issues had been resolved...then maybe this would be something to research and put on the table, but in reality, this comes across to me as low hanging fruit, feel good legislation that would have an insignificant impact, if any, relative to the cost.

Originally Posted By: moving2

It's no surprise every vehicle built in the 1970s rolled off the line with seatbelts, Why? Federal law requiring seat belts in cars (first lap belts, then more) went into effect on 1/1/68 for front outboard seating positions.

Fair enough, I missed that one. Still, seat belts were nothing new by 1968. And they are probably the most valid mandated feature in motor vehicles. It's just about the only restraint system I feel is totally necessary.

Quote:

Maybe you forgot, but this was the point you are supposed to be trying to support here:
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
All of those things were innovated and went into widespread use without a mandate


Air bags became available in a wider range of vehicles based on demand. They were pretty widely available before being absolutely required. I remember my parents' 1990 Taurus, bought in 1989, having a driver air bag. Pretty sure they were not mandated then.

And frankly, air bags are not nearly as important as seat belts. Given that automatic seat belts (totally useless) were allowed as a substitute for a number of years, air bags may have been low hanging fruit as well.

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl

Sorry, but 2 years falls into practicalities of a redesign. Significant vehicle redesign is often required in order to fit airbags. Therefore, it makes sense to incorporate airbags into the redesign closest to a mandate, if for nothing else than to gauge market demand. In fact, one reason Ford gave for the Aerostar not being redesigned was due to the expense of a redesign required to fit a passenger-side airbag. You are the one who made the claim about widespread availability without a mandate. You have yet to support your claim. I'm still waiting.

Maybe so, but there was also an uproar about the risks of passenger air bags, resulting in deactivation switches being mandated along with the pass air bag mandate for vehicles without conventional rear seats. It's still in effect today. One safety feature led to another safety feature to cancel out the first safety feature. Sounds like the mandate wasn't fully thought out. Kind of like the backup camera mandate. Let the market and testing sort it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
As for side impact protection in general, not sure that's all that mandated?


I am very sure it is. See FMVSS 214.

Ford welded in a pretty insignificant looking piece of steel in my truck's doors to meet whatever standards were in place in 2002, so apparently the door they designed in the early 1990s and produced for the 1993 model year wasn't far off from standards that applied almost a decade later. The rest of the cab is unchanged from 1993. The design was largely unchanged through 2011 when overzealous roof crush standards killed it off.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
For a long time manufacturers upped it because they just didn't want to get bad crash test ratings. That isn't legislation, just competition.


...and you don't think there's any correlation between the "2 years before the mandate" example you provided and the fact that a mandate was right around the corner? Just coincidence, eh? It was really only due to competition, nothing to do with vehicle redesign and the coming mandate? Apparently, you can bury your head in the sand if you really try.

Total coincidence? No. Would it have happened anyway if the market demanded it? Yes. Would it have happened in roughly the same time frame? Yes, because it was a competitive advantage. The Blazer did not have a passenger air bag until the 1998 model year, introduced in 1997. The first 1995 Explorers were out in 1994, so I should have said 3 years before the mandate. That's a pretty significant length of time. They could have put something else in that spot on the dash and saved some money if it was simply a matter of meeting mandates. Obviously for it to be standard in every Explorer 3 years before being an absolute requirement, there was some level of consumer demand (not to mention, it was optional in a vehicle with the same dash).

And the fact that air bags were in production vehicles in the early 1970s backs up my point that the development happens without government intervention. Once developed, leave it up to the public to decide if they want it.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Not really, tobacco more than ever is entirely a personal choice. Second hand smoke exposure in public has been reduced to practically nothing since legislation over the past decade has largely banned it in most public places, including businesses.
[...]
Driving is somewhat of a necessity, and by default we can be impacted by the driving habits of others.


Oh yeah? Tell that to the guy who lives across from me in my apartment complex. I get that 2nd hand smoke everyday, and so do a lot of other people around me. Tell that to the people that have to walk through the courtyard at work, where it's "safe" for the smokers to smoke. 2nd hand smoke is far from being eliminated from non-smokers' lives. And I live in SoCal. Everyone else in my circumstances can only have it worse. And BTW, bad driving is also a personal choice, and driving aids such as backup cameras can potentially help those with poor reversing skills to better see around them, especially these days with vehicles with high beltlines, large SUVs with limited view behind and toward the lower part of the vehicle, and overall more limited visibility in modern vehicles, in general.

If in separated units (no indoor hallway), I highly doubt you are being affected by second hand smoke. If there is a common indoor hallway, your neighbor is probably violating a city code and you should complain to your landlord. I live in an apartment in freaking Alabama and smoking is not allowed in the building. You mean to tell me SoCal is behind Alabama? I don't believe it, sorry.

Most workplaces require smoking to be done a certain distance from entryways. Either you are hypersensitive, or regulations are being broken. I do not smoke cigarettes. Some of my coworkers do. It has no effect on me, and I am certainly not worried about second hand smoke from them.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
You have conveniently dodged the issue of distracted driving though, a real problem that can actually have an impact on other people. It's easy to gloss over distracted driving, distractions built into cars, and horribly archaic driver education though, and catch the low hanging fruit instead. "Save the children!"


I haven't dodged it at all, but please feel free to point out exactly where I have if you really think so- and, in response, I'll just paste what I've already written. I've stated that I support better driver education, including education about distracted driving. But backup cameras and driver education are not mutually exclusive. I'd be interested to know exactly what type of driver education you would propose.

You had no response to my suggestion of deactivating certain cell phone features while the phone is in motion and deleted that quote from your reply. I can see why this is a touchy subject for many people, but if you want to make a difference, limiting the capabilities of phones while in motion is a good start and will do far more than increasing the number of screens people focus on...

Quote:
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
If mentally aware, they should be aware of that and compensate for it.If not mentally aware, there is a bigger issue at hand, and a reverse camera will not save them.


I already covered this above.

And I stand by what I said. For elderly people who are not aware of their surroundings, a reversing vehicle is insignificant compared to the other things they will get into.


Quote:
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, with 15,000 total, it's not really much of a cause. Just pointing out the largest group isn't the kids or the old people you have been harping on.

But since you seem to think it is an important cause, are all of your vehicles equipped with reverse cameras


I don't agree that 15,000 is not much of a cause (big surprise).

And I'm just pointing out that the biggest group IS the group I've been harping on- those more vulnerable among us- children and seniors. You can try to split it up to make your point, but you'll note I've been talking about children AND seniors, not children OR seniors, so your point is simply not valid. Sorry.

You've failed to acknowledge that federal vehicle safety mandates have helped put a serious dent in the overall vehicle fatality numbers you deem to be much more important. (I wonder why?) You've also failed to support your point about the safety features in question going into widespread use long before the mandates (again, just a few years before falls within vehicle design cycle practicalities).

As for backup cameras on my vehicles- my vehicle list is not up to date, but yes. All my vehicles have them (aftermarket).


And I still say 15,000 isn't [censored]. At those numbers, a crusade on stair injuries makes far more sense, but you aren't up in arms about that?

Children AND seniors won't be saved by reverse cameras is my point. You totally ignore the things that are greater dangers. Everyday things, like say stairs. Probably doors, curbs, and windows too. I haven't looked at stats, but I am betting reversing cars is pretty freaking low on the list considering a quick Google search revealed that stairs are a much bigger risk. "The more vulnerable" will always be the more vulnerable. Allocating resources to a non-issue does them no favors.

And you are still glossing over distracted driving. The only point I made to that regard that you agreed with was that we need stricter driver education. What about the greater penalties I mentioned for distracted driving, or disabling features on phones? Do you not think that would have a greater impact?

Resources are finite, why focus on something so insignificant? Why not deal with the real current issues like texting and driving? Why is this such a cause for you, but not the use of phones in cars? Seems you might be for trying to solve "problems" with more screens, but not dealing with actual problems by giving up screens (at least while driving). Statistically, your crusade is for nothing.

Good for you for at least putting the screens you trust so much in in your vehicles. I'll continue using my windows and mirrors. So far no dead kids or old people to my name, and I reverse exponentially more than the average driver (it's required when parking at my job, I make up to 15 trips a day on the clock).

I hope your trust in screens doesn't backfire.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Life isn't perfect. There are inherent risks in living. Risks should be minimized within reason, but a relatively insignificant risk should not be the focus of safety legislation.


Insignificant compared to what? Distracted driving? Tobacco? Stairs? Everything is relative and I can make a lot of things sound insignificant, as I illustrated with tobacco vs. driving deaths. We are discussing backup cameras here, so I am stating my opinion on this issue. Other issues exist, and we can address them, as well. These issues are not mutually exclusive.


Originally Posted By: moving2
Maybe you forgot, but this was the point you are supposed to be trying to support here:
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
All of those things were innovated and went into widespread use without a mandate



Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Air bags became available in a wider range of vehicles based on demand.


Based on demand? Or based on phasing them in before a federal mandate, and hence increased market education about these safety items? The fact is the federal mandates existed and the features were phased in a few years beforehand. You simply cannot prove this was due to market demand and not federal mandate driving phased in introduction, creating market demand that would not have existed without it- because they wouldn't have been phased in on any large scale in the first place without the mandate.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
They were pretty widely available before being absolutely required. I remember my parents' 1990 Taurus, bought in 1989, having a driver air bag. Pretty sure they were not mandated then.


And my 1989 Corolla has no airbag, it wasn't available even as an option then. One or two models does not = widespread. Again, you have stated these safety features were widespread before the mandate, but you have yet to support this point. Still waiting.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
One safety feature led to another safety feature to cancel out the first safety feature. Sounds like the mandate wasn't fully thought out. Kind of like the backup camera mandate. Let the market and testing sort it out.


Any new system, safety or otherwise, will be improved over time. The same is true of anti-lock brakes w/ BFD, dual stage airbags, etc. Also, it wasn't to cancel out the safety feature, it was to disable it *in certain circumstances*. Important distinction you intentonally gloss over.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Ford welded in a pretty insignificant looking piece of steel in my truck's doors to meet whatever standards were in place in 2002, so apparently the door they designed in the early 1990s and produced for the 1993 model year wasn't far off from standards that applied almost a decade later.


So now you're a crash expert? Wow, great! Then, tell me, where is your crash data quantitatively showing just how "insignificant" that piece of steel is in a side impact? Apparently, to a common man with no expertise in this area, a lot of things could be true. Apparently, the roof of a modern vehicle isn't that strong, because it and it's A-pillars are not that much bigger/thicker than those on my 1997 vehicle. See, I can do it, too. And it's just as ignorant when I do it.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Total coincidence? No. Would it have happened anyway if the market demanded it? Yes. Would it have happened in roughly the same time frame? Yes, because it was a competitive advantage.


Federal mandates typically drive phasing in of these safety systems- phasing in, which usually means a few years before the requirement. If there is market demand, then the manufacturers that phase these things in slightly earlier can have a market advantage. But that doesn't mean that market demand drove the adoption of the safety feature.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
And the fact that air bags were in production vehicles in the early 1970s backs up my point that the development happens without government intervention. Once developed, leave it up to the public to decide if they want it.


I never questioned whether development can take place without government intervention (but, BTW, the major technologies for airbags came largely from government research). What I did question, and what you have yet to prove, was your statement that these safety technologies were widespread before the mandates.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
If in separated units (no indoor hallway), I highly doubt you are being affected by second hand smoke. If there is a common indoor hallway, your neighbor is probably violating a city code and you should complain to your landlord. I live in an apartment in freaking Alabama and smoking is not allowed in the building. You mean to tell me SoCal is behind Alabama? I don't believe it, sorry.


So now, on top of being a crash expert, you're a psychic and I am a liar. If you have to stoop to that level to avoid addressing my point, then you've just made my point for me. If you'd really like to know- I live in an upper, corner apartment of a 2-story complex with balconies. I do not have a balcony, it's more of a hallway with openings on both ends and a large open area on the side where the stairs come up. Both upper and lower adjacent apartments have smokers in them, who like to smoke on their patio/balcony and, due to wind/airflow, that smoke definitely makes its way right into my hallway and through anything I have tried sealing my front door and windows with. I live in SoCal and smoking is allowed in my apartment building, so if you consider that "behind Alabama" then so be it. If you are incapable of responding to something, you don't have to accuse the other party of lying, especially without any basis whatsoever. It just makes you look bad. Just say something like "well, if that's true, then I just can't think of a response". Much classier.

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Most workplaces require smoking to be done a certain distance from entryways. Either you are hypersensitive, or regulations are being broken.


Oh it is a certain distance from entryways, so regulations are not being broken, but we have to walk through this courtyard everyday to get from one place to another, and the smokers are in the middle of it. Either you are making wild assumptions about hypersensitivity, or you are once again attempting to dismiss my points out of hand (first lying, now hypersensitivity? wow.) because you are simply incapable of responding to them on their face. Again, poor form, and a bit transparent.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
You had no response to my suggestion of deactivating certain cell phone features while the phone is in motion and deleted that quote from your reply. I can see why this is a touchy subject for many people, but if you want to make a difference, limiting the capabilities of phones while in motion is a good start and will do far more than increasing the number of screens people focus on...


I wasn't aware you wanted me to respond to every single sentence you wrote, I'm sorry. I typically make it a point to respond to questions asked of me, or significant points made that I have not already responded to. You must have missed my post above, where I said
Originally Posted By: moving2
BTW, I agree with you on distracted driving education. The ban on (using) cellphones without handsfree while driving does seem to be making a dent here in LA, in my experience.


However, I think both are a good idea (limiting cellphone use and having backup screens).


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
And I stand by what I said. For elderly people who are not aware of their surroundings, a reversing vehicle is insignificant compared to the other things they will get into.


And I stand by what I said. Much like MCompact, you are only addressing one side of the backup accident issue. The person who gets hit by the vehicle, not the driver who can potentially see more and more easily with a backup cam.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
And I still say 15,000 isn't [censored]. At those numbers, a crusade on stair injuries makes far more sense, but you aren't up in arms about that?

Children AND seniors won't be saved by reverse cameras is my point. You totally ignore the things that are greater dangers. Everyday things, like say stairs. Probably doors, curbs, and windows too. I haven't looked at stats, but I am betting reversing cars is pretty freaking low on the list considering a quick Google search revealed that stairs are a much bigger risk. "The more vulnerable" will always be the more vulnerable. Allocating resources to a non-issue does them no favors.


Children AND seniors won't be saved by backup cameras? They make up a majority of the people injured in backup accidents, so I'm pretty sure they will. And I am talking about backup cameras because that is what this particular topic is about. If you want to talk about stairs, let's start a new thread. Again, by your logic, tobacco kills far more people than driving, so why are we even talking about driving? Let's talk tobacco! Driving is insignificant compared to tobacco! And I've already addressed your response about tobacco not hurting other people, remember? All you could think of to avoid a response was to call me a hypersensitive liar. Sorry, not fooling anyone, try again.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
And you are still glossing over distracted driving. The only point I made to that regard that you agreed with was that we need stricter driver education. What about the greater penalties I mentioned for distracted driving, or disabling features on phones? Do you not think that would have a greater impact?


Again, perhaps you missed when I said this:

Originally Posted By: moving2
BTW, I agree with you on distracted driving education. The ban on (using) cellphones without handsfree while driving does seem to be making a dent here in LA, in my experience.


Again, I believe we should have greater education about distracted driving and cellphone use. The issue of distracted driving already seems to be all over the place here in LA in terms of educating the public about the issue. What penalties would you propose? What additional driver education? What phone features would you disable? How about GPS navigation? What about ipod music? Do I think all of this would have a greater impact? Possibly. If it results in changing drivers' behavior, then yes. The difference with the backup cameras is that the cameras can show areas that are difficult, if not impossible, to see when backing up in modern vehicles. I think both are valuable.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Resources are finite, why focus on something so insignificant? Why not deal with the real current issues like texting and driving? Why is this such a cause for you, but not the use of phones in cars? Seems you might be for trying to solve "problems" with more screens, but not dealing with actual problems by giving up screens (at least while driving). Statistically, your crusade is for nothing.


You seem to have quite the "either/or" mentality on this. Please show me where I state phones are not a problem in cars. In fact, I have said much the opposite in this very thread. The reason I am talking about backup cameras is because that's what this thread is about, and in-car phone regulations and backup cameras are not mutually exclusive issues, as you oddly seem to think.


Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Good for you for at least putting the screens you trust so much in in your vehicles. I'll continue using my windows and mirrors. So far no dead kids or old people to my name, and I reverse exponentially more than the average driver (it's required when parking at my job, I make up to 15 trips a day on the clock).

I hope your trust in screens doesn't backfire.


Thank you for your concern. But, again with the mutual exclusion thinking...how odd! Believe it or not, I look in ALL my mirrors (including blindspot mirrors) AND my backup camera, thank you very much.

So far, no dead kids or old people to my name.

I hope your distrust in screens doesn't backfire.

 

[Vikas]

TL;DR

 

[01rangerxl]

At this point it's TL;DR for me too. Not going to waste my weekend on this.

But very interesting that something that doesn't even account for 1% of car accidents is such a pressing issue and worth crusading for.

I'm sure so many will be saved.

If just one child/old person is saved...so they can die doing something else. Makes sense.