all cars have backup cameras in 2018

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete

Yeah, screw those dead kids and their parents! They deserve anything they get!

If you claim to never have had a "Where'd he go?" moment with your own three year old, you either don't have kids or you're a liar.


No one is perfect, but why should the deaths of 200 kids per year-due almost always due to parental negligence/incompetence-cost the driving public millions of dollars-not to mention potential long term maintenance hassles? I'm so glad the reverse blade clutch lock-out could be removed from my ZTR mower- another legacy of nitwit parental supervision/situational awareness.

I know, I know- cue the Nanny State anthem(known to hand-wringing bed wetters everywhere):

"It's for the children; if it saves just one life it's worth it!"


How many lives would have to be saved for you to consider it a positive ROI?

If you claim never to have lost track of a toddler long enough for them to walk around the corner of your house and into your neighbor's driveway, you don't have kids or you're a liar.


Oh please. A million things could happen to a kid that wanders off. A dog could attack them, a child molester could snatch them, they could fall down a drain or something...risks happen in life. At some point you have to draw a line. A lot of these cases where a kid gets run over are due to lack of paying attention. On top of that, where's the proof a camera focused on a limited range of view will actually prevent these accidents (or cases of negligence) from happening? It's a false sense of security, and a false sense of security can be just as dangerous as the real cause...not paying attention! If it's really all about the kids, lock them inside, and only let them out when secured in a plastic bubble.

I think enabling negligence and stupidity is far worse than band aiding a problem with a fix that might not even be a fix. At some point people have to be held responsible for taking care of their kids rather than getting off the hook all the time.

This isn't like seat belts or air bags. Most of us here have probably been in a wreck at some point in our lives. I kind of doubt most of us almost got run over by our parents as they yakked on the phone as kids.

Here's a better idea...if the kid has a wandering problem, attach a camera to the kid's head that streams to the cell phone the parent is looking at anyway. Problem solved, the rest of us get to move on without pointless cameras on our cars.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete

Yeah, screw those dead kids and their parents! They deserve anything they get!

If you claim to never have had a "Where'd he go?" moment with your own three year old, you either don't have kids or you're a liar.


No one is perfect, but why should the deaths of 200 kids per year-due almost always due to parental negligence/incompetence-cost the driving public millions of dollars-not to mention potential long term maintenance hassles? I'm so glad the reverse blade clutch lock-out could be removed from my ZTR mower- another legacy of nitwit parental supervision/situational awareness.

I know, I know- cue the Nanny State anthem(known to hand-wringing bed wetters everywhere):

"It's for the children; if it saves just one life it's worth it!"


How many lives would have to be saved for you to consider it a positive ROI?

If you claim never to have lost track of a toddler long enough for them to walk around the corner of your house and into your neighbor's driveway, you don't have kids or you're a liar.


Oh please. A million things could happen to a kid that wanders off. A dog could attack them, a child molester could snatch them, they could fall down a drain or something...risks happen in life. At some point you have to draw a line. A lot of these cases where a kid gets run over are due to lack of paying attention. On top of that, where's the proof a camera focused on a limited range of view will actually prevent these accidents (or cases of negligence) from happening? It's a false sense of security, and a false sense of security can be just as dangerous as the real cause...not paying attention! If it's really all about the kids, lock them inside, and only let them out when secured in a plastic bubble.

I think enabling negligence and stupidity is far worse than band aiding a problem with a fix that might not even be a fix. At some point people have to be held responsible for taking care of their kids rather than getting off the hook all the time.

This isn't like seat belts or air bags. Most of us here have probably been in a wreck at some point in our lives. I kind of doubt most of us almost got run over by our parents as they yakked on the phone as kids.

Here's a better idea...if the kid has a wandering problem, attach a camera to the kid's head that streams to the cell phone the parent is looking at anyway. Problem solved, the rest of us get to move on without pointless cameras on our cars.


It's exactly like seatbelts and airbags inasmuch as all three are (or will be) government mandated safety equipment and some people think they enable negligence and stupidity. The only difference is the primary objective of cameras is to protect others.

In truth though, I really don't care that much one way or the other about these cameras. It is just interesting sometimes to see whether or not people who come across as self centered d-bags really are.

 

[01rangerxl]

I don't know, seems to me the "everyone should have a camera on their car because I can't watch my kid" types are the real self centered d-bags.

Seat belts and air bags make sense because wrecks happen fairly often, and they are frequently totally out of your control. IE, drunk driver slams into you or something.

Putting cameras on millions of cars because 200 parents can't watch their kids doesn't add up to me. Like I said, put a camera on the kid if it's that big of a problem.

The "my bad parenting is everyone's problem" attitude is really the bigger part of the problem, not a lack of cameras and screens in cars.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete

How many lives would have to be saved for you to consider it a positive ROI?


Exponentially more than 200. At the very least.

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
If you claim never to have lost track of a toddler long enough for them to walk around the corner of your house and into your neighbor's driveway, you don't have kids or you're a liar.


How many kids have you almost backed over? I have just one and he never wondered into an adjoining property. My wife and I always had eyes on him before we moved one of our cars.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete

In truth though, I really don't care that much one way or the other about these cameras. It is just interesting sometimes to see whether or not people who come across as self centered d-bags really are.


Bitter and frustrated much? Let me guess, you read 1984 and thought it had a happy and upbeat ending...

 

[hattaresguy]

I look at it this way, you cannot legislate total complete safety. With anything their is a point of diminishing returns as well. Modern cars are very safe, really about as safe as they need to be. Right now they are arguing over hairs really.

2XX and some deaths per year really is nothing compared to how many miles we drive per year, etc.

I know the government agencies like to justify their existence and they tell everyone they can get to zero deaths per year but that's a lie. Leaving your house is inherently dangerous, its called living!

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I think enabling negligence and stupidity is far worse than band aiding a problem with a fix that might not even be a fix. At some point people have to be held responsible for taking care of their kids rather than getting off the hook all the time.

I completely agree with this logic when it comes to people hurting themselves with their own stupidity.

Where I disagree is when one person's stupidity affects an innocent person.

What you're proposing amounts to saying it's okay if children die as long as negligent parents might suffer for it. You have to admit, that's hard to stomach.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete

How many lives would have to be saved for you to consider it a positive ROI?


Exponentially more than 200. At the very least.

Now we're talking.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I don't know, seems to me the "everyone should have a camera on their car because I can't watch my kid" types are the real self centered d-bags.


I'd say that you nailed it; although what do I know? I'm the guy who let his kid have a first car that was 39 years old and was totally bereft of electronic stability aids or passive restraints...

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I think enabling negligence and stupidity is far worse than band aiding a problem with a fix that might not even be a fix. At some point people have to be held responsible for taking care of their kids rather than getting off the hook all the time.

I completely agree with this logic when it comes to people hurting themselves with their own stupidity.

Where I disagree is when one person's stupidity affects an innocent person.

What you're proposing amounts to saying it's okay if children die as long as negligent parents might suffer for it. You have to admit, that's hard to stomach.


That is correct and threw out our history that's how we evolved. Not everyone was smart enough not to poke the sleeping lion or to tell their kids not to poke the sleeping lion. Hence the not so great genes got purged.

Now we in the west live in this pretty false dream of safety that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. Its silly really. It also does a disservice to people and makes them apathetic and well dumb. When you remove all consequences of poor decision making, well people are going to make lots of poor decisions.

People on this very site rant against bad drivers all the time, I do as well. Well the [censored] texting teens do today would have gotten them killed in a Model A Ford. That's just one example, modern vehicles are fantastic and let people be horrible drivers.

 

[spasm3]

How do you know that the camera is not connected to the computer black box. Could the manufacurer build in saving x amount of video time not unlike they do now with speed at impact, brake activation etc.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete

In truth though, I really don't care that much one way or the other about these cameras. It is just interesting sometimes to see whether or not people who come across as self centered d-bags really are.


Bitter and frustrated much? Let me guess, you read 1984 and thought it had a happy and upbeat ending...


I'm not bitter or frustrated over this issue. I'm just surprised at the number of people who can't empathize with children who don't know any better being killed while opposing a mandate with which they disagree. Is it an inability to grasp differing concepts at the same time or are you really that cold hearted?

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

I completely agree with this logic when it comes to people hurting themselves with their own stupidity.

Where I disagree is when one person's stupidity affects an innocent person.

What you're proposing amounts to saying it's okay if children die as long as negligent parents might suffer for it. You have to admit, that's hard to stomach.


The hard reality is, the whole world can't be held responsible for parental failures.

It's sad anytime kids get seriously hurt or die. There is some level of social responsibility to look out for children in general as they are innocent in all this and cannot/should not take the blame for what their parents didn't do right.

But yes, you have to draw a line somewhere. I think cameras on millions of cars to possibly, maybe have a remote chance of reducing the number of deaths from 200 a year to something lower is crossing that line.

And I stand by what I said that enabling bad parenting is not a solution. It does not help. You enable stupidity, and people will not learn from it. They will continue on with stupidity and find new ways to be stupid. Yes, at some point people have to be responsible for their children and whatever outcomes may result from their negligence. It took putting people in jail and charging them with manslaughter to keep dumb parents from leaving their kids in the car with the windows up during summer (and some still do it)...do you propose that having cars run A/C constantly to prevent the death of any child would be a better solution? I don't. Irresponsible parenting is a fact of life, enabling it is not a solution.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

People on this very site rant against bad drivers all the time, I do as well. Well the [censored] texting teens do today would have gotten them killed in a Model A Ford. That's just one example, modern vehicles are fantastic and let people be horrible drivers.


That's why my son attended the BMW Performance Center Teen School as well as Street Survival- and then started out in a 1975 2002. He had to drive a year with no tickets or at-fault accidents before he was allowed to "upgrade" to a newer vehicle.
I'm surprised I wasn't reported to Child Protective Services...

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete

I'm not bitter or frustrated over this issue. I'm just surprised at the number of people who can't empathize with children who don't know any better being killed while opposing a mandate with which they disagree. Is it an inability to grasp differing concepts at the same time or are you really that cold hearted?


I'll take Cold Hearted Advocate of Parental/Personal Responsibility for $100, Alex!

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
do you propose that having cars run A/C constantly to prevent the death of any child would be a better solution? I don't. Irresponsible parenting is a fact of life, enabling it is not a solution.


Be quiet- you might give some Safety Nazi a new regulation to lobby for!

 

[01rangerxl]

Yeah, I probably shouldn't suggest any new ideas here!

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete


...............

If you claim never to have lost track of a toddler long enough for them to walk around the corner of your house and into your neighbor's driveway, you don't have kids or you're a liar.


"you don't have kids or you're a liar"? So basically you are framing that statement so that anybody who actually controls their kids and you cannot, must be lying?

"Toddler" by definition is a 1 to 3 year old kid. Having raised 4 kids, I can tell you I never had them running or walking away any farther than arms length loading or unloading them in a driveway, it is called "parenting" and not letting them run around like free spirits and hoping the do not get run over by getting into the street or next door neighbor backing up and not seeing your kid.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: Hootbro

"you don't have kids or you're a liar"? So basically you are framing that statement so that anybody who actually controls their kids and you cannot, must be lying?

"Toddler" by definition is a 1 to 3 year old kid. Having raised 4 kids, I can tell you I never had them running or walking away any farther than arms length loading or unloading them in a driveway, it is called "parenting" and not letting them run around like free spirits and hoping the do not get run over by getting into the street or next door neighbor backing up and not seeing your kid.


Yet another unreasonable person who thinks parents should be able to properly supervise their own children; how can you be so heartless???
(and I suspect that you are the next person in line to be called a d-bag by the father of the wandering kids)

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: supton

How do you figure that? I've only seen a couple of systems, but the LCD is in the center stack. I could easily see people just staring at the screen, not watching the front end of the car at all. I won't claim everyone is stupid, but ever notice how people space out while watching TV?

I see your point about it being easier to watch the front end, less head turning; but I think we'll wind up hearing about how that arc now causes xyz in damages on the news.


supton- huh? Not sure I'm following. In order to backup out of a parking space now, without a backup cam, one has to keep on eye on the front end so the kickout doesn't scrape the adjacent vehicle. This part of backing up won't change with a backup camera, it will just be easier to do. When you talk about that arc causing damages, that arc exists with and without a backup cam, it's just easier to handle with a backup cam, so what is your point exactly?

Next up: TV watching. What do backup cameras have to do with spacing out while watching TV? People space out *because* they're *watching TV*. What I'm referring to is *driving a vehicle and looking at what's behind them*- just in an LCD instead of a mirror. I do not see the comparison to watching TV at all.

Using your logic, I could say accountants space out on the job while working on charts in Excel on their laptops because it's "like watching TV". It's an LCD display, too, isn't it? Pretty shoddy logic, no?


People space out while watching TV; they lose track of everything else going on around them. Is it because the glowing orb sucks out their brains? Something about movement on a screen that is different than non-moving pixels? Dunno. All I'm saying is, I could easily see someone fixate on the screen and completely lose track of what the front end is doing. Especially if they are yacking on the phone, although as others have pointed out, since the dawn of the automobile people have had issues backing up.

All vehicles have side and rear view mirrors, placed so that they are easily seen. Directional stalk is placed for easy usage. Yet these objects are very easily ignored. Good drivers use them, and good drivers perhaps will benefit from a backup camera. Bad drivers can't be fixed.