all cars have backup cameras in 2018

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: 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)


Both of you are obviously heartless d-bags. Nothing shows off a caring parent more than blaming others for their inability to watch their kids

 

[hattaresguy]

The big problem in this country that would reduce traffic deaths but no one talks about because it would [censored] a lot of people off is the lack of driver training.

Compared to Europe we hand out licenses like candy here with pretty much zero training required.

If we actually instituted real driver training like they do in Germany, and bumped the cost of it up to a couple of grand not every idiot who can fog a mirror would be wondering all over the road.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
The big problem in this country that would reduce traffic deaths but no one talks about because it would [censored] a lot of people off is the lack of driver training.

Compared to Europe we hand out licenses like candy here with pretty much zero training required.

If we actually instituted real driver training like they do in Germany, and bumped the cost of it up to a couple of grand not every idiot who can fog a mirror would be wondering all over the road.


Not so simple. We lack in decent public transportation making car ownership a requirement to be economically viable in US. Licenses need to be handed out easier until this is corrected which goes against many folks grain(government spending and raised taxes on fuel)

 

[moving2]

Some interesting facts about backover accidents here .

Looks like ~2400 backover accidents involving children in the US each year.

 

[Win]

Meh, much as I hate government nimrods mandating nanny things on the general public, this seems like much ado about nothing.

Most cars already have a big LCD panel in the dash for NAV and climate control / entertainment. Cameras and LCD panels cost almost nothing, or they wouldn't be in every fifteen dollar cell phone.

It will be a nice feature, I think. I like the backup warning sonar in our Jag.

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: supton
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.


I just do not understand the comparison here. Millions of people do their work looking at LCD displays all day- accountants, engineers, airplane pilots! Do you think they are all distracted "like watching TV" simply because they have to look at LCD displays? Do you think they "lose track of everything else going on around them" because "something about movement on a screen [...] is different than non-moving pixels"? Again, all of these people and more use LCDs for important tasks everyday. How is any of this "like watching TV"?


Originally Posted By: supton
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.


Agreed.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: supton
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.


I just do not understand the comparison here. Millions of people do their work looking at LCD displays all day- accountants, engineers, airplane pilots! Do you think they are all distracted "like watching TV" simply because they have to look at LCD displays? Do you think they "lose track of everything else going on around them" because "something about movement on a screen [...] is different than non-moving pixels"? Again, all of these people and more use LCDs for important tasks everyday. How is any of this "like watching TV"?


Ever walk up to someone working on a computer? Ever startle them? Their field of vision narrows, and often they tune out everything else around them.

I work in an office, and have to get peoples attention when I walk into their cube. Every so often I myself get startled by someone walking in. And I have two wide monitors! Not a small rinky dink one. I don't expect visitors, so I don't pay attention. Am paying 100% attention to what I'm working on though, that is, whatever is on that LCD... and only that. Just like how people sending text messages are focusing only on their phones.

Is this 100% comparable to watching a backup screen? Probably not, but in the discussion about good vs bad drivers, I think there is something there. I've seen it my own life, flip a TV on and my ability to focus on multiple things goes out the window.

 

[dlundblad]

I would hope if someone bought a car with a camera that didn't want one, they would simply choose not to look at it. Just because you have it, doesn't mean you have to look at the display while backing up. Its simply there when you need it.

 

[d00df00d]

There's nothing magic about computer screens. I promise, they don't shoot weird mind-destroying rays that turn intelligent people into mouth-breathing idiots. To the extent that people get distracted by them, it's because of what's on them, not because they are computer screens.

IMO, the only sensible argument against this mandate is that it seems like a lot to ask from the entire auto industry and all of its customers for the sake of 200 lives per year. I'm not sure if I agree on that point, but at least it makes some kind of sense. The rest seems... highly suspect at best.

 

[Black_Thunder]

i guess the price tags on new vehicles weren't high enough, lets keep piling it on.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
There's nothing magic about computer screens. I promise, they don't shoot weird mind-destroying rays that turn intelligent people into mouth-breathing idiots. To the extent that people get distracted by them, it's because of what's on them, not because they are computer screens.

IMO, the only sensible argument against this mandate is that it seems like a lot to ask from the entire auto industry and all of its customers for the sake of 200 lives per year. I'm not sure if I agree on that point, but at least it makes some kind of sense. The rest seems... highly suspect at best.


The problem isn't the computer screens so much as the probability that the lazy bonehead who doesn't use his mirrors and/or common sense won't be all that better off with a camera.


As for a cost benefit analysis, the NHTSA Nannies claim that the cameras will save between 13 to 15 lives per year and prevent up to 1,125 injuries annually. The same agency claims the camera will add $43 to $142.

15.6 million new passenger cars and light trucks were purchased in 2013.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the cost of the cameras across the passenger car/light truck fleet will be $50- that means the annual cost will be $780 million dollars. All to save maybe 15 lives and less than 1,200 injuries.
Sheer idiocy...

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: Black_Thunder
i guess the price tags on new vehicles weren't high enough, lets keep piling it on.


If I was a cynical person I'd say that the legislators who introduced the bill that gave rise to this fiasco had their palms greased by the manufacturers of automotive display screens and micro cameras.

Of course, we KNOW that such things never happen in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress...

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: MCompact

As for a cost benefit analysis, the NHTSA Nannies claim that the cameras will save between 13 to 15 lives per year and prevent up to 1,125 injuries annually. The same agency claims the camera will add $43 to $142.

15.6 million new passenger cars and light trucks were purchased in 2013.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the cost of the cameras across the passenger car/light truck fleet will be $50- that means the annual cost will be $780 million dollars. All to save maybe 15 lives and less than 1,200 injuries.
Sheer idiocy...


Your theory has already been debunked:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/

Your math is off:

Many cars sold today already have a camera (NHTSA says the number is 73%). Your calculations assume all 15.6 million cars and trucks don't already have cameras. On a cost basis, the NHTSA mandate is only going to affect cars that don't already have a camera.

Of course, this is also assuming automakers didn't already have future product plans that increased camera proliferation, which further reduces your cost case.

Your death/injury numbers are off:

Based on the 2010 NHTSA report, there are 210 dates and 15,000 injuries annually. Of the deaths, 31% are kids under the age of 5 and 26% are adults over the age of 70. Basically, 50% of the deaths occur to people who really have little ability to alter the outcome. With the kids, you can try to deflect blame on parents (which is a half-wit comment, but I digress), but how do you deflect blame toward from septuagenarians?

Your costs estimates are wrong. Your injury report is wrong. Your entire post is wrong. Sheer idiocy...

Let me add my own cost estimates: How much money is SAVED by preventing drivers from backing into things? Adding cameras can have a positive influence when it comes to cost avoidance. Backing your car or truck into *anything* will cause more than $50 worth of damage. By equipping vehicles with cameras, it is pretty easy to make a positive cost case for savings by allowing drivers to see what is behind them and stop backing into things.

Maybe you should stay away from math and work on reading?

 

[MrHorspwer]

Running the numbers, using your $50 cost estimate, 15.6 million vehicles, and NHTSA's current 73% penetration, the cost comes out to an additional $210,600,000 to equip all vehicles with a camera... or about $1,000,000 per life saved.

Is a kid's life worth $1,000,000? How about a 73 year old mother or grandmother?

 

[HTSS_TR]

MrHorspwer,

You are saying by equip 27% of 15.6 million new vehicles(about 4.2 millions) don't already have backup camera will prevent the total yearly 210 deaths ?

So you're saying that all the currently more than 100-150 million vehicles currently on the road without backup camera do not contribute to any death ?

 

[Hootbro]

Not to demean the sanctity of life and any of the 200 or so death that happen when people are not pay attention and running over kids, from a raw numbers perspective versus the amount of vehicles on the road, this is inconsequential. Seem more of a bloated govt. agency trying to justify there worth.

I mean, there are many other more facets of life and actions that take way more deaths per-capita than this so called 200 death.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer


Your theory has already been debunked:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/

Maybe you should stay away from math and work on reading?


I think that you are the one who should try reading. The article you cited states:
"NHTSA estimates that 58 to 69 lives will be saved each year (not including injuries prevented) once the entire on-road vehicle fleet has rear-view systems, which it believes will be by about 2054."

And even using the 27% number to equip cars that don't have cameras, that still means 4,212,000 cars will have to be equipped. Using the $50 cost that still amounts to nearly 211 million dollars to save "58 to 69" lives annually. If-according to your cited article-it "saves" 69 lives it will be at a cost of "only" $3,052,174 per life. Wow. Your Nanny State at work...

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer

Is a kid's life worth $1,000,000?


No.

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
How about a 73 year old mother or grandmother?


Ditto.

 

[jrustles]

can't have enough cameras on stuff, i tell you hwut

 

[moving2]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer

Is a kid's life worth $1,000,000?


No.

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
How about a 73 year old mother or grandmother?


Ditto.


MCompact- Interesting. How about your kid? How about your grandmother? (Note: if your grandmother(s) are no longer with us, then take this question hypothetically).