A stupid regulation?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1985. Show sprague1985's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    http://www.boston.com/cars/news-and-reviews/2014/03/31/rearview-cameras-required-new-cars/0qzHbI6CssUds3pToPjxdL/story.html?comments=all&sort=OLDEST_CREATE_DT&page=1#comments

     

     

    210 deaths caused yearly by people backing up in vehicles without paying attention.

    Solution: require ALL vehicles under 5 tons to have rear-facing video cameras by 2018.

     

    Cost/benefit doesn't seem to make sense, plus, the people causing these deaths aren't paying attention. If they can't look behind them or even glance in their mirrors, why would they glance at a camera?

    Plus, more manufacturers are already putting these in, due to demand from the consumers who actually do like to pay attention.

    So how is this going to help with the people who do not like to pay attention?



    Seems to me a better solution, if you are going to make another regulation and given cost/benefit analysis as well as your proposition that many people do not like to pay attention, is to require vehicles to have a sound systen notification.

    Many cars already have this. When there is an object/person behind you when you are backing up, the audible beeps get louder and closer together. Even people who are careless are forced to hear these sounds. They are automatic versus looking into those sometimes rather small rear view cameras.

    Of course you can have the camera as an option but I think the above is the better mandatory way to go.

    Back-up sensors is the term I was looking for above..

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    I'd file under 'stupid regulation'.  I've had one of these cameras for a couple years now and absolutely never use it vs. swiveling my neck.

    Don't be surprised when we find out that someone connected to the auto industry is behind this regulation.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1985. Show sprague1985's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    I'd file under 'stupid regulation'.  I've had one of these cameras for a couple years now and absolutely never use it vs. swiveling my neck.

    Don't be surprised when we find out that someone connected to the auto industry is behind this regulation.



    Agreed as to both.

    I have been a passenger with baby boomer friends driving with both options...rear view cameras and back-up sensors.

    Observing them, the ones with back-up sensors do a much better job in backing up whatever car/SUV I am in.

    You add 1-3 kids in the back seat doing what kids do, they are even less likely to look at that little rear view camera.

    Change the driver to an older driver who is having trouble with their vision just driving, back-up sensors make much more sense then cameras.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1985. Show sprague1985's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to 2013soxchamps' comment:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    I'd file under 'stupid regulation'.  I've had one of these cameras for a couple years now and absolutely never use it vs. swiveling my neck.

    Don't be surprised when we find out that someone connected to the auto industry is behind this regulation.




    I heard this regulation is for blond female drivers only :-)



    Were it only for "natural blondes" that would cut the figure down to 10 percent tops in the U.S. for women, so app. 5 percent of the total population. :)

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    No it isn't a stupid regulation because in addition to the 200 people killed in backovers each year nearly 15,000 are injured as a result of these accidents.  While 200 innocent lives may not do much to spur action 15,000 certainly would appear to move the needle towards action.  Secondly the idea that these accidents happen soly because people don't pay attention is silly.   For example, my vehicle does not have a rear camera so when I back up I have to use my mirrors and physically turning around to see out the back.  Now if a box or a small person is behind me I have no way of knowing they are there because unless the object or person is tall (or wide enough to be seen by my mirrors) they aren't there.  

    Of course people should always check behind their car before getting in and backing up, objects, pets, or people could be back there, but realistically people aren't going to do that at least not everytime anyway so the cameras not only give a clear visual of what is directly behind the vehicle it can show the driver what that object is.  Pair it with a proximity sensor and we may do away with unintentional backovers almost completely. 

    As for cost, after market rear view cameras can be had for a couple hundred bucks NOW, and many cars including economy class vehicles are getting them as standard options.  By 2018 when this law is in effect there will be hardly any cost, the cameras will likely be as common as power locks.  

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    Personally, I would mandate blind spot mirrors before backup cameras.  Those little things are real lifesavers and cheap enough not to impact the bottom line too heavily.

    Likewise, it would seem backup sensors are the first logical step before cameras.

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Personally, I would mandate blind spot mirrors before backup cameras.  Those little things are real lifesavers and cheap enough not to impact the bottom line too heavily.

    Likewise, it would seem backup sensors are the first logical step before cameras.

     



    Blindspot mirrors don't afford you a view directly behind the car.  

     



    Understood, but they can alert a driver to things on the side that a backup sensor cannot...

    ...as well as greatly assist lane changes and drivers passing on the right...

    ...both of which are as similar or larger risks for accidents and casualties, IMO.

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    For example, my vehicle does not have a rear camera so when I back up I have to use my mirrors and physically turning around to see out the back.  Now if a box or a small person is behind me I have no way of knowing they are there because unless the object or person is tall (or wide enough to be seen by my mirrors) they aren't there. 



    How is it that you find yourself in a situation where you must back up, but did not have an opportunity to see what was behind your car before getting into it - or driving forward into the position from which you wish to back up?



    I approach my car from the front side as I drive forward into my driveway instead of backing in most days.   And since I use my back door to access my driveway when I leave my porch the front of the car is facing me and the back of the car is always the farthest awaye.  Generally speaking I can't see what is directly behind my car unless I go to the trunk or maybe if I open one of the back doors which might allow me to see if something were directly behind the vehicle.  

    Now I have common sense so I don't move the car if my dogs or child are outside without first visually confirming where they are and letting them know to stay put while leave.  I also back out of my driveway slowly in case someone might cross behind me after I have started moving and finally I check both directions before backing onto the street.   I can see behind my car from inside of my house from sunroom, and because I use the sunroom as an entryway I usually glace behind the car while putting on my shoes or coat.  But no, I don't make a point of looking at the back of my car before getting in everytime I use my vehicle.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BDCMassGuy. Show BDCMassGuy's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    Prime example of over-regulation.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

     

    You can get a complete after-market back-up kit for as little as $13.

    I can't see how this would be any burden on auto companies.

     

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Waterproof-CCD-Wide-Angle-Car-Rear-View-Reverse-Backup-View-Parking-Camera-New-/121218948132?pt=US_Rear_View_Monitors_Cams_Kits&hash=item1c39365c24

     

     



    Well that is a lot cheaper than what the article cited, but consider: how wise would it be to manufacture new cars with after-market anythhing?

     

     

    You're going to make X million cars, and you're going to rely on something whose supply is determined by prior overproduction?

    Assuming it is even allowed by other regulation, it seems like a negative that X number of your cars have one after-market it, Z have another, Y have another, because after-market supply is limited and variable.




    I was using it as a cost comparison.

    If you can buy a complete system of backup avoidance, camera and sensor, off the shelf for $25 bucks then one can assume that the cost of intergrating such a system into production would be even cheaper, just by the economy of scale.

    Car companies do a model redesign most every year. Having 4 years to work the system into the car doesn't seem overly burdensome.

    To me it would be less burdensome than the new CAFE mileage standards that have been proposed.

    I don't understand your 'over production' scenario.

    Just as the new CAFE standards are achievable due to technology, I assume these after market kits are cheap because the technology is cheap.




    Well, if after-market is so much cheaper, then it might make more sense to threaten to witthhold state highway funds unless states pass regulations putting the burden on the individual to equip a car.

    I may have misunderstood 'aftermarket'. I was going on the assumption that this meant previously manufactured parts, no longer in production and not previously sold. It seemed potential negative to me that a customer might potentially look at four different 2011 models, each with the same packages, and find that the camera is different and potentially out of date, on each.

    But, it appears that it simply refers to a part, which aftermarket companies buy the right to produce, that are made to perform as well as the original thought.



    After market generally refers to parts that compatible with vehicles but are be made by third party companies.  Common examples of after market parts include subwoofers, stereo systems, car starters, rims, special lights, seats, etc which can all be purchased after the sale of the car by the OEM.   

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    http://www.boston.com/cars/news-and-reviews/2014/03/31/rearview-cameras-required-new-cars/0qzHbI6CssUds3pToPjxdL/story.html?comments=all&sort=OLDEST_CREATE_DT&page=1#comments

     

     

    210 deaths caused yearly by people backing up in vehicles without paying attention.

    Solution: require ALL vehicles under 5 tons to have rear-facing video cameras by 2018.

     

    Cost/benefit doesn't seem to make sense, plus, the people causing these deaths aren't paying attention. If they can't look behind them or even glance in their mirrors, why would they glance at a camera?

    Plus, more manufacturers are already putting these in, due to demand from the consumers who actually do like to pay attention.

    So how is this going to help with the people who do not like to pay attention?



    Actually, I'm not one for a lot of government regulation but the is a good safety feature and the cost of this system to all vehicles is really cheap, less than $100.  The deluxe system would have back up camera and sensor with audible alarm but the sensors don't pick up everything espeically a small child lying in the drive way while playing.

    The camera's have wide angle lens eliminating mirror blind spots and point right down to the ground and have a wide range of coverage from left to right.

     
Sections
Shortcuts