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 2013soxchamps. Show 2013soxchamps's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


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

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    With many vehicles there are blind spots. One can be turned looking back and still hit something that they didn't expect to be there. You can't see anything below the rear window so maybe in those 210 cases if there was a rear-facing video those 210 people would be alive.

    Shouldn't the thought be that even if this saves one life it's worth it? I recall that matra used in another discussion by people on BDC in the past.

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to 2013soxchamps' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


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

    [/QUOTE]

    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. :)

     
  7. 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.  

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Shouldn't the thought be that even if this saves one life it's worth it?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If money grew on trees....  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I have it in my Tacoma...it ain't an expensive vehicle. Which is a good thing since I don't have a money tree.

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    When you get into your car everyday you walk behind it to see if there is anything there do you? 

     
  12. 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.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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?

     

     

     



    When you get into your car everyday you walk behind it to see if there is anything there do you? 

     




    I can't remember or imagine a time when I didn't necessarily have an opportunity to see what's behind it. And then I turn around and look out the rear window as I back up.

    I park facing-in in my driveway, so I see what's behind my car as a I walk to it.

    When I park in a parking spot facing-in, I see what's behind it when I approach my car. It's a sedan so even if I'm approaching it from the front I can see what's behind it. If I park backing in, I necessarily saw what was in the spot before backing in...because I had to drive past it before backing in.

    In what scenario am I not going to see what's behind my car?

    If a child is hiding under the car next to it and waits until the moment I start backing up to dart behind my rear wheel? Is that a situation meriting an industry-wide requirement, or perhaps parents should teach children not to behave so bizarrely and recklessly as that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Not everyone approaches their car from the back every day and every instance they are in a situation where they will have to back up. I would say you're exceptional.

    Because of course no kid in the history of mankind has ever done something their parents told them not to do. If it's so easy to teach children to simply not behave so bizarrely and recklessly then why the need for laws against say...drunk driving? That's a reckless behavior that adults have been taught not to do yet still do anyway. 

    People always have and always will do bizarre and reckless things. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

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

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 2013soxchamps. Show 2013soxchamps's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    When you get into your car everyday you walk behind it to see if there is anything there do you? 

    [/QUOTE]


    I can't remember or imagine a time when I didn't necessarily have an opportunity to see what's behind it. And then I turn around and look out the rear window as I back up.

    I park facing-in in my driveway, so I see what's behind my car as a I walk to it.

    When I park in a parking spot facing-in, I see what's behind it when I approach my car. It's a sedan so even if I'm approaching it from the front I can see what's behind it. If I park backing in, I necessarily saw what was in the spot before backing in...because I had to drive past it before backing in.

    In what scenario am I not going to see what's behind my car?

    If a child is hiding under the car next to it and waits until the moment I start backing up to dart behind my rear wheel? Is that a situation meriting an industry-wide requirement, or perhaps parents should teach children not to behave so bizarrely and recklessly as that?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What about a deer....or other wild animal that may come darting out of the darkness?

     

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

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

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

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

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I do like the blindspot mirrors for lane changing and such. Was bizarre at first but then got used to them.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    Funny, but you'd think this alone...

    "The agency also found that children under 5 years old account for 31 percent of fatalities"

    would make people ok with this regulation. What happened to "even if one less kid dies" it's a good thing??? Hmmm....

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What happened to "even if one less kid dies" it's a good thing??? Hmmm....

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd recommend asking the person or people who said those words...  

    [/QUOTE]

    Interesting...

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    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.  

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    Prime example of over-regulation.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share