A stupid regulation?

  1. 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 twelve_angry_men's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.   

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe'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]

    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.

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes the BLIS sensors in Volvos are really cool.  My next vehicle will have that technology package.

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

    Re: A stupid regulation?

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd like to see a break out of the driver records of the 210.  Something tells me that drunk and/or old is going to figure greatly in this statistic.

     

Share