User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Required Back-Up Cameras Page [1] 2 3, Next  
HUR
All American
17731 Posts
user info
edit post

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/autos/rear-facing-cameras/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote :
"Automakers will be required to install backup cameras in most new vehicles by May 2018, a federal agency announced Monday.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized a long-awaited rule requiring all new cars, SUVs, and minivans, as well as some new small trucks and buses to carry rear visibility technology.

Automakers haven't been previously required to include these systems but NHTSA did recommend it, saying it can save many deaths and injuries from backover crashes. There are nearly 210 backover deaths each year, the agency said. About a third of those deaths are children, and many are caused by parents, it said. "


Will this really save lives? I'd be more worries with someone fixated on their back-up camera and not aware of their surroundings. I don't think i've ever used the back-up camera during times i've had a rental with one. A back-up camera isn't going to inform you of a biker
riding up the road about to cross into your path.....

Is it really that fucking hard to turn around. I bet a lot of these 200 deaths were people being distracted (texting, cell phoning, dicking with the radio, etc)
while backing up.

For the name of safety perhaps we need to go all the way. Install breathalyzers on all vehicles as well as cell phone jammers. After all THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

3/31/2014 3:10:03 PM

Fry
The Stubby
7651 Posts
user info
edit post

i don't think it'll save lives. i do think they're a handy feature to have for difficult parking situations. for example, our driveway is on an incline and when i'm backing my truck up to the garage it's almost impossible to get it just right. of course a decent lookaround mirror on the garage would do just as well, but that wouldn't help me for things like parallel parking.

odd to make them required.

3/31/2014 3:14:33 PM

Jek
All American
708 Posts
user info
edit post

I have a backup camera on my new daily, and actually like it, whereas before I had it I thought I wouldn't care or ever use it. However, it's a tool to be used along with mirrors and turning around, which is still my default position when backing.

I think it'll save some of the particular kind of deaths they're trying to prevent, which is kid directly behind the vehicle (mostly vans/trucks) in the blind spot that the camera reveals.

However, the problem is people like a friend of mine, who despite being extremely intelligent says "I love my backup camera, I never have to use my mirrors anymore." When I said "What about turning around and looking?" she said "Why would I do that?". So the cameras being on every car will probably kill more cyclists/joggers/bikers/etc who are moving in from the sides at a decent clip while people are backing up. How the overall numbers work out would be hard to tell of course, but the real problem is driver training and distracted driving, not lack of ability to see.

[Libertarian]And while I'm a big fan of car companies offering it as an option, the government mandating it really ticks me off.[/Libertarian]

3/31/2014 3:24:21 PM

Chief
All American
3402 Posts
user info
edit post

I could've sworn it was required for all new vehicles in MY2014 going forward. Everyone that drives in my company was wondering how in the hell I got a backup camera on a company fleet vehicle. Damn, that means I owe the CFO when he comes to me in the future to ask a favor (no homo)

3/31/2014 3:44:28 PM

BlackJesus
Suspended
13089 Posts
user info
edit post

I've driven a car with a backup camera, it was only useful because visibility out of the car was horrible (2013 Camaro SS Rental). In a car with good visibility this is a waste. Just another option I'll have to pay for.

3/31/2014 3:46:39 PM

wdprice3
Suspended
44904 Posts
user info
edit post

My silverado had one and I loved it. Definitely a great additional tool for backing. Comes in really handy when backing up to a trailer with no guide. My silverado had the camera view in the rear view mirror, which was really handy, as you could easily look from mirror to camera, and then to the side mirrors (muscle memory). However, the new ones, and like many vehicles, the camera view is shown on the radio/nav screen, which I did not like. I guess you get used to it, but it certainly wasn't as efficient as having it embedded in the rear view mirror.

I, too, think this will lead drivers to be even lazier and less safe, resulting in more accidents. It may reduce backover deaths some, but overall collisions while backing will increase.

What about back-up/parking sensors? Figured those would be first; unless those are already slated to be mandatory?

3/31/2014 4:26:31 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I've driven a car with a backup camera, it was only useful because visibility out of the car was horrible (2013 Camaro SS Rental). In a car with good visibility this is a waste. Just another option I'll have to pay for."


THIS. You'll see more car makers producing cars with more aggressive designs that have horrible real visibility. I mean who cares when backup cameras are going to be mandatory right?

3/31/2014 4:43:25 PM

GrimReap3r
All American
2689 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I have a backup camera on my truck, and actually like it, whereas before I had it I thought I wouldn't care or ever use it. However, it's a tool to be used along with mirrors and turning around, which is still my default position when backing."


I like it for parking at my work parking garage b/c i can back in and get an inch away from the retaining wall

3/31/2014 6:05:23 PM

theDuke866
All American
51139 Posts
user info
edit post

this is some more fucking silly bullshit. how the fuck does this happen without there being an uproar?

fuck mandatory stability control, backup cameras, data recording, and pedestrian crash standards that ruin the lines of cars and necessitate bloated, blocky, oversized designs.

airbags might be worth the cost and weight. ABS is definitely worthwhile.

3/31/2014 6:11:37 PM

Hiro
All American
4532 Posts
user info
edit post

Im just waiting for the day the government starts to tax the fuck out of people with cars older than 10 years or start Cash for Clunkers 2.0

3/31/2014 11:17:40 PM

richthofen
All American
15730 Posts
user info
edit post

^They may do what some European cities have done, which is to ban cars older than a certain point (usually 10 years) from the city center or from the entire city limits.

Also I'm 100% sure at some point in our lifetime, once self-driving cars become common, the interstate system will be reserved for them and if you "drive your own" you'll be restricted to small highways and back roads.

[Edited on April 1, 2014 at 1:44 AM. Reason : plus]

4/1/2014 1:43:02 AM

dustm
All American
14156 Posts
user info
edit post

This is a symptom of a larger problem. Until people are liable for their own fuckups nothing will ever be in stasis. Natural consequences are no longer enough. Won't somebody think of the children? Let's mandate backup cameras. Welcome to the future.

4/1/2014 1:51:56 AM

NeuseRvrRat
pwease no steppy
33619 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"this is some more fucking silly bullshit. how the fuck does this happen without there being an uproar?
"


because most folks are relatively stupid and think they're just getting an option added to their cars for free. they don't realize they're paying for superfluous bullshit like this.

4/1/2014 6:30:20 AM

BlackJesus
Suspended
13089 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"NHTSA to allow automakers to remove side-view mirrors and replace them with cameras that may expand side vision while increasing fuel efficiency."


Huh what? I think they've found a way to make me not have a car payment.

4/1/2014 9:08:44 AM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

It's typical government bullshit. The obvious solution is better driving training, and frequent (mandatory) re-testing of driver skill to ensure that people driving around actually know what the fuck they're doing and how physics work in a vehicle's day to day operation.

4/1/2014 10:28:20 AM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

better training can't teach a 4'11" woman to see what's in the 30 yard long blind spot behind her giant oversized SUV with high rear window.

Quote :
"fuck mandatory stability control, backup cameras, data recording, and pedestrian crash standards that ruin the lines of cars and necessitate bloated, blocky, oversized designs.

airbags might be worth the cost and weight. ABS is definitely worthwhile."

mandatory stability control is good

[Edited on April 1, 2014 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

4/1/2014 10:56:55 AM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

Would you buy a car/truck you have no (physical) business driving and have a difficult time seeing out of? I wouldn't.

4/1/2014 1:13:36 PM

synapse
play so hard
52995 Posts
user info
edit post

People do, and you can't create a law to prevent them from doing so.

4/1/2014 1:16:56 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

Okay sounds good, that's on them then and they can bear the responsibility of their actions/decisions.

4/1/2014 1:26:42 PM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

"oh well, that's on them" is easy until someone's toddler gets squished

i don't mind them being mandatory, i just wish there was some guidelines so that they are only mandatory on vehicles where they are necessary (for example, a backup camera is required if you can't see X feet behind your vehicle).

[Edited on April 1, 2014 at 1:52 PM. Reason : or maybe they already included those. ]

4/1/2014 1:51:37 PM

BlackJesus
Suspended
13089 Posts
user info
edit post

Because women are safer driving top heavy SUV's.

4/1/2014 1:52:12 PM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

road use tax should be based on GVWR

4/1/2014 3:39:57 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^&^

Agreed.

4/1/2014 4:51:25 PM

BlackJesus
Suspended
13089 Posts
user info
edit post

If they had that law, every Camaro would have one. I've never been a car that was that uncomfortable. Glad I rented before buying one. I don't know how people are ok with cameras on cars but are terrified of google glass?

The last thing I need is a camera watching me pick my nose at 90 mph

4/1/2014 4:58:05 PM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

yeah its not just SUVs, plenty of cars have terrible visibility out of the back also

4/1/2014 5:59:06 PM

jawhitak
Veteran
328 Posts
user info
edit post

Anti-lock brakes, seat belts, air bags, stability control, window (a.k.a. glazing) materials, mirrors, instrument cluster info, data recording… The presence of all of these (and probably a slew more that I'm forgetting) should be up to the manufacturer and the consumer, not the government.

If companies want to agree upon an industry standard made by an independent (read: non-government-affiliated) group, then that's perfectly fine. Throttle pedal always on the right, clutch always on the left, agreed? Ok, done. But no company should be forced to include all these options in their products, nor should any consumer be forced to buy these options.

The market will naturally dictate safety through strict punishment for irresponsibility. By being punished for bad/dangerous driving (e.g. revocation of license for risky maneuvers or at-fault wrecks, manslaughter charges for backing over a kid, etc.), consumers will buy vehicles that offer the best balance between (A) an environment in which they are less likely to cause accidents and (B) a good price.

The market will also naturally dictate safety through the consumer's desire for self-preservation. By driving in inherently dangerous situations (e.g. trees, ditches, bad weather, road debris, other motorists, etc.), consumers will buy vehicles that offer the best balance between (A) occupant safety and (B) a good price.

Applied to the topic at hand: Either consumers will buy cars with lots of visibility and no/few camera screens, or they will buy cars with shitty visibility and loads of camera screens. I think we can all tell which is the more likely choice to best avoid the harsh penalties for at-fault situations. And I think we can also tell that such a choice is OPPOSITE of what the government is effectively imposing upon vehicle consumers via law.




In closing, #WhoeverRunsLibertarian2016




[Edited on April 1, 2014 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

4/1/2014 6:09:46 PM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

that would all be fine if the punishment for being cheap could only hurt yourself, but that's not the case. because that's not the case, there is a public interest in making sure cars are safe. because there is a public interest in making sure cars are safe, the public has represented instelf with an organization that sets safety standards.

4/1/2014 6:18:10 PM

jawhitak
Veteran
328 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"that would all be fine if the punishment for being cheap could only hurt yourself"


But that's exactly true.

If you "cheap out" on buying seat belts (because you don't think their potential safety improvement outweighs their cost), then you run the risk of being hurt if you're in an accident. Why, again, should that be required by law?

4/1/2014 6:32:54 PM

Igor
All American
6670 Posts
user info
edit post

^Because your passengers may want to live, even if you don't. All of the government mandated standards have to do with safety (for passengers and pedestrians as well, not just the driver), emissions (which relate directly to public health), or economy (which is done on per-manufacturer basis, not per-vehicle, and relate to resource consumption)

Quote :
"The market will naturally dictate safety through strict punishment for irresponsibility."


No, no it won't. Consumers just don't have time or resources conduct or even monitor things such as crash testing. Even in case of gross negligence from the manufacturer's side, it would be cheaper in many cases for the manufacturers to pay off a class-action lawsuit than to recall millions of vehicles or significantly alter the design.

4/1/2014 10:45:38 PM

richthofen
All American
15730 Posts
user info
edit post

Also, the current styling trend of high beltlines and gunslit windows has made cars with good visibility a thing of the past. Perhaps that will change eventually, but unless everyone stops buying new cars and goes looking for 1992 Accords, public opinion isn't going to push the manufacturers to do an about-face in a hurry.

[Not to mention that part of the reason for high beltlines is due to pedestrian impact standards requiring the nose to be so damn high. That 1992 Accord wouldn't even come close to passing, it's way too low in front, hence the great visibility.]

4/1/2014 11:38:24 PM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

^furthermore, outward visibility is also hurt by these inane crash standards. A car's roof has to withstand something like 3-6 times it's own weight, thus you have super thick pillars for strength...and then you have the air bags being mounted there as well. Our vehicles will only be "safe" in the government's eyes when we're all driving tanks

Quote :
"No, no it won't. Consumers just don't have time or resources conduct or even monitor things such as crash testing. Even in case of gross negligence from the manufacturer's side, it would be cheaper in many cases for the manufacturers to pay off a class-action lawsuit than to recall millions of vehicles or significantly alter the design."


I disagree. Volvo, more than any other, built their reputation on safety, and it was largely responsible for their sales success. Mercedes-Benz has also always been a vanguard of safety, having invented most of the systems we employ today. Subaru as well, is/was known for safety. And this was all before the governments required all this shit.

4/2/2014 8:09:26 AM

jawhitak
Veteran
328 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"^Because your passengers may want to live, even if you don't."


That's weird... I don't recall ever forcing someone to ride in a vehicle with me.

And if they were to be injured due to my negligence, guess who would be at fault?


Quote :
"No, no it won't. Consumers just don't have time or resources conduct or even monitor things such as crash testing."


If consumers don't really care about safety, then so be it. If consumers do care about safety, they can thumb through a recent issue of Consumer Reports. If consumers really care about safety, they can research as deep as they'd like. It's up to the consumer.

In other news, the sky is blue.

4/2/2014 8:38:03 AM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

Nobody has ever complained about their personal safety while riding in my Integra. They complain about the noise, vibrations and rattles but not safety And this while riding in a 2600 lb car with no ABS, airbags, traction control, stability control, etc etc.

4/2/2014 8:52:17 AM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

if the market can set safety standards by itself, then why are traffic fatality statistics so terrible in developing nations with relaxed or nonexistent safety standards?

4/2/2014 9:30:50 AM

Igor
All American
6670 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"That's weird... I don't recall ever forcing someone to ride in a vehicle with me.

And if they were to be injured due to my negligence, guess who would be at fault?"


The whole point of safety features are so they PREVENT injuries. If you have a kid, you will be "forcing" him to ride with you. Same for relatives and coworkers.Take out the seatbelts, and see if you can agree people to carpool with you. Also, there are those around you that are involved, pedestrians and other drivers. If you think that paying a settlement or serving time somehow fixes things for a maimed or dead victim, there can not be any discussion with you about necessity of safety features or regulation of such.

Quote :
"If consumers don't really care about safety, then so be it. If consumers do care about safety, they can thumb through a recent issue of Consumer Reports. If consumers really care about safety, they can research as deep as they'd like. It's up to the consumer."


Consumers do care about safety, and that's why they want to have some minimum safety features and some uniform testing standards performed by the government bodies. Consumer Reports do not do crash testing, and they would not be able to convince manufacturers to do it nearly as extensively as government can, they just don't have the budget and don't yield the authority. And again, some safety features are there not to just protect the driver, but the pedestrians and passengers, who may not be car owners but are affected by the safety features of your car.

Quote :
"Nobody has ever complained about their personal safety while riding in my Integra. They complain about the noise, vibrations and rattles but not safety And this while riding in a 2600 lb car with no ABS, airbags, traction control, stability control, etc etc.
"


Nobody ever complained about riding on the back of my motorcycle, because if they ended up there, they already knew about some element of danger involved and were OK with it. People concerned about safety, such as my wife, do not get on it at all. And I respect their choice.

I am all for efficient and fun-to-drive cars but in our day and age, if you want to get a brand new vehicle that is light and has no ABS, airbags, traction control, or stability control, get a shifter cart and take it to a closed course. I promise you, you'll have more fun. There is definitely place for vehicles where performance is the primary goal, that's why they have cars that are built non-street-legal from the factory. If there is so much demand for these cars, why aren't there more non-street-legal cars being sold for track use?

4/2/2014 9:46:07 AM

jawhitak
Veteran
328 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Nobody ever complained about riding on the back of my motorcycle, because if they ended up there, they already knew about some element of danger involved and were OK with it. People concerned about safety, such as my wife, do not get on it at all. And I respect their choice."


This argument is valid for motorcycles but inappropriate for automobiles?

4/2/2014 10:02:19 AM

Dr Pepper
All American
3450 Posts
user info
edit post

beh.

if anyone wants a bare bones car, nut up and:

- build it.
- buy an old fucker and resto-mod it.
- buy an ____. (as igorski mentioned above)


I'm satisfied with finding automotive bliss with existing (old/current/whatever) platforms, and part of the fun can be finding one without all the gizmos.

4/2/2014 10:04:18 AM

BlackJesus
Suspended
13089 Posts
user info
edit post

Buy a 2015 Z28 Camaro

4/2/2014 10:19:10 AM

synapse
play so hard
52995 Posts
user info
edit post

While I don't agree with him on most of his points, I can respect theDuke866's libertarian-ish views on this issue. jawhitak on the other hand, is spewing stupidity.

He reminds me of a buddy who once tried to argue against the need for an FDA by saying "if drugs hurt/kill people, then people will stop taking them. We don't need a government entity to test our drugs. The free market will handle it."

Quote :
"This argument is valid for motorcycles but inappropriate for automobiles?"


Sure, because if you hop on a motorcycle you're consenting to an less safe environment. However just by being near or on a public road, I shouldn't have to consent to an less safe environment scenario created by your decision to not get ABS on your car (and yes, I realize I already am because you probably drive some old ass car that doesn't have ABS).

I mean is your point here that utilizing public roads is inherently dangerous, and the government should do absolutely nothing to mitigate those dangers?


[Edited on April 2, 2014 at 10:41 AM. Reason : ^^ yup]

4/2/2014 10:22:58 AM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"if the market can set safety standards by itself, then why are traffic fatality statistics so terrible in developing nations with relaxed or nonexistent safety standards?"


Mainly because they have relaxed or nonexistent driving laws/regulations.

Quote :
" If there is so much demand for these cars, why aren't there more non-street-legal cars being sold for track use?"


Actually the market for kit cars and track only cars has been gaining popularity and growing larger. Much in the same way that track events, AutoXes, and Hill Climbs have also been growing more popular year after year.

[Edited on April 2, 2014 at 10:30 AM. Reason : ]

4/2/2014 10:26:45 AM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Mainly because they have relaxed or nonexistent driving laws/regulations"

but the market forces they described should account for how people drive as well, the market should be able to replace all government nannying per that post

4/2/2014 11:03:53 AM

TKE-Teg
All American
42039 Posts
user info
edit post

do you not agree that it would be more cost effective and less complicated if the government just required people to be better drivers?

4/2/2014 12:43:19 PM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

that's different than telling manufacturers to build safer cars?

4/2/2014 12:48:52 PM

wdprice3
Suspended
44904 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Anti-lock brakes, seat belts, air bags, stability control, window (a.k.a. glazing) materials, mirrors, instrument cluster info, data recording… The presence of all of these (and probably a slew more that I'm forgetting) should be up to the manufacturer and the consumer, not the government.

If companies want to agree upon an industry standard made by an independent (read: non-government-affiliated) group, then that's perfectly fine. Throttle pedal always on the right, clutch always on the left, agreed? Ok, done. But no company should be forced to include all these options in their products, nor should any consumer be forced to buy these options.

The market will naturally dictate safety through strict punishment for irresponsibility. By being punished for bad/dangerous driving (e.g. revocation of license for risky maneuvers or at-fault wrecks, manslaughter charges for backing over a kid, etc.), consumers will buy vehicles that offer the best balance between (A) an environment in which they are less likely to cause accidents and (B) a good price.

The market will also naturally dictate safety through the consumer's desire for self-preservation. By driving in inherently dangerous situations (e.g. trees, ditches, bad weather, road debris, other motorists, etc.), consumers will buy vehicles that offer the best balance between (A) occupant safety and (B) a good price.

Applied to the topic at hand: Either consumers will buy cars with lots of visibility and no/few camera screens, or they will buy cars with shitty visibility and loads of camera screens. I think we can all tell which is the more likely choice to best avoid the harsh penalties for at-fault situations. And I think we can also tell that such a choice is OPPOSITE of what the government is effectively imposing upon vehicle consumers via law."



Except in certain rare cases, the public's ability to truly create change in multinational, billion dollar industries is extremely limited. While I'm all for getting the government out of where it doesn't belong, we unfortunately have created economical and governmental entities which require such regulations.

GM wouldn't replace a flawed part for $0.57 each.

[Edited on April 2, 2014 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2014 12:57:18 PM

BobbyDigital
HomieDOESplayDat
41680 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"if the market can set safety standards by itself, then why are traffic fatality statistics so terrible in developing nations with relaxed or nonexistent safety standards?"


they literally couldn't afford cars with all of the various safety features. I probably would have asked this question a year ago before spending a month in India.

We took a child seat with us. there was a ton of confusion as to why such a thing would be needed. I couldn't understand why they'd eschew basic safety measures. Looking around, the most common "family vehicle" was a motorcycle with a family of four riding on it. No helmets, older kid rides in front of dad, mother sits sideways on the back while holding the smaller child.

The next step up is the basic 4 door compact shitbox, which has an accelerator, clutch, and brake (lol ABS), steering wheel (no power steering), a shifter, and seats. All of the shit that's standard in any car sold in America is an unnecessary luxury that puts transportation out of the reach of the masses.

There are many of the same luxury cars you can find in the US with all the same bells and whistles, but only the 1 percenters of India drive those. probably more like .5%.

Should India achieve the economic prosperity of the US, then certainly the demand for other stuff will follow, and manufacturers will respond. Or govt regulations could then drive such safety features without pricing out the masses from transportation (in areas where public transit doesn't exist or isn't feasible of course).

There are tradeoffs with either strategy, but my opinion is that all of the mandated safety features in place today have decreased traffic fatalities to a point where additional mandates have diminishing returns. I'm not convinced that backup cameras, for example, will improve safety in any significant way that justifies the additional cost that will be added to every car sold. Factor that in with an ever widening income gap and an decreasing cultural importance placed on car ownership, and these nickel and dime mandates may have the unintended consequence of keeping older cars on the road longer.

4/2/2014 1:35:36 PM

1in10^9
All American
7449 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"
There are tradeoffs with either strategy, but my opinion is that all of the mandated safety features in place today have decreased traffic fatalities to a point where additional mandates have diminishing returns"


Possibly it is the case of diminishing returns, however I'm sure same thing was said with introduction of seatbelts, ABS, traction control, airbags...etc. Just like ABS equipped cars initially only came on higher end models, price eventually dropped and it was made a standard. Pretty much any Prius from 2004 has a backup camera as a low priced option. That was 10 years ago. They are really not all luxurious as people make them out to be. Also this mandate is in effect from 2018. By then TESLA will be old news, let alone backup camera.

4/2/2014 2:20:53 PM

synapse
play so hard
52995 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Just like ABS equipped cars initially only came on higher end models, price eventually dropped and it was made a standard. Pretty much any Prius from 2004 has a backup camera as a low priced option. That was 10 years ago. They are really not all luxurious as people make them out to be. Also this mandate is in effect from 2018. By then TESLA will be old news, let alone backup camera."


yup

Quote :
"Data shows that backup cameras have already been popular with consumers. They're included on slightly less than half all new models sold today, and a NHTSA analysis concluded they'd be available on 73 percent of all vehicles covered by the rule by 2018 anyway.

The same analysis found that equipping a car with a backup camera would cost $43 to $45 per vehicle in a car already equipped with a visual display, and $132 to $142 for vehicles without one.
"


http://www.autoblog.com/2014/03/31/nhtsa-issues-backup-camera-rules/

4/2/2014 2:26:33 PM

dtownral
All American
19880 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^exactly, if they removed requirements manufacturers would make cheaper cars and people would buy them. the market won't make anything safer on its own, it will fill the roads with cheap shitty cars.



[Edited on April 2, 2014 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/2/2014 2:27:05 PM

eyedrb
All American
5853 Posts
user info
edit post

I disagree. Volvo basically made a living at providing much safer cars than other car companies. Now they are going under.


Great post bobbydigital. One has to really love the comparisions to a developing country when they have no idea what that really means. LIke saying a three year old doesnt know algebra and he is at home all day. So home schooling is obviously terrible compared to public schooling.

4/2/2014 3:16:41 PM

synapse
play so hard
52995 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Volvo basically made a living at providing much safer cars than other car companies. Now they are going under."


correlation != causation

Wait Volvo is going under? Did you learn about this on Twitter or something? Last I heard they tripled their profits last year.

4/2/2014 3:23:23 PM

 Message Boards » The Garage » Required Back-Up Cameras Page [1] 2 3, Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.