Jump to content

Government mandates


Recommended Posts

Have we had enough of the government telling us how much our lives are going to cost? This is about the dumbest ruling I have come across in all my years of driving. I'd rather look in a mirror or turn my head than look at a video screen when the car is moving. And I have never run over anything behind me yet. Please, just save us from ourselves.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=675cdf0b-b317-4785-afdd-60222faf259a&icid=autos_5476

Link to comment

As per the article, the reason behind the requirement is:

The idea is to prevent "backover" accidents in which drivers roll over people -- particularly, children and elderly adults -- hidden from the driver's view. Based on available federal crash data, about 210 people die each year from such accidents involving light-duty vehicles. Nearly a third of those are under 5 years old and a quarter are adults 70 years and older.

Let's assume that this will save half of those people. Is it worth it to save the lives of 105 people per year? Is it really that much of a burden to bear? My answers would be 'yes' and 'no'.

Yes, it's getting very nanny-state-ish, but what is the alternative? The lives being targeted are those that are not visible in the mirror or by turning around.

Personally, I'd use the camera as a check to make sure there's nothing hidden from view, and then reverse the way I currently do, using the mirrors. The camera is an extra safety net -- not a replacement.

Link to comment

Another factor is, older people, like me, have a harder time turning their necks to the same degree they could when younger. We have to rely on our mirrors to a greater extent than when we could easily turn and look out the rear window. A camera view of what's behind us would be much safer in that regard.

I do agree with the annoyance of being over-regulated, however. I still struggle with them telling me I have to wear a seat belt to go a block to the store. I know, I know, it's safer, but in this case, it's safer for me rather than a small child who's behind my car. Saying the law is in place to bring insurance rates down seems spurious. They've gone up since the law was passed.

C

Link to comment

Another factor is, older people, like me, have a harder time turning their necks to the same degree they could when younger. We have to rely on our mirrors to a greater extent than when we could easily turn and look out the rear window. A camera view of what's behind us would be much safer in that regard.

That's a good reason to making it an optional extra (which it is for many vehicles today). Chris's objection was to making it mandatory and it shouldn't be made mandatory because some people find it easier. I'm happy with that. But if it will save lives that would otherwise be lost, I'm more than happy to pay the extra required to have the cameras as a standard feature.

Link to comment

Have we had enough of the government telling us how much our lives are going to cost? This is about the dumbest ruling I have come across in all my years of driving. I'd rather look in a mirror or turn my head than look at a video screen when the car is moving. And I have never run over anything behind me yet.

Actually, my partner and I have rear-view cameras in both our cars and they work fine and do give us that extra 5% safety edge you need sometime.

Bear in mind that every new car on the market has some kind of LCD panel in the dash, and the cost of the camera itself is maybe $5 at most. This is a very, very tiny charge.

I particularly like rear-view cameras where you have the ability to leave it on all the time, just to get a better idea of what the idiots behind you are about to do. Sometimes, they do stuff out of range of the actual rear-view mirror, particularly when you're backing up.

I'm with Graeme: even if it only saves a small number of lives, it's worth it. And once you've lived with having the camera, it's very hard to drive without one.

Link to comment

I'm afraid it's equally hard to drive with one; I have a rear-view camera already installed when I bought my present car, and it's damned difficult to make sense of the image it provides. It has a fisheye lens and I find it impossible to gauge distance or actual location of any object it reveals. I appreciate the technology, and support it for all the reasons given above, but I sure do wish someone would fiddle with it in their basement laboratory and come up with a way to provide a sensible image from it.

Link to comment

I have been providing young cute college guys with work by having them wave a red flag if I am backing into anything or anybody. This new camera device will take away their only source of income, unless I can think of some other way to employ them.

Link to comment

I have been providing young cute college guys with work by having them wave a red flag if I am backing into anything or anybody. This new camera device will take away their only source of income, unless I can think of some other way to employ them.

I'm sure you will think of something, if it is only admiring them on screen as they walk behind your vehicle. Just think what you might see!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...