Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018

[driftdiver]

I'd imagine there were luddites 100 years ago questioning why people needed mirrors on their cars.  Heck is it that hard to turn your head and look?@!

[LateForLunch]

I'd imagine there were luddites 100 years ago questioning why people needed mirrors on their cars.  Heck is it that hard to turn your head and look?@!

hah hah very funny. I will do you the courtesy of believing that you are not referring to me as a luddite and ignore it. That being said, surely you are aware that the single greatest cause of automobile accidents involving death (including backing up) is DISTRACTED DRIVING?

There is plenty of evidence that increasing the magnitude of technology in vehicles (short of fully automating operations) will do little or nothing to ameliorate that central element, because it involves human nature, which does not change much from year-to-year, decade-to-decade or with applications of fancy technology.

Give people an excuse to allow themselves to be distracted and they will grab it with both hands and not let go. And that is no joke for the people killed in auto accidents.

If the government really wanted to save innocent lives, they'd do away with CAFE standards, which have resulted in roughly 10, 000 extra vehicle deaths annually for many years. Notwithstanding, bowing to the ecoparanoids who claim that they are "saving the planet from global warming", the ever-ready-to-pander politicians and auto-industry are set to increase gas mileage requirements even more, which will doubtless cause even more innocent lives to be lost. Not important when there is political capital to be raised and profits to be harvested from a gullible public.

 

[driftdiver]

So backup cameras distract drivers going forward?


hmmmmm

If you engage reverse while going down the highway I somehow think the camera isn't going to be the issue.

[LateForLunch]

So backup cameras distract drivers going forward?


hmmmmm

If you engage reverse while going down the highway I somehow think the camera isn't going to be the issue.

That's not what I meant and you know it. Stop making silly jokes and do me the courtesy of responding substantively to my post, or one would be obliged to assume that you are being flippant, which I'm sure you would agree, would be rude.

[driftdiver]

That's not what I meant and you know it. Stop making silly jokes and do me the courtesy of responding substantively to my post, or one would be obliged to assume that you are being flippant, which I'm sure you would agree, would be rude.

I responded rudely because of your post.   You over generalized and built a huge strawman.

TECHNOLOGY is not the enemy.  It has made cars incredibly more safe then they were 50 years ago.  It has saved many lives and to propose it is costing lives is naive at best.

This story is about backup cameras.  They make backing up safer when used properly.   The govt shouldn't be mandating them but they are a very good tool.

[LateForLunch]

I responded rudely because of your post.   You over generalized and built a huge strawman.

TECHNOLOGY is not the enemy.  It has made cars incredibly more safe then they were 50 years ago.  It has saved many lives and to propose it is costing lives is naive at best.

This story is about backup cameras.  They make backing up safer when used properly.   The govt shouldn't be mandating them but they are a very good tool.

So I overgeneralized in your opinion and that gives you the entitlement to be rude !?! Got it. Have a good life. I can see that trying to communicate civilly with you is not going to work because of a fundamental difference in values concerning forum decorum.

And frankly it seems to me that someone else is the one engaging in setting up and knocking down straw men, since I never stated anything even remotely close to what you accused me of saying. I stated that the root cause of traffic accident deaths was distracted driving (true, whether you acknowledge it or not).

You ignored the other substantive elements of the post and digressed into vituperation. So why should I or anyone else bother trying to communicate with you further, since you are all attitude and no willingness (or ability) to remain civil or contribute substantively to the thread?

[driftdiver]

So I overgeneralized in your opinion and that gives you the entitlement to be rude !?! Got it. Have a good life. I can see that trying to communicate civilly with you is not going to work because of a fundamental difference in values concerning forum decorum.

And frankly it seems to me that someone else is the one engaging in setting up and knocking down straw men, since I never stated anything even remotely close to what you accused me of saying. I stated that the root cause of traffic accident deaths was distracted driving (true, whether you acknowledge it or not).

You ignored the other substantive elements of the post and digressed into vituperation. So why should I or anyone else bother trying to communicate with you further, since you are all attitude and no willingness (or ability) to remain civil or contribute substantively to the thread?

ummmm ok, have a great day

[roamer_1]

All-but-guaranteed that for every person saved by such devices, one or more will die because the driver allowed themselves to be 100% dependent on a piece of technology that was not 100% functional 100% of the time.

A pervasive problem. I see it here in the woods - Folks don't understand or maintain primitive skills like rudimentary navigation, and the same thing applies. At 20 below, *nothing* electronic works. GPS is fine until the batteries die, or you drop the fool thing in a creek... Here we don't navigate much by direction - Taking a rough azimuth, understanding map topography, and knowing your backstops are very effective and basic skills necessary for finding your way around in the mountains.

But few carry map or compass, and even fewer can navigate by the stars and sun.
And even fewer are even aware of how dangerous their reliance on technology has become.

Good point.

[roamer_1]

The people saying that you can't see out of the rear of modern cars aren't really helping their case, they're describing a design flaw that automakers should correct.

Form over function is a blatant sign of poor engineering.

[Frank Cannon]

My wife's new Camaro has zero visibility out the rear window.- it comes standard with the camera.  Most new cars esp 4 doors have the sloped back roof and high trunk lid and you cannot see behind them at all.
@Frank Cannon

Bleh. Like they never made cars with massive blind spots before. Ever drive a 70's Charger or a '59 Caddy? You couldn't see anything without using the side view mirrors and still people were able to parallel park and back out of driveways without killing people.

[Cripplecreek]

The first car I ever owned was a 73 Montego and it didn't have great visibility. I still managed to back into and out of our diagonal parking on main street in my home town.

[thackney]

She informed me that poor people shouldn't drive if they can't afford the ever more expensive new cars. Poor people should take public transportation which means they should all live in the city.

wow...

[thackney]

Form over function is a blatant sign of poor engineering.

I would say it is meeting demand.

Stupid buyers pay a lot of bills of those selling.

[mirraflake]

Bleh. Like they never made cars with massive blind spots before. Ever drive a 70's Charger or a '59 Caddy? You couldn't see anything without using the side view mirrors and still people were able to parallel park and back out of driveways without killing people.

I have been in nearly every  car ever made from a 6 banger 67 Camaro to a Lamborghini Countach.

The new Camaros you cannot see out of them because the seats are literally on the floor and the  floor pan is lower than the side frame rails more than average cars and the rear glass is up behind you at an angle ad I am 6-2. The rear glass on Camaros are 3-4 feet long but actual viewing  height is very small because the rear glass is getting to the point  it is almost horozontal.

You cannot see out of the rear side windows because the passenger seat is in the way. between the front seat and rear seat there is only 2-3" of space between both seats.

@Frank Cannon

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't understand why you guys are arguing here? I think we can all pretty much agree that mandating backup cameras (or anything else) is wrong, stupid, and against the basic tenants of conservatism.

Like a backup camera? Buy a car with one or install one. Don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.

[Wingnut]

I don't understand why you guys are arguing here? I think we can all pretty much agree that mandating backup cameras (or anything else) is wrong, stupid, and against the basic tenants of conservatism.

Like a backup camera? Buy a car with one or install one. Don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.

Stop making cogent arguments on the subject at hand you damn  rabble rouser!  lol

[Cripplecreek]

wow...

She's sure its for the good of everybody involved whether they know it or not. She went insane when she became a liberal. She's sure that our poor upbringing is abuse and she thinks my younger sister and I are in denial about it. Things like riding in the back of the pickup when we were kids is the sort of thing she cites as abuse. We had guns in the house!!!!!!!

Apparently the only way she can cope with the "abuses" of our childhood is by abusing poor people.

[roamer_1]

I would say it is meeting demand.

Stupid buyers pay a lot of bills of those selling.

There is no excuse for poor engineering. Ever. Build it right.

[driftdiver]

There is no excuse for poor engineering. Ever. Build it right.

Depends on your definition of right.  For many folks its a car that looks and sounds cool.

[mirraflake]

There is no excuse for poor engineering. Ever. Build it right.

The only way to back up a Countach. This car was built right. As a old hot rodder, looks are always over function in my book.



@roamer_1

@driftdiver

[mirraflake]

I don't understand why you guys are arguing here? I think we can all pretty much agree that mandating backup cameras (or anything else) is wrong, stupid, and against the basic tenants of conservatism.

Like a backup camera? Buy a car with one or install one. Don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.

Back prior to 1967 cars only came with what they now call the fruit jar. A single cylinder master cylinder. If one brake line sprung a hole you lost your entire braking system. In 67 Gov't mandated cars come with 2 chamber master cylinder and front brakes separate from rear.

Not everything the gov't mandates is wrong. Large business is not always right and looking out for the little guy. It took this mandate for ar companies to make the 2 cylinder MC.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

[LateForLunch]

Depends on your definition of right.  For many folks its a car that looks and sounds cool.

Not to nitpick (well, I guess I am nitpicking) the correct contraction spelling of "it is" is with an apostrophe, "it's". The possessive its has no apostrophe. That is not a personal attack, I would have pointed it out to anyone. See, conservatives need to be superior to leftists in every possible way, even correct spelling, grammar, syntax and punctuation.

Just ribbin ya' a little, bro. No hard feelins. yer alright! (PS like your avatar and comment a LOT!).

[thackney]

There is no excuse for poor engineering. Ever. Build it right.

Your definition.  As an engineer myself, I long ago learned the golden rule.

He with the gold, makes the rules.

If I want to work as an engineer, I better design something people want.  This isn't my hobby.  I need a paying customer.

Some people believe they will just drive fast enough and never have to worry what is behind them.

[driftdiver]

Not to nitpick (well, I guess I am nitpicking) the correct contraction spelling of "it is" is with an apostrophe, "it's". The possessive its has no apostrophe. That is not a personal attack, I would have pointed it out to anyone. See, conservatives need to be superior to leftists in every possible way, even correct spelling, grammar, syntax and punctuation.

Just ribbin ya' a little, bro. No hard feelins. yer alright! (PS like your avatar and comment a LOT!).

GrammEr Nazis must die!

:)

[roamer_1]

Your definition.  As an engineer myself, I long ago learned the golden rule.

He with the gold, makes the rules.

If I want to work as an engineer, I better design something people want.  This isn't my hobby.  I need a paying customer.

I am a maker myself, though not papered. I have always held out for the right thing, and have walked away from jobs where the design mods were to be intentionally compromised. I won't do it. I need to be able to sleep at night.

Sure there are compromises, but something mission critical is never ever tolerated. Prim a-donna, perhaps. Perfectionist, probably. I have been called worse. But I have never sold out the job.

Worry about the work, the money will come. 

Some people believe they will just drive fast enough and never have to worry what is behind them.

Right. Imagine their surprise...