If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Parents who ran over *their* kids with *their* cars because *they* weren't watching where *they* were going place the blame exactly where it belongs: on the government   (opposingviews.com) divider line 154
    More: Strange, watching  
•       •       •

11647 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2013 at 11:47 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-25 09:01:52 PM
Bullshiat

People need to stop blaming others for their own faults

OMG ITS THE GUBMENT FAULT! OMG ITS BIG BUSNESS FAULT! IT DOESNT MATTER THAT I WAS BEHIND THE WHEEL!
 
2013-09-25 09:07:19 PM

cman: Bullshiat

People need to stop blaming others for their own faults

OMG ITS THE GUBMENT FAULT! OMG ITS BIG BUSNESS FAULT! IT DOESNT MATTER THAT I WAS BEHIND THE WHEEL!


THANKS OBAMA!
 
2013-09-25 09:10:01 PM
GOVERNMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT

PASS LAWS GOVERNMENT, AND ENFORCE THEM APPROPRIATELY EVEN THOUGH YOU SUCK
 
2013-09-25 09:26:12 PM
After the tragedy, Gulbransen reached out to KidsAndCars.org to champion for better visibility behind vehicles. Rep. Peter King, R-NY, introduced a bill in 2003 dubbed "Cameron's law," which would have required safety standards that would hopefully reduce the likelihood of such accidents. The bill, however, never made it out of committee.

More socialist Big Brother nonsense.
 
2013-09-25 09:44:23 PM
Hey.... why does Honda have that smug smile?

/again
 
2013-09-25 09:46:19 PM
How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?
 
2013-09-25 09:55:39 PM

fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?


I heard a figure tossed out of around $2.5 billion to add them to all new vehicles

/YMMV
 
2013-09-25 09:57:09 PM
For fark's sake, they're only suing because a law that passed 6 years ago requiring backup cameras keeps getting delayed.  I'd have less sympathy if Congress hadn't actually passed a bill, but let's get real.
 
2013-09-25 10:00:04 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

I heard a figure tossed out of around $2.5 billion to add them to all new vehicles

/YMMV


I wonder how much they are spending on research for driverless vehicles

I know they are in the pipeline

Maybe they are waiting for that? Dunno
 
2013-09-25 11:04:03 PM
Er.  As I read it, they're suing to get the law passed.  They're not looking to hold the government accountable for what happened..  They want to get the number of such incidents reduced.

Yes/No  (circle one)
 
2013-09-25 11:26:54 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

I heard a figure tossed out of around $2.5 billion to add them to all new vehicles

/YMMV


Going by the total of 14.4 million new vehicles sold in the US last year that works out to roughly $173 per car, which sounds a bit on the high side, but is still reasonable.

Most new cars are starting to come with LCD screens, cameras are incredibly cheap, and if they're mandatory on all models all it would take is a cable running from the camera in the back to the LCD screen in the front which is easily done during assembly when the rest of the wires are being run.

There's really no reason not to mandate backup cameras in all new cars, the cost per unit would be negligible, and they're a huge convenience as well as being a nice safety feature.  They'd likely cut down on fender benders due to people backing into other cars, buildings, etc, by quite a bit as well, so they could translate into savings on insurance.
 
2013-09-25 11:33:07 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Er.  As I read it, they're suing to get the law passed.  They're not looking to hold the government accountable for what happened..  They want to get the number of such incidents reduced.

Yes/No  (circle one)


If you haven't taught your kid to watch out for a car that is backing up then a camera on the bumper shouldn't be your main priority
 
2013-09-25 11:34:22 PM
i.chzbgr.com

Suing over a political delay in implementation of a law auto makers have no interest in dealing with? Parent's fault??? WOW!
 
2013-09-25 11:50:55 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-25 11:52:54 PM
Thanks Fartbumpo.
 
2013-09-25 11:54:41 PM
I have a backup camera, and I never use it. I dont trust the green/yellow/red lines to start with, and secondly I'm done reversing by the time it actually turns on.
 
2013-09-25 11:55:29 PM
There is an easy solution - and I'm only posting this because of a story of a guy backing over his own dog which broke my heart.
The easy solution is:   Drumroll please:

Back in to your parking spot.

Done.  It's that easy.  When you drive away in the morning you are going forward and can see what you are going to hit.

No backup cameras needed.
 
2013-09-25 11:56:29 PM
I learned that in Drivers Ed. when I was 16. When in your driveway walk around the vehicle and enter the drivers side. This rule applies double if you have small children or if your neighborhood has small children.
 
2013-09-25 11:56:43 PM
Oh, and it only took me about two years to learn its also a DVD player. That only works in park. Because who doesn't want to sit in the car and watch a movie in the driveway?
 
2013-09-25 11:57:51 PM
$200 per car, $3 billion a year to save 100 lives a year, or $30 million per life, if you don't count injuries prevented.
 
2013-09-25 11:59:09 PM
How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention), the US pass the following law:

No motor vehicle shall be operated by a driver who is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.
 
2013-09-26 12:00:06 AM

fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?


You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150
 
2013-09-26 12:01:24 AM

Aar1012: I_Am_Weasel: Er.  As I read it, they're suing to get the law passed.  They're not looking to hold the government accountable for what happened..  They want to get the number of such incidents reduced.

Yes/No  (circle one)

If you haven't taught your kid to watch out for a car that is backing up then a camera on the bumper shouldn't be your main priority


And if you haven't learned how to make sure where your kids are and nothing is close to your path before you get in your car, then license should be revoked for life.

I back into my driveway and the spot at work, and I never just give it a glance through the mirrors.  I always give the whole area a scan from the side window before I pull forward to start backing up.  I have had to yell at a kid or two for being in the driveway, for they must move to the porch before I back up.
 
2013-09-26 12:02:05 AM

xiola: There is an easy solution - and I'm only posting this because of a story of a guy backing over his own dog which broke my heart.
The easy solution is:   Drumroll please:

Back in to your parking spot.

Done.  It's that easy.  When you drive away in the morning you are going forward and can see what you are going to hit.

No backup cameras needed.


The moron that started this whole mess was backing into his parking spot. He left his small child unsupervised and either failed to see the kid walking up to the car when checking all his mirrors and over his shoulder, or the child was standing behind the car the entire time and he failed to see the child when walking up to the car and getting in.
 
2013-09-26 12:02:24 AM
So that's what those little license plate cameras are for?? Backing up? I thought they were for recording fender benders are shiat.
 
2013-09-26 12:04:04 AM
I have a solution.

Put the kids in the car behind the wheel, and the parents on the ground behind the car.

Problem solved.
 
2013-09-26 12:06:19 AM

xiola: There is an easy solution - and I'm only posting this because of a story of a guy backing over his own dog which broke my heart.
The easy solution is:   Drumroll please:

Back in to your parking spot.

Done.  It's that easy.  When you drive away in the morning you are going forward and can see what you are going to hit.

No backup cameras needed.


RTA, he was backing the car into the driveway, so wife could just go forward in the morning.  They must realize she can't drive, and as it turns out, he can't drive either.
 
2013-09-26 12:06:28 AM

cman: Bullshiat

People need to stop blaming others for their own faults

OMG ITS THE GUBMENT FAULT! OMG ITS BIG BUSNESS FAULT! IT DOESNT MATTER THAT I WAS BEHIND THE WHEEL!


But as the left demands the government take on more and more responsibility from our lives, why not blame them?
 
2013-09-26 12:07:18 AM
Next these socialists will mandate implanting transponders in every child so cars can automatically avoid them.  We all know children shouldn't be standing behind cars -- they should be chained to sewing machines in sweatshops earning their family's food stamps.

/troll left
//troll right
///troll, troll, troll your boat  (maybe if you weren't driving a farking boat of an SUV, you could have seen your farking kid behind you!)
 
2013-09-26 12:08:11 AM
This reminds me of that douchebag Infiniti SUV commercial where douchebag Dad in his douchebag luxury SUV fails to look behind him when he's backing out of his douchbag HOA community driveway and almost runs over some douchebag kid, but the auto-radar-braking system kicks in and stops the car.  Douchebag dad looks over at douchebag wife with a look of douchebag relief that his luxury douchebag SUV made up for his douchey inattentiveness.

Infinity.  For Douches.
 
2013-09-26 12:08:55 AM

kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150


Oh and not including the body redesign to hide the camera.
 
2013-09-26 12:10:04 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: $200 per car, $3 billion a year to save 100 lives a year, or $30 million per life, if you don't count injuries prevented.

 It's also worth noting that the kind of stupid that doesn't check their rear before getting in the car is the long-term, habitual kind of stupid (we can confirm this extra-hard in the case of the people in TFA: someone that intentionally buys an SUV has a long-running pattern of deliberately making poor value and risk judgments around automobiles).  That's exactly the same kind of stupid that won't check the rear-view mirror or the bumper-cam either.
Those hundred people are pretty much farked either way, is what I'm saying here, absurd expenditures on redundant safety features or not.
 
2013-09-26 12:12:57 AM

fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?


Well you have to make sure it's compatible with all the other electronics, make it waterproof, reliable at all common operating temperatures for 10+ years, can handle the vibration, redesign the bumper for fit and ease of access, etc.  it's not just a matter of slap on a camera.
 
2013-09-26 12:13:18 AM
1. Before getting in the car LOOK behind the car.
2. If children are behind the car tell them to move or move them yourself.
3. Get in car.
4. Back up.

Follow these simple steps and you won't run over your own kid. If they still manage to get ran over after that then it seems that Darwin has spoken.
 
2013-09-26 12:14:46 AM

RottNDude: This reminds me of that douchebag Infiniti SUV commercial where douchebag Dad in his douchebag luxury SUV fails to look behind him when he's backing out of his douchbag HOA community driveway and almost runs over some douchebag kid, but the auto-radar-braking system kicks in and stops the car.  Douchebag dad looks over at douchebag wife with a look of douchebag relief that his luxury douchebag SUV made up for his douchey inattentiveness.

Infinity.  For Douches.


Don't sugarcoat it, how do you really feel.
 
2013-09-26 12:14:47 AM
True dat, subby! These farking cameras will add $1500-2000 to each new vehicle they're installed on. I don't need to pay extra $$$ because some farktards run over things because they don't know how to drive. The stats were just on the news tonight, and less than 200 people (half of them kids) are killed this way each year, and Darwin claimed every last one of 'em.

Also, use my solution for making sure you don't run over toddlers - aside from not having any, after you get in the car, don't fiddle around with stuff, get going ASAP, before the toddlers have time to gather behind your vehicle.

/BUT DA CHUUULDRUUUUN!!!11!!!
//fark the children
 
2013-09-26 12:15:47 AM
Aside: Article by the dad in the Washington Post: (via the Register Citizen)

Now, while I can only imagine what it must be like to run over and kill someone accidentally, let alone a relation, let alone a child, the fact that he recognizes that a rear-view camera might have prevented this tragedy and yet didn't own a vehicle that has such a device makes me wanna slap him.

Translation: "I am stupid. Please, government, help save me from my own stupidity in the future."

/condolences and all anyway
 
2013-09-26 12:18:31 AM

tin_man: GOVERNMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT

PASS LAWS GOVERNMENT, AND ENFORCE THEM APPROPRIATELY EVEN THOUGH YOU SUCK


It's the Liberal version of full circle right there.  I love the government, but I'm not responsible for my own actions.  Why do you smite me, oh government?
 
2013-09-26 12:19:45 AM

HotWingAgenda: xiola: There is an easy solution - and I'm only posting this because of a story of a guy backing over his own dog which broke my heart.
The easy solution is:   Drumroll please:

Back in to your parking spot.

Done.  It's that easy.  When you drive away in the morning you are going forward and can see what you are going to hit.

No backup cameras needed.

The moron that started this whole mess was backing into his parking spot. He left his small child unsupervised and either failed to see the kid walking up to the car when checking all his mirrors and over his shoulder, or the child was standing behind the car the entire time and he failed to see the child when walking up to the car and getting in.


This. My daughter is 2, and can finally reach doorknobs. When I go out to move the car when the missus is headed home, she comes with me, gets buckled in every. single. time. for a 15' move. And when she gets old enough for a bed, I'm moving the deadbolt up on every door. Kids are morons.

Though, I wonder if said driveway had a blind area, like an enclosed carport tacked on in front of the garage, and the kid walked between the wall and car while the dad was watching backward.
 
2013-09-26 12:20:02 AM

I_Am_Weasel: Er. As I read it, they're suing to get the law passed.


Actually, the law was passed, but has supposedly been delayed several times:

FTFA:
Gulbransen reached out to KidsAndCars.org to champion for better visibility behind vehicles. Rep. Peter King, R-NY, introduced a bill in 2003 dubbed "Cameron's law," which would have required safety standards that would hopefully reduce the likelihood of such accidents. The bill, however, never made it out of committee.

Eventually the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act was passed in 2007. The law gave transportation officials three years in which to issue regulations that would help reduce backovers. Ray LaHood, then-Transportation Secretary, used a power written into the law to announce delay after delay in implementing the rule that would require back-up cameras in all new cars by 2014.
 
2013-09-26 12:20:42 AM

fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?


From the report I saw on ABC News earlier, It's about $2,000 if you get it as an add-on option from the deal, or about $200 if you get an aftermarket kit installed for you.
 
2013-09-26 12:21:27 AM

fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?


Or, y'know, look in the mirror and check your blind spots just like millions and millions of other people have managed to do every single day for the last several decades before reverse sensors or cameras were even available.  When 99.999999...% of cases of a particular act occur without incident, that tells me that the act itself isn't the issue.
 
2013-09-26 12:24:25 AM

Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention), the US pass the following law:

No motor vehicle shall be operated by a driver who is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.


Proximity sensors make collision avoidance harder by half?  Oh please do explain this.  I so want to hear it, too!
 
2013-09-26 12:27:14 AM

kombi: kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150

Oh and not including the body redesign to hide the camera.

Remember this is for EVERY car. Not just trucks and SUV's. So if you have a Vett or Cooper mini any kind of small car. You will have a back up camera.
 
2013-09-26 12:27:32 AM
The only semi-justifiable reason for backing into a parking spot is if you intend to rob a bank.
 
2013-09-26 12:28:18 AM

Fade2black: It's the Liberal version of full circle right there. I love the government, but I'm not responsible for my own actions. Why do you smite me, oh government?


In contrast to the Conservative view of Government: "No handouts! Except for us!"

farm4.staticflickr.com

/We lost everything in a flood! For the fourth year in a row! Guess we'll just have to rebuild....
 
2013-09-26 12:30:36 AM
Adding a camera on the rear bumper is a stop-gap. Add that radar shiat that stops your car if something comes in range while you're backing up. Yes, American car industry, I am willing to pay for the additional cost of radar-breaking mechanisms. Because otherwise I'm probably going to back out at the exact same time as some lady in the grocery store parking lot, and the laws of physics, vision, and car design will mean that neither of us saw the other backing out.
 
2013-09-26 12:31:09 AM

Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention), the US pass the following law:

No motor vehicle shall be operated by a driver who is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.


This, and this again.

It's odd, to me at least, that nobody started backing over their kids in driveways until suddenly a) drivers' ed courses stopped being mandatory in high schools, and b) the technology which would allow people not to ensure there weren't kids in the driveway before they began backing up became widely available.

I mean, cars were no bigger, no heavier, no more unwieldy, had no smaller blind spots, in the 50's and 60's; but what they DIDN'T have was people who expected hi-tek to do everything for them. So people made sure the kids were either not behind the car or knew better than to stand in the driveway BEFORE they hopped in and drove away. Now people have an expectation that "something" will magically keep kids away from cars, and kids are getting hit.
 
2013-09-26 12:31:34 AM

kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150


It wouldn't cost anywhere near $1,000 per car.  Most new cars have screen already, or will have them when the next redesign comes.  LCDs are cheap.  Even for cars that don't have them they can spec a different rearview mirror with a screen behind the mirror.  All it takes is a single cable running between the screen and the camera to provide signal and power, and since pretty much all automatic transmissions are shift by wire these days, it's not hard to set it up to trigger the camera automatically when you shift into reverse (I'm sure something could be done for manuals as well).

The high end estimate is little under $200 per car, in all likelihood if it were mandated the automakers could do it for well under $100 per car, which is chump change in the overall price of a vehicle.

They won't need to make sure it will last ten years, they'll have to make sure it lasts the 3-5 years for the bumper to bumper warranty, more or less.
 
2013-09-26 12:31:44 AM

RottNDude: This reminds me of that douchebag Infiniti SUV commercial where douchebag Dad in his douchebag luxury SUV fails to look behind him when he's backing out of his douchbag HOA community driveway and almost runs over some douchebag kid, but the auto-radar-braking system kicks in and stops the car.  Douchebag dad looks over at douchebag wife with a look of douchebag relief that his luxury douchebag SUV made up for his douchey inattentiveness.

Infinity.  For Douches.


Seriously, that's a selling feature? What if you're in a situation where there's an armed rapist standing behind the car, and you want to reverse run him over? Would the "safety feature" kick in and prevent you from doing so? If so, that's shiatty.
 
2013-09-26 12:34:50 AM

Gyrfalcon: Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention), the US pass the following law:

No motor vehicle shall be operated by a driver who is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.

This, and this again.

It's odd, to me at least, that nobody started backing over their kids in driveways until suddenly a) drivers' ed courses stopped being mandatory in high schools, and b) the technology which would allow people not to ensure there weren't kids in the driveway before they began backing up became widely available.

I mean, cars were no bigger, no heavier, no more unwieldy, had no smaller blind spots, in the 50's and 60's; but what they DIDN'T have was people who expected hi-tek to do everything for them. So people made sure the kids were either not behind the car or knew better than to stand in the driveway BEFORE they hopped in and drove away. Now people have an expectation that "something" will magically keep kids away from cars, and kids are getting hit.


Blind spots have gotten worse overall.  Sit in a car from the 80s or 90s and then sit in a brand new one today, one of the first things you'll likely notice is that the greenhouse is much smaller.  Higher belt lines have come into vogue due to style and for crash protection (or at least the feeling from inside that you'd be safer in a crash).

Windows have gotten smaller, trunk lids higher, and blind spots larger over the years, for both cars and SUVs.  Sure, some cars buck that trend, but most don't.
 
2013-09-26 12:35:50 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: RottNDude: This reminds me of that douchebag Infiniti SUV commercial where douchebag Dad in his douchebag luxury SUV fails to look behind him when he's backing out of his douchbag HOA community driveway and almost runs over some douchebag kid, but the auto-radar-braking system kicks in and stops the car.  Douchebag dad looks over at douchebag wife with a look of douchebag relief that his luxury douchebag SUV made up for his douchey inattentiveness.

Infinity.  For Douches.

Seriously, that's a selling feature? What if you're in a situation where there's an armed rapist standing behind the car, and you want to reverse run him over? Would the "safety feature" kick in and prevent you from doing so? If so, that's shiatty.


"We are sorry you were rear ended because of our rear ending prevention technology."
 
2013-09-26 12:36:02 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What if you're in a situation where there's an armed rapist standing behind the car, and you want to reverse run him over?


That's your argument? "What if I want to kill someone?"?

Anyway, if you're in that situation, it's your own fault for dressing all sexy-like.
 
2013-09-26 12:41:44 AM
hobbling children at a young age would solve this problem without all the issues, not to mention cheaper.
 
2013-09-26 12:47:32 AM

TuteTibiImperes: kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150

It wouldn't cost anywhere near $1,000 per car.  Most new cars have screen already, or will have them when the next redesign comes.  LCDs are cheap.  Even for cars that don't have them they can spec a different rearview mirror with a screen behind the mirror.  All it takes is a single cable running between the screen and the camera to provide signal and power, and since pretty much all automatic transmissions are shift by wire these days, it's not hard to set it up to trigger the camera automatically when you shift into reverse (I'm sure something could be done for manuals as well).

The high end estimate is little under $200 per car, in all likelihood if it were mandated the automakers could do it for well under $100 per car, which is chump change in the overall price of a vehicle.

They won't need to make sure it will last ten years, they'll have to make sure it lasts the 3-5 years for the bumper to bumper warranty, more or less.


See that would make sense. But everything talks on the cars buss now. Even your radio. On some model cars, if you replace the power window motors you have to log into the cars computer. Then reset it to show the start and stop point. The switch does not directly control power, it sends a signal to the cars computer to roll down the window. Due to anti theft features, your cars stereo is in the buss. It has to have the correct code or vin from the cars BCM.
 
2013-09-26 12:48:14 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Gyrfalcon: Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention), the US pass the following law:

No motor vehicle shall be operated by a driver who is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.

This, and this again.

It's odd, to me at least, that nobody started backing over their kids in driveways until suddenly a) drivers' ed courses stopped being mandatory in high schools, and b) the technology which would allow people not to ensure there weren't kids in the driveway before they began backing up became widely available.

I mean, cars were no bigger, no heavier, no more unwieldy, had no smaller blind spots, in the 50's and 60's; but what they DIDN'T have was people who expected hi-tek to do everything for them. So people made sure the kids were either not behind the car or knew better than to stand in the driveway BEFORE they hopped in and drove away. Now people have an expectation that "something" will magically keep kids away from cars, and kids are getting hit.

Blind spots have gotten worse overall.  Sit in a car from the 80s or 90s and then sit in a brand new one today, one of the first things you'll likely notice is that the greenhouse is much smaller.  Higher belt lines have come into vogue due to style and for crash protection (or at least the feeling from inside that you'd be safer in a crash).

Windows have gotten smaller, trunk lids higher, and blind spots larger over the years, for both cars and SUVs.  Sure, some cars buck that trend, but most don't.


So? I used to have a '69 Valiant with a blind spot the size of a Peterbilt's. I never backed into anything. All you need to do is make sure you a) walk around the car and b) put the kids either inside or outside the car before you hop in and drive away. It's irrelevant how big or small your blind spot is or whether you have a backup camera or not. What matters is whether or not the DRIVER is checking the exterior.

Like I said, it's odd that we never heard of any of this before suddenly it was possible not to check your car visually. I never in my life heard of a parent backing over a child when moms all drove Country Squire station wagons. Yet somehow we're to believe that it's harder now to keep kids from running behind them? Sorry, try again.
 
2013-09-26 12:48:59 AM
face it, no laws or regulations are going to save kids from fooking retards and idiots.

this failure of a parent, and his failure of a wife failed to properly look after their offspring.

/that is all
 
2013-09-26 12:51:23 AM

Monkeyman935: hobbling children at a young age would solve this problem without all the issues, not to mention cheaper.


I would also point out that at the age of 12 I successfully trained a set of 2-year and younger Labrador retrievers to recognize the back end of the car as dangerous and avoid it whenever there were people in or around the vehicle.

As much as I like to joke about this, your toddler is in fact probably smarter than a farkin' adolescent dog, and if you haven't trained them not to stand behind the car that's entirely your own dangerously negligent failure at basic parenting.  You should have done that long before you reached the point of allowing them to wander around an outside area with road access unsupervised, whether your car has a full suite of AI self-driving tools or whether it doesn't even have sideview mirrors.  Some common sense should be applied here, guys, your kid is going to have to deal with mechanical objects flying around his entire life, train the farker in the basics of not dying.

//Figurative "you", not literally you as in Monkeyman935, obviously.
 
2013-09-26 12:52:02 AM

TuteTibiImperes: kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150

It wouldn't cost anywhere near $1,000 per car.  Most new cars have screen already, or will have them when the next redesign comes.  LCDs are cheap.  Even for cars that don't have them they can spec a different rearview mirror with a screen behind the mirror.  All it takes is a single cable running between the screen and the camera to provide signal and power, and since pretty much all automatic transmissions are shift by wire these days, it's not hard to set it up to trigger the camera automatically when you shift into reverse (I'm sure something could be done for manuals as well).

The high end estimate is little under $200 per car, in all likelihood if it were mandated the automakers could do it for well under $100 per car, which is chump change in the overall price of a vehicle.

They won't need to make sure it will last ten years, they'll have to make sure it lasts the 3-5 years for the bumper to bumper warranty, more or less.


I think safety features are meant to last longer than normal drive train. We had a 90 Mitz Mighty Max. It was recalled aprox 10 years latter for seat belt problems. Some plastic piece would brake and it might brake. Atleast the belts looked new when we sold it.
 
2013-09-26 12:54:08 AM
Parents who ran over *their* kids with *their* cars because *they* weren't watching where *they* were going place the blame exactly where it belongs: on the government

i153.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-26 12:58:17 AM

CruJones: Oh, and it only took me about two years to learn its also a DVD player. That only works in park. Because who doesn't want to sit in the car and watch a movie in the driveway?


My housemates' SUV has a touchscreen GPS/car stats/etc thing built in.  If you don't tell it to do something useful when you start the car, while you're driving it just displays a reminder to not look at that screen while driving.
 
2013-09-26 12:59:28 AM
You can pass as many safety laws and strap as much safety equipment to your person or property you want, but inevitably, shiat happens. I understand their grief, sadly, and the desire for knee-jerk legislation, but inevitably, shiat happens.
 
2013-09-26 01:02:54 AM

Quasar: After the tragedy, Gulbransen reached out to KidsAndCars.org to champion for better visibility behind vehicles. Rep. Peter King, R-NY, introduced a bill in 2003 dubbed "Cameron's law," which would have required safety standards that would hopefully reduce the likelihood of such accidents. The bill, however, never made it out of committee.

More socialist Big Brother nonsense.


at least dexter isnt busy any more and can visit these morons
before they kill again
 
2013-09-26 01:04:08 AM

ChildOfBhaal: The only semi-justifiable reason for backing into a parking spot is if you intend to rob a bank.


THIS

plus, darwin rules
 
2013-09-26 01:08:33 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Hey.... why does Honda have that smug smile?

/again


I went car shopping last weekend, looking for something that could go offroad a little better than my car. The CR-V looked very promising, until I took a closer look:

1. A rearview camera that is a mandatory option. I don't need it.
2. Stupid green lights that fade out if you use too much gas. I don't need it.
3. An "MPG" meter that shows how much gas you're using. I've been driving 25 years, and I know how hard I'm driving. I don't need it.
4. The oil is 0W20 which doesn't even come in conventional. Good luck finding that in rural Mississippi late on a Thursday night when you really need it during a cross country trip.
5. Tire pressure sensor. Don't need it - I have a $4 pressure gauge from Autozone and check my tires regularly.
6. Emergency braking assist. Dont need it - I can put enough pressure to lock the brakes on my own.
7. Engine immobilizer. Don't need it - it usually kicks in 8pm Sunday night while you're in Yosemite valley and getting someone to come out to you will cost $300.

They cram all these features in without giving you a choice, and you're looking at $25K for a base model. F*ck that. I'm buying a 1999 Subaru next week for $1000 - I'll change the head gaskets and front seal, throw on some new tires, and get 3-4 years out of it.
 
2013-09-26 01:08:37 AM
i mean yeah, good idea for a law and all that but congress has bigger fish to fry at the moment. 0bamacare isn't going to defund itself you know.
 
2013-09-26 01:12:48 AM

Gyrfalcon: I mean, cars were no bigger, no heavier, no more unwieldy, had no smaller blind spots, in the 50's and 60's;


Most cars are significantly smaller and lighter now.
I can't even think of a modern day "land yacht" to compare with the ones prevalent back then.

I agree, it's the laziness.   The same reason that high school "graduate" can't make change without the register telling them how.
They don't need to. The Machine will take care of them.
 
2013-09-26 01:16:01 AM
Not a single one of you circus animals read the article, did you?
 
2013-09-26 01:16:36 AM

xiola: There is an easy solution - and I'm only posting this because of a story of a guy backing over his own dog which broke my heart.
The easy solution is:   Drumroll please:

Back in to your parking spot.

Done.  It's that easy.  When you drive away in the morning you are going forward and can see what you are going to hit.

No backup cameras needed.


WAIT WHAT?!

So it is better to back over your dog when you get home at night, rather than early in the morning??
WTF DOOD?!

But seriously, which time are you more likely to have light?
In the AM or PM?
Back up when it is lighter out.
 
2013-09-26 01:18:18 AM

Cyclometh: Not a single one of you circus animals read the article, did you?


*flings poo*
 
2013-09-26 01:26:48 AM

Cyclometh: Not a single one of you circus animals read the article, did you?


yes, and it is needless regulatory bullshiat.

note: unless you: a) hold financial interest in companies that supply the camera systems OR b) just need to blame somebody else for your mistakes.
 
2013-09-26 01:36:56 AM

Popular Opinion: Cyclometh: Not a single one of you circus animals read the article, did you?

yes, and it is needless regulatory bullshiat.

note: unless you: a) hold financial interest in companies that supply the camera systems OR b) just need to blame somebody else for your mistakes.


You're an idiot. Every year planes get safer, because of regulations. Cars too. Guns too. Food too. Pick a thing, they get safer.. I do like the notion that you think there is a big camera lobbying industry that is working for regulations for installing a camera on the back of cars. Remember the great bumper industry financial interest groups of the 1930s? Boy, it's a shame we succumbed to that huge powerful group of industrialists. If you want to go after private industry having financial interests in influencing policy, cameras are ... uh, hey, have you ever heard of guns? Or food?
 
2013-09-26 01:45:16 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: $200 per car, $3 billion a year to save 100 lives a year, or $30 million per life, if you don't count injuries prevented.


Now factor in all the property damage that would be avoided. It's actually a pretty good deal.
 
2013-09-26 01:46:48 AM
The link in the article is about a woman in a ford. Not a man in a BMW. WTF?
 
2013-09-26 01:53:16 AM
Drivers nowadays are lazy, inattentive, fatass farks who never even opened their drivers' handbook to read the part about backing up. Too farking busy worrying about what's on the radio or makeup or impressing that cutie in the beemer nearby. You deserve to back over your kid/neighbor/random stranger and suffer the consequences for not grasping the gravity of the "simple" task you just took for granted and completely farked up, you tool.
 
2013-09-26 01:54:27 AM
I bet those toddlers had bicycles... lets hate them instead of lazy inattentive drivers!
 
2013-09-26 02:00:09 AM

kombi: TuteTibiImperes: kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150

It wouldn't cost anywhere near $1,000 per car.  Most new cars have screen already, or will have them when the next redesign comes.  LCDs are cheap.  Even for cars that don't have them they can spec a different rearview mirror with a screen behind the mirror.  All it takes is a single cable running between the screen and the camera to provide signal and power, and since pretty much all automatic transmissions are shift by wire these days, it's not hard to set it up to trigger the camera automatically when you shift into reverse (I'm sure something could be done for manuals as well).

The high end estimate is little under $200 per car, in all likelihood if it were mandated the automakers could do it for well under $100 per car, which is chump change in the overall price of a vehicle.

They won't need to make sure it will last ten years, they'll have to make sure it lasts the 3-5 years for the bumper to bumper warranty, more or less.

See that would make sense. But everything talks on the cars buss now. Even your radio. On ...



Everything is co outer controlled, yes, but that won't make cameras more expensive to integrate. 99% of the time if a car has an option for a navigation system it has an option for a rear view camera. The code is already in the system, the hardware just has to be plugged in.
 
2013-09-26 02:04:21 AM

ZeroPly: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Hey.... why does Honda have that smug smile?

/again

I went car shopping last weekend, looking for something that could go offroad a little better than my car. The CR-V looked very promising, until I took a closer look:

1. A rearview camera that is a mandatory option. I don't need it.
2. Stupid green lights that fade out if you use too much gas. I don't need it.
3. An "MPG" meter that shows how much gas you're using. I've been driving 25 years, and I know how hard I'm driving. I don't need it.
4. The oil is 0W20 which doesn't even come in conventional. Good luck finding that in rural Mississippi late on a Thursday night when you really need it during a cross country trip.
5. Tire pressure sensor. Don't need it - I have a $4 pressure gauge from Autozone and check my tires regularly.
6. Emergency braking assist. Dont need it - I can put enough pressure to lock the brakes on my own.
7. Engine immobilizer. Don't need it - it usually kicks in 8pm Sunday night while you're in Yosemite valley and getting someone to come out to you will cost $300.

They cram all these features in without giving you a choice, and you're looking at $25K for a base model. F*ck that. I'm buying a 1999 Subaru next week for $1000 - I'll change the head gaskets and front seal, throw on some new tires, and get 3-4 years out of it.


This is how they saved the auto industry, dontchaknow?

The tire pressure thing drives me crazy - something about the mid 2000's Matrix makes the tires really sensitive to temperature changes, and the stupid light comes on. I've had two of these cars now (first one got totaled) and they both had that problem. I'm just glad they were a few years ahead of the camera/fancy light/gas mileage calculation trends.

I dread the day they figure out self-driving cars and start mandating them - it's going to be a disaster in the north east during winter.
 
2013-09-26 02:06:53 AM

ZeroPly: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Hey.... why does Honda have that smug smile?

/again

I went car shopping last weekend, looking for something that could go offroad a little better than my car. The CR-V looked very promising, until I took a closer look:

1. A rearview camera that is a mandatory option. I don't need it.
2. Stupid green lights that fade out if you use too much gas. I don't need it.
3. An "MPG" meter that shows how much gas you're using. I've been driving 25 years, and I know how hard I'm driving. I don't need it.
4. The oil is 0W20 which doesn't even come in conventional. Good luck finding that in rural Mississippi late on a Thursday night when you really need it during a cross country trip.
5. Tire pressure sensor. Don't need it - I have a $4 pressure gauge from Autozone and check my tires regularly.
6. Emergency braking assist. Dont need it - I can put enough pressure to lock the brakes on my own.
7. Engine immobilizer. Don't need it - it usually kicks in 8pm Sunday night while you're in Yosemite valley and getting someone to come out to you will cost $300.

They cram all these features in without giving you a choice, and you're looking at $25K for a base model. F*ck that. I'm buying a 1999 Subaru next week for $1000 - I'll change the head gaskets and front seal, throw on some new tires, and get 3-4 years out of it.



Tire pressure monitoring systems are federally mandated now. 0w-xx oils are becoming increasingly common, and are available in synthetic blends, I doubt you'd have trouble finding it. Plus, engine oil change intervals have increased to 10,000 miles on a lot of new vehicles because of the better oils. A single change may cost more, but you don't have to do it as often. Trip computers that gauge fuel economy are also pretty common, and cost next to nothing to integrate. An engine immobilizes can save you on insurance and is common across the board these days. If you want an old car, good for you, but modern technology isn't anything to be afraid of.
 
2013-09-26 02:10:36 AM
I JUST ATE BBQ RIBS. IT WAS DELICIOUS. HOWARD DEAN SCREAM
 
2013-09-26 02:19:52 AM

ladyfortuna: I dread the day they figure out self-driving cars and start mandating them - it's going to be a disaster in the north east during winter.


because the cars will drive 1,000 mph while it is icy and snowy?
the cars wont have ABS and traction control anymore?

WHY would they get rid of features?
I am so confused.

/lol
 
2013-09-26 02:29:27 AM
Government just wants reverse control in your car
 
2013-09-26 02:29:35 AM

ZeroPly: F*ck that. I'm buying a 1999 Subaru next week for $1000 - I'll change the head gaskets and front seal, throw on some new tires, and get 3-4 years out of it.


The 1999 model is much too new-school for my taste. I advise you to get the classic '92 Subaru.
 
2013-09-26 02:55:05 AM

ladyfortuna: The tire pressure thing drives me crazy - something about the mid 2000's Matrix makes the tires really sensitive to temperature changes, and the stupid light comes on. I've had two of these cars now (first one got totaled) and they both had that problem. I'm just glad they were a few years ahead of the camera/fancy light/gas mileage calculation trends.


... I'm envisioning a cardboard multiplication table duct-taped to the dashboard.

Is that seriously something that people need help with?  Basic division?
 
2013-09-26 02:55:51 AM

TuteTibiImperes: kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150

It wouldn't cost anywhere near $1,000 per car.  Most new cars have screen already, or will have them when the next redesign comes.  LCDs are cheap.  Even for cars that don't have them they can spec a different rearview mirror with a screen behind the mirror.  All it takes is a single cable running between the screen and the camera to provide signal and power, and since pretty much all automatic transmissions are shift by wire these days, it's not hard to set it up to trigger the camera automatically when you shift into reverse (I'm sure something could be done for manuals as well).

The high end estimate is little under $200 per car, in all likelihood if it were mandated the automakers could do it for well under $100 per car, which is chump change in the overall price of a vehicle.

They won't need to make sure it will last ten years, they'll have to make sure it lasts the 3-5 years for the bumper to bumper warranty, more or less.


You forgot the part where the manufacturer marks up the price of EVERYTHING.  We need a new fuel line in our Ford Ranger. The one that goes from the gas tank cap to the tank itself(cracked a bit up near where the gas tank cap screws on, won't pass smog if we have to get it checked again... which we don't.. yet...). Ford wants something like 800 for the part alone.

That 200 dollar estimate is what you get for aftermarket products.

And to the guy that posted the chart... that chart amuses me. Greatly. Because we're being robbed blind by taxes here, the state says the feds don't give us enough, we're broker than fark and all the money goes down south(California).  And this state is a liberal utopia. That can't manage money.
 
2013-09-26 03:13:30 AM
I'm going to lobby the government for an automatic arm that slaps the fark out of anyone that just walks in front of me or behind me in the walmart parking lot.  That would be worth paying extra for.
 
2013-09-26 03:19:34 AM
Or...we could petition the government to just make all cars out of nerf. 

Oh wait, people don't give a crap if they hit some adult.
 
2013-09-26 03:22:20 AM

TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

I heard a figure tossed out of around $2.5 billion to add them to all new vehicles

/YMMV

Going by the total of 14.4 million new vehicles sold in the US last year that works out to roughly $173 per car, which sounds a bit on the high side, but is still reasonable.

Most new cars are starting to come with LCD screens, cameras are incredibly cheap, and if they're mandatory on all models all it would take is a cable running from the camera in the back to the LCD screen in the front which is easily done during assembly when the rest of the wires are being run.

There's really no reason not to mandate backup cameras in all new cars, the cost per unit would be negligible, and they're a huge convenience as well as being a nice safety feature.  They'd likely cut down on fender benders due to people backing into other cars, buildings, etc, by quite a bit as well, so they could translate into savings on insurance.


You're trolling, right?

I'm fairly liberal, but I don't get this one. I have a backup camera in my prius and never use it because my own eyes are better. I have 3 mirrors and a neck that turns.

Do you know the actual costs of implementation, other than "thrown around numbers" or "negligible"? This is one of the things the free market can handle pretty well. Yes, the gov't could get involved, but is it really necessary/useful? The market (car manufacturers and insurance companies) are already working on safety innovations. Don't hamper them with rules that may be obsolete very soon.

Every time the gov't gets involved in the market, the conservatives will backlash even harder. Make your interventions count. Save it for the banks.
 
2013-09-26 03:23:34 AM
One more fancy feature to price the rest of us out of the new car market.
When this guy bought his BMW SUV, I bet he could have had the optional camera installed but didn't.

When my kids were under 4, I watched them very attentively and always held their hands when we were anywhere near moving vehicles. Who the hell was supposed to be watching his kid? The drunk wife? The undocumented nanny? Here's an idea, drive a cheaper car and blow your cash on high-quality child care instead.
 
2013-09-26 03:28:34 AM

TuteTibiImperes: ZeroPly: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Hey.... why does Honda have that smug smile?

/again

I went car shopping last weekend, looking for something that could go offroad a little better than my car. The CR-V looked very promising, until I took a closer look:

1. A rearview camera that is a mandatory option. I don't need it.
2. Stupid green lights that fade out if you use too much gas. I don't need it.
3. An "MPG" meter that shows how much gas you're using. I've been driving 25 years, and I know how hard I'm driving. I don't need it.
4. The oil is 0W20 which doesn't even come in conventional. Good luck finding that in rural Mississippi late on a Thursday night when you really need it during a cross country trip.
5. Tire pressure sensor. Don't need it - I have a $4 pressure gauge from Autozone and check my tires regularly.
6. Emergency braking assist. Dont need it - I can put enough pressure to lock the brakes on my own.
7. Engine immobilizer. Don't need it - it usually kicks in 8pm Sunday night while you're in Yosemite valley and getting someone to come out to you will cost $300.

They cram all these features in without giving you a choice, and you're looking at $25K for a base model. F*ck that. I'm buying a 1999 Subaru next week for $1000 - I'll change the head gaskets and front seal, throw on some new tires, and get 3-4 years out of it.


Tire pressure monitoring systems are federally mandated now. 0w-xx oils are becoming increasingly common, and are available in synthetic blends, I doubt you'd have trouble finding it. Plus, engine oil change intervals have increased to 10,000 miles on a lot of new vehicles because of the better oils. A single change may cost more, but you don't have to do it as often. Trip computers that gauge fuel economy are also pretty common, and cost next to nothing to integrate. An engine immobilizes can save you on insurance and is common across the board these days. If you want an old car, good for you, but modern technology isn't anything t ...



I have nothing against technology - I just don't like it forced down my throat. I don't need to be nannied with a lot of these features. MPG gauges and oil life monitors are great for someone who's 17 and getting their first car. When you've been driving since Duran Duran was a big deal, it's all about as useful as a shift indicator light. Figure out how to make this stuff modular, and based on a common bus. Then if I decide I need a rearview camera, I'll pick one up, and pop it into place.

While on that subject - do something useful like displaying actual error codes. It's ridiculous to have all these highly integrated tools that measure oil life and tire pressure, and then when there's a problem, a single stupid "check engine" indicator comes on. How hard is it to make the dash display "P0087 - Fuel system pressure"?

It is the difference between using an OS that prevents you from doing anything dangerous, and one that cheerfully allows an "rm -rf /" command. Some of us don't feel the need to be protected from our tools...
 
2013-09-26 03:42:30 AM

E5bie: One more fancy feature to price the rest of us out of the new car market.
When this guy bought his BMW SUV, I bet he could have had the optional camera installed but didn't.

When my kids were under 4, I watched them very attentively and always held their hands when we were anywhere near moving vehicles. Who the hell was supposed to be watching his kid? The drunk wife? The undocumented nanny? Here's an idea, drive a cheaper car and blow your cash on high-quality child care instead.


Being a pediatrician, money probably really wasn't an object.
 
2013-09-26 04:03:36 AM

ladyfortuna: The tire pressure thing drives me crazy - something about the mid 2000's Matrix makes the tires really sensitive to temperature changes, and the stupid light comes on. I've had two of these cars now (first one got totaled) and they both had that problem. I'm just glad they were a few years ahead of the camera/fancy light/gas mileage calculation trends.


I have a Rav4 and the first autumn I had it, the lights came on, I topped up the tires and the light wouldn't go off.  Took me 3 weeks to realize it was warning me about the air pressure in the spare tire, which actually is pretty useful because I don't check it as often as I should (I would guess most drivers don't).  I do think the new feature that Nissan is advertising where it honks when you have put enough air in is pretty annoying though.
 
2013-09-26 04:06:23 AM
No device should replace common sense and situational awareness..
 
2013-09-26 04:28:54 AM

TuteTibiImperes: kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150

It wouldn't cost anywhere near $1,000 per car.  Most new cars have screen already, or will have them when the next redesign comes.  LCDs are cheap.  Even for cars that don't have them they can spec a different rearview mirror with a screen behind the mirror.  All it takes is a single cable running between the screen and the camera to provide signal and power, and since pretty much all automatic transmissions are shift by wire these days, it's not hard to set it up to trigger the camera automatically when you shift into reverse (I'm sure something could be done for manuals as well).

The high end estimate is little under $200 per car, in all likelihood if it were mandated the automakers could do it for well under $100 per car, which is chump change in the overall price of a vehicle.

They won't need to make sure it will last ten years, they'll have to make sure it lasts the 3-5 years for the bumper to bumper warranty, more or less.


I have to say, I totally agree with this.  I mean, I'm anti-big government as much as the next person, but it's widely acknowledged that it's appropriate for the government to step in to remedy market failures exactly like this. I mean, it's not like you can just go out and find a car with a backup camera readily installed...

Oh wait, you can?  Even in a Ford Fiesta?  Oh, well, I mean, I'm sure this well meaning law was appropriate when it was passed.  I mean, it's not like backup cameras were available in 2003, right?

Wait, BMW SUVs with rearview cameras have been available since the X5 was introduced in the late 90s?  When the pediatrician in question bought the SUV in question, he could have bought a model with a rearview camera had he been willing to spend a few more bucks?  So, a bad parent makes poor life decisions and blames someone else - color me surprised.  If I were to accidentally kill one of my kids I might go off the rails a bit, but I hope to god someone close would help me move beyond denial and get through grieving sometime in the same decade.

Frankly, his kid was likely only spared from later death or serious injury as a result of a drunk driving incident following a party hosted by these idiot parents.
 
2013-09-26 04:55:40 AM
Not even going to read the article because I just know they are going to be urban SUV/4WD owners who ran over their own kids due primarily to their choice is cars.

If they want to pass a law, maybe it should be restricting IDIOTS from driving anything but a compact.
 
2013-09-26 05:12:36 AM

Bigdogdaddy: E5bie: One more fancy feature to price the rest of us out of the new car market.
When this guy bought his BMW SUV, I bet he could have had the optional camera installed but didn't.

When my kids were under 4, I watched them very attentively and always held their hands when we were anywhere near moving vehicles. Who the hell was supposed to be watching his kid? The drunk wife? The undocumented nanny? Here's an idea, drive a cheaper car and blow your cash on high-quality child care instead.

Being a pediatrician, money probably really wasn't an object.


Oh Jeez, I skimmed right over that. The accident really *must* have been the car's fault then, and the government is to blame for not idiot-proofing all mechanical objects. I wonder how many parents still trust him with their kids' lives.
 
2013-09-26 05:21:31 AM
fark that.

Why not just pass a law mandating a breeding license for people who want kids?  Even if you're as rich as this idiot, if you're as dumb as this idiot, you shouldn't have children.
 
2013-09-26 05:29:57 AM

Jim_Callahan: Monkeyman935: hobbling children at a young age would solve this problem without all the issues, not to mention cheaper.

I would also point out that at the age of 12 I successfully trained a set of 2-year and younger Labrador retrievers to recognize the back end of the car as dangerous and avoid it whenever there were people in or around the vehicle.

As much as I like to joke about this, your toddler is in fact probably smarter than a farkin' adolescent dog, and if you haven't trained them not to stand behind the car that's entirely your own dangerously negligent failure at basic parenting.  You should have done that long before you reached the point of allowing them to wander around an outside area with road access unsupervised, whether your car has a full suite of AI self-driving tools or whether it doesn't even have sideview mirrors.  Some common sense should be applied here, guys, your kid is going to have to deal with mechanical objects flying around his entire life, train the farker in the basics of not dying.

//Figurative "you", not literally you as in Monkeyman935, obviously.


BTW JC... Toddlers do not work that way.
They're vastly more intelligent than dogs, yes, but reliable self-control is just not there yet, nor is attention span, nor is attentiveness to their immediate environment. That's why 3-year-old humans shouldn't be left to wander the neighborhood alone.
A 2-year old Labrador can successfully raise a litter of pups. A 2-year-old human is still being toilet trained. Smarts has little to do with developmental timetables like that.
 
2013-09-26 05:32:43 AM

RatMaster999: fark that.

Why not just pass a law mandating a breeding license for people who want kids?  Even if you're as rich as this idiot, if you're as dumb as this idiot, you shouldn't have children.


Or how about universal yearly drivers' tests? Save us all from being plowed down by idiots at the farmers market.
A 2000-lb car is not a toy.
 
GBB
2013-09-26 05:47:13 AM

E5bie: RatMaster999: fark that.

Why not just pass a law mandating a breeding license for people who want kids?  Even if you're as rich as this idiot, if you're as dumb as this idiot, you shouldn't have children.

Or how about universal yearly drivers' tests? Save us all from being plowed down by idiots at the farmers market.
A 2000-lb car is not a toy.


You're right.  Big kid toys weigh a lot less than that.  Otherwise, they're no fun.

static.cargurus.com
 
2013-09-26 06:06:10 AM
"OMG I'm too stupid to do anything myself! Why isn't the government doing something to help?"

"OMFG why is the government always trying to tell me how to live my life?"
 
2013-09-26 06:38:33 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: $200 per car, $3 billion a year to save 100 lives a year, or $30 million per life, if you don't count injuries prevented.


Typical auto industry markup. Just buy your own:  http://dx.com/p/3-5-car-rearview-lcd-monitor-e350-waterproof-rearview - camera-system-w-7-led-black-221935
 
2013-09-26 06:48:06 AM

howdoibegin: Popular Opinion: Cyclometh: Not a single one of you circus animals read the article, did you?

yes, and it is needless regulatory bullshiat.

note: unless you: a) hold financial interest in companies that supply the camera systems OR b) just need to blame somebody else for your mistakes.

You're an idiot. Every year planes get safer, because of regulations. Cars too. Guns too. Food too. Pick a thing, they get safer.. I do like the notion that you think there is a big camera lobbying industry that is working for regulations for installing a camera on the back of cars. Remember the great bumper industry financial interest groups of the 1930s? Boy, it's a shame we succumbed to that huge powerful group of industrialists. If you want to go after private industry having financial interests in influencing policy, cameras are ... uh, hey, have you ever heard of guns? Or food?


Yeah, except that good safety regulations control things you can't control. Like food safety, it's not reasonable for you to home test your food for e-coli. Seatbelts and bumpers help you survive if you get hit by a drunk driver or careless driver.

The problem here is that this is a situation which people already CAN control- but some don't. No matter what anyone goes on the news to say, that kid didn't teleport behind their car. They weren't being situationally aware. Did they check their mirrors vigilantly enough? I'm guessing not. And legislating mandatory cameras won't help that because you can't force people to use their eyeballs to actually LOOK at the backup screen before backing up, because in all honesty the people backing over shiat are people who aren't looking in the mirrors they HAVE NOW. And even if they do deign to glance at the screen, if they aren't aware of everything around their car, they'll look away after the first glance, and a loose child can just run behind the car and then they'll still back over the kid. Or the kid will run while they're backing up and they won't stop in time. Unless you automate the car fully (which I know some people want to do) you can't fix everything for people who aren't paying attention and are crappy drivers and bad parents that have kids that run out into streets and driveways without supervision and aren't wary of cars.

There's no way of telling that this will actually make anything safer. If anything, it may make people run over even more things because they feel like they don't need to be aware of what's around the car, increasing the incidences of glancing/looking away/backing over something that darted behind the car.
 
2013-09-26 07:14:35 AM

cman: MaudlinMutantMollusk: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

I heard a figure tossed out of around $2.5 billion to add them to all new vehicles

/YMMV

I wonder how much they are spending on research for driverless vehicles

I know they are in the pipeline

Maybe they are waiting for that? Dunno


Did you read that article about the Google car only having one accident and it was when someone was behind the wheel of it.
 
2013-09-26 07:25:57 AM

cman: Bullshiat

People need to stop blaming others for their own faults

OMG ITS THE GUBMENT FAULT! OMG ITS BIG BUSNESS FAULT! IT DOESNT MATTER THAT I WAS BEHIND THE WHEEL!


I just want to be sure that you actually rtfa? They are suing the government to innact a law that has been postponed for half a decade. Why, exactly, are you outraged?
 
2013-09-26 07:36:04 AM

Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention), the US pass the following law:

No motor vehicle shall be operated by a driver who is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.


Yeah, you should have to have some kind of license to drive a car... oh wait
 
2013-09-26 07:41:06 AM
CSB:

I was leaving a parking lot. I walked up to my vehicle, nothing there. Get in, check all mirrors, nothing there. Start to back up and I hear a bunch of yelling. I stop just in time to see some 4 year old dart out from literally right behind my bumper. The snowflake's mom starts yelling at me (from 5 cars away) telling me how I need to watch where the fark I am going. I told her if she were a better parent she wouldn't be letting her 4 year old kid roam the Goddamn parking lot and hide behind car bumpers. She hadn't walked by, she was 60 something feet away. She was just letting her kids run around like assholes. But somehow that became *my* fault.
 
2013-09-26 08:14:41 AM

Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention)...


Gubmint also took away my manual spark advance lever (which decreases good old-fashioned git-up-'n-go by 7.3% for those who know how to drive) and carburetors (purely for the financial gain of Big Fuel Injector and blindly accepted by those who don't know how to drive).

//Nothing you listed is mandatory equipment, btw...
 
2013-09-26 08:22:48 AM
It's called "Walk around before getting in the car. Pick up snowflake. Take snowflake into the house.  Get into the car and go."
 
2013-09-26 08:42:37 AM

xiola: There is an easy solution - and I'm only posting this because of a story of a guy backing over his own dog which broke my heart.
The easy solution is:   Drumroll please:

Back in to your parking spot.

Done.  It's that easy.  When you drive away in the morning you are going forward and can see what you are going to hit.

No backup cameras needed.


Unless you back over them while backing into your parking lot, which would be more likely because a child or a dog would run up to the vehicle excitedly when you back into the driveway.
 
2013-09-26 08:56:59 AM
Darwin must not want him to reproduce.
 
2013-09-26 09:05:44 AM
My wife has been in contact with kidsandcars since a three-year-old behind the wheel of a pickup managed to run over both of our daughters.  The truck's owner left his two kids unattended in the cab while one got loose from his car seat and and grabbed the gearshift lever.
This was 18 years ago when brake pedal/shifter interlocks were just becoming standard equipment.

My 8 year-old got cuts on her back from the undercarriage that required cosmetic surgery.
The 5 year-old got dragged around the back tire through the wheelwell. Broken arm, cuts and muffler burns.
A sedan probably would have killed them.
 
2013-09-26 09:08:59 AM

TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

I heard a figure tossed out of around $2.5 billion to add them to all new vehicles

/YMMV

Going by the total of 14.4 million new vehicles sold in the US last year that works out to roughly $173 per car, which sounds a bit on the high side, but is still reasonable.

Most new cars are starting to come with LCD screens, cameras are incredibly cheap, and if they're mandatory on all models all it would take is a cable running from the camera in the back to the LCD screen in the front A short connection to the nearest CANbus lines which is easily done during assembly when the rest of the wires are being run.

There's really no reason not to mandate backup cameras in all new cars, the cost per unit would be negligible, and they're a huge convenience as well as being a nice safety feature.  They'd likely cut down on fender benders due to people backing into other cars, buildings, etc, by quite a bit as well, so they could translate into savings on insurance.


Pretty much ALL new cars use a computer network protocol known as CAN (Controller Area Network) that connects all of the assorted computers a modern car has, along with any other devices that communicate with them. As a result, instead of having to run multiple wires between everything, the signals are all processed at component level and sent as data packets over the CAN bus. Which has dramatically decreased the amount of wiring in a modern car, along with a lot of the engineering that used to be involved with getting things that produced different signal types to talk to each other. So yeah, things that used to be really expensive to add now cost little more than the component itself. Heck, options like cruise control and stability control (now required on all new cars) are stupid cheap. For cruise, cars already have electronic throttles. It's literally a matter of adding the buttons, 2 wires to connect the button panel to the BCM, and a few lines of code. For stability control (the car has to have ABS, but again, that was all mandated last year) but it's merely a matter of a few lines of code in the ABS module. How much does a VGA webcam cost these days? Ruggedize its case and add a few lines of code to the body control module. Voila! Backup camera. Most cars that this rule would apply to already have big LCD screens anyways. That $173 per car number is stupid high. More like $20, if that.
 
2013-09-26 09:11:34 AM
Ha ha! You killed your kid!
 
2013-09-26 09:16:49 AM

BikerRay: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: $200 per car, $3 billion a year to save 100 lives a year, or $30 million per life, if you don't count injuries prevented.

Typical auto industry markup. Just buy your own:  http://dx.com/p/3-5-car-rearview-lcd-monitor-e350-waterproof-rearview - camera-system-w-7-led-black-221935


Be a man, build your own.
Old monitor, old camera and some duct tape and you are all set.
Hooked up a great system on my wife's car, she can see behind the car great now.
She does keep biatching about the 21" crt monitor taped to the dash though, claims she can't see over it.
There is no pleasing women.
 
2013-09-26 09:22:30 AM
Ever notice how these parents tend to prefer owning vehicles with a high rear end?

www.opposingviews.com

It's like deep in their psyche, they are compelled to go around showing their huge raised asses at people everywhere they go. Oh, and the vehicle HAS to be white as well? Another subliminal?
 
2013-09-26 09:27:07 AM

Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention), the US pass the following law:

No motor vehicle shall be operated by a driver who is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.


That would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Since that law would prohibit almost every woman from being allowed to drive.
 
2013-09-26 09:40:15 AM

MythDragon: CSB:

I was leaving a parking lot. I walked up to my vehicle, nothing there. Get in, check all mirrors, nothing there. Start to back up and I hear a bunch of yelling. I stop just in time to see some 4 year old dart out from literally right behind my bumper. The snowflake's mom starts yelling at me (from 5 cars away) telling me how I need to watch where the fark I am going. I told her if she were a better parent she wouldn't be letting her 4 year old kid roam the Goddamn parking lot and hide behind car bumpers. She hadn't walked by, she was 60 something feet away. She was just letting her kids run around like assholes. But somehow that became *my* fault.


You should've been laughing as you tell she is a terrible mom, and while still laughing tell the 4 yro, "I almost ran you over, for simply getting away from mommy."  She will either try to hit you or get the piss scared out of her to maybe reconsider her actions next time.  If she gets close, change quickly to a drill sergeant mode and start barking things like "Oh, you don't want none of this".  She'll likely crap her pants and flee.  As she flees, go back to the laughing mocking of her.  Then good job citizen.


wild9: Did you read that article about the Google car only having one accident and it was when someone was behind the wheel of it.


I guess you missed the story we had last month of the Google car hitting another car and leaving the scene.  It didn't have a driver.  I guess some put Vodka in its tank.
 
2013-09-26 09:46:13 AM

fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?


They have these things called rear view mirrors, most cars already have 3 of them.

They also have things called driving schools where you learn how to freaking drive, which includes looking behind you before backing up.
 
2013-09-26 09:49:20 AM

Dedmon: cman: Bullshiat

People need to stop blaming others for their own faults

OMG ITS THE GUBMENT FAULT! OMG ITS BIG BUSNESS FAULT! IT DOESNT MATTER THAT I WAS BEHIND THE WHEEL!

I just want to be sure that you actually rtfa? They are suing the government to innact a law that has been postponed for half a decade. Why, exactly, are you outraged?


There's no law prohibiting buying and installing a rear-view camera.
 
2013-09-26 09:50:54 AM
The value of "they" in the headline becomes less and less clear as the headline goes on. Tarzan need antecedent.
 
2013-09-26 09:54:43 AM

xiola: There is an easy solution - and I'm only posting this because of a story of a guy backing over his own dog which broke my heart.
The easy solution is:   Drumroll please:

Back in to your parking spot.

Done.  It's that easy.  When you drive away in the morning you are going forward and can see what you are going to hit.

No backup cameras needed.


I see people in parking lots that have 2 spaces on each side of the aisle, not angled, back out when there's no car in front of them.

I look for a space where I can pull thru to avoid backing up.  I have no problem walking an extra 50 or 100 feet.
 
2013-09-26 10:12:04 AM

TV's Vinnie: Ever notice how these parents tend to prefer owning vehicles with a high rear end?

[www.opposingviews.com image 301x251]

It's like deep in their psyche, they are compelled to go around showing their huge raised asses at people everywhere they go. Oh, and the vehicle HAS to be white as well? Another subliminal?


img.fark.net

Yup, some cars are made that you can see out of. How about that...

www.curbsideclassic.com

Ok, and something more relevant:

upload.wikimedia.org

I have noticed the trend is moving toward high belt lines, the windows are short and placed up high. Especially in the back to create more trunk.

I'm not a big fan of this trend, I like visibility. It accentuates the need for back up cameras, and I'm surprised more automakers don't have cameras for the sides now due to poor visibility around the cars.
 
2013-09-26 10:14:16 AM
The blame should be placed squarely where it belongs.  On people who buy SUVs when all they need is a frickin' car, just like their parents made do with.
 
2013-09-26 10:38:26 AM
I can see just fine out of my Sonic. Don't see the problem.
 
2013-09-26 10:48:32 AM
What some are forgetting is that even with a backup camera the person driving would need to look at it, which would takes their focus off actually looking behind them.  Backup cameras alone would make it worse.  Yeah you can see directly behind you but that is about all you see.  All cars I have seen with them also have the radar sensors in the bumper that audibly warn the driver of something close to being hit behind the car.  Why make the cameras standard and not just the sensors.  There is no mention of the sensors.  It would be cheaper to implement and keeps the drivers eyes looking in the right direction.
 
2013-09-26 10:52:21 AM

lack of warmth: MythDragon: CSB:

I was leaving a parking lot. I walked up to my vehicle, nothing there. Get in, check all mirrors, nothing there. Start to back up and I hear a bunch of yelling. I stop just in time to see some 4 year old dart out from literally right behind my bumper. The snowflake's mom starts yelling at me (from 5 cars away) telling me how I need to watch where the fark I am going. I told her if she were a better parent she wouldn't be letting her 4 year old kid roam the Goddamn parking lot and hide behind car bumpers. She hadn't walked by, she was 60 something feet away. She was just letting her kids run around like assholes. But somehow that became *my* fault.

You should've been laughing as you tell she is a terrible mom, and while still laughing tell the 4 yro, "I almost ran you over, for simply getting away from mommy." She will either try to hit you or get the piss scared out of her to maybe reconsider her actions next time. If she gets close, change quickly to a drill sergeant mode and start barking things like "Oh, you don't want none of this". She'll likely crap her pants and flee. As she flees, go back to the laughing mocking of her. Then good job citizen.


I'm glad to see you agree. I hadn't considered actualy getting out of the car and threatning her, but I'll do that next time. Thanks for the advice.
 
2013-09-26 11:03:07 AM
I really think the people who are asking "how hard can it be to make sure there are no kids behind you?!!1!" don't have kids of their own.

Never underestate the propensity, nay, the natural gravitational attraction two and three-year-olds have for disaster.

Whenever I leave the house and my youngest is anywhere near the front door, I keep looking behind me.
As I get into the car, I am still looking around worried that the kid slipped by in the moment I turned, and even then I drive back slowly.
I had previously had a fender bender where I had parked towards the end of the row. I had looked over my shoulder, no car, rear-view mirror, no car, right mirror, no car, left mirror, no car.
I look up at the rear view mirror and drive back slowly and hit a car that had literally passed behind me as I was turning from the right mirror to the left mirror. It ended up stopped with only the rear end behind me, so not visible in the rear view.

Weird accidents happen all the time, the problem is that this is intensified by the 2 ton machine.

/drive long enough and you will see weird things. Like the time I almost hydrofoiled into an intersection.
//good times. Good times.
//: accidental slashies
 
2013-09-26 11:07:52 AM

kombi: TuteTibiImperes: kombi: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

You have to remember cars now a days. Its a camera, More to the point a camera that runs on the cars buss. Then computer software so the cars computer will operate the camera. A trigger so the camera will turn on when backing up. A screen. A screen that talks to the cars computer. Then its own dedicated fuse and power lines. So the way car industry works. I would say atleast a grand more on each car. Thats not including dash redesigns and everything else involved. And the way the government pushes. They will probably require it saves the video to the cars black box in case of an accident. And knowing lawsuits it wont only be cameras. All cars will require rear radar. Wait another 10 years when all cars will be required to have accident avoidance and auto parking. Ill stick with my 80 f150

It wouldn't cost anywhere near $1,000 per car.  Most new cars have screen already, or will have them when the next redesign comes.  LCDs are cheap.  Even for cars that don't have them they can spec a different rearview mirror with a screen behind the mirror.  All it takes is a single cable running between the screen and the camera to provide signal and power, and since pretty much all automatic transmissions are shift by wire these days, it's not hard to set it up to trigger the camera automatically when you shift into reverse (I'm sure something could be done for manuals as well).

The high end estimate is little under $200 per car, in all likelihood if it were mandated the automakers could do it for well under $100 per car, which is chump change in the overall price of a vehicle.

They won't need to make sure it will last ten years, they'll have to make sure it lasts the 3-5 years for the bumper to bumper warranty, more or less.

See that would make sense. But everything talks on the cars buss now. Even your radio. On ...


"Buss" is an old form of "kiss". The word you want is "bus". Given the lazy way you type anyway, I would have figured you'd leave off letters rather than add extra ones.
 
2013-09-26 11:16:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention), the US pass the following law:

No motor vehicle shall be operated by a driver who is not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.

This, and this again.

It's odd, to me at least, that nobody started backing over their kids in driveways until suddenly a) drivers' ed courses stopped being mandatory in high schools, and b) the technology which would allow people not to ensure there weren't kids in the driveway before they began backing up became widely available.

I mean, cars were no bigger, no heavier, no more unwieldy, had no smaller blind spots, in the 50's and 60's; but what they DIDN'T have was people who expected hi-tek to do everything for them. So people made sure the kids were either not behind the car or knew better than to stand in the driveway BEFORE they hopped in and drove away. Now people have an expectation that "something" will magically keep kids away from cars, and kids are getting hit.


Parents have been backing over kids since the a car was first capable of going in reverse.
 
2013-09-26 11:19:10 AM

Lsherm: For fark's sake, they're only suing because a law that passed 6 years ago requiring backup cameras keeps getting delayed.  I'd have less sympathy if Congress hadn't actually passed a bill, but let's get real.


Subby has the reading comprehension of someone who was backed over as a child.
 
2013-09-26 11:25:54 AM

Russ1642: Lsherm: For fark's sake, they're only suing because a law that passed 6 years ago requiring backup cameras keeps getting delayed.  I'd have less sympathy if Congress hadn't actually passed a bill, but let's get real.

Subby has the reading comprehension of someone who was backed over as a child.


I think he's upset that a child backed over him
 
2013-09-26 11:31:37 AM

PanicMan: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

Well you have to make sure it's compatible with all the other electronics, make it waterproof, reliable at all common operating temperatures for 10+ years, can handle the vibration, redesign the bumper for fit and ease of access, etc.  it's not just a matter of slap on a camera.


You have to route through the fuse panel also. Tie it into the thing that makes that annoying ding*ding*ding sound when your door is ajar so if you disconnect it, you run the risk of driving around with the door wide open. Wild animals can thus gain complete access to the interior and devour any toddlers strapped in a car seat like Hannibal Lecter. And you can't shoot them because your guns have to be stowed in the trunk and they're probably an endangered species. The wild animals, I mean, not the kids. Although kids can get pretty wild sometimes once they chew through the restraints. Still, shooting them is generally frowned upon. The DA may let you cop to manslaughter unless it's an election year. Killing an endangered animal, though, that's a Federal rap. Hard time.

Take it from me, it's better to just wave the gun around a bit, they'll get the message. The kids, I mean.
 
2013-09-26 11:38:54 AM
cman

Bullshiat

People need to stop blaming others for their own faults
What will become of the democrat party?
 
2013-09-26 11:41:36 AM

Loaf's Tray: Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention)...

Gubmint also took away my manual spark advance lever (which decreases good old-fashioned git-up-'n-go by 7.3% for those who know how to drive) and carburetors (purely for the financial gain of Big Fuel Injector and blindly accepted by those who don't know how to drive).

//Nothing you listed is mandatory equipment, btw...


ABS and traction control aren't mandatory for all new vehicles? You're wrong on that, and have been for many years.

The "collision avoidance" system that cuts your throttle when it thinks there's something in your way is the next thing they'll mandate. The best part is it does it silently, so instead of being able to accelerate around a stopped something and an oncoming something else, you'll go to do that and just drive head-on into the oncoming.
 
2013-09-26 11:49:13 AM
FTA: The federal organization recently released a recommendation to start listing backup cameras as recommended safety equipment, but for the advocates behind the lawsuit it isn't nearly enough. Still, the government claims that it is taking its time to ensure the cost doesn't outweigh the benefits.

The cost doesn't outweigh the benefits? How can you seriously compare a child's life with the cost of adding a safety feature to ensure that child's safety?
 
2013-09-26 12:19:02 PM

RottNDude: This reminds me of that douchebag Infiniti SUV commercial where douchebag Dad in his douchebag luxury SUV fails to look behind him when he's backing out of his douchbag HOA community driveway and almost runs over some douchebag kid, but the auto-radar-braking system kicks in and stops the car.  Douchebag dad looks over at douchebag wife with a look of douchebag relief that his luxury douchebag SUV made up for his douchey inattentiveness. didn't get any blood or scratches on it.

Infinity.  For Douches.


FTFY
 
2013-09-26 12:19:43 PM
Or you could know where your kid is so that you don't run over him/her.

I guess it's too much to expect parents to supervise their children now. When one parent is leaving and the other parent is in the house, the parent in the house (or whoever is in charge of the kids) should be watching the children to make sure they don't run outside and get behind the car.

This isn't that hard.
 
2013-09-26 12:22:46 PM

Goimir: Loaf's Tray: Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention)...

Gubmint also took away my manual spark advance lever (which decreases good old-fashioned git-up-'n-go by 7.3% for those who know how to drive) and carburetors (purely for the financial gain of Big Fuel Injector and blindly accepted by those who don't know how to drive).

//Nothing you listed is mandatory equipment, btw...

ABS and traction control aren't mandatory for all new vehicles? You're wrong on that, and have been for many years.

The "collision avoidance" system that cuts your throttle when it thinks there's something in your way is the next thing they'll mandate. The best part is it does it silently, so instead of being able to accelerate around a stopped something and an oncoming something else, you'll go to do that and just drive head-on into the oncoming.


Source?  As far as I know, the only vehicles REQUIRED to have ABS in the US are buses and large trucks built after 1999...it's pretty much universally standard equipment these days (which I don't like either, BTW), but that's very different from big bad Obammycorp putting us all at risk by forcibly handicapping "those who know how to drive"...
 
2013-09-26 12:25:32 PM

lack of warmth: I guess you missed the story we had last month of the Google car hitting another car and leaving the scene. It didn't have a driver. I guess some put Vodka in its tank.


That was one of the google street cars. I was talking about the driverless ones.
 
2013-09-26 12:28:24 PM

Loaf's Tray: Goimir: Loaf's Tray: Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention)...

Gubmint also took away my manual spark advance lever (which decreases good old-fashioned git-up-'n-go by 7.3% for those who know how to drive) and carburetors (purely for the financial gain of Big Fuel Injector and blindly accepted by those who don't know how to drive).

//Nothing you listed is mandatory equipment, btw...

ABS and traction control aren't mandatory for all new vehicles? You're wrong on that, and have been for many years.

The "collision avoidance" system that cuts your throttle when it thinks there's something in your way is the next thing they'll mandate. The best part is it does it silently, so instead of being able to accelerate around a stopped something and an oncoming something else, you'll go to do that and just drive head-on into the oncoming.

Source?  As far as I know, the only vehicles REQUIRED to have ABS in the US are buses and large trucks built after 1999...it's pretty much universally standard equipment these days (which I don't like either, BTW), but that's very different from big bad Obammycorp putting us all at risk by forcibly handicapping "those who know how to drive"...


Here you go, stability control is mandatory for all 2012 model year and later vehicles.
 
2013-09-26 12:31:50 PM

OnlyM3: cman

Bullshiat

People need to stop blaming others for their own faultsWhat will become of the democrat party?


Brilliant tactical assault. There is absolutely no defense for this devastating line of reasoning you've committed to.
 
2013-09-26 12:37:11 PM
If there were kids in GTA then there would be no need to run over kids in real life.
 
2013-09-26 12:39:20 PM

offmymeds: The cost doesn't outweigh the benefits? How can you seriously compare a child's life with the cost of adding a safety feature to ensure that child's safety?


What about kids that get backed over while playing next to the front passenger wheel of an SUV, beneath the field of vision of the side-view mirror? Should we mandate collision avoidance on all sides of a vehicle? What happens when you're trying to parallel park within a foot of the curb?

What about kids who slam their hands in the door of a car? Should there be door-frame impact avoidance sensors?

This can be extrapolated ad nauseam.  You can't prevent someone from doing harm if they're too self-absorbed to be attentive.
 
2013-09-26 01:43:58 PM

Quasar: After the tragedy, Gulbransen reached out to KidsAndCars.org to champion for better visibility behind vehicles. Rep. Peter King, R-NY, introduced a bill in 2003 dubbed "Cameron's law," which would have required safety standards that would hopefully reduce the likelihood of such accidents. The bill, however, never made it out of committee.

More socialist Big Brother nonsense.


Yes, but you missed the correct thing to prove it.
 
2013-09-26 01:48:13 PM
So .. gun control, same thing?
 
2013-09-26 02:35:40 PM

lack of warmth: wild9: Did you read that article about the Google car only having one accident and it was when someone was behind the wheel of it.

I guess you missed the story we had last month of the Google car hitting another car and leaving the scene. It didn't have a driver. I guess some put Vodka in its tank.


I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Google Street View car, which most definitely has a human driver... The only accident their driverless car has had when driving on its own is someone else rear-ending it at a stop light...
 
2013-09-26 03:17:51 PM

Terrydatroll: xiola: There is an easy solution - and I'm only posting this because of a story of a guy backing over his own dog which broke my heart.
The easy solution is:   Drumroll please:

Back in to your parking spot.

Done.  It's that easy.  When you drive away in the morning you are going forward and can see what you are going to hit.

No backup cameras needed.

Unless you back over them while backing into your parking lot, which would be more likely because a child or a dog would run up to the vehicle excitedly when you back into the driveway.


Indeed; this situation was caused by someone backing into the parking spot, not backing out of it.

In New York, it seems that it's legal to back out of a driveway. I learned to drive in Pennsylvania, however, and it's illegal to back out of a driveway there. I suppose that law makes it more likely that someone would run over their own unattended child, but it does decrease the number of car-to-car accidents.
 
2013-09-26 03:43:14 PM

Starry Heavens: In New York, it seems that it's legal to back out of a driveway. I learned to drive in Pennsylvania, however, and it's illegal to back out of a driveway there. I suppose that law makes it more likely that someone would run over their own unattended child, but it does decrease the number of car-to-car accidents.


The hell you say. I mean I've never lived there, but been through PA plenty of times and have friends there... never heard this. Then again I didn't realize for a long time why NJ had full service gas stations either.
 
2013-09-26 03:50:29 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Loaf's Tray: Goimir: Loaf's Tray: Goimir: How about, instead of mandating abs (which increases stopping distances for those who know how to drive), traction control (which makes pulling out on loose terrain take longer for those who know how to drive), proximity sensors (which make collision avoidance harder by half for those who are actually paying attention)...

Gubmint also took away my manual spark advance lever (which decreases good old-fashioned git-up-'n-go by 7.3% for those who know how to drive) and carburetors (purely for the financial gain of Big Fuel Injector and blindly accepted by those who don't know how to drive).

//Nothing you listed is mandatory equipment, btw...

ABS and traction control aren't mandatory for all new vehicles? You're wrong on that, and have been for many years.

The "collision avoidance" system that cuts your throttle when it thinks there's something in your way is the next thing they'll mandate. The best part is it does it silently, so instead of being able to accelerate around a stopped something and an oncoming something else, you'll go to do that and just drive head-on into the oncoming.

Source?  As far as I know, the only vehicles REQUIRED to have ABS in the US are buses and large trucks built after 1999...it's pretty much universally standard equipment these days (which I don't like either, BTW), but that's very different from big bad Obammycorp putting us all at risk by forcibly handicapping "those who know how to drive"...

Here you go, stability control is mandatory for all 2012 model year and later vehicles.


Well, I stand corrected...thanks for the link.
 
2013-09-26 04:33:12 PM

TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk: fusillade762: How much does it cost to slap a camera on the back bumper? How is this any different than any other safety feature on a car?

I heard a figure tossed out of around $2.5 billion to add them to all new vehicles

/YMMV

Going by the total of 14.4 million new vehicles sold in the US last year that works out to roughly $173 per car, which sounds a bit on the high side, but is still reasonable.

Most new cars are starting to come with LCD screens, cameras are incredibly cheap, and if they're mandatory on all models all it would take is a cable running from the camera in the back to the LCD screen in the front which is easily done during assembly when the rest of the wires are being run.

There's really no reason not to mandate backup cameras in all new cars, the cost per unit would be negligible, and they're a huge convenience as well as being a nice safety feature.  They'd likely cut down on fender benders due to people backing into other cars, buildings, etc, by quite a bit as well, so they could translate into savings on insurance.


Wrong!

1:People wont use them.
2:People will misunderstand what they are seeing.
3:People will become so fixated on the screen the back into something not shown on the screen.
4:Like airbags it will become law you cant drive your vehicle if the equipped cameras are not functioning.


In the end it will result in many more law suites that the cameras were inadequate of there went enough of them or they were pointed wrong or the gave the driver a false sense of security.

In the end very few lives will be saved and auto prices will go up $150 dollars per unit for the cameras and $500 for liability insurance.  More money for the tort industry.
 
2013-09-26 06:25:04 PM

RobSeace: lack of warmth: wild9: Did you read that article about the Google car only having one accident and it was when someone was behind the wheel of it.

I guess you missed the story we had last month of the Google car hitting another car and leaving the scene. It didn't have a driver. I guess some put Vodka in its tank.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Google Street View car, which most definitely has a human driver... The only accident their driverless car has had when driving on its own is someone else rear-ending it at a stop light...


Thank you! I was too occupied to look that up.
 
2013-09-26 09:33:32 PM

Delawheredad: I learned that in Drivers Ed. when I was 16. When in your driveway walk around the vehicle and enter the drivers side. This rule applies double if you have small children or if your neighborhood has small children.


A public service campaign to tell people this would pretty much fix the problem without any expensive technology that's prone to breakage. Which is why we can be reasonably sure it will never happen.
 
2013-09-27 12:48:44 AM

Starry Heavens: In New York, it seems that it's legal to back out of a driveway. I learned to drive in Pennsylvania, however, and it's illegal to back out of a driveway there. I suppose that law makes it more likely that someone would run over their own unattended child, but it does decrease the number of car-to-car accidents.



img.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 154 of 154 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report