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 (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 154 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report