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 41
    More: Strange, watching  
•       •       •

11628 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2013 at 11:47 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-25 11:59:09 PM
6 votes:
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.
2013-09-25 09:01:52 PM
6 votes:
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 11:33:07 PM
5 votes:

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
2013-09-26 12:21:27 AM
3 votes:

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 12:15:47 AM
3 votes:
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 12:13:18 AM
3 votes:
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 12:10:04 AM
3 votes:

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 12:01:24 AM
3 votes:

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.
2013-09-25 11:56:29 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-09-26 12:31:09 AM
2 votes:

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 12:08:11 AM
2 votes:
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 12:02:05 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-09-25 11:55:29 PM
2 votes:
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 11:54:41 PM
2 votes:
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 11:26:54 PM
2 votes:

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 11:04:03 PM
2 votes:
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 09:57:09 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-09-27 12:48:44 AM
1 votes:

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
2013-09-26 12:39:20 PM
1 votes:

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 11:07:52 AM
1 votes:

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 09:54:43 AM
1 votes:

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 09:46:13 AM
1 votes:

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 09:22:30 AM
1 votes:
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 03:28:34 AM
1 votes:

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 12:54:08 AM
1 votes:
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 12:51:23 AM
1 votes:

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 12:34:50 AM
1 votes:

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 12:31:44 AM
1 votes:

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 12:31:34 AM
1 votes:

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 12:27:14 AM
1 votes:

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 12:24:25 AM
1 votes:

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 12:14:47 AM
1 votes:
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 12:07:18 AM
1 votes:
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 12:06:19 AM
1 votes:

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 12:00:06 AM
1 votes:

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
2013-09-25 11:57:51 PM
1 votes:
$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 11:34:22 PM
1 votes:
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 09:55:39 PM
1 votes:

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 09:46:19 PM
1 votes:
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 09:26:12 PM
1 votes:
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 09:10:01 PM
1 votes:
GOVERNMENT SUCKS AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT

PASS LAWS GOVERNMENT, AND ENFORCE THEM APPROPRIATELY EVEN THOUGH YOU SUCK
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report