They wanna take safety.....something's missing

Duke wrote:

Hal wrote: More bitching about "Government Mandates". I guess some of you want to do away with right side mirrors since they were mandated too. Showing my age some, but I had several vehicles where right side mirrors were optional or not available from the factory.

No, I don't want to OUTLAW safety devices. I just don't want them to be MANDATORY beyond the basic solidity required for usefulness. Nice try at hyperbolising our argument, though. I know plenty of cars that didn't come with a right side mirror - I own one! Doesn't mean that I think that it was necessary to make them a requirement.

+1

I never inferred that back-up cameras were a bad thing, just that it's ridiculous to have them mandatory on all new vehicles.

Duke wrote:

Hal wrote: More bitching about "Government Mandates". I guess some of you want to do away with right side mirrors since they were mandated too. Showing my age some, but I had several vehicles where right side mirrors were optional or not available from the factory.

No, I don't want to OUTLAW safety devices. I just don't want them to be MANDATORY beyond the basic solidity required for usefulness.

If you don't make them mandatory the IJAC(It's just another car) types that probably need them because they don't know how to drive won't buy them. Sure they will lay out the money for a fancy radio, etc. but spend a little extra for safety items? NO WAY! Right side mirrors, seatbelts, airbags, etc. were all originally optional items and a lot of people didn't buy them. That's why they ended up being mandated.

Joe Gearin wrote: Yeah....no reason to improve driver's education....or even require it. Let's just make all vehicles all-knowing and all-seeing. And we wonder why it's hard to find a car under 3000 lbs. It ain't rocket science. If you want safer roads--- teach people how to drive. If the stooges who run things would take driver ed seriously, they could save far more lives than back-up cameras ever could. Our roads are filled with incompetent drivers who are now more distracted than ever before. But I'm sure adding another T.V. screen in front of the driver will fix that..........grrrrrrrr

QFT

Duke wrote:

Hal wrote: More bitching about "Government Mandates". I guess some of you want to do away with right side mirrors since they were mandated too. Showing my age some, but I had several vehicles where right side mirrors were optional or not available from the factory.

No, I don't want to OUTLAW safety devices. I just don't want them to be MANDATORY beyond the basic solidity required for usefulness. Nice try at hyperbolising our argument, though. I know plenty of cars that didn't come with a right side mirror - I own one! Doesn't mean that I think that it was necessary to make them a requirement.

Why, Duke? Why is it so bad to require a device that can save lives and prevent injury?

You want every one to pick and choose the safety devices they want? Ok, so your neighbor thinks he doesn't need one, and then backs into you... Or your dog that was wandering behind the car. So if you or your dog get injured, which could have been prevented if they chose to camera, that is ok?

Again, being a good or bad driver really isn't a factor when looking at the blindspots on cars. If you think you don't need one in a Miata, I laugh in your face. There's plenty of space you can't see that can be behind you.

Do you also hate mandatory seat belts? Mandatory safety glass? Heck, mandatory lights?

It's a good idea that's pretty easy to implement that reduces blind spots and reduces the risk of hitting something. Cost vs. benefit is there. Go for it.

Hal wrote:

Duke wrote:

Hal wrote: More bitching about "Government Mandates". I guess some of you want to do away with right side mirrors since they were mandated too. Showing my age some, but I had several vehicles where right side mirrors were optional or not available from the factory.

No, I don't want to OUTLAW safety devices. I just don't want them to be MANDATORY beyond the basic solidity required for usefulness.

If you don't make them mandatory the IJAC(It's just another car) types that probably need them because they don't know how to drive won't buy them. Sure they will lay out the money for a fancy radio, etc. but spend a little extra for safety items? NO WAY! Right side mirrors, seatbelts, airbags, etc. were all originally optional items and a lot of people didn't buy them. That's why they ended up being mandated.

They ended up being mandated because there's no such thing as peronal responsibility anymore.

Couldn't see out the right side of the car? Carmakers fault, car maker sued, insurance companies and car maker pay up, comes out of their profits, they pass the cost along to you, pass a law mandating the right side mirror so the car company can't be sued and the insurance company won't have to pay.

But it's all about making cars safer. Which is great, but people are still idiots (and I've been one) and accidents will happen. Bigger idiots will try to cash in on amounts far beyond what they lost, because, after all, the insurance company is paying for it and I deserve to get something for nothing.

And so the death spiral begins (more E36 M3 mandated, heavier cars, which cause more damage in an accident because they're heavier, mandate more E36 M3 to make them safer, etc...).

All because people are too a) stupid to look over their shoulder. Twice if need be, to be safe b) stubborn or dumb to set their mirrors correctly to maximize the area they see while checking mirrors (or name the behavior that can be corrected/adjusted for) c) berkelying greedy and are going to jam somebody up for extra $$$ if they can get away with it.

It can't possibly be my own fault, nor can I settle only to have what was lost replaced, got to be some punitive damages (or extras or upgrades) in there too.

I'm not against safer cars, I'm sure one will save my bacon at some point, but mandating EVERYTHING doesn't solve the problem.

As far as what the buying public wants, given two products roughly similar, which one are we all going to buy? 95% of the time, the cheaper one. They aren't going to care about the "right side mirror" (relatively speaking) if they can get the car cheaper.

In reply to OldGray320i:

It's not about solving the problem, it's about reducing the risk.

Always has been. But whatever.

The good old days.....

alfadriver wrote:

Duke wrote:

Hal wrote: More bitching about "Government Mandates". I guess some of you want to do away with right side mirrors since they were mandated too. Showing my age some, but I had several vehicles where right side mirrors were optional or not available from the factory.

No, I don't want to OUTLAW safety devices. I just don't want them to be MANDATORY beyond the basic solidity required for usefulness. Nice try at hyperbolising our argument, though. I know plenty of cars that didn't come with a right side mirror - I own one! Doesn't mean that I think that it was necessary to make them a requirement.

Why, Duke? Why is it so bad to require a device that can save lives and prevent injury? You want every one to pick and choose the safety devices they want? Ok, so your neighbor thinks he doesn't need one, and then backs into you... - if he's looking, he won't - Or your dog that was wandering behind the car. So if you or your dog get injured, which could have been prevented if they chose to camera, that is ok? - most dogs would not be injured "walking" behind a car backing up; running in front of the car doing 30mph down the street will, but no "automotive safety" device prevents that. - Again, being a good or bad driver really isn't a factor when looking at the blindspots on cars. If you think you don't need one in a Miata, I laugh in your face. There's plenty of space you can't see that can be behind you. - thus a) looking and b) setting mirror correctly - Do you also hate mandatory seat belts? Mandatory safety glass? Heck, mandatory lights? - excepting saftey glass, if the features are not used, personal responsibility for what happens. - It's a good idea that's pretty easy to implement that reduces blind spots and reduces the risk of hitting something. Cost vs. benefit is there. Go for it. - Who decides the cost/benefit? With a mandate, somebody other than the consumer -

I suppose at some point the argument becomes moot because many people want more features, but I would be willing to bet there are just as many who would give up the features for a cheaper price; something in the context of this discussion that can't be ascertained because so much is mandated.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to OldGray320i: It's not about solving the problem, it's about reducing the risk. Always has been. But whatever. The good old days.....

The question is who decides it. In the good ol' days, that would be me, not (you).

alfadriver wrote: It's not about solving the problem, it's about reducing the risk. Always has been. But whatever....

There are always unintended consequences.

Humans tend to perform within certain "envelope of comfort". If you make the boundaries of the envelope larger for safety, they will just work to the new boundaries. ABS is a good example of this.

Unless these cameras work perfectly in 100% of the cases (which is unlikely) there is a likely hood that people will assume they are clear to backup when they may not be (e.g. someone goes right behind them as they start backing up, which might easily be seen in peripheral vision if they looked around) which of course is false confidence.

Not saying this will happen, but it's possible.

The safest car, is the car you feel LEAST save in. (Marketing has an issue with that of course)

I used to laugh at the notion of a backup camera. First time you're parallel parking an 16 passenger van full of rowdy employees in the dark, or hitching up a trailer, they redeem themselves. I just installed one on my 2005 pickup. The highest rated one on Amazon is about $15.

I'm not for big government, but back up cams are more useful than TPMS which seems to default to ON.

A little over 200 people die by getting backed over every year. So, they are going to mandate every car has a backup camera. We lost 122 service members in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2013. Think how many billions that cost and compare it with adding a few hundred to the cost of a new car. In terms of dollars per life saved this may have a good ROI. That assumes falsely that camera will prevent all back over deaths, which of course they won't because people won't use them, or will use the camera and not look in the mirrors or turn their head and look.

In short, this is a mandate that is not needed. It is a typical government solution to every problem in which we make everyone pay the costs for the mistakes/errors of the few. Over 10,000 people were killed as a result of drunk drivers in 2012. I guess they figure people would actually complain if they made ignition breathalyzers required on cars. What would those cost? Probably not much more than the cameras. Not to mention that newer cars seem to already have the cameras because people want them, so why make it mandatory?

It's true that modern safety regs have made the blind spot of modern cars ridiculously large. I have more problems backing up my 2012 Mazda5, then my 1993 Suburban. In fact, about a month after I got my Mazda, I backed up into a post at a gas station because the rear belt line was higher than the post. But I can assure you that a back-up camera will not really fix the problem. My old Ford Freestyle had a back-up sonar, and I used to rely too much on it. I almost backed into a car because one of the corner sonar sensor was blocked with snow. Thankfully, I looked that time, but I should have been looking more carefully. And it's the same thing back-up cameras. In the winter, they are dirty all the time, and they are useless. So for a few months a year, they are useless (in my part of the world at least).

OldGray320i wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to OldGray320i: It's not about solving the problem, it's about reducing the risk. Always has been. But whatever. The good old days.....

The question is who decides it. In the good ol' days, that would be me, not (you).

This. The more we idiotproof the world, and the more we deflect personal responsibility, the more and more and more and MORE nannies we need to protect the even bigger idiots who we begat by protecting the original idiots because after all, it's just a little more, right?

By such little and well-intentioned increments are government-dependent morons generated, and those whose power and livelihood depend on being part of that government are more than happy to help us mandate ourselves to hell in a handbasket.

FWIW seatbelts are not JUST a personal safety device - as far as I am concerned they are a control device. I don't give a crap if you die in an accident (unless I caused it, then I care quite a bit). But you're much more likely to lose control and hit ME or someone I love if you're not properly restrained by a seatbelt.

That being said, it's MY CHOICE not to send my family out in a fleet of Isettas. It's my choice to find and buy safe cars for them to drive. Just like it was my father's choice to buy and install the OPTIONAL seat belts in his new 1965 Catalina - it was clear to him that seat belts were an excellent way to protect his family, so he made the effort and investment to ensure they were in his cars.

All the car makers need to do is install a small C4 packet in the rear bumper so that if you back into something your car explodes. Then people will be super careful when backing up.

I know, I'm not helping, just adding fuel to the fire. I agree that backup cameras have a useful function, and those that want them should have the right to have them. But making them mandatory just pisses me off. Ah, well. I have already decided that I will never buy a new car, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

trucke wrote: They need to mandate air bags on grocery carts. I alomost got t-boned in the frozen food aisle yesterday.

just means you should be buying fresh instead of frozen

EastCoastMojo wrote: All the car makers need to do is install a small C4 packet in the rear bumper so that if you back into something your car explodes. Then people will be super careful when backing up. I know, I'm not helping, just adding fuel to the fire. I agree that backup cameras have a useful function, and those that want them should have the right to have them. But making them mandatory just pisses me off. Ah, well. I have already decided that I will never buy a new car, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

but eventually the used cars will be the ones that were mandated with back-up cameras ….

The real problem with all this might not even be from inherently poor drivers.

People are effectively poor drivers because DRIVING IS NOT THEIR BIGGEST PRIORITY when they get into a car/truck/SUV.

People have about 5 priorities during their drive and driving or driving sensibly is last on the list.

Call it distracted driving or whatever they call it but talking, texting, using gps, changing the station, sipping coffee, or thinking about where they want to be next is the real problem. VERY FEW people take driving seriously enough to deserve to share the road with those of us that DO.

No amount of safety equipment will ever be able deal with the real problem of driving being an annoying afterthought to most commuters.