Government mandates rear camera

Having a rear view camera doesn't make you look at it. ...Jim Thompson

AFAIUI, it's not a done deal.

Perhaps. The 2.7bn seems a bit high. If it adds $50-$100 to the cost of a vehicle, and 5.5 million new cars are sold each year in the US, that's probably less than 0.5bn. Most new high end cars have a video screen already, so it shouldn't add very much to them (the camera itself costs only a dollar or two).

That's why I added my last sentence. >>This assumes that after this change, there will be no children run >>over while backing up.

Ya, I didn't analyze the numbers, just wrote them as heard on the news. I don't know how many cars will sold with required cameras, or the cost per camera, or how many years were used for the calcs. But I did know it's important, and someone would correct my numbers, or at least question them :-) Mikek

I'd be happy if they'd mandate backup alarms on the damned electric/hybrids. Nearly got run over three times by a Prius that was backing up (3 different times- didn't keep trying to hit me). Geniuses put a backup alarm in the dashboard but it's absolutely silent to the rear of the vehicle. Unless you're directly behind the vehicle, you can't even see the backup light well. The Prius runs full electric in reverse and has the potential to be the ultimate stealth killer. Toyaughta fixit. Oppie

My 2005 Q45 already has a backup camera. What I find terribly annoying is that I will look around, camera and mirrors and direct view, start backing and some dumb shit (*) will walk right behind my moving car :-(

I'm tempted to add an air horn ;-)

(*) I recently had such a turd who also slapped the trunk of my car. I jumped out and, I'm sure, caused him to leave some brown in his pants ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Who knows? I don't think so -- if you're dumb enough to back over your kid, you'll manage to do it with or without a video camera.

You can add or subtract components of the car, but until you change the nut behind the wheel you still won't completely fix traffic safety.

It also assumes there are no other benefits *or* costs associated with the change.

Dunno. Once you start down the cost-benefit analysis path, you can rationalize all sorts of wacky "policy".

"She's 85 and broke her hip. Society's never going to recover the monies spent in repairing and rehabilitating her. Spend the money on immunizations for children"

Having only *witnessed* one child being run over in that way, I can say that the backup camera wouldn't have done anything to prevent the (ahem) "accident". OTOH, the child survived the incident so maybe he doesn't count?

Only a minority of the injuries are fatal.

There's a vast difference between allowing them on cars and mandating them, though.

Since the real problem is dorks behind the wheel, why don't we mandate that only government employees can drive your car for you?

We got a 15-passenger van some years ago, the rear blind spot was big enough to hide a VW Beetle! I built my own rear view system out of a chip camera looking at a mirror to reverse the image and a beach TV up between the sun visors. it worked great.

So, there are some vehicles that DEFINITELY need this. Our Honda Odessy van has one built into the rear-view mirror. It is less critical, but could still be valuable.

There are plenty of sedans and such with good enough rear visibility that I wonder how necessary it is on those cars.

These things would be so cheap if all cars had them, I have great doubt about this 2.7 billion $ figure.

Jon

ssy

Government employees use convex mirrors to see what's behind them, and have for years. See the first item on, for example:

You are seeing this the wrong way. Nobody cares about the children :-) Its all about making extra turnover and creating jobs.

If people back over their own kids its kinda Darwinism. Nature heals itself :-) I still think it would be better to make it more difficult to get a drivers license so people are more aware of what they are doing. From what I see on TV getting a drivers in the US is a complete joke compared to where I live.

Also, more insurance guaranteeing that not a single $2,500 Tata Nano will ever be sold in the USofA.

No! Make it mandatory that all vehicles will be self-driving, causing a huge influx of tech dollars to create and certify the necessary equipment, and thereby removing the one real obstical to self driving vehicles - insurance and liability!

Charlie

Certainly. We'll make million$.

(snip)

(more snip)

$0.5B p.a., but maybe that $2.7B was total, not annual?

Carry an eight pound sledgehammer, to remind them to be more careful. Big dents aren't cheap to fix. Neither are the rear windows. ;-)