Backup cameras mandatory by 2018

[Squint]

Beltlines get higher and read glass gets smaller.

It is odd that the car manufacturers are relying more and more on technology for safety and then compromising real world safety by raising beltlines and making glass smaller.

While I would much rather have better visibility, sometimes the lower visitbility changes are also made for safety reasons. Check out this article from 2009 that Edmunds did about losing visibility.

ClutchDisc, don't take what Watkins is saying personally. He didn't call you dumb, he just disagreed with what you said. However, you drive a small pick up truck. Do you always leave the tailgate up or down? If you leave it down the whole time (or it doesn't exist - such as my father in law's F250) then your visibility probably wouldn't improve much with a back up camera. But even in my Honda Civic, just about the smallest, most average car you can own, there are places I physically cannot see when looking backwards without getting out of the car and walking to the back. A backup camera is typically installed right above the license plate which means you get to see everything that is cut off in your normal sightline going straight back from the driver's seat.

A backup camera should NEVER replace physically turning your head and looking around, but there honestly isn't really an argument with any validity outside of MAYBE cost as to why every single car shouldn't have one just to ensure nothing is right under your back bumper before you start to back up. Even if you personally don't have to worry about kids, pets, or random objects behind your vehicle (the safety reasons for one), they are super useful for backing into parking spaces, hooking up trailers, and parallel parking. They give you more data than you previously had to make a better decision about moving your vehicle. How is that a bad thing?

Paul: go build a Model A by hand and tell me it isn't still complicated

[tankinbeans]

I've actually considered buying one of the cheap little jobbies for Olie because his rear visibility isn't the best. On the freeway I tend to prefer him over Clifford because of his higher seating position and loads of windows, but for those times when I'm forced to parallel park I still get nervous.

It doesn't help that I can't remove the hitch (the hitchpin has a slot for a key, but I didn't get the key when I bought him) and that little bit of extra means that a miscalculation could put a hole in somebody's bumper.

[ClutchFork]

"Style"

Its the current design trend. Not at all a fan of it myself. I like to have a lot of visibility. Its one of the reasons I hate the current Camaro so much. Its like trying to see out of a tank. Not at all condusive to awareness of one's surroundings.

Right. Style rarely equals practicality.

[tankinbeans]

Are you saying I should stop driving in my stilettos and yoga pants wearing soup can hair curlers?

Or meggings and crocs?

[watkins]

It doesn't help that I can't remove the hitch (the hitchpin has a slot for a key, but I didn't get the key when I bought him) and that little bit of extra means that a miscalculation could put a hole in somebody's bumper.

Cut it off. Get a new pin. Done.

[tankinbeans]

"Style"

Its the current design trend. Not at all a fan of it myself. I like to have a lot of visibility. Its one of the reasons I hate the current Camaro so much. Its like trying to see out of a tank. Not at all condusive to awareness of one's surroundings.

Right. Style rarely equals practicality.

[theholycow]

Beltlines get higher and read glass gets smaller.

It is odd that the car manufacturers are relying more and more on technology for safety and then compromising real world safety by raising beltlines and making glass smaller.

Cause and effect. Visibility has been suffering that way for a decade, maybe longer. They didn't have cameras and say "oh, well in that case we can reduce visibility".

It doesn't help that I can't remove the hitch (the hitchpin has a slot for a key, but I didn't get the key when I bought him) and that little bit of extra means that a miscalculation could put a hole in somebody's bumper.

No way no how would I let that stop me from removing it. That would have been cut off the day I drove it home.

[MisterTwo]

Late to the party on this one, but here are two comments...

1) While 60 deaths avoided is fantastic, don't get me wrong, that's 0.000019% of the US population. I'd suspect that there's better bang for the buck available. The only economics involved is profit for camera manufacturers and auto makers. Let's call a spade a spade.

2) Maybe the screen should be mandated to be at the rear of the passenger compartment, forcing (encouraging?) people to turn around when reversing.

Flame away!

[theholycow]

Late to the party on this one, but here are two comments...

1) While 60 deaths avoided is fantastic, don't get me wrong, that's 0.000019% of the US population. I'd suspect that there's better bang for the buck available. The only economics involved is profit for camera manufacturers and auto makers. Let's call a spade a spade.

I had a thought like that forming but couldn't quite put it together. Thank you.

I agree, the same money and effort could probably be used to save more lives in a different way.

2) Maybe the screen should be mandated to be at the rear of the passenger compartment, forcing (encouraging?) people to turn around when reversing.

Can you imagine the outrage from disability lobbies? (Never you mind that people who can't turn their head maybe ought not be driving...)

[Boston Fit]

While 60 deaths avoided is fantastic, don't get me wrong, that's 0.000019% of the US population. I'd suspect that there's better bang for the buck available. The only economics involved is profit for camera manufacturers and auto makers. Let's call a spade a spade.

I had a thought like that forming but couldn't quite put it together. Thank you.

I agree, the same money and effort could probably be used to save more lives in a different way.

Yet more supposition, conjecture, and guesswork. If there is better bang for the buck, then let's hear it. In the meantime, 60 "fantastic" saved lives is what we've got!

[ClutchFork]

While 60 deaths avoided is fantastic, don't get me wrong, that's 0.000019% of the US population. I'd suspect that there's better bang for the buck available. The only economics involved is profit for camera manufacturers and auto makers. Let's call a spade a spade.

I had a thought like that forming but couldn't quite put it together. Thank you.

I agree, the same money and effort could probably be used to save more lives in a different way.

Yet more supposition, conjecture, and guesswork. If there is better bang for the buck, then let's hear it. In the meantime, 60 "fantastic" saved lives is what we've got!

Probably save far more lives if automobile drivers and passengers are required to wear helmets!

Mandatory backup cameras. Pretty retarded idea. Why don't they just let people select it as an option if they are too lazy to look before they back up?

[Shadow]

I always look behind the car before I back up anyway...so I see no point in a backup camera. If I ever had to have one in my car, I would cover it up with something so that I wouldn't have to look at it.

You simply can't possibly see everything behind your vehicle. That's the benefit to back-up cams. They allow you to see immediately behind your rear bumper. You know, exactly where little kids end up when you least expect it.

[Shadow]

I think I actually agree with a complete Shadow post for once. Is.. is the world okay? It's not ending?

That's funny....but I hardly remember you ever disagreeing with me about much of anything at all......unless of course you just disagree and choose not to discuss it.

But anyway, it's good to see that we don't have only Luddites and technophobes. LOL

[Shadow]

Thats the dumbest thing Ive heard in a long time. Have you ever driven a big awkward vehicle? Doubt it. A backup camera makes things way easier.

I think it's safe to assume that he's never driven any vehicle with a back-up cam. I think that's a fair assumption based upon his preferences/opinion in past posts.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but I do think it is hypocritical to bash something when you don't have experience using it. I do think that's most likely the case here.

[Shadow]

Mandatory backup cameras. Pretty retarded idea. Why don't they just let people select it as an option if they are too lazy to look before they back up?

Pretty much for the same reason that tire pressure monitors are required on all new cars.....and along the same lines as why the law requires us to wear our seatbelts. With the former, you no longer have a choice. With the latter, you still have a choice, but there are penalties to pay if you choose to ignore the law. Either way, you lose.

BTW, you are forced to have airbags in new cars. You are forced to have ABS. You are forced to pay for stuff that enhanced your safety and the safety of those around you. The "extra" cost associated with with back-up cams is projected to be about $140 (heard this on the news this morning) per car and it's something that is unavoidable, unless you want to drive old cars forever. And speaking of old cars--as much as I like some of the old classic cars, they are simply not in anyway nearly as safe as newer modern cars. They don't brake as well, handle as well, or crumple as well in a collision as newer cars do. They don't have front, side, and knee air bags. They don't have brake force distribution or stability control to aid you if you somehow manage to slide the tail out beyond your ability to recover. People value safety and that's why we see all this safety stuff becoming standard on new cars. Back-up cams help save kids. It's an irrefutable fact.