Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Z on March 31, 2014 at 1:10pm

Backup cameras are great for some things.

If you have a extremely tight spot it helps a lot.

Also, think about a small child that may not be tall enough to be seen walks behind the car.

I have a backup camera and use it as a supplement NOT a replacement to looking over my shoulder.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Jacque on April 1, 2014 at 2:56am

I live a neighborhood with lots of small kids, and I'm really happy to have a backup camera.

Bonus: also vastly simplifies hitching up a trailer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on April 1, 2014 at 3:04am

My husband's car that I use sometimes has one and I think they are great.... except when snow is covering it AND on a bright early morning or afternoon.

The problem is, when it is blocked, you can easily forget to look over your shoulder and just use the rear view mirror which doesn't do much  if anything is coming at you from either side, i.e. you have no peripheral vision.

If they could just solve the snow and reflective issues I see no problems with them now that I drive a car that has one. Also helps drivers get a sense of how close something actually is behind them since they have that measuring stick thingie.  

Thats the thing I love about being on a bike, I always know how close something is to me.  Not the same in a car.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T.K. 3.5 mi on April 1, 2014 at 5:03am

This mandate passes on a huge cost to everyone purchasing vehicles for an unknown increase in quality of life. It is a nanny state law handed down by the federal government, full of hot air in the name of safety for children. 

From a Wall Street Journal Article: 

"NHTSA had released an earlier report, finding that it would cost the auto industry between $1.9 billion and $2.7 billion to comply with the rule, or up to about $200 more per car for vehicles not already equipped with a navigation screen."

Assuming they save all 210 of those people (which isn't likely) at a cost of $2 billion, that is $9.5 million per death. This number isn't meant to put a price on an individuals head, but to make everyone think, "What else could we do with $9.5 million that would save more lives." How about education? How about transportation infrastructure? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on April 1, 2014 at 5:52am

It wouldn't be an issue if cars weren't jacked up in the back so they could be rear-ended by SUVs.  Doesn't really affect bikes unless you're trying to right-side pass someone parallel parking.  Don't do that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Phearson on April 1, 2014 at 6:00am

If someone's proposing that we impose a $200/car tax for purposes of funding driver education or transportation infrastructure, then by all means I'd agree that there are probably more effective ways to save lives than to put cameras on cars. Absent such an alternative, I'm not sure why the possibility of there being a smarter way to save lives trumps the one option we actually have on the table.

T.K. 8.4 mi said:

This mandate passes on a huge cost to everyone purchasing vehicles for an unknown increase in quality of life. It is a nanny state law handed down by the federal government, full of hot air in the name of safety for children. 

From a Wall Street Journal Article: 

"NHTSA had released an earlier report, finding that it would cost the auto industry between $1.9 billion and $2.7 billion to comply with the rule, or up to about $200 more per car for vehicles not already equipped with a navigation screen."

Assuming they save all 210 of those people (which isn't likely) at a cost of $2 billion, that is $9.5 million per death. This number isn't meant to put a price on an individuals head, but to make everyone think, "What else could we do with $9.5 million that would save more lives." How about education? How about transportation infrastructure? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pat 5.5mi on April 1, 2014 at 6:57am

I very much agree.  On the radio they were touting this as leading the way to "no more sore necks from straining to turn around when backing up"...

What abut putting the screen BEHIND the driver facing forwards, so you would have to turn around to see it...

h' 1.0 said:

My issue is that we don't know if this will save lives-- it's conceivable that there may be unforeseen consequences that could ultimately cost more lives. It's scary how comfortable people are with making sweeping changes based on assumptions and anecdotal evidence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on April 1, 2014 at 7:27am

Good point. I'd be curious to see results of large scale research on this subject. I've never driven a car with a backup camera, but I generally find the dashboard of newer cars with big digital displays (especially GPS systems) very distracting. It makes me wonder how many people might focus so much on the backup camera display that they might hit someone/something that they should have seen if they were paying full attention to their surroundings.

h' 1.0 said:

My issue is that we don't know if this will save lives-- it's conceivable that there may be unforeseen consequences that could ultimately cost more lives. It's scary how comfortable people are with making sweeping changes based on assumptions and anecdotal evidence.

• ▶ Reply