Heard about this on the Today Show this morning.
I think its stupid for small cars like the Fit. I can see them on SUV's... majority of SUV drivers can't drive anyways.

DailyTech - Government Regulations to Require Backup Cameras on All New Vehicles by 2014

 

Just another regulation to "protect" the masses. Sooner or later they'll all be integrated with OnStar, and BAM... complete roadway surveillance.

 

"IF"....this happpens, going to be a nice used car lifstyle

 

Like TPMS or even anti-lock brakes...it's hard to argue that back-up camera's don't make things safer.

What I don't like is if the government makes them mandatory, it's just going to increase the production costs of all automobiles. Back Up Camera means a screen to view it...and the cost of the camera itself.

There is really no New Vehicle options for working class poor as it is, and even for middle class America the cost of driving a new vehicle continues to increase.

The luxury of any new vehicle is going to become that more exclusive.

I don't know. I'm all for safety and moving forward with advancement. BUT I'm resistant to governments telling me what I must have, and I would like to see more affordable, reliable, quality options for new vehicles for people with limited income. Unfortunately often the people that could most benefit from having reliable personal transportation, just to get to work and survive...are the ones forced to take the bus or limp along with old used cars...which they constantly have to pour time and money into...

I just know 20 years ago, I drove off a auto lot in a brand new Pick-Up with 6 miles on it, for less than $8000. It wasn't fancy...no airbags..no anti-lock brakes..no TPMS...infact no stereo...I installed one later....BUT it was reliable transportation and utility for 10 years that was pretty affordable from new.

Today? Entry level, economy choices for automobiles are getting pretty expensive. I would just hope that purchasing a new automobile, doesn't become the exclusive realm of only the rich.

 

cars that park themselves, cars that brake themselves, what else? then this...

...they want to put more and more idiots behind the wheel

 

that's exactly how i feel. i'd rather the government enforce a more strict driver's license test and include a testing fee than this shit...

separate license tests for different car segments seem necessary too. one for compact cars, trucks, suv's, etc. if yuppie soccer mom can't pass the suv test then she'd better get her ass in a wagon... less accidents = lower insurance rates. make it happen, washington.

 

There has been a march toward more content in cheap vehicles, both government mandated and through market expectations. It seems that, inflation adjusted, the cost of cars hasn't risen all that much.

 

I can remember looking at a really nice Ford Pickup in 1973 for $3600. I bought one in 1979 that was similarly equipped for $6500... In 1982 the same truck was up to $12500... It has been uphill since.... Money is created out of the thin air with nothing but the interest rates owed backing it instead of precious metals so the rate of inflation is out of control while education becomes unobtainable and wages for the working class is slow to keep up... Technology is relatively cheap with all of the outsourcing to foreign countries that use prison labor for a lot of products and with the war on drugs and privatized correctional facilities in the U.S. now and drugs coming in from other countries by way of corporate owned means, the same practice is becoming common even here.... I like the idea of cleaning up the aerodynamics of vehicles by using cameras instead of huge wind catching rear view mirrors but I don't like this New World Order thing that is dividing the wealth by creating criminals from the people that aren't able to run with the criminals at the top.

 

Government Mandates are driving our society into the dirt. Inflation adjustments are the smoke and mirrors of a corporate controlled government. All these 'let's everyone be safe' ideas are all well and good for baby sitters, but it's becoming quite plain that the common man is not able to afford the costs.

How much is a trillion anything - a whole lot when we owe most of it to a communist country...

Interesting how people are so easily fooled into thinking it's what they want - corporate marketing 101, make 'em think they gotta have it.

You know it is our fault 1 in 6 are out of work - we aren't spending enough money...

 

Excellent idea.

 

but for some reason... soccer moms always get the nod and the win

 

So what happens when the camera fails? Takes all responsibility away from the driver & opens the door to more lawsuits. Soon automobile manufacturers will need something similar to malpractice insurance.

Sad Story -One of my friends knew a contractor who had a great big truck. A year later she found out he had run over and killed his 2 year old son. He thought the wife was watching him, she thought he was. :(
Rear view camera may or may not have helped--what if you aren't paying attention to the camera and just barrel on out?

 

I wouldn't consider TPMS or back cameras safety features...they are features for people who suck at driving and are to lazy to check their tire pressure regularly. Now anti-lock is a true safety feature. I'm so glad my Fit didn't come with TPMS because disabling it would have been the first mod on my list...lol

 

+ rep for the truth!

 

From the Article:
It sounds far more reasonable like that - no need for backup cameras if you design the car well. If you insist on putting form over function, you'd better have some additional function added on.

 

my fit already has a back up camera.

 

Making safer cars does not make safer drivers. It doesn't matter how safe a car is... if you put an idiot behind it, bad things happen.

I'd rather have SAFE EDUCATED DRIVERS than have an IDIOT-PROOF-CARS running around.


EDIT: sorry if you see me using the "idiot" word too much... it's just I have been in a couple accidents that were caused by idiots behind the wheel. It may not be my fault but in a no-fault state... your f*ckd either way.

 

This, sir, is a grand proposition!

We need to adopt the driving test Finland has :D

 

Actually I agree. But people can apply whatever definition to a feature they want. A back-up camera is a safety feature the first time you see the little kid playing behind the automobile that maybe you wouldn't of seen looking out the back or in the mirrors. And even though I'm on record as pretty much hating the TPMS...it's also a safety feature if it alerts you to an unexpectedly suddenly underinflated tire...

Technology seldom moves backwards. Back-Up camera's, TPMS, government mandated or not, are more likely to become more common as opposed to less.

PS. I probably should of said Back-Up camera's make things "potentially" safer...because ThEvil0ne is correct, all the equipment in the world aside, an idiot is an idiot...

 

People wouldn't use them... Look around at people backing out in a parking lot. I haven't seen a new car in years with a single outside mirror. Passenger side mirrors are the norm now, so every car you see should have three rearview mirrors giving (if properly adjusted) a wide range of coverage to the rear, all while you can still see the front. In a vehicle steered by the front wheels alone (again, all current production cars), the front end is the one that will swing wide to each side while backing, so it needs to be monitored.

What do they do? They try to twist around and peer over the back seats.