Slickdeals is community-supported.  We may get paid by brands or deals, including promoted items.
Forum Thread

backup cameras mandatory in all new vehicles

28,148 544 March 31, 2014 at 12:13 PM in Autos (4)
Automakers will be required to install backup cameras in most new vehicles by May 2018, a federal agency announced Monday. [cnn.com]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized a long-awaited rule requiring all new cars, SUVs, and minivans, as well as some new small trucks and buses to carry rear visibility technology.

Your comment cannot be blank.

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jul 2005
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 10,159 Posts
z2g
04-03-2014 at 10:52 AM.
04-03-2014 at 10:52 AM.
I understand why some ppl out there who really haven't utilized backup cams much (or at all yet) may have misgivings about a government mandate requiring all new cars to now have it as standard equipment. They will obviously state increased cost of the car and actual safety records of backup cam usage. I think it's erroneous though.....similar perhaps to ppl who first objected to requiring seatbelts and/or baby seats in the cars.

As far as the safety record of backup cams, of course it's not foolproof. BUT, it will certainly help. Similarly, seat belts or baby seats don't save every person in car accidents. However, it can reduce the amount of injury and deaths. Likewise, backup cams can be an aid for drivers. It may not get rid of all accidents that occur when backing out, but it will reduce some of them. More importantly, it can reduce the number of deaths.....like who big trucks now have loud beeping warnings when they back up.

As far as the cost of the backup cams increasing the overall price of the car, I can attest that the increase in price will be a fraction of the cost compared to what the dealers are charging now if you want to add it as an option because it's almost always bulked together with factory navigation systems that cost thousands of dollars more to the car's price.

So, for someone who want it in their car, it's actually a savings to make it as standard equipment. For those who are against it, I wonder.......have you ever had experience using a backup cam for an extended amount of time? Do you not see the increase in safety with its use?
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Last edited by z2g April 3, 2014 at 10:54 AM.
Joined Nov 2005
quick, like a bunny
> bubble2 28,148 Posts
544 Reputation
Original Poster
cav
04-03-2014 at 10:58 AM.
04-03-2014 at 10:58 AM.
Quote from z2g :
So, for someone who want it in their car, it's actually a savings to make it as standard equipment. For those who are against it, I wonder.......have you ever had experience using a backup cam for an extended amount of time? Do you not see the increase in safety with its use?
don't know, have been driving for 16 years and have never backed over or into anything by being aware of what is or isn't behind me before getting into my. and then using my 3 available mirrors to proceed cautiously as I back up.

I would rather see cellphone jamming devices that prevent texting while the car is running, or ignition interlock devices to prevent drunk drivers from driving. I see those both saving more lives in the end than backup cameras in vehicles.
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Jan 2011
Bacon makes it better
> bubble2 4,670 Posts
103 Reputation
AstroInactive
04-03-2014 at 11:00 AM.
04-03-2014 at 11:00 AM.
I would prefer they mandate transporters like on Star Trek...
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Mar 2009
Schrödinger's Frog
> bubble2 19,384 Posts
2,134 Reputation
Frogstar
04-03-2014 at 11:41 AM.
04-03-2014 at 11:41 AM.
Quote from astromarmot :
I would prefer they mandate transporters like on Star Trek...
I'm on board with this plan.
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Jul 2005
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 10,159 Posts
z2g
04-03-2014 at 12:12 PM.
04-03-2014 at 12:12 PM.
Quote from cav :
don't know, have been driving for 16 years and have never backed over or into anything by being aware of what is or isn't behind me before getting into my. and then using my 3 available mirrors to proceed cautiously as I back up.

I would rather see cellphone jamming devices that prevent texting while the car is running, or ignition interlock devices to prevent drunk drivers from driving. I see those both saving more lives in the end than backup cameras in vehicles.
I've been driving for about 24 yrs now......I've never backed up into anything too. However, I still can see the benefits of having a backup cam.

I agree that there are other things that can save more lives--i.e. preventing drunk drivers from driving or jamming cellphones. However, there would be even bigger uproar if those two things happen. With jamming cell phones, how can you determine if it's just passengers who have their cell phones? If all cell phones just get jammed based on speed, then the passengers wouldn't have access to their phones too.

With preventing drunk ppl from driving, there's a device now that require some ppl who have been convicted of a DUI to test the BAC before the car can start. However, this would NEVER pass because ppl will consider it an affront to their personal freedoms here in America.

So, what can the government do? Start off small--i.e. requiring tire pressure monitoring and backup cams.

I remember when my area first required ppl to wear seatbelts and would ticket those who didn't have them on. I reacted the same as ppl here with regards to backup cams. Of course, now that it's been 20+ years of having the seatbelt law, I can't imagine not wearing my seatbelt when I drive! It's like how bikers complain about helmet laws. You'll always find ppl against it.Wink
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Last edited by z2g April 3, 2014 at 12:26 PM.
Joined Apr 2004
Mr llama llama
> bubble2 3,048 Posts
89 Reputation
The Llama
04-03-2014 at 02:41 PM.
04-03-2014 at 02:41 PM.
Quote from Frogstar :
I'm on board with this plan.
Make it so.
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Mar 2009
Schrödinger's Frog
> bubble2 19,384 Posts
2,134 Reputation
Frogstar
04-03-2014 at 02:44 PM.
04-03-2014 at 02:44 PM.
:engages:
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Feb 2004
Eat a rock!
> bubble2 13,790 Posts
459 Reputation
mrlaugh
04-03-2014 at 03:00 PM.
04-03-2014 at 03:00 PM.
Popcorn
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Jan 2004
Here's to the future
> bubble2 25,137 Posts
707 Reputation
Iaaaiws
04-03-2014 at 08:51 PM.
04-03-2014 at 08:51 PM.
Quote from z2g :
...However, this would NEVER pass because ppl will consider it an affront to their personal freedoms here in America.

So, what can the government do? Start off small--i.e. requiring tire pressure monitoring and backup cams.
It amazes me that anyone can have that mentality.

"I think the government should have complete control over almost every aspect of my life but most people won't go for that so I just want them to keep taking little nibbles of our freedom at a pace slow enough that nobody really pays attention until it is too late."

Government is not capable of taking care of all people from cradle to grave. And government is not the answer to every stinking little problem in society. Get the government out of the way, get people away from that mentality that they need to depend on the government, and get back to people being responsible for their actions and choices.
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Jul 2005
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 10,159 Posts
z2g
04-03-2014 at 09:24 PM.
04-03-2014 at 09:24 PM.
Quote from Iaaaiws :
It amazes me that anyone can have that mentality.

"I think the government should have complete control over almost every aspect of my life but most people won't go for that so I just want them to keep taking little nibbles of our freedom at a pace slow enough that nobody really pays attention until it is too late."

Government is not capable of taking care of all people from cradle to grave. And government is not the answer to every stinking little problem in society. Get the government out of the way, get people away from that mentality that they need to depend on the government, and get back to people being responsible for their actions and choices.
It's one of those double-edged sword dilemmas. Most ppl out there want less government. However, they want government to do more in certain situations. It's like......"I don't want government interfering in my life unless it's for something I need."

I don't think a government mandate to require backup cams (or seat belts, tire monitoring systems, baby seats, etc.) is tantamount to taking care of ppl from cradle to grave. It's a small requirement to improve safety.
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Jan 2004
Here's to the future
> bubble2 25,137 Posts
707 Reputation
Iaaaiws
04-03-2014 at 09:50 PM.
04-03-2014 at 09:50 PM.
Quote from z2g :
It's one of those double-edged sword dilemmas. Most ppl out there want less government. However, they want government to do more in certain situations. It's like......"I don't want government interfering in my life unless it's for something I need."

I don't think a government mandate to require backup cams (or seat belts, tire monitoring systems, baby seats, etc.) is tantamount to taking care of ppl from cradle to grave. It's a small requirement to improve safety.
Yet you admit that you want them to do it as a stepping stone to making more and more mandates. You said you would be okay with them requiring a lot more than this but figure a little bit of control is better none.

You have a lot of money and buy expensive cars and replace them frequently so the added cost seems insignificant to you. You mention in an earlier post about not having to pay for repairs on a car that is a few years old. No car that new should ever have any repair costs beyond consumables. Many people are not so fortunate and have to rely on cars that are much older. The more complex they get the harder it is for the working class folks to buy and maintain reasonably safe automobiles. Every piece of required equipment makes it that much harder. Some might even think it is part of a plan to keep poor people from owning their own cars so they become dependent on public transportation. Easier to keep them in their place that way.
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Feb 2006
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 7,895 Posts
2,165 Reputation
Microtubule
04-04-2014 at 05:10 AM.
04-04-2014 at 05:10 AM.
Quote from z2g :
It's one of those double-edged sword dilemmas. Most ppl out there want less government. However, they want government to do more in certain situations. It's like......"I don't want government interfering in my life unless it's for something I need."

I don't think a government mandate to require backup cams (or seat belts, tire monitoring systems, baby seats, etc.) is tantamount to taking care of ppl from cradle to grave. It's a small requirement to improve safety.
nod
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined May 2009
Go for it!
> bubble2 1,233 Posts
Brattles
05-03-2014 at 07:50 AM.
05-03-2014 at 07:50 AM.
It's stuff like this that makes we want to keep by old rustbucket going!

I don't want expensive gizmos to tell me when my tires need aire, I don't want a built in GPS that will become obsolete, I don't want a backup camera or any other crap added to a basic car that'll be a headache and expensive to maintain.

Can't they leave things simple?

A friend has a Toyota pu that needs a water pump. He's told the engine has to be removed (hoisted or something) to change it. WTH kind of improvements in engineering is all this stuff!
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Joined Apr 2004
Mr llama llama
> bubble2 3,048 Posts
89 Reputation
The Llama
05-04-2014 at 05:35 PM.
05-04-2014 at 05:35 PM.
Quote from Brattles :
It's stuff like this that makes we want to keep by old rustbucket going!

I don't want expensive gizmos to tell me when my tires need aire, I don't want a built in GPS that will become obsolete, I don't want a backup camera or any other crap added to a basic car that'll be a headache and expensive to maintain.

Can't they leave things simple?

A friend has a Toyota pu that needs a water pump. He's told the engine has to be removed (hoisted or something) to change it. WTH kind of improvements in engineering is all this stuff!
Why would you maintain something that you don't want on the car?
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jan 2004
Here's to the future
> bubble2 25,137 Posts
707 Reputation
Iaaaiws
05-04-2014 at 08:49 PM.
05-04-2014 at 08:49 PM.
Quote from The Llama :
Why would you maintain something that you don't want on the car?
Oh don't worry. If something is mandatory on a vehicle it won't be long before they require it to be functioning forever as well. At the owner's expense.

I'm glad we don't have required vehicle inspections here yet.
Like
Funny
>
Helpful
Not helpful
Reply
Page 11 of 13
Start the Conversation
 
Link Copied

The link has been copied to the clipboard.