Move to mandate rearview cameras could boost car prices

[aGameOfThrones]

It looks like we don't have much longer to wait to find out if rearview cameras will become the next safety device to become standard on new cars. Ray LaHood and the US Department of Transportation could put this legislation to the vote by the end of the month to require all new vehicles in 2014 to be equipped with cameras in an effort to make cars safer. LaHood delayed this vote back in February.

According to The Detroit News, adding such a camera would cost up to $203 to install on vehicles without an appropriate display screen and up to $88 for cars that already have a useable display. This relatively small cost could help reduce the number of people backed over each year, which accounts for around 300 deaths (including 100 children under the age of five) and injure close to 16,000 people annually.

If passed, backup cameras would join features such as airbags, electronic stability control and tire pressure monitoring systems as recently added standard safety equipment.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/17/move-to-mandate-rearview-cameras-could-boost-car-prices-by-200/

[aGameOfThrones]

Comments from the site:



There are 10M+ new cars sold in the US each year. Let's say the average additional cost for this is $100/car. That's $1B/yr removed from the economy.

There are currently 300 people who are killed from being backed over. That happens because the driver isn't paying attention or there is such quick movement that it can't be prevented. In those cases, a camera won't prevent the accident. Also, the average age of cars on the road is 11+ yrs. It will take a very long time for this tech to migrate completely through the US vehicle fleet. Thus, we can only expect these to reduce deaths by ~100/yr at most. (That's $10M per life saved. IMO, while it's good to save lives, I'm confident we can save far more by spending the money in smarter ways.) Other injuries & property damage associated with backing up is small in comparison to accidents when traveling forward at speed.

For perspective, the NHTSA estimates there are over 1500 deaths each year & $12B in property damage from drowsy driving. Spending $1B/yr on tech that would be equally effective would save 500 lives / yr, and would actually be a positive on the net balance sheet.

I've seen people with these cameras. They get tunnel vision. They lose their ability to know their vehicle corners, they lose all sense of what's around them. Their common sense and driving skills atrophy. Someone once said that if you want to improve car safety, you'd do better by installing a steel spike on the steering wheel. When people feel that they need to be safe, they do the things necessary to be safe. When they are lulled into complacency, that's when safety features stop working. Pilots use checklists before take off, not because a computer can't do everything for them, but because it forces the pilot to be involved & thus aware. These systems as currently implemented do the opposite. - Greg


Reply:

You know, I'm going to admit that I didn't read your whole post. But that's because you say something so dumb right off the bat.

Do you think that's $1B that just vanishes into thin air? It goes right back INTO the economy with every car made on domestic soil by a domestic automaker and most of it is still kicking around even if its a VW made in Tennessee.

Cripes man....- Rob J

[VIDEODROME]

A motion sensor / collision detector alarm would be far more effective, sensible, and affordable.

These dumbasses are why I quit truck driving.