PDA

View Full Version : The price of a car just got WAY more expensive




VoluntaryAmerican
03-31-2014, 06:30 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/

NHST to require all new cars starting in 2016 have backup camera technology.

For the children.

HOLLYWOOD
03-31-2014, 06:34 PM
THEN... Will everyone's insurance rates go down?

Crumble zones, safety bumpers, a gazillion airbags, 3 point mandatory seat belts... yet everyone I know, their insurance rates keep going up!

BTW, with high vehicle costs reciprocate into higher registration fees and insurance rates... It's all a scam of lobbyists and political donations in the 'Land of Fee'd'.

phill4paul
03-31-2014, 06:35 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/

NHST to require all new cars starting in 2016 have backup camera technology.

For the children.

The human race should all be dead 1000x over by now.

Anti Federalist
03-31-2014, 06:40 PM
What a surprise...the self driving electric people pods will be mandatory.

DamianTV
03-31-2014, 06:40 PM
How. Ever. Did. Children. Survive. Without. Mandatory. Safety. Laws?

VoluntaryAmerican
03-31-2014, 06:41 PM
What a surprise...the self driving electric people pods will be mandatory.

How pissed are you from 1 to 10?

VIDEODROME
03-31-2014, 06:44 PM
If somebody isn't looking in the mirror, what makes them think the same people would pay attention to the stupid camera?

PaulConventionWV
03-31-2014, 06:45 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/

NHST to require all new cars starting in 2016 have backup camera technology.

For the children.

Those little cameras aren't worth a thing. The company I work for just got new company cars with those cameras installed, but we never use them. You can't judge where you are based on that little fuzzy picture on the dashboard that gives a very incomplete picture of what's behind you. Not to mention it's hard to keep the thing clean for a couple of minutes. It's much easier and much safer to use the mirrors and a general sense of where you are in space rather than relying on a stupid camera that just stares at a little patch of ground directly behind the bumper.

PaulConventionWV
03-31-2014, 06:47 PM
If somebody isn't looking in the mirror, what makes them think the same people would pay attention to the stupid camera?

It's not like it would even help if people did. It doesn't show you anything you need to see that you can't see by looking in the mirror and being aware of your surroundings. It might as well be there for entertainment purposes.

specsaregood
03-31-2014, 06:48 PM
If somebody isn't looking in the mirror, what makes them think the same people would pay attention to the stupid camera?

I'm pretty sure you are supposed to use the mirror in addition to the camera. The camera sees stuff you can't see in the mirror and vice-versa. eg: a small child behind your car. Plenty of people using a mirror have managed to run over kids, pets, toys in the driveway simply because they aren't visible in the mirrors.

VoluntaryAmerican
03-31-2014, 06:49 PM
Those little cameras aren't worth a thing. The company I work for just got new company cars with those cameras installed, but we never use them. You can't judge where you are based on that little fuzzy picture on the dashboard that gives a very incomplete picture of what's behind you. Not to mention it's hard to keep the thing clean for a couple of minutes. It's much easier and much safer to use the mirrors and a general sense of where you are in space rather than relying on a stupid camera that just stares at a little patch of ground directly behind the bumper.

How much? Like $100 minimum? But good point, company's will probably make cheaper once this is law.

thoughtomator
03-31-2014, 07:43 PM
For the children.

For the children of the guy who owns the backup camera manufacturing company, anyway.

2young2vote
03-31-2014, 07:47 PM
Once again, the comments in these articles expose how brain dead the average human being is. "God forbid the government does something to keep our children safe." They want to increase the cost of a car FOR EVERYONE so the few people who back up recklessly don't have the very small chance of hitting someone? Their wacko beliefs, once again, are the cause of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. Mandate this, mandate that, ITS FOR THE CHILDREN. Meanwhile, big companies reap the benefits of these people's emotional and thoughtless beliefs. The average big government shill couldn't think past his nose and is not even remotely capable of understanding the long term consequences of these policies.

limequat
03-31-2014, 07:55 PM
How much? Like $100 minimum? But good point, company's will probably make cheaper once this is law.

Probably not even that. Many cars are going to center displays for infotainment. Once that's there, it's just the price of the camera, which is probably only a few bucks.

It's still a series of stupid maneuvers by NHTSA though. It's their own requirements that make the pillars so big that you can't see anything. So now we have roof crush standards that make the pillars massive. Side impact standards drive side airbags which make the pillars even more massiver. Pedestrian impact standards raise the hood (and by extension, the deck). And now we need cameras just to see OUT!

Combine that with the fact that having a backup cam doesn't mean people will look at them. I know at least two people that hit other CARS in a car with a backup cam.

Anti Federalist
03-31-2014, 08:26 PM
How pissed are you from 1 to 10?

I live every day in a state of high piss-off.

ClydeCoulter
03-31-2014, 08:36 PM
Hey, they can display advertisements when you're not backing up!

ClydeCoulter
03-31-2014, 08:36 PM
I live every day in a state of high piss-off.

So, that would be 27.5?

Weston White
03-31-2014, 08:47 PM
Wouldn’t rear-proximity sensors be more appropriate?

Rear cameras require that a lot of additional hardware be installed. And I believe center consoles are for rear passengers, or perhaps that is center-overhead consoles? But in California for example it is illegal to have video playing capable monitors in view of the driver.

Another consideration with regarding to requiring video screens is automotive theft; ultimately, this will be just one more thing to encourage vehicle burglary, which will of course lead to one more thing that police can issue you a fix-it-ticket for whenever you get pulled over (because most will not be able to afford replacing their stolen and largely useless equipment... over and over and over—of course politicians and idiots alike will just say get insurance coverage for it).

The Free Hornet
03-31-2014, 10:54 PM
If somebody isn't looking in the mirror, what makes them think the same people would pay attention to the stupid camera?

Whenever car commercials show the in-car GPS or videoscreen, I'm glad my car doesn't have that.

But it is not just the camera that is mandated but the whole thing. It is the $2000-$5000 "entertainment package" that a lot of us would opt not to buy. No, it won't cost that much but I do expect it to be that annoying. FWIW, I drive with zero-to-minimal lights on the dash much of the time.

Mandating cameras in a car and a video screen pointed at my face, seems like there ought to be a word for that...

anaconda
03-31-2014, 11:42 PM
Well,...according to the article our Congress passed this. Let's start looking for the roll call on this one...

dntrpltt
04-01-2014, 12:29 AM
This right here is the crux of the entire issue, and angers me to no end:


NHTSA estimates that 58 to 69 lives will be saved each year (not including injuries prevented) once the entire on-road vehicle fleet has rear-view systems, which it believes will be by about 2054.

Sixty lives a year will be saved forty years from now. Sixty lives. This is government that has gotten WAY out of control.

Mani
04-01-2014, 12:37 AM
How. Ever. Did. Children. Survive. Without. Mandatory. Safety. Laws?



When I was a kid, I remember in my friend's mom's car there was no backseat. Just a tire. A couple times she picked us up from school and we sat on a tire.....

No seatbelts, let alone seats....just a tire...

Yet somehow I'm hear to tell you about it.


She'd probably be in jail today for child endangerment.

Barrex
04-01-2014, 12:42 AM
Once I and my father crashed 2 cars in same corner of the house in the same time.... This "mandatory camera thingy" still seems gazillion times dumber that what we did.

MRK
04-01-2014, 02:54 AM
More toys for the NSA to hack into and do default video captures, especially if it's got something like Onstar. Government Motors now has Onstar on every vehicle, if I recall correctly.

nobody's_hero
04-01-2014, 06:14 AM
If somebody isn't looking in the mirror, what makes them think the same people would pay attention to the stupid camera?

Winner winner chicken dinner. The cameras will be good if they have video-recording ability so you can replay the horror in the eyes of your toddler as you crushed him with your ford f-550.

Oh me, that's a bit morbid. I woke up on the cynical side of the bed this morning.

PaulConventionWV
04-01-2014, 06:45 AM
This right here is the crux of the entire issue, and angers me to no end:



Sixty lives a year will be saved forty years from now. Sixty lives. This is government that has gotten WAY out of control.

And even those statistics are questionable.

PaulConventionWV
04-01-2014, 06:48 AM
When I was a kid, I remember in my friend's mom's car there was no backseat. Just a tire. A couple times she picked us up from school and we sat on a tire.....

No seatbelts, let alone seats....just a tire...

Yet somehow I'm hear to tell you about it.


She'd probably be in jail today for child endangerment.

That's pretty funny. Now that I think about it, my family did some pretty weird things, too. We had a large family, and an old clunky van a long time ago that we would take everywhere. In order to accommodate other passengers, we once strapped a rocking chair in the back.

Afterward, we upgraded to a hand-crafted wooden bench that my dad made himself, seatbelts and everything, bolted to the floor. What luxury...

Keith and stuff
04-01-2014, 06:51 AM
THEN... Will everyone's insurance rates go down?

Crumble zones, safety bumpers, a gazillion airbags, 3 point mandatory seat belts... yet everyone I know, their insurance rates keep going up!

BTW, with high vehicle costs reciprocate into higher registration fees and insurance rates... It's all a scam of lobbyists and political donations in the 'Land of Fee'd'.

Why would insurance go up? Mine was under $300 a year last year and I reduced it again this year. Or do you mean that people you know are buying more expensive vehicles to replace their older vehicles? Even though my insurance company just paid thousands to fix my car, after a deer ran into it, my insurance is still under $300 a year.

Edit: What was I thinking? Sorry, I meant to say my insurance is under $300 a year, not $100 a year :(

fisharmor
04-01-2014, 06:59 AM
You can't judge where you are based on that little fuzzy picture on the dashboard that gives a very incomplete picture of what's behind you.

That never stopped anyone.
I still remember what my mother looked like after a 30mph accident. The airbag deployed right in her face, and it seriously looked like someone took a bat to her jaw.
For a 30mph accident.
The one time airbags deployed on me, I was in the passenger seat of a Roadmaster in heavy snow in the PA mountains, again, about 30mph.
My brother-in-law started planing, corrected, planed the other way, corrected, and lost it... and we floated down an embankment and into a tree.
The car was doomed, but we just sort of had a slight jostle and that was it. But the bags both deployed... and did two things.
1) Utterly crushed the windshield and dash, destroying even more of the salvage value.
2) Started spitting propellant at both of us.

Well, all we knew at that point was there was foul-smelling smoke pouring out at us and the car was probably on fire, and we exploded out of the car, practically ripped two small kids out of the mandatory shackles that did nothing to enhance their safety in that wreck, and bolted up the embankment, and across a snow-covered interstate in order to get the kids into the other car.

So that's my airbag experience: best case scenario is you're running with children in your arms across the interstate in shitty weather, worst case is you look like you lost a prize fight, and absolutely zero net increase in safety.

So I doubt the actual efficacy of the cameras is ever going to be addressed.

limequat
04-01-2014, 08:01 AM
This right here is the crux of the entire issue, and angers me to no end:



Sixty lives a year will be saved forty years from now. Sixty lives. This is government that has gotten WAY out of control.

It's 60 a year, so 2400 total.
There are 200 backup fatalities a year, so NHTSA figures this will prevent a third of them.
If we figure an on-cost of $100 / vehicle (averaging in those that wouldn't normally have the center screen), it comes to $2 Billion annually, or $33 million per life saved.
Ballpark numbers, but you get the idea. This is how NHTSA works. They weigh the costs/benefits and try to do the things that give the best "ROI".
Personally, I think the cameras won't even prevent a 3rd of the fatalities. Maybe more like a tenth.

You guys know why SUVs exist? It was CAFE. SUVs are "trucks" and therefore had a lower cafe requirement. That distortion in the market killed the wagon which has dramatically better sight lines. Unintended consequences piled on unintended consequences.

limequat
04-01-2014, 08:07 AM
...

limequat
04-01-2014, 08:07 AM
That never stopped anyone.
I still remember what my mother looked like after a 30mph accident. The airbag deployed right in her face, and it seriously looked like someone took a bat to her jaw.
For a 30mph accident.
The one time airbags deployed on me, I was in the passenger seat of a Roadmaster in heavy snow in the PA mountains, again, about 30mph.
My brother-in-law started planing, corrected, planed the other way, corrected, and lost it... and we floated down an embankment and into a tree.
The car was doomed, but we just sort of had a slight jostle and that was it. But the bags both deployed... and did two things.
1) Utterly crushed the windshield and dash, destroying even more of the salvage value.
2) Started spitting propellant at both of us.

Well, all we knew at that point was there was foul-smelling smoke pouring out at us and the car was probably on fire, and we exploded out of the car, practically ripped two small kids out of the mandatory shackles that did nothing to enhance their safety in that wreck, and bolted up the embankment, and across a snow-covered interstate in order to get the kids into the other car.

So that's my airbag experience: best case scenario is you're running with children in your arms across the interstate in shitty weather, worst case is you look like you lost a prize fight, and absolutely zero net increase in safety.

So I doubt the actual efficacy of the cameras is ever going to be addressed.

Well of course not. Who's gonna care in 40 years?

Meanwhile, cars that don't meet US standards can be profitable with a $6 - $8k selling price. The average new car in the US is $30k or damn close to what my parents paid for their new 1600 sq ft home 40 years ago.

But this whole NHTSA-gone-wild debacle is only fodder for the hard-core libertarians. Why do you want cars to be unsafe?
Grit your teeth, buy a good used car, and keep it running. Cars from 20 years ago had incredible sight lines, were lighter, and got great mileage. Add an aftermarket radio and you're up-to-date. You'll be happy and the safety-nazis can barrel around in their 6000 lb safety tanks.

phill4paul
04-01-2014, 08:18 AM
What ever happened to simply looking behind your vehicle for hazards before entering and backing out?

Cleaner44
04-01-2014, 08:51 AM
THEN... Will everyone's insurance rates go down?

Crumble zones, safety bumpers, a gazillion airbags, 3 point mandatory seat belts... yet everyone I know, their insurance rates keep going up!

BTW, with high vehicle costs reciprocate into higher registration fees and insurance rates... It's all a scam of lobbyists and political donations in the 'Land of Fee'd'.

Don't forget the higher bank loans to purchase the more expensive autos.

jonhowe
04-01-2014, 09:44 AM
That never stopped anyone.
I still remember what my mother looked like after a 30mph accident. The airbag deployed right in her face, and it seriously looked like someone took a bat to her jaw.
For a 30mph accident.
The one time airbags deployed on me, I was in the passenger seat of a Roadmaster in heavy snow in the PA mountains, again, about 30mph.
My brother-in-law started planing, corrected, planed the other way, corrected, and lost it... and we floated down an embankment and into a tree.
The car was doomed, but we just sort of had a slight jostle and that was it. But the bags both deployed... and did two things.
1) Utterly crushed the windshield and dash, destroying even more of the salvage value.
2) Started spitting propellant at both of us.

Well, all we knew at that point was there was foul-smelling smoke pouring out at us and the car was probably on fire, and we exploded out of the car, practically ripped two small kids out of the mandatory shackles that did nothing to enhance their safety in that wreck, and bolted up the embankment, and across a snow-covered interstate in order to get the kids into the other car.

So that's my airbag experience: best case scenario is you're running with children in your arms across the interstate in shitty weather, worst case is you look like you lost a prize fight, and absolutely zero net increase in safety.

So I doubt the actual efficacy of the cameras is ever going to be addressed.


Air bags are not perfect, and often deploy when not needed, but saying they do not increase safety is just incorrect. Your anecdotes don't change that.

RJB
04-01-2014, 09:48 AM
We're all going to be mandated into Bubbleboys.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/cityofate/bubble_boy.jpg

oyarde
04-01-2014, 09:56 AM
How much? Like $100 minimum? But good point, company's will probably make cheaper once this is law.

On my local radio station yesterday , they said $150 added.

georgiaboy
04-01-2014, 10:08 AM
More toys for the NSA to hack into and do default video captures, especially if it's got something like Onstar. Government Motors now has Onstar on every vehicle, if I recall correctly.

Dangit, Snowden! This was my first thought. Cameras, cameras, everywhere.

fisharmor
04-01-2014, 10:46 AM
Air bags are not perfect, and often deploy when not needed, but saying they do not increase safety is just incorrect. Your anecdotes don't change that.

And reading is fundamental.
I started the sentence stating that this is my experience with airbags.
My experience is that they result in a net decrease in safety. In those two cases, this is unanswerable.
No study you can point to is going to take any cases into account where the airbags were directly responsible for adults grabbing children and running across an interstate in a snowstorm.
So whereas I absolutely can say that in my experience they decrease safety, you cannot point to a study that says with certainty that they offer a net increase in safety.

dntrpltt
04-01-2014, 11:25 AM
It's 60 a year, so 2400 total.
There are 200 backup fatalities a year, so NHTSA figures this will prevent a third of them.
If we figure an on-cost of $100 / vehicle (averaging in those that wouldn't normally have the center screen), it comes to $2 Billion annually, or $33 million per life saved.
Ballpark numbers, but you get the idea. This is how NHTSA works. They weigh the costs/benefits and try to do the things that give the best "ROI".
Personally, I think the cameras won't even prevent a 3rd of the fatalities. Maybe more like a tenth.

You guys know why SUVs exist? It was CAFE. SUVs are "trucks" and therefore had a lower cafe requirement. That distortion in the market killed the wagon which has dramatically better sight lines. Unintended consequences piled on unintended consequences.

That's expensive in itself, but there is one problem in your calculation: I didn't mean 60 a year for forty years, I meant 60 a year starting in forty years. The NHTSA estimates 58-69 lives saved once everything is fully implemented (I don't think it gives an estimate for the decades leading to this point), which is in 2054.

I don't know about you, but I always pictured there would be flying cars by the time I was 60 years old.

limequat
04-01-2014, 12:19 PM
That's expensive in itself, but there is one problem in your calculation: I didn't mean 60 a year for forty years, I meant 60 a year starting in forty years. The NHTSA estimates 58-69 lives saved once everything is fully implemented (I don't think it gives an estimate for the decades leading to this point), which is in 2054.

I don't know about you, but I always pictured there would be flying cars by the time I was 60 years old.

Good point, I missed that. The sales rate in 2019 will be somewhere south of 20 million / year. I don't know the numbers on the total US fleet. Somewhere around 300 million? So I'm sure NHTSA will claim some percentage of lives saved after the first year.

Uriel999
04-01-2014, 12:39 PM
How about we just all get mandatory mraps. I mean the government is just givng them away anyways. Surely an mrap would be safer than a car. It is for the children after all!

DamianTV
04-01-2014, 04:18 PM
So now Backup Cams AND V2V Communications? Why dont they throw in a Kitchen Sink and make us pay for that too?

DamianTV
04-01-2014, 04:45 PM
Oh, and this:

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/imagesweird-death.jpg?ssitoken_1396392071589_

The NHTSA, which operates under the Department of Transportation, tallies 210 fatalities every year. That is four times less than those that die from falling off furniture. Guess the next step is to outlaw Furniture and Hot Water...

69360
04-01-2014, 04:57 PM
Those things are totally useless in Maine in the winter. As soon as you drive the car it's dirty and you can't see anything.

How hard is it to turn around and look?

eduardo89
04-01-2014, 04:59 PM
$120 is "WAY" more expensive?

DamianTV
04-01-2014, 05:00 PM
$120 is "WAY" more expensive?

Then you should give me $120 bucks, for NOTHING. Monthly.

mad cow
04-01-2014, 05:34 PM
Oh, and this:

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/imagesweird-death.jpg?ssitoken_1396392071589_

The NHTSA, which operates under the Department of Transportation, tallies 210 fatalities every year. That is four times less than those that die from falling off furniture. Guess the next step is to outlaw Furniture and Hot Water...

Don't give them any ideas.Please.

Anti Federalist
04-01-2014, 07:37 PM
Another “Option” Now Mandatory

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/04/01/another-option-now-mandatory/

by eric • April 1, 2014 • 13 Comments

Rearview cameras are now mandatory – or soon will be, starting with model year 2018 vehicles (see here for more). The government takes the position that you and I cannot back into a parking spot or out of a driveway without driving over a small child . . . unless we have the assistance of a closed-circuit camera system built into the car.

Ironically, it is because of the government that people have been backing up over small children.

To understand this, you really need to sit behind the wheel of a car made before the late ’90s – and then jump behind the wheel of a car made today. “Beltlines” – the height of the doors – are much higher than they used to be. You sit lower in the car as a result. The roof is supported by A, B and C pillars (A pillars being the ones at either end of the windshield, B being at the mid-point of the car – if it’s a sedan – and C being toward the rear glass) that are two or three times as thick as they used to be. Rear glass is as a result of this typically smaller. And then there are a pair of tall-standing backseat head restraints that eat up much of the already limited view to the rear.

Result?

It’s hard to see what’s next to you. Or what’s behind you. Even if you’re using your mirrors; even if you’re trying to be responsible. Your available field of vision is diminished. I’ve been test-driving new cars for more than 20 years – and the difference (Then vs. Now) in terms of outward and peripheral visibility is startling.

(I have two trucks over 20 years old and one 2013 wagon in the fleet. This is correct. - AF)

So, why?

The design aspects of modern cars described above are there to make new cars compliant with the latest government side-impact, anti-whiplash and (most recently) roof crush safety standards. And they are safer. . . if you have an accident. But they’re also less safe – in that you’re more likely to be involved in some sort of accident because of the impaired visibility.

And so, mandatory back-up cameras.

We get to pay – an estimated $140 per car, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – for the government’s mistake. Or rather, for the unintended consequences of government edicts. It’s not unlike having to take another drug to counteract the side-effects of the first drug one was prescribed. The difference being your doctor can’t – yet – force you to take the drugs. When it comes to government mandates, the cost-benefit analysis is made for you – and then imposed upon you.

That $140 figure is also – as usual – fundamentally dishonest.

Even if accepted at face value, it does not factor in future repair/replacement costs. Keep in mind that the cameras are built into the rear bumper. Rear-ender accidents are probably the most common type of accident. And now there’ll be another component to replace – at your expense. At everyone’s expense – because insurance costs will surely go up in response to higher repair costs. And even if no one rear-ends you, eventually, the cameras will stop working or the LCD display screen will crap out.

Stuff wears out.

Things go snafu.

Especially electronic things.

And because these back-up cameras are now mandatory safety equipment – exactly like seat belts and air bags – it will also be mandatory that they’re maintained in working order for the life of the vehicle. If you live in a state that requires vehicles to pass “safety” inspection in order to get or renew registration – which is most states – the inspector will fail the car if the back-up camera system isn’t working. Just as he would if someone had cut out the seat belts or disabled the air bags. You will then have to have the back-up camera system repaired – or replaced – in order to pass the inspection.

In order to be allowed to continue to drive your vehicle.

So – how much are we really looking at? Price the replacment cost of a late-model car’s outside rearview mirror – without a camera or an LCD display but with power actuation, say – to get an idea.

$300 or so is probably about right for an LCD display screen that – in addition to being not-cheap for the part itself – will also require an hour or two of dealership book-rate labor to install. (In many current-year cars that have back-up cameras, the LCD screen is integrated into the dashboard – not an easy item to remove/reinstall.)

Thus, the true cost – the total lifetime cost – is likely to be closer to $500. Perhaps a lot more than that. The truth is no one really knows – and that includes NHTSA. They’re just guessing. But you and I will be the ones paying.

Even if it is “only” $140 per car, factor that out over the millions of cars manufactured and sold in just one year.

It’s a lot of shekels.

A more cost-effective approach would be to make it easier to see what’s around you without needing electronic Band Aids. One very simple way to do this – without in any way compromising the “safety” of new cars – would be to nix the Tall Boy backseat headrests in most new cars that reduce the already limited view you’ve got to the rear to virtually nil.

At least, nix ‘em when there’s nobody riding back there. The headrests could be stowed in the trunk or – better yet – made optional, since not everyone carries backseat passengers.

The problem, of course, is that Government Knows Best. It’s a problem, because government does not know best. It’s no more infallible than the people who pull its levers – and point its guns. It merely chooses – as all individual people do – a given course of action based on cost-benefit analysis. Which is inherently subjective – i.e., based on value judgments. For example, a “safer” car – if you wreck it – as opposed to one you’re less likely to wreck in the first place, because you can see what’s going on around you (and behind you) better.

The question is – or ought to be – who rightfully should be the one making those value judgments?

You? Or someone in a government bureaucracy, acting (so they’ll claim) on your behalf – but without your consent?

Throw it in the Woods.

pcosmar
04-01-2014, 07:49 PM
So whereas I absolutely can say that in my experience they decrease safety, you cannot point to a study that says with certainty that they offer a net increase in safety.
Actually,, they give a false sense of security,, which translates to poor driving habits.
The same as "insurance" does.

ie,, I don't have to be careful,, I have insurance.
I don't have to worry,, I have airbags.

It makes everyone unsafe.

eduardo89
04-01-2014, 07:50 PM
Then you should give me $120 bucks, for NOTHING. Monthly.

Uhh...why? What does giving you $120/month have to do with a one time additional cost of $120 factored into the manufacturing cost of a product that costs tens of thousands of dollar...?

ZENemy
04-01-2014, 08:24 PM
wow, shopping carts at wholefoods will finally be safe from Camry bumpers.

2young2vote
04-01-2014, 08:26 PM
oh, its only $120? Thats ok I guess.

Hmm seatbelts? Only $50? Ok.

Airbags? Only $400? ok.

etc..
etc..
etc..
etc..

Do you see where I am going? Do people understand that there are reasons the "poor" are getting poorer? It is because of government regulation pushing costs up on almost every purchasable item in existence from food to cars to houses. I swear, big government lovers are their own worst enemy.

Anti Federalist
04-01-2014, 08:32 PM
Do you see where I am going? Do people understand that there are reasons the "poor" are getting poorer? It is because of government regulation pushing costs up on almost every purchasable item in existence from food to cars to houses. I swear, big government lovers are their own worst enemy.

http://www.eastvalleynewsnet.com/graphics/wants_more_government.png

69360
04-02-2014, 10:31 AM
Air bags are not perfect, and often deploy when not needed, but saying they do not increase safety is just incorrect. Your anecdotes don't change that.

I don't want airbags in my cars. Why isn't that good enough? If they increase or decrease safety is irrelevant. I just don't want them.

FindLiberty
04-02-2014, 11:17 AM
Hey, they can display advertisements when you're not backing up!

I thought about using a few BU camera wireless Xmitters (using various standard frequencies) to constantly send out a single RP campaign photo as I drove around. I rejected my own idea for the obvious danger/driver distraction issues! It would have technically functioned, but would probably piss more drivers off than amuse as RP's picture popped up on their screens (as my car passed by within range). This would not work if the BU Camera systems were OEM/hard-wired base band, but it would snag all the after-market and any wireless ones

It would also have popped up on any home wireless camera baby monitors and wireless video security systems and cause quite a stir as I drove past...

With 18 square feet of RonPaul signs sitting on top of my car, I would not be too difficult to hunt down!

TruckinMike
04-02-2014, 12:14 PM
Buzzword of the decade: SAFETY

I have noticed a cultural shift concerning the use of the word "safety". My two nephews 10 and 12 constantly use it, TV shows use it, teachers use it, my TV watching addict brother has resorted to using it. TPTB are shoving it down our throats. Hell, they even changed the names of the Rest Areas on Texas highways, they are now called "Safety Rest Areas". Not kidding. I keep hoping that I will wake up form this eternal twilight zone episode, but I doubt that will happen any time soon..
As long as "We the people" allow TPTB to use the word "Safety" to rob us of our rights ---> They will not stop. Why would they?

SAFETY = TYRANNY

56ktarget
04-04-2014, 03:40 AM
I agree with everyone on here. Lets eliminate seat belts, airbags, reinforced windows, and other safety devices because all that matters in a car is how cheap it is.

Mani
04-04-2014, 03:56 AM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeWAuCJ22BUcampCore1AK5_FtHyazb aZNRwf_kHwr7_HALb9-

Barrex
04-04-2014, 03:58 AM
I agree with everyone on here. Lets eliminate seat belts, airbags, reinforced windows, and other safety devices because all that matters in a car is how cheap it is.

No one is saying that. I am saying lets give people options if they want to buy seat belts, airbags, reinforced windows, and other safety devices... I also want a choice to buy car with no paint on it but it is illegal here.

Giving people choice is not "eliminating" it is exactly the opposite.

If there were no stupid safety laws chances are that cars would have options with many different kinds of safety devices. I dont know what they would be... maybe entire front panel (steering wheel, radio console etc) would be made of foam... use your imagination. Industry would invest more in that field of research because having just seat-belts wouldnt be enough to get customers... once government says this amount of safe is enough then companies become complacent.


OH MY GOD.... IMAGINE CARS THAT WOULD HAVE SOFT EDIBLE FRONT PANEL!!! It would be save and also sweet and edible....You could replace it after you consume portion of it... See what have government deprived us of. F**k you government.

DamianTV
04-04-2014, 04:07 AM
Uhh...why? What does giving you $120/month have to do with a one time additional cost of $120 factored into the manufacturing cost of a product that costs tens of thousands of dollar...?

Why do you continue to advocate a mandatory govt interference instead of proposing that perhaps people drive more responsibly? You cant mandate responsibility or fine it into existence.

Hiding behind safety is exactly the excuse that Govt will use to mandate you put Govt CCTV Cameras in your shower.

56ktarget
04-04-2014, 04:24 AM
If govt doesnt mandate safety laws, private industry wouldnt implement them... How do i know this? Because thats exactly what happened during the first few decades...

Barrex
04-04-2014, 04:55 AM
If govt doesnt mandate safety laws, private industry wouldnt implement them... How do i know this? Because thats exactly what happened during the first few decades...

You mean first few decades when cars were driving at top speed of 5 mph? When leather breakes were replaced by improved metal ones?
So you are saying government made mandatory safety belt law and then inventors invented safety belts?
Government made mandatory air bags and then inventors invented air bags?

You could be right but it could be the other way around too. Will you admit to that.


AND DONT PRETEND YOU DIDNT SEE MY POST ABOUT EDIBLE FRONT PANEL!!!!

56ktarget
04-04-2014, 04:59 AM
Barrez learn to read man... Nowhere did i say govt was the one who invented air bags or safety belts.

Barrex
04-04-2014, 05:08 AM
Barrez learn to read man... Nowhere did i say govt was the one who invented air bags or safety belts.

Not in those words but same conclusion. You said private industry wouldnt implement safety standards. Private industry invented all those safety gadgets WITHOUT government. Private industry keeps improving safety of their products WITHOUT government. As you can see your argument that private industry is not implementing safety standards is not true.
I want to have free choice if I want to have seat belt or not. I want to be the one that decides whether I use that seat belt or not.

oyarde
04-04-2014, 10:33 AM
I hate my safety belt . So far , have pd two tickets . One of them saved me money though , because I was 15 mph over the speed limit . If I had had the belt on , I would have gotten the ticket for that , probably would have run , oh , $125 more .

Anti Federalist
04-04-2014, 10:56 AM
I agree with everyone on here. Lets eliminate seat belts, airbags, reinforced windows, and other safety devices because all that matters in a car is how cheap it is.

More people die in slips trips and falls around the house than die in drunk driving accidents.

Therefore, I propose mandatory helmet usage inside the home, at all times.

Full body harness restraints in every shower, and on every staircase.

Also, to ensure compliance, 24/7 in home video surveillance and random police "safety" inspections.

Clovers...:rolleyes:

Anti Federalist
04-04-2014, 11:17 AM
What Might Cars Cost If We Had a Free Market?

by eric • April 4, 2014 • 11 Comments

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/04/04/might-cars-cost-free-market/

It’s a common gripe that new cars cost too much – and, they do.

As of last year, the average transaction price paid for a new car exceeded $30,000 for the first time.

Of course, it’s still very possible to buy a new car for less than $30,000.

But even the least expensive new cars start around $15,000 – and that’s a lot of money for many people. Too much money for many people, in fact. There’s a reason for the extension of car loans from the once-typical three or four years to five – and even six. With seven surely on the horizon (though this is self-limiting because of depreciation; people will find themselves “upside down” on their car loan. But that’s another article).

The reason car loans are as long as they are is to mask the true cost – the unaffordability – of new cars, measured in terms of the average person’s ability to pay for them. If you earn the (roughly) $54,000 or so annually that the average person – the average family – earns, finding $400 a month to pay for a five-year loan on a bread-and-butter family car such as a Toyota Camry purchased for $24k (which would – just barely – get you into a base trim Camry with very few options) is simply not feasible. So, the payments are pushed out to six years – and that brings the monthly nut down to about $330.

Still, it’s a lot of debt to assume – and for most people, debt is all-but-unavoidable because they don’t have the cash to buy outright. Financing – debt – is inevitable.

But why have cars become so expensive?

Logically, they ought to be getting less expensive all the time – because of manufacturing efficiencies, because the basic technology has been sorted out years ago, and many other reasons besides.

In some respects, they are less expensive – in that it’s now routine for cars to come standard with features and equipment that in the past were available only in a few high-end cars. Fuel injection is a good example. If you rewind the historical clock to 1980, fuel injection was exotic technology; virtually all mass-market cars still had carburetors. Same goes for other technical great leaps forward like overdrive (and CVT and dual-clutch) automatic transmissions, as well as the near-ubiquity these days of amenities such as climate control air conditioning, excellent factory audio systems – even heated seats.

But, while such features have become more mass market, the cars themselves are – demonstrably – much more expensive than they might otherwise be.

Because of the myriad mandates the government has imposed.

Whether these mandates are “good things” isn’t the issue. The issue – for purposes of our discussion – is the cost of these mandates.

It’s hard to nail down the exact tab, especially as regards the mandates that effectively dictate fundamental design (here I refer to impact standards, fuel efficiency and emissions requirements). But the cost of add-on mandates can be identified with some degree of accuracy, based on government/industry statements as well as extrapolated from the known cost of parts/repair. Let’s take a look at some of these – and get a handle on the price of the “features” we’re all being forced to buy:

* Back-up cameras -

The most recent add-on mandate (see here for more) will add at least $140 to the purchase price of your next new car – by the government’s own estimate. This estimate does not factor in repair/replacement costs, nor the likely increase in insurance costs (generally) as a result of increased repair costs following accidents. Let’s call it $500 in total/lifetime costs – which is almost certainly under-estimating it.

* ABS/Traction control -

We can estimate the add-on costs because these now-standard (by mandate) features were once optional. I dug up a window sticker for a 1990 Toyota Camry (pictured above; also see here). ABS was optional that year. And the option added $1,300 to the car’s MSRP. Here’s another article – also from 1990 – discussing the cost of then-optional ABS. The writer confirms the range $900-$1,000 or thereabouts.

Now, it’s true that in 1990 ABS (and traction control, which works using the ABS) were relatively new technologies and, as such, their cost was higher then – in the same way that the first microwaves and laptops were more expensive than they are now. But even if we cut the cost of ABS/traction control by a third to account for amortization of the R&D, the lowered cost of components – and so forth – we’re still looking at another $300-$500 per car. And, again, we’re low-balling in order to put the most favorable (to the control freaks who mandate all this stuff) spin on everything.

Down-the-road costs should also be acknowledged. An ABS system includes additional parts such as wheel speed sensors, the ABS pump and of course the computer brain to run it all. While it is not guaranteed that every owner of every ABS-equipped car will have to pay to replace the car’s ABS pump (several hundred bucks, typically) or wheel speed sensors or its computer, the possibility is both there and not remote. Indeed, it becomes increasingly likely that some ABS (or traction control) related component will fail as the years go by and the mileage accumulates. And the bill for repairs will be sent to you – not the bureaucrat or pol who forced you to buy ABS in the first place.

Let’s call it $1,000.

* Air bags -

This is the Big One. Not merely because the airbags themselves cost a lot (though they do cost a lot) but also because of the sheer number of them in the typical modern car and because of the ruinous repair costs they impose if they deploy.

And – even if they don’t deploy.

Let’s start with the cost of the bags themselves. And the number of bags we’re dealing with.

Very few cars built within the past five years have fewer than four air bags – and six or more is very quickly becoming common. Some new cars have eight or more air bags. There are frontal impact, side/door impact, knee and roof air bags.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that each air bag and its related components adds $100 to the bottom line price of a new car. Minimally, the air bags add $400 to the price of a car equipped with just four air bags. Which, again, is very few new cars. Most 2014 cars have at least six air bags.

So, $600.

And $100 per air bag is probably under-estimating the cost by several hundred percent. Consider that the cost to replace just the driver and passenger side air bags is typically in the range of $1,500-$2,000.

That’s for two.

Remember: Almost all new cars have at least four – and most have six.

Now, it’s true that replacement costs – and factory-installed costs – are different kinds of costs. But the replacement costs are just as real. Which you’ll discover, if you get into an accident in an air bag-equipped car. Especially if it’s an older car. If the average retail value of the vehicle is much less than $10,000 it is extremely likely the vehicle – even if otherwise repairable – will be “totaled” by the insurance company solely because of the cost to replace the air bags can and frequently does push the fix-it costs to within 50 percent of the vehicle’s pre-accident value. At which point, most insurance estimators will junk it rather than repair it.

Even if you never wreck – and the bags never deploy – you still pay. Because your insurance premium – everyone’s insurance premium – is based on the cost to repair (or to throw away) the air bag-equipped car in the event of an accident.

But let’s be conservative and call it another $600 “up front” for a car with six air bags – and again, we’re likely low-balling it by orders of magnitude.

All right. Let’s add ‘em up:

Back-up cameras: $500.

ABS/traction control: $1,000.

Air bags (six): $600

That’s a very conservatively figured $2,100 in Additional Sticker Shock. And this rough math does not include the unseen – the harder to nail down – costs imposed by such things as bumper impact, rollover/roof crush/side impact standards, the huge costs of complying with the federal government’s ever-increasing fuel economy standards (the cars save you money on fuel, but cost more to buy) and its ever-more-draconian (for ever-diminishing-returns) tailpipe emissions standards. These things probably add – again, very conservatively estimated – 20 percent to the typical new car’s sticker price.

If we assume a new car with a sticker price of say $20,000 (and this would be a modestly priced/entry-level car these days), 20 percent would be about $4,000 – plus the $2,100 for the add-ons (ABS/TCS, back-up cameras, air bags, etc.) .

So, $6,100 of the $20,000 car’s MSRP is the cost of the mandates to you.

Put another way, if these mandates didn’t exist – if the car companies were free to build cars the way you, the customer, wanted them to built – it would mean that $20,000 car might only list for $14,000. And there would almost certainly be “basic transportation” new cars available for $8,000 or less.

Such cars are, in fact, available in other parts of the world. (See here, here, here and here, for some examples.)

Parts of the world where the government hasn’t yet interposed itself between the customer and the car company – dictating to the car company how cars shall be made . . . and to customers, what they shall buy.

Throw it in the woods.

oyarde
04-04-2014, 11:21 AM
More people die in slips trips and falls around the house than die in drunk driving accidents.

Therefore, I propose mandatory helmet usage inside the home, at all times.

Full body harness restraints in every shower, and on every staircase.

Also, to ensure compliance, 24/7 in home video surveillance and random police "safety" inspections.

Clovers...:rolleyes:

Oh crap , not my shower too ? :)