Mandatory Rearview Camera rules delayed

[Quicksilver]

I prefer this one. The law that requires this tax isn't needed it doesn't save any lives.
Days numbered for full price sales tax on discounted phones? - OC Watchdog : The Orange County Register

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

I prefer this one. The law that requires this tax isn't needed it doesn't save any lives.

Does it claim to? What is the relevance to the discussion?

[JCL]

I think it is pretty simple. If the numbers I showed above are correct, then they need to lower the costs of cameras by a factor of four, or figure out how to save four times as many lives. And if they can't then the funds should be spent on something more worthwhile

I am very sorry about the father that killed his child, it is very sad. But wasting money won't bring the child back. Spend $2.4 billion on driver education every year, I'll bet you could save more than 100 lives annually.

[Quicksilver]

Just reading the thread; The discussion went to the question "where do you put the limits
on government intrusion into our lives. Then to "How about a hard limit on speed? no car can move at more than 70mph"

The relevance to the discussion imo is this law is no more intrusive than many laws we already have so what's the fuss.
There are more serious laws that cost us a lot more money and deserve a lot more attention. But hey, no sweat and no arm wrestle.
It's just my opinion.

[JCL]

The sales tax law doesn't actually cost society more, it just costs cell phone purchasers more. And the government (the people) gets the revenue, so it is a wash, apart from the cost of collecting the tax. You could cancel the tax, but you would have to make it up somewhere else, unless we advocated increased debt for California. It is just a transfer, not a cost, IMO.

How about we tax any cell phone that is used or capable of being used in a vehicle? Now that could save lives! We could even determine the tax rate by calculating the number of deaths attributed to lack of driver attention, multiply it by the DoT figure for the value of each life, and divide it by the number of cell phones used.

[finnbmw]

Originally Posted by Quicksilver

Neither one. I was just being facetious about people
worrying about government intrusion into our lives.
It's a backup camera, thats all it is.

Quicksilver, never did I advocate getting rid of good laws. What bothers me are the bad ones, because they never solve the problem, but do almost always limit our freedoms.

How do I distinguish between a good law and a bad one? I apply the following simple question: Sounds good, but does it solve the problem? If the answer is yes, then the law may have merits. If the answer is no, forget about it.

So a back up camera sounds good, but does it solve the problem of people, mainly kids, being killed by inattentive drivers? The answer is no. I'd rather have the funds being spent on something else. Heck, installing even a simple back-up sensor system would be a more cost efficient solution.

But I guess my main point is that why do the car companies, i.e. in the end we the car buying population, have to fund back-up cameras in every vehicle? Back-up cameras are already available on almost all car models as an option. If you're concerned about backing over kids etc., I am sure the sales rep will gladly add that option when you're buying the vehicle.

[Richard in NC]

I'd be curious if rear seat side airbags injure more kids than they save. Does BMW still require a liability waiver to activate it? I wasn't asked with the X5 but was asked with previous BMWs.

With the new Camry, they are standard but even the website has a huge list of precautions with them. "Always fasten rear belts", "never lean against the door", "always use rear child seats or booster seats" and so on. I think NC has a booster seat law until 8 or 80 pounds which helps keep the chilld away from the door but what about after that?

The new Camry also has bluetooth, and web access for Google, Facebook, etc. But of course the disclaimer "never use these features while driving". Like that is going to stop someone.....

[rh71]

For safety purposes, just the PDC sensor made mandatory would be good in my opinion. As many have said, people will be looking at their screen rather than behind them while they back up...

I've come to partially rely on the sensor noise after turning to look back there to make sure no kids are coming my way.

[therizeB]

A backup camera is a special type of video camera that is produced specifically for the purpose of being attached to the rear of a vehicle to aid in backing up. Backup cameras are alternatively known as 'reversing cameras' or 'rear view cameras'. The rule that was supposed to be forthcoming from Transport Secretary Roy LaHood concerning back up cameras has been delayed until Dec. 31. Secretary LaHood was said to be about to suggest Congress make back up cameras mandatory on all brand new cars.

[therizeB]

Do you want the safety and piece of mind knowing you can really see what's behind you as your backing up? The Department of Transportation was supposed to recommend to Congress that the government require all new vehicles have back up cameras installed to them. It is part of a law that passed numerous years back, which requires the DOT come up with a way to lower accidents and fatalities brought on by cars backing up. Rule for mandatory back-up cameras delayed. Though it was delayed, it is a good mandate as vehicular accidents increases in number. The latest idea, which was supposed to be given as the official recommendation, was to mandate that all car makers install back-up cameras in all models sold in the U.S.