A mirror can't show you what's not in its line of sight.
This is a safety feature that will save lives, and more importantly lives of those other than the driver (airbags, side impact requirements, etc all benefit the driver).
Considering that the post you quoted was in response to replacing
side view mirrors with cameras and
eliminating the mirrors entirely, I'm not sure why you're commenting on it as though it had any relevance whatsoever to back-up cameras being used
in addition to traditional mirrors.
Oh please. You're worried about $1.14 billion that "the market" would rather spend on other things?
Because the market has done such a great job deciding where to spend money. Yeah, we're really suffering by shifting $127 to cars instead of garbage made by communist slave labor.
Since you clearly did not read my post before, I'll repeat the most relevant portion in bold:
I'm not saying the argument is right or wrong, only that your description mischaracterizes it.
The issue is not whether the argument is right or wrong, the issue is that people, yourself obviously included given this post, are habitually mischaracterizing it. It's not about the $127 that an individual could spend, it's about the collective $1.14 billion. The argument is that automotive companies could instead be using that $1.14 billion on R&D in other areas (for example, alternative fuels) instead of incurring the cost of installing backup cameras that are not being demanded by the market.
Even if one assumes that the cost will be fully passed on to consumers, the argument is that it's still better to have the market decide where those dollars should be spent. You may be the sort of person who would spend that money on "garbage made by communist slave labor" but that's no reason to project those same purchasing habits onto everyone else. Many people would instead purchase locally grown food instead of less-expensive factory-farmed items. Others would use the money for family trips or for new camping or hiking gear. There are any number of possibilities, but what they all have in common is that spending on such items would be an accurate representation of what those items are worth to the buyer. When spending is instead coerced, as it would be with mandatory back-up cameras, the market is distorted and the price signals fail to give true information
Overall, I'd argue that "the market"
has done an incredibly good job of deciding where to spend money. "The market" drove the invention and adoption of the car. "The market" drove most of the advances in computers that we see today. "The market" is largely responsible for the modern communications explosion that has allowed people to easily stay in touch with others who are many thousands of miles away. "The market" drove the innovations that allow me to buy strawberries in November.
Hell, "the market" drove the invention and the current adoption of back-up cameras; there is strong evidence to suggest that the market is already well on its way to having back-up cameras in all cars even without governmental mandates. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a car for sale with manual windows? Features shift downwards and the rate of proliferation for back-up cameras based on consumer demand is suggestive that they will eventually be on nearly all cars even without NHTSA intervention.
With the revised and more accurate calculations that MiataNC provided, the cost per life saved is a little over $16.5 million. If you want to say that, as a society, it's worth it to spend that much to save a life, that's fine. I might even agree. If you want to say that the NHTSA decision is only accelerating what the market would have done anyway, I'm certain to agree. But when you start trying to frame the argument as people being stingy over $127 it's clear that you're not even trying to address the counter-argument and are instead more interested in making emotional appeals rather than dealing in rationality.
ZV
Facebook
Twitter