NHTSA to require backup cameras on all vehicles

[Zenmervolt]

It is all but done anyway so ultimately it's a moot point.

True. And, as I said, the near-universality of back-up cameras was essentially a foregone conclusion anyway given their proliferation in recent years. If the NHTSA hadn't done it, the market would have. In my view, the market distortions caused the mandate will be minor at most.

I stand by my objection to replacing mirrors with cameras based on simple reliability, but I don't see issues with augmenting mirrors with cameras like back-up systems do.

ZV

 

[eng2d2]

why not a backup horn?

 

[JCH13]

True. And, as I said, the near-universality of back-up cameras was essentially a foregone conclusion anyway given their proliferation in recent years. If the NHTSA hadn't done it, the market would have. In my view, the market distortions caused the mandate will be minor at most.

I stand by my objection to replacing mirrors with cameras based on simple reliability, but I don't see issues with augmenting mirrors with cameras like back-up systems do.

ZV

I have occasionally driven a Tacoma pickup with a backup camera, and it's the best one I've used for the simple reason that the backup video displays inside of the rear view mirror. This makes it really easy to use both the mirrors and the camera at the same time. I think more vehicles should do backup cameras this way.

A backup camera makes backing up with a truck bed full of stuff a lot safer; the side-view mirrors are wholly inadequate by themselves. It also makes lining up a trailer hitch by yourself super easy.

 

[Zenmervolt]

the more accurate cost was already pointed out by me.

No, it was pointed out by MiataNC, who correctly ignored the cars that are already equipped with such systems as a result of market demand. The numbers you provided artificially inflate the total costs because they assume that no cars currently have the system.

The question should boil down to:

This the best use of money to save lives?

If the goal is to save lives, how many lives can be saved by spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year?

If its greater the 60 or so lives we will save decades from now, shouldn't we be spending the money on those efforts instead of back up cams?

This is a false dilemma. One can just as easily argue that, if other measures would save more lives for less money, we should chose those options in addition to this option, not in lieu of it.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

I have occasionally driven a Tacoma pickup with a backup camera, and it's the best one I've used for the simple reason that the backup video displays inside of the rear view mirror. This makes it really easy to use both the mirrors and the camera at the same time. I think more vehicles should do backup cameras this way.

A backup camera makes backing up with a truck bed full of stuff a lot safer; the side-view mirrors are wholly inadequate by themselves. It also makes lining up a trailer hitch by yourself super easy.

My father's old Pilot used to have a similar system with the display in the mirror and he hated it. He compared it to those old "magic eye" posters and had trouble with it in bright light because the mirror's normal reflection would wash out the video. He much prefers the in-dash screen on his new Pilot.

I definitely agree about lining up a trailer hitch or backing a truck with a loaded bed though!

ZV

 

[MiataNC]

First, excellent numerical analysis.

However, you are mischaracterizing the argument against mandatory backup cameras. The argument is not "it will raise the price of a car for an individual buyer." The argument is, "the market can more efficiently make use of that $1.14 billion in other areas."

By mandating a feature that will, collectively, cost $1.14 billion, we are necessarily taking, collectively, $1.14 billion away from some other area(s) of the economy where, currently, the market would prefer that money actually be spent.

That's the actual argument. It has nothing to do with the cost of an individual vehicle.

I'm not saying the argument is right or wrong, only that your description mischaracterizes it.

ZV

Consumers spent $11,300B in 2013
(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=PCE)

So that 1.14B accounts for 0.01% in consumer spending.

Do you honestly think the economy is going to notice that 1.14B being redirected? What other areas of the economy do you think are going to suffer or even notice?

****Numbers corrected above.****

 

[ElFenix]

Consumers spent $42,911.6B in 2013
(http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-spending)

So that 1.14B accounts for 0.002% in consumer spending.

Do you honestly think the economy is going to notice that 1.14B being redirected? What other areas of the economy do you think are going to suffer or even notice?

consumers didn't spend 43 trillion in a 20 trillion dollar economy. maybe that's world consumer spending?

 

[cbrsurfr]

Front and rear sensors with or without autobrake makes more sense. Configure the front to be variable based on speed and maybe it'll help out with tailgaters as well.

A rear facing camera isn't going to help you when you mow down your toddler that's shorter than the hood while pulling out instead of backing out.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Consumers spent $42,911.6B in 2013
(http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-spending)

So that 1.14B accounts for 0.002% in consumer spending.

Do you honestly think the economy is going to notice that 1.14B being redirected? What other areas of the economy do you think are going to suffer or even notice?

It's not about any specific other area "suffering." It's about preferring the organic spending patterns that emerge from consumers' voluntary transactions ("the market") to a centrally directed system. Even small amounts of consumer spending provide price signals indicating the relative desirability of goods and services. Any intervention that alters those price signals can be detrimental because that reduces the economy's ability to respond to consumer demand.

And yes, other areas will "notice." Not all other areas, but some. Despite the overall total amount of consumer spending, individual industries and companies aren't doing 43 trillion in business.

Also, those numbers seem suspect. The entire World's GDP was around $72.5 trillion in 2012. According to those numbers, the US is accounting for nearly 60% of the entire world's consumption of goods and is spending nearly three times its own GDP (US GDP in 2012 was about $15 trillion).

The HFCE numbers for the US put actual spending in the $11 trillion range. Admittedly, $1.14 billion is still a very small percentage of $11 trillion, but the worry over price signals stated above doesn't change.

EDIT: Yup, US consumer spending was just under 69% of US GDP in 2013 according to the Fed. With a GDP of $17.4 trillion for 2013, that means consumer spending was about $12 trillion, not nearly $43 trillion.

ZV

 

[MiataNC]

It's not about any specific other area "suffering." It's about preferring the organic spending patterns that emerge from consumers' voluntary transactions ("the market") to a centrally directed system. Even small amounts of consumer spending provide price signals indicating the relative desirability of goods and services. Any intervention that alters those price signals can be detrimental because that reduces the economy's ability to respond to consumer demand.

And yes, other areas will "notice." Not all other areas, but some. Despite the overall total amount of consumer spending, individual industries and companies aren't doing 43 trillion in business.

Also, those numbers seem suspect. The entire World's GDP was around $72.5 trillion in 2012. According to those numbers, the US is accounting for nearly 60% of the entire world's consumption of goods and is spending nearly three times its own GDP (US GDP in 2012 was about $15 trillion).

The HFCE numbers for the US put actual spending in the $11 trillion range. Admittedly, $1.14 billion is still a very small percentage of $11 trillion, but the worry over price signals stated above doesn't change.

EDIT: Yup, US consumer spending was just under 69% of US GDP in 2013 according to the Fed. With a GDP of $17.4 trillion for 2013, that means consumer spending was about $12 trillion, not nearly $43 trillion.

ZV

Thanks! I corrected my numbers in my original post using the link you provided.

It is still a drop in the bucket, and it won't have a significant effect on the consumer or the economy. All the debate is much ado about nothing.

 

[michal1980]

Thanks! I corrected my numbers in my original post using the link you provided.

It is still a drop in the bucket, and it won't have a significant effect on the consumer or the economy. All the debate is much ado about nothing.

your right. Overall the rear back ups camera's are worthless, and therefor should not be forced on the public.

 

[michal1980]

No, it was pointed out by MiataNC, who correctly ignored the cars that are already equipped with such systems as a result of market demand. The numbers you provided artificially inflate the total costs because they assume that no cars currently have the system.



This is a false dilemma. One can just as easily argue that, if other measures would save more lives for less money, we should chose those options in addition to this option, not in lieu of it.

ZV

no. I did the math previously to only include the increase in number of users forced to buy the system.


There is no false dilemma. Money isn't infinite. Therefore we should spend it as wisely as possible.

The only people arguing for this are irresponsible cry babies. The "its for the children crowd"

I wonder what limit they would put on a saving a life? A billion dollars? 10 billion? a trillion?

How much money is enough?

 

[lupi]

I thought this was already a thing.

 

[Scarpozzi]

1. I like it....it's a nice feature when you can't see directly behind larger vehicles or trucks (especially when trailoring something without help).
2. Cars with too many CHEAP electronic systems are going to have a lot of systems that break and cars are becoming more and more disposable as a result.

 

[Midwayman]

I wonder what limit they would put on a saving a life? A billion dollars? 10 billion? a trillion?

How much money is enough?

If you read the NHTSA details they figure a life is worth about 3.5 million.

 

[JulesMaximus]

If you read the NHTSA details they figure a life is worth about 3.5 million.

Even Alkemyst? :ninja:

 

[michal1980]

If you read the NHTSA details they figure a life is worth about 3.5 million.

so by their standards this program will cost between 2 and 5 times that amount per life saved.

 

[DrPizza]

no. I did the math previously to only include the increase in number of users forced to buy the system.


There is no false dilemma. Money isn't infinite. Therefore we should spend it as wisely as possible.

The only people arguing for this are irresponsible cry babies. The "its for the children crowd"

I wonder what limit they would put on a saving a life? A billion dollars? 10 billion? a trillion?

How much money is enough?

So, GM's CEO is being grilled by Congress because a dozen people died over the last decade as a result of an ignition switch problem. Do you think fixing that problem is also a complete waste of money? 12 people over 10 years, vs. 210 people per year due to backing over them?

 

[SparkyJJO]

TPMS is there because too many drivers do not know how or how often to check tire pressure. It is a good thing to have, but the sensor battery dies in about 5 years or so and you may need a special tool to reset the sensor if it fails or if you want to change the inflation pressure for what is considered a normal tire (people who drive sports cars for example, would increase tire pressure a little)

There are some very, very basic things you should know how to do to take care of your car or IMO you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Tire pressure is one of the most basic things, how can you not know how to check it manually if you don't have TPMS? Some people's laziness shouldn't force the rest of us to pay for stuff we frankly don't need or want.

i'm sorry, i live out in the real world, where do you live?

The real world, with a car that doesn't have TPMS, so I take a few seconds every so often with a manual pressure gauge and check my tires. You know, just like people have done for decades.

Again, I'm not against TPMS in of itself. I can see how it would be handy to have. I'm just against someone forcing me to buy it because someone else was too stupid to check his own pressure. Other people's stupidity forcing me to spend extra money irritates me.

 

[michal1980]

So, GM's CEO is being grilled by Congress because a dozen people died over the last decade as a result of an ignition switch problem. Do you think fixing that problem is also a complete waste of money? 12 people over 10 years, vs. 210 people per year due to backing over them?

one is a defect in equipment that was both possibly known, and covered up. The other isn't.

And your lying because even though 210 people are being killed by idiots backing up, not by some piece of equipment failure, pure human failure. This new forced gizmo will only save 70 lives per year. What excuses will you crybabies give these murders then?

 

[eng2d2]

I would say is if you back in to people without a camera or rolling over in a blown out tire then you should go back and redo drivers ed or take public transportation.. bicycle is a good option too.

 

[JulesMaximus]

The real world, with a car that doesn't have TPMS, so I take a few seconds every so often with a manual pressure gauge and check my tires. You know, just like people have done for decades.

Again, I'm not against TPMS in of itself. I can see how it would be handy to have. I'm just against someone forcing me to buy it because someone else was too stupid to check his own pressure. Other people's stupidity forcing me to spend extra money irritates me.

In the real world we legislate safety. We've been doing this since the 1950s.

Welcome to the United States of America. Are you planning on staying long?

 

[JulesMaximus]

one is a defect in equipment that was both possibly known, and covered up. The other isn't.

And your lying because even though 210 people are being killed by idiots backing up, not by some piece of equipment failure, pure human failure. This new forced gizmo will only save 70 lives per year. What excuses will you crybabies give these murders then?

If your vehicle is so big that you have vast areas behind you that you cannot see when backing you don't think that is an equipment failure? The only human failure was in the design of the vehicle. These people definitely aren't idiots or murderers... I can't even believe you would suggest something so idiotic quite frankly.

 

[Throckmorton]

There are some very, very basic things you should know how to do to take care of your car or IMO you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Tire pressure is one of the most basic things, how can you not know how to check it manually if you don't have TPMS? Some people's laziness shouldn't force the rest of us to pay for stuff we frankly don't need or want.



The real world, with a car that doesn't have TPMS, so I take a few seconds every so often with a manual pressure gauge and check my tires. You know, just like people have done for decades.

Again, I'm not against TPMS in of itself. I can see how it would be handy to have. I'm just against someone forcing me to buy it because someone else was too stupid to check his own pressure. Other people's stupidity forcing me to spend extra money irritates me.

Checking your pressure is actually very difficult. Have you ever actually done it? Pressure gauges are horrible devices. You have to magically get a seal by pure luck, and then the reading is usually completely inaccurate.

 

[eng2d2]

If your vehicle is so big that you have vast areas behind you that you cannot see when backing you don't think that is an equipment failure? The only human failure was in the design of the vehicle. These people definitely aren't idiots or murderers... I can't even believe you would suggest something so idiotic quite frankly.

Maybe a simple gauging the vehicle size mentally would most likely avoid this problem.