Government mandates rear camera

[amdx]

The government will require rear view cameras on cars it two years.
The cost is 2.7 billion dollars, this will save 100 children's lives.
27 million dollars for each life saved each. This assumes that after
this change there will be no children run over while backing up.

Is this a worthwhile regulation?


Mikek

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

The government will require rear view cameras on cars it two years.

AFAIUI, it's not a done deal.

The cost is 2.7 billion dollars, this will save 100 children's lives.
27 million dollars for each life saved each. This assumes that after
this change there will be no children run over while backing up.

Is this a worthwhile regulation?


Mikek

Perhaps. The 2.7bn seems a bit high. If it adds $50-$100 to the cost
of a vehicle, and 5.5 million new cars are sold each year in the US,
that's probably less than 0.5bn. Most new high end cars have a video
screen already, so it shouldn't add very much to them (the camera
itself costs only a dollar or two).

 

[amdx]

Having a rear view camera doesn't make you look at it.

...Jim Thompson

That's why I added my last sentence.

 

[amdx]

AFAIUI, it's not a done deal.


Perhaps. The 2.7bn seems a bit high. If it adds $50-$100 to the cost
of a vehicle, and 5.5 million new cars are sold each year in the US,
that's probably less than 0.5bn. Most new high end cars have a video
screen already, so it shouldn't add very much to them (the camera
itself costs only a dollar or two).

Ya, I didn't analyze the numbers, just wrote them as heard on the news.
I don't know how many cars will sold with required cameras, or the cost
per camera, or how many years were used for the calcs.
But I did know it's important, and someone would correct my numbers,
or at least question them
Mikek

 

[Oppie]

The government will require rear view cameras on cars it two years.
The cost is 2.7 billion dollars, this will save 100 children's lives.
27 million dollars for each life saved each. This assumes that after this
change there will be no children run over while backing up.

Is this a worthwhile regulation?


Mikek

I'd be happy if they'd mandate backup alarms on the damned electric/hybrids.
Nearly got run over three times by a Prius that was backing up (3 different
times- didn't keep trying to hit me). Geniuses put a backup alarm in the
dashboard but it's absolutely silent to the rear of the vehicle. Unless
you're directly behind the vehicle, you can't even see the backup light
well. The Prius runs full electric in reverse and has the potential to be
the ultimate stealth killer. Toyaughta fixit.
Oppie

 

[Don Y]

The government will require rear view cameras on cars it two years.
The cost is 2.7 billion dollars, this will save 100 children's lives.
27 million dollars for each life saved each. This assumes that after
this change there will be no children run over while backing up.

It also assumes there are no other benefits *or* costs associated
with the change.

Is this a worthwhile regulation?

Dunno. Once you start down the cost-benefit analysis path, you can
rationalize all sorts of wacky "policy".

"She's 85 and broke her hip. Society's never going to recover the
monies spent in repairing and rehabilitating her. Spend the money
on immunizations for children"

[that was the gist of a debate argument I heard 20 years ago while
in europe]

Having only *witnessed* one child being run over in that way, I can
say that the backup camera wouldn't have done anything to prevent
the (ahem) "accident". OTOH, the child survived the incident so
maybe he doesn't count?

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

That's why I added my last sentence.

Only a minority of the injuries are fatal.

 

[Nico Coesel]

The government will require rear view cameras on cars it two years.
The cost is 2.7 billion dollars, this will save 100 children's lives.
27 million dollars for each life saved each. This assumes that after
this change there will be no children run over while backing up.

You are seeing this the wrong way. Nobody cares about the children
Its all about making extra turnover and creating jobs.

 

[Nico Coesel]

Who knows? I don't think so -- if you're dumb enough to back over your
kid, you'll manage to do it with or without a video camera.

If people back over their own kids its kinda Darwinism. Nature heals
itself I still think it would be better to make it more difficult
to get a drivers license so people are more aware of what they are
doing. From what I see on TV getting a drivers in the US is a complete
joke compared to where I live.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

You are seeing this the wrong way. Nobody cares about the children
Its all about making extra turnover and creating jobs.

Also, more insurance guaranteeing that not a single $2,500 Tata Nano
will ever be sold in the USofA.

 

[Charlie E.]

There's a vast difference between allowing them on cars and mandating
them, though.

Since the real problem is dorks behind the wheel, why don't we mandate
that only government employees can drive your car for you?

No! Make it mandatory that all vehicles will be self-driving, causing
a huge influx of tech dollars to create and certify the necessary
equipment, and thereby removing the one real obstical to self driving
vehicles - insurance and liability!

Charlie

 

[[email protected]]

The government will require rear view cameras on cars it two years.
The cost is 2.7 billion dollars, this will save 100 children's lives.
27 million dollars for each life saved each. This assumes that after
this change there will be no children run over while backing up.

Is this a worthwhile regulation?

Certainly. We'll make million$.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

(more snip)

$0.5B p.a., but maybe that $2.7B was total, not annual?

So the USofA will only last another 5 years? Maybe...


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Oppie]

Carry an eight pound sledgehammer, to remind them to be more
careful. Big dents aren't cheap to fix. Neither are the rear windows.
;-)

For the winter, I let my beard grow out.
Weird looking guy with long white beard carrying an 8 Lb sledge in a parking
lot would definitely be among the list of usual suspects. It's past the
season where folks say "Santa?"

 

[miso]

I'm sure this idea has plenty of unintended consequences.
For example, how many veterinarians will this put out of work for
fewer folks running over Fido?
Will the cameras be operational in drive? Will this add to distracted
driving.
Will camera encourage young drivers to drive everywhere in reverse?
Will objects in camera be any closer than they appear?

The cameras only work in reverse. I wish I could hack mine and make it
work in drive.

Mine has a graticule to aid in getting close enough to the curb when
parallel parking.

 

[josephkk]

If people back over their own kids its kinda Darwinism. Nature heals
itself I still think it would be better to make it more difficult
to get a drivers license so people are more aware of what they are
doing. From what I see on TV getting a drivers in the US is a complete
joke compared to where I live.

Whaddya mean? Here in Kalifornica the tests are so tough that you have to
prove you can walk and chew gum at the same time. And there are plenty of
people that can't pass the test. >;-P)

?-)

 

[tm]

What is the IF frequency?

Audio. Haven't you ever heard the doppler audio from a police radar?


BTW, happy birthday.

 

[[email protected]]

That's not how they work. There's a uP that chooses from a variety of
sources to the dash display, in my car: navigation, Sirius, FM, AM,
CD, tape, heating/cooling, mileage computer, low tire, maintenance
warnings, set-ups for everything (voice, brightness, contrast,
etc.)... I'm sure I missed something; and I can choose something else
while backing... which is unsafe, but it works that way.

The selection is done via a message over the CAN.

 

[josephkk]

d the one on my dad's motorhome.

I wish mine could be configured that way... so I could watch for
closing cop cars ;-)

I thought that is what rear view mirrors were for. Did you lose
monitoring of mirrors by being a lazy driver?

?-)

 

[Oppie]

What is the IF frequency?

What's the frequency Kenith?

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2001/12/0075777