More government mandated "safety features" coming 2018

Mark_88 · Apr 13, 2014

That brings up another point of interest...people with 4x4s whizzing past on slippery roads because they think they can. Lost count of the number of 4x4s in the ditch (in cases some of them had just recently whizzed by me). They develop a false sense of supremacy that leads to not relying on common sense.

I imagine the same could be said about every safety feature. When it comes to children or even adults walking around my vehicle...and I've had a few scary moments...suffice to say I don't rely at all on anything short of extreme caution.

MPRanger · Apr 13, 2014

ab_slack said:
I suspect more lives would be saved in rear such backup situations if individual ownership of vehicles were to be banned and professional vehicles were all to be equipped with cow catchers on the rear.

Or maybe ban reverse from privately owned vehicles altogether and redesign all parking to be pull-thru. No more parallel parking.

Tragedies are terrible, especially when it involves young children. Accidents can't be legislated away and if the standard for any measure were that just one live is saved, no amount of freedom would be possible.

Will the camera really save lives? Or will it promote bad habits that cost lives? My personally feeling is that any system that relies on one camera ultimately increases risk. A three camera system has more potential (direct rear and two side). If this mandate doesn't involve a three camera solution I would expect there be tragedies with additional further mandate for expanded system

The argument for airbags was that people weren't always wearing seatbelts so there needed to be a passive restraint system. But the systems started killing kids. So the 12 year old couldn't sit in the front seat safely and that we had to wear our seatbelts anyway.. Airbag systems were re-designed to use less force to the point that they no longer served the original purpose of protecting adults who were not wearing seatbelts.

With antilock brakes the first studies after they saw some significant time in the market showed a staggering 28% increase in single run off road fatal crashes compared to non-antilock vehicles. At the time (back in the 90s) blamed that on people being more aggressive drivers when they had antilock brakes (no studies, just speculative) or that they didn't know how to use antilock brakes. Now perhaps, because those early antilock brake equipped vehicles were the ones also equipped with airbags maybe those dangerous airbags were compounding it.

And that stat on runoff road fatalities remains 8% higher than non-antilock vehicles. Was this better education? Or just better general crash worthiness of vehicles so when the accidents occur they are less often fatal? Or maybe those updated airbag systems weren't killing them? Or maybe seatbelt laws at the same time.

Interestingly enough, the NHTSA convinces itself that antilock brakes are highly effective in snow because of statistical data but I don't think it means they are safer in the snow, like I mentioned in my prior post, I think the "effectiveness" has been that people quickly learn how bad antilock brakes are in the snow and therefore drive radically slower making it appear statistically like they are effective.

Very well said.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kid_crash · Apr 13, 2014

I'm not saying that accidents can be legislated away, or that this is a fix all. There is still a need for driver training and to pay very close attention. It's a tool at the drivers disposal, another way to improve visibility from the drivers seat What I am saying is that IF this saved any lives or even injury, isn't it worth it?

wildbill23c · Apr 13, 2014

kid_crash said:
Ok, yeah the government sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong, a lot , but I'm all for this one. I've got three little kids and I'm fanatical about them staying where I can see them when I'm moving a car around, usually I make them stay on the steps of the house till I'm done. Now, there are a lot of stupid people, or even just momentarily negligent in judgement, and even to careful people accidents happen. If this feature saves ONE kids life it's worth it. I know a local family that had a tragic accident with a four year old daughter, she's dead now, the father didn't even know she was outside. You want to tell her or her parent that this isn't worth while!?
So, sorry if it's going to cost a bit more to replace your stupid friggin head unit you'll get over it!
Although, I'm sure a child's life isn't really worth all that much. I can't believe you guys are even arguing about this. Grow up.

The issue isn't the cost of the "head unit" its the whole government mandating what everyone does with their lives. Backup cameras are great, but something that would be even better would be a 360 degree camera to catch the idiots that are purposely causing accidents to file fraudulant insurance claims. The backup camera idea has been around for several years now, and is an option in just about every new vehicle on the road. Its an awesome accessory if you do a lot of trailer towing, makes hooking up to your trailer easy.

I don't have a stereo in my truck at all so it would be pretty useless having a head unit installed. Unless the government pays for it? Where do people think that money comes from that the government pays for stuff with? Right out of our pockets from taxes.

The larger problem than installing backup cameras is people just plain need to PAY ATTENTION while they are operating a vehicle whether it be forward or reverse. You just can't fix stupid no matter how much money you spend.

These incidents of "I didn't know my kid was outside" is another example of parents not supervising their kids. Hell just toss your kid in the car, move your car, then put your kid back in the yard, that's pretty cheap insurance and doesn't require a backup camera LOL.

You can get a backup camera for about $100-200 you don't need some special head unit bs put in your vehicle either. Amazon has a dash cam setup you could easily install in the back window of your car and its $68+ shipping.

ab_slack · Apr 13, 2014

And like other things, when the effectiveness of a measure doesn't pan out, they enact more measures to fix it. NHTSA who's report on antilock brakes showed a essentially zero safety improvement was continuing to justify antilock brakes because they were an important part of electronic stability control (which has been mandated now too I think a couple years) and kept harping on electronic stability control showing great safety improvement.

So backup cameras now, when not effective it becomes rear collision warnings (which some cars have) and then automatic rear collision avoidance where it slams on brakes if driver doesn't after issuing the warning....then 10 years later a lawsuit will be filed against Toyota when this automatic system inadvertently slams on the brakes whenever someone tailgates generating accidents. And then people will intentionally slam on their brakes when police come close behind them and blame it on the vehicle.

wildbill23c · Apr 13, 2014

ab_slack said:
And like other things, when the effectiveness of a measure doesn't pan out, they enact more measures to fix it. NHTSA who's report on antilock brakes showed a essentially zero safety improvement was continuing to justify antilock brakes because they were an important part of electronic stability control (which has been mandated now too I think a couple years) and kept harping on electronic stability control showing great safety improvement.

So backup cameras now, when not effective it becomes rear collision warnings (which some cars have) and then automatic rear collision avoidance where it slams on brakes if driver doesn't after issuing the warning....then 10 years later a lawsuit will be filed against Toyota when this automatic system inadvertently slams on the brakes whenever someone tailgates generating accidents. And then people will intentionally slam on their brakes when police come close behind them and blame it on the vehicle.

Problem is now they have vehicles that are too safe, so the driver's just plain don't learn to drive. Those safety features only work sometimes, other times a good driver could control the vehicle just as well if not better than the electronic nannies. What on earth did people do before anti-lock brakes, cruise control, traction control, stability control, air bags, etc. Oh....they learned to drive. It goes right along with the 4WD and AWD debate. Yep the features are nice, but only for the people who know and understand the systems. Otherwise its a major wreck waiting to happen from those who think because they have these features it makes them either invincible or makes them think they can still do highway speeds in ice and snow :icon_rofl:

. Those are the ones you see upside down in the ditches every winter.

So why not mandate that people have to have their cars wrapped in bubble wrap as well? Same principle applies here. You just can't fix stupid people no matter what "laws" are made.

Its just like these devices that insurance companies have that plug into your vehicle's OBD2 port and tracks your every move to lower your insurance rates. OOPS how many of us out there have a vehicle that is too old for that OBD2 port? Same goes for any other safety feature. Sometimes the best safety is the person operating the vehicle. You can have a $1,000,000 car full of safety features but if the driver isn't paying attention it won't keep them from running into something in front of behind or to the side of them.

If laws were actually enforced on the distracted driving and inattentive driving many of these accidents wouldn't happen in the first place and many of those actually have involved parents running over their kids because that cell phone was so important they didn't bother to realize that their kid wasn't standing on the porch anymore before they flew out of their driveway and down the road, still not realizing they ran over their kid...this is more often the case, than the lame stories that keep coming up of oh my child just ran behind my car and I didn't even see them, last I knew they were watching tv type excuses that are all so common now. And some of these cases actually involve vehicles with backup cameras. Still nobody pays attention to what's behind them even though its plainly visible on a screen in the dash.

85_Ranger4x4 · Apr 15, 2014

wildbill23c said:
These incidents of "I didn't know my kid was outside" is another example of parents not supervising their kids. Hell just toss your kid in the car, move your car, then put your kid back in the yard, that's pretty cheap insurance and doesn't require a backup camera LOL.

The parents used to make us stand in front of/beside the car when they backed it out so they could keep track of us. However lived in the country and there were no neighbor kids running around either.

But the whole backup camera thing is null and void by those of us that live on gravel, it doesn't take long at all for gravel dust to block the camera and then it is just a big hunk of un needed cash lodged in the dash.

wildbill23c · Apr 15, 2014

85_Ranger4x4 said:
The parents used to make us stand in front of/beside the car when they backed it out so they could keep track of us. However lived in the country and there were no neighbor kids running around either.

But the whole backup camera thing is null and void by those of us that live on gravel, it doesn't take long at all for gravel dust to block the camera and then it is just a big hunk of un needed cash lodged in the dash.

Yep, completely agree. Not to mention if you live where it snows, that camera is practically useless in cold temps when the screen is too cold to even turn on...a very common problem with many of the new touch screen stereo systems in vehicles where the system won't even turn on below a certain temperature screen just says "System Cold" or something similar. Kind of blows the whole mandate backup cameras idea right out of the water for many people.

Ruffinit · Apr 17, 2014

Hind sight being 20:20.. I think that you could make an argument that having manual crank windows, manual transmissions and manual steering are safety features; You can't put on your makeup, brush your teeth, drink your coffee, hold onto your mobile phone or any combination of other distractive practices if you are busy driving.

Designing a safer car with better visibility would decrease the likelihood of hitting someone or something. Tennis balls on a stick work for backing up to a trailer if you're doing it solo.. this comes back to experience (knowing your vehicle). Anti-lock brakes, traction control, same thing; know your vehicle.

They started putting restrictor plates on stock cars because they were getting too fast... Instead of the driver learning to control the car, they did it for him.. Asinine.

As far as electronic emission controls and mpg goes; my '65 E100 pickup gets 20-22 mpg on the highway/interstate. No electronic controls on it. It's bone stock. Where are we now? Almost the same mileage. Do we really need pickups that will tow as much as road tractors? Why do we need to take our 38 foot travel trailer and our toys with us on vacation? Isn't vacation about getting away from it all?
Backup lights, signal lights and other INDICATORS were to signal intent. IF you were serious about safety, why not put reverse beepers in the cars instead of cameras? My buddy was told (after going to the police chief) that signal lights were NOT legally necessary to use. In other words the FEDs mandate that the signal lights are on the cars, but there is no law stating that they have to be used.

Ruffinit · Apr 17, 2014

We don't need any more stinking laws. We need to enforce what we have now. Making something illegal is NOT going to stop someone from doing it; enforcing the law will make them think twice before they do it.

The new law that was just voted down for equal pay is a good example. We already have laws on the books for this. Make them enforceable and then enforce them, don't make more laws that duplicate and confuse the intent.

If these laws were created in such a language as a 6th grader could understand, we would have less confusion and less "interpretation" of the spirit of the law.

.... done

85_Ranger4x4 · Apr 17, 2014

I don't mind ABS or airbags. EFI, power windows/locks are great too.

Backup cameras are great as an option, I have absolutly no use for one. Don't need it for hooking up a trailer, no kids around... no worries.

Mickey Bitsko · Apr 17, 2014

85_Ranger4x4 said:
I don't mind ABS or airbags. EFI, power windows/locks are great too.

Backup cameras are great as an option, I have absolutly no use for one. Don't need it for hooking up a trailer, no kids around... no worries.

You think the gubment really cares about our safety :icon_rofl:

ab_slack · Apr 17, 2014

Everyone knows all the money is the goverment's, what you earn is only a temporary representation of what the government allows you to spend on its behalf and since the money is the government they have every right to limit your choices to what they feel is best.

I am surprised the government hasn't gone after anyone who has had an accident resulting in someone's death seeking payment for lost tax revenues.

My intent is to be facetious....but after reading an article about former justice Stevens on the second amendment such logic like above seems all to likely.

And for those who didn't see it Stevens says the second amendment needs clarification and should be re-written to state "the right to bear arms by national guard members while on duty shall not be abridged" because that is the original intent. Seriously!?!?!? Like every amendment in the bill of rights is about the rights of the individuals with one also including the rights of the states. It would be entirely inconsistent to make that a government only mandate and since when have government, state or fed, had big problems of access to weapons?

swynx · Apr 17, 2014

Saw one of them smart cars get hit the other day. Wasn't even any scrwtches or dents on it and the air bag above the chicks head went off. Air bags are cool and all but there getting a little out there. I mean myself and 3 others survived a roll over without air bags. Seat belt did us just fine.

tmcalavy · Apr 17, 2014

Yep, I wonder about that all the time...see 'em around but never seen one get plastered. Airbags are aces, they keep you in place after they break your nose and glasses...the big danger even with just a seatbelt is internal trauma...it's a real bitch if your guts get twisted or your spleen blows out...anything you can do to reduce time on the hospital diet/food is a great thing.

More government mandated "safety features" coming 2018

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Forum Staff Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Forum Staff Member

New Member

Member

Active Member

New Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals