More government mandated "safety features" coming 2018

superds · Apr 11, 2014

Not new news but thought I'd share in case some haven't seen it yet:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/u-s-will-require-all-new-cars-to-have-backup-cameras-81321307373.html

The government is now going to mandate backup cameras in all light pickups and cars by 2018. I'm really annoyed by this. I'm not opposed to safety and I don't like to wish to see people get hurt but what I am opposed to is the gov't force feeding us "features" on our cars. Why can't the gov't mandate vehicles to be simple and easy to work on instead of more complicated and expensive?

TexasRebel · Apr 11, 2014

superds said:
Why can't the gov't mandate vehicles to be simple and easy to work on instead of more complicated and expensive?

Amen to that! Me and my dad were just talking this morning about how it seems like every new vehicle is getting recalled for something stupid that is over engineered. I say that they just start re-making the old cars. They were simple to work on, durable, and they looked good. The exact opposite of the way things are going now. If people would actually learn to drive and pay attention, we wouldn't need all of this supposed "life saving technology".

RonD · Apr 11, 2014

Things like safety glass and seat belts have saved alot of lives.

Airbags saves lives but caused insurance rates to go up

I don't think the Government is responsible for vehicles using more electronics unless you are referring to emissions standards.
The big push came from higher oil prices, EFI(electronic fuel injection) gets better MPG and you need a computer and sensors to do EFI.
And the simple fact is that people want "new and improved", even if the "improved" part breaks down more, lol, new gadgets sell cars, period.
If "old, trusted and reliable" sold cars that's what "they" would make, but it doesn't, at least with the largest market of car buyers.

The screens and cameras are cheap now, and in 4 years they will be even cheaper, so backup cameras seem like a good idea, alot of vehicles have very large blind spots when backing up.
Like all safety features they won't be retro-required.

And for simple and easy to work on vehicles, there are still the '50s-60's cars and trucks.
A straight 6 with manual trans can still be found for a good price, if you want to work on them

I owned a late '60s Checker Marathon for many years, 300,000 miles was just the break-in period for these, lol, mechanically you couldn't find a better vehicle to work on or buy................but they never sold well, cab companies used them because they could take the miles with little service and parts were cheap since they used off-the-shelf GM and Ford parts, older proven parts.
So "they" can build them, but there is simply not enough buyers to make it a business.

MPRanger · Apr 11, 2014

Nobody is arguing the safety aspects of the new cars at all, the problem is the Federal Government telling a business that's not affiliated with the Feds what they have to put on stuff they manufacture. It would be the same concept if the Feds came to your house and told you that your kids have to watch this program and not this one or what food you have to give them for breakfast. They can suggest stuff all day long it's when they start making all these stupid laws that it gets under my skin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hagan · Apr 11, 2014

Sad fact is the government is not on darwins side...

ab_slack · Apr 11, 2014

Having driven a couple new cars and seen how poor the rear visibility is, it isn't surprising they start putting in cameras. Having used a backup camera I really hated it and while wide angle I was always concerned about what I might be missing looking at the screen verses looking back.

I wonder if the poor rear visibility has come about in part due to increasing crash protection and roll over requirements that have forced a direction with smaller windows and moving the windows higher off the ground.

superds said:
Why can't the gov't mandate vehicles to be simple and easy to work on instead of more complicated and expensive?

I wouldn't call it simple, but they sure do try and make it easier to drive with automatic transmission, antilock brakes, traction control and skid recovery systems, automatic parking.

Problem is that it seems to breed more driving incompetence and allow drivers to focus on more important things like texting...than driving !?!

I personally detest antilock brakes, feel that except for highway speed panic stops (all conditions) and lower speed panic stops (on dry or wet pavement only) they lessen safety. And this was demonstrated in early days by cars with antilock brakes having a higher accident rate. Yet, despite the negative behavior they exhibit in the snow, I have to grudgingly admit they have indirectly increased safety because behavior so negative is so routinely experience that people on average seem to drive half the speed used to be. I haven't gotten faster in my driving as I have aged. When I had my first BII, despite what I thought was pretty aggressive driving taking advantage of the 4WD in the snow I had people in front wheel drive cars wanting to pass me. Now with the proliferation of 4WD and AWD vehicles (must be 30% to 50% in this area) they mostly drive really slow. Can't blame them, when I am in my 02 explorer I feel the same way because she just wont stop in the snow.

So maybe the government should mandate cars with no automatic protections that feel like rattle traps and have a minimum amount of random wandering that drivers have to correct for to keep them focused on their driving.

Around here you find some roads very distinctly have are banked in the turn with the outside lower than the inside. I was told that it was intentionally so that people driving would feel discomforted and learn to take the turn slower therefor there would be less accidents. I don't know if that is for real or not. Supposedly that was back 60+ years ago. I should ask my brother he designs roads/bridges and such, but he lives in an area where they always put proper bank and have the outside higher than the inside.

exbass94 · Apr 11, 2014

MPRanger said:
Nobody is arguing the safety aspects of the new cars at all, the problem is the Federal Government telling a business that's not affiliated with the Feds what they have to put on stuff they manufacture. It would be the same concept if the Feds came to your house and told you that your kids have to watch this program and not this one or what food you have to give them for breakfast. They can suggest stuff all day long it's when they start making all these stupid laws that it gets under my skin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brake lights, turn signals, seat belts, airbags, safety glass, and horns are all federally required. By your logic, vehicles shouldn't have to have any of these features either. I'm not saying requiring back up cameras is necessarily a good idea, I'm just saying that the goverment absolutely CAN enforce standards on vehicles.

martin · Apr 11, 2014

Ah! backup cameras, something else for people to ignore when they're driving.

RonD · Apr 11, 2014

MPRanger said:
Nobody is arguing the safety aspects of the new cars at all, the problem is the Federal Government telling a business that's not affiliated with the Feds what they have to put on stuff they manufacture. It would be the same concept if the Feds came to your house and told you that your kids have to watch this program and not this one or what food you have to give them for breakfast. They can suggest stuff all day long it's when they start making all these stupid laws that it gets under my skin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

???

Local, State and Federal government's set and enforce safety standards, at all levels, personal and business.
Building codes
Electrical codes
Plumbing codes
and standards, that products offered for sale must meet or exceed to be sold in a jurisdiction.
I.E. in Calif. tighter emissions standards forced new vehicle sellers to make changes to their vehicles in order to sell them in Calif.

An no it is not the same as telling you or your kids what to watch on TV or eat.

KnockKnock · Apr 11, 2014

I'm no scholar, but I'll give you the KnockKnock-version of how we got to the sorry state of automotive affairs that we have today.

Turn signals became mandatory in '59 = good thing

Seat belts became mandatory in '65 = good thing
...and later seat belts became an enforced infraction of the law because of insurance companies = Crony capitalism / infringement of personal property rights = bad thing
By the same logic that put this mandate into law, we could easily outlaw motorcycles.

In 1970, auto companies were made to install full-width metal bumpers (bye-bye split-bumper Camaro) = huh?
Was this really a problem for the folks that bought '53-'67 Vettes (aside from the early RS Camaro what else had splits - a Jag maybe)? The government thought that it wasn't the fact that these cars came fully equipped with all the stuff you needed to rail tail, but it was the lack of a full bumper that was killing the drivers at break-neck speeds? ...at least they didn't outlaw horsepower.

The catalytic converter was standard on '68+ Cadillacs (that's why I believe people call them a "Cadillac converter" is not because people are as ignorant as I suspect [impossible] but because they were first widely used on Caddy's), and because people in California were getting sick & dying because of smog, they were made mandatory by law in '76 = good thing

The 70's gas-crunch put the auto-makers and the government into hysteria with the government beginning strict MPG, EPA, warranty and safety mandates, and the auto companies wondering where all the extra cash for R&D is going to come from, which eventually lead to the ugly 80's with the demise of the muscle car long in the rear-view, flag-ship Camaros & Mustangs putting down dismal HP numbers with the only driven survivors twenty years later being those that were gutted of all their asphyxiating and trouble-plagued emissions garb, and brought back to gas-guzzling basics, and ever since the cars that we once knew and loved, were dead & gone forever = bad thing

Does the government not think that if the consumer wanted all that safety-stuff, that companies would make it, but we wouldn't buy it - ask Volvo. Would someone that wants a fuel efficient car actually go buy one? Ask the guy that drives a Smart. Meanwhile try to find a V-8 half-ton pickup with a manual trans. At one point in time, there were so many American auto manufacturers out there that you could buy just about any configuration your heart desired. Any chance of anyone here opening a new car company? ...ever thought about why not? There's not a shortage of willing workers; it's the thousands of pages of legislation and impossible mandates that would prevent the backyard builder from ever going pro.

The government has over-stepped so many bounds that no one is even paying attention anymore. The government will continue to tell us what kind of car, with what features, warranty, and mileage we have to buy until we all own 2.5HP enviro-plastic golf-carts that run on dreams & laughter, but they'll lose so much tax revenue from the decline in gas usage, that we'll all have to start paying an oxygen tax.

So what do we do about it?! :dunno:

...go grumble about it on the forums, I guess ...that's what I did

superds · Apr 11, 2014

I don't dislike backup cameras. My F150 has it. I wasn't completely sold on it but the first time I backed up to my trailer I was a believer in it. Made it so much easier to line up. Prior to using it I would not have willingly paid for it but it was included in another package so I ended up with it on my pickup. I just don't think it's the gov't's business to tell me I have to have it if I want a new vehicle. I think if customers want it they should have the choice to pay for it. I believe in free will, not a gov't chosen destiny.

Hagan · Apr 11, 2014

KnockKnock said:
So what do we do about it?! ...go grumble about it on the forums, I guess ...that's what I did

Actually there is something you can do about it...don't buy the car.

adsm08 · Apr 11, 2014

Hagan said:
Sad fact is the government is not on darwins side...

So very sig'ed

Anyway, I too generally dislike government interference in business. I am a Free-Market Capitalist in the purest sense. I also think that attempting to legislate intelligence is about as useful and worthwhile an endeavor as laying your pecker on a live electric fence.

That said, I recognized two other major factors that fall into play here.

1) 120 years ago these kinds of rules were needed because the corporations did hold too much power and had too little regard for their workers and their customers.

2) Ultimately the Government does own the roads. They build them, maintain them, plan them, etc. Yes, we own the government, to a degree, and all that work is done with our tax money, but that line of thinking just devolves into circular reasoning. Government owns the road, they get to make the rules for using them.

kimcrwbr1 · Apr 11, 2014

KnockKnock said:
I'm no scholar, but I'll give you the KnockKnock-version of how we got to the sorry state of automotive affairs that we have today.

Turn signals became mandatory in '59 = good thing

Seat belts became mandatory in '65 = good thing
...and later seat belts became an enforced infraction of the law because of insurance companies = Crony capitalism / infringement of personal property rights = bad thing
By the same logic that put this mandate into law, we could easily outlaw motorcycles.

In 1970, auto companies were made to install full-width metal bumpers (bye-bye split-bumper Camaro) = huh?
Was this really a problem for the folks that bought '53-'67 Vettes (aside from the early RS Camaro what else had splits - a Jag maybe)? The government thought that it wasn't the fact that these cars came fully equipped with all the stuff you needed to rail tail, but it was the lack of a full bumper that was killing the drivers at break-neck speeds? ...at least they didn't outlaw horsepower.

The catalytic converter was standard on '68+ Cadillacs (that's why I believe people call them a "Cadillac converter" is not because people are as ignorant as I suspect [impossible] but because they were first widely used on Caddy's), and because people in California were getting sick & dying because of smog, they were made mandatory by law in '76 = good thing

The 70's gas-crunch put the auto-makers and the government into hysteria with the government beginning strict MPG, EPA, warranty and safety mandates, and the auto companies wondering where all the extra cash for R&D is going to come from, which eventually lead to the ugly 80's with the demise of the muscle car long in the rear-view, flag-ship Camaros & Mustangs putting down dismal HP numbers with the only driven survivors twenty years later being those that were gutted of all their asphyxiating and trouble-plagued emissions garb, and brought back to gas-guzzling basics, and ever since the cars that we once knew and loved, were dead & gone forever = bad thing

Does the government not think that if the consumer wanted all that safety-stuff, that companies would make it, but we wouldn't buy it - ask Volvo. Would someone that wants a fuel efficient car actually go buy one? Ask the guy that drives a Smart. Meanwhile try to find a V-8 half-ton pickup with a manual trans. At one point in time, there were so many American auto manufacturers out there that you could buy just about any configuration your heart desired. Any chance of anyone here opening a new car company? ...ever thought about why not? There's not a shortage of willing workers; it's the thousands of pages of legislation and impossible mandates that would prevent the backyard builder from ever going pro.

The government has over-stepped so many bounds that no one is even paying attention anymore. The government will continue to tell us what kind of car, with what features, warranty, and mileage we have to buy until we all own 2.5HP enviro-plastic golf-carts that run on dreams & laughter, but they'll lose so much tax revenue from the decline in gas usage, that we'll all have to start paying an oxygen tax.

So what do we do about it?! ...go grumble about it on the forums, I guess ...that's what I did

I wonder how they are going to rate the oxygen tax? The 4cyl uses alot less oxygen than the V-8 there has got to be a way to estimate the amount of oxygen the individual vehicle uses to make that tax fair you think.

KnockKnock · Apr 11, 2014

Hagan said:
Actually there is something you can do about it...don't buy the car.

I already did that. It's a secret around here, but I was looking to finance an F150 with a V-8 and a manual trans when I realized they haven't made those in the last ten+ years, so I bought my Ranger instead. Still, I'm sure your post will prove to be very helpful insight to the other readers in limbo, so thank you. :icon_thumby:

@ kimcrwbr1, Please don't give the coin-counters any ideas! :icon_rofl:

More government mandated "safety features" coming 2018

********

Member

Official TRS AI

New Member

08/2013 OTOTM Winner

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Official TRS AI

New Member

********

08/2013 OTOTM Winner

Senior Master Grease Monkey

Well-Known Member

New Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Today's birthdays

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