More government mandated "safety features" coming 2018

[90longbed]

the new cars have so many stupid features.... like park assist..... if you cant park with hitting things a bus pass might be the best bet....I hate newer cars with all the stuff they put on them.....I personally like stripped down spartan rigs....
ranger-5 speed,manual steering, manual windows, power brakes, bare floors
k5 blazer-does have power windows and door locks, a/c has been removed, interior is extremely gutted, no carpet,no door panels,no dash pad, ammo cans for a console,no radio... just a CB,no sunvisors.......

I remember the electrical guy at the dealership I worked at would have rigs torn down to a gutted interior to find a short somewhere... the newest car I have owned was a 91 buick century...... not a big fan of cars either, unless its a muscle car or rat rod/hot rod

 

[Mark_88]

I just thought about something...99% of the places that you back into are usually privately owned. Shopping malls, driveways, beaches...the only time I even attempt parallel parking is when I know nobody is watching...usually just find the easiest open parking space.

It may be a nice feature though. And now that taking pictures up skirts has been deemed legal...you could have that sucker swing down and out and probably catch plenty of bare booty...maybe make it so that it lies down right on the road...can't see it as being a big selling point with the ladies.

 

[MPRanger]

Laws to force car manufactures to install backup cameras are just as bad as the proposed laws that would require gun makers to install "smart gun" tech on future guns they make.

Just one more law that doesn't really fix a problem.

The problem is people not paying attention to what they are doing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ab_slack]

Forget where I saw it...there is another initiative which I believe is being pushed by the Obama administration to have cars broadcast position and speed (like aircraft) to other nearby vehicles for collision avoidance technology.

For your safety...and there will of course be assurances up front that privacy will be maintained and that such data wont be used for prosecution of traffic laws. Just like the temporary road tolls that will be removed once the road is paid for.

 

[tmcalavy]

You get what they train to you to like, from when you are a little biddy spud watchin' cartoons on TV or playin' Grand Theft auto on the vid games. So we get just what most Americans are willing to accept...elsewhere in the world you will see fully functional, daily driver American classic iron from way back...40's, 50's, 60's etc....still in service cause that's what the people want. Big Obrother and others like him want you to be a happy bee who cant/won't stray far from the hive...let alone think for yourself. Welcome to third world Omerica, the future is here.

 

[MPRanger]

Welcome to third world Omerica, the future is here.

Well said



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wildbill23c]

Just another excuse people will have to not learn to drive and not pay attention when they are driving. It will be the "well my car has all these safety features it will keep me safe BS logic many people now have".

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

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.

Except that they are usually integrated into the radio from the factory... and that isn't cheap.

 

[straycat]

I am all out for safety in all vehicles. I hate to see somebody hack up a vehicle for hot rodding and off roading and then they or somebody else gets killed because safety was not followed. My wife and I watched a young couple get killed a couple of years ago up in Ocala when their topless and door less Ranger rolled over while we were all trail riding. The roll bar was really just for looks and not mounted very well. This is what killed them.
I added a backup camera to my Ranger and my Rogue. I love the cameras a hell of a lot. In the past 4 months I saw three people hurt in parking lots when somebody backed out of a parking space and hit somebody walking behind them. Several kids have died this year in our area in their own driveways while a parent or family friend backed out of a driveway. People just need to use common sense when they do anything no matter where we are. Home, office, parks, shopping, etc.

 

[ab_slack]

The "estimates" are that the cameras will prevent 1/3 of such deaths. So they still factor in IQ (idiot quotient).

I almost got hit by a lady backing out really fast. I suspect there are more incidents as a result of just plain not looking, going to fast and someone moving into the area after having looked.

 

[KnockKnock]

Except that they are usually integrated into the radio from the factory... and that isn't cheap.

My brother just had his insurance company buy him a new factory head unit, and the cost was astronomical without a backup camera. This is definitely going to effect the price of new vehicles. My 2¢ says that if you want a back-up camera, then go buy one; if you don't and you hit someone, then be prepared to fight a vehicular manslaughter or assault charge, because you don't know how to safely operate your vehicle.

BTW, That quoted piece isn't from me.

 

[MastuhWaffles]

I don't really have a problem with this. Most new vehicles come with a backup camera anyways, its a nice feature to have. My problem would be if they made me put one on my current truck, unless they paid for it.

 

[OilPatch197]

I feel the Government needs new regulations on gas cans. Clearly the new C.A.R.B. cans are not safe enough, and they worried about stupid backup cameras?

 

[kid_crash]

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.

 

[ab_slack]

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.