nanny state wants cameras

so exactly how many of you are going to buy new cars?

ohh wait.. Sorry.. This infringes on our liberty.

With each new mandatory safety device I hear about I see us getting one step closer to the movie Idiocracy.

I wonder what will hapen to humans after we stop evolving.

Ya'll wanna know where this is going? OK, here it is: In the future, when 4G is fully rolled out, the onboard computer system will have a 4G connection into teh webz, y0, so you can find a pizza place easy to complain to GM that your transmission is leaving a trail of gears down the road. Since the car will have a backup video camera anyway, and an internet connection, hey, little piece of code and instantly 100 million cameras are now required to transmit all images over the net to our Democratic controllers. The Republicans will lobby very hard against this terrible intrusion on our rights and finally compromise on phasing in the system over 3 years.

shoot me now...................

Wow, the chances of me never buying a new car get better with every passing law.

So reading the actual rule:

"Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to specify an area immediately behind each vehicle that the driver must be able to see when the vehicle’s transmission is in reverse."

That is awesome! They're not requiring backup cameras, they're requiring that you can see out of the car. With current car design trending towards making outward visibility an afterthought, it's believed that most car manufacturers will go the backup camera route.

Keith_Goodrich wrote: With each new mandatory safety device I hear about I see us getting one step closer to the movie Idiocracy. I wonder what will hapen to humans after we stop evolving.

1984.....................

lizard wrote: And the rest will get a substantial bill?

Most likely, until the 'monitoring' is commonplace, then I would imagine everyone's bill returns to normal.

more likely a new law is introduced that requires that data sent to the state so they can calculate their share of your wallet.

WilberM3 wrote: more likely a new law is introduced that requires that data sent to the state so they can calculate their share of your wallet.

I have been hearing this "Tax by the mile" thing for a while. Scary that the tech is pretty commonplace to do it now. All that is really required is the coordination to set up the server side and the sneaky rider on a bill for child health care reform to make it real.

oldtin wrote: sounds like a good way to drive up the cost of a car by a bit - all part of the price of living in a "developed" country. We're paying loads of politicians, all kinds of money for them to make up new laws and rules - they are doing exactly what they are paid to do. South America keeps looking better - serious gearheads in Argentina.

Not sure how- both the camera and display are already in the phone that companies give to you for free.

I'm kind of trying to figure out why this is so bad. It's only on when you hit the R region of the trans, and it helps you see behind you. It's also technology that has gotten cheaper over the past 5 years, on cell phones, for crying out loud.

There are more important things to worry about than this.

If they pass a law saying cars must have cameras, will they also pass a law saying drivers must USE the cameras??

Stupid is as stupid does.

alfadriver wrote: Not sure how- both the camera and display are already in the phone that companies give to you for free.

Where are you getting these "free" phones? Mine was $430 or included with a 2 year agreement that will cost something like $3k total.

...it will only add a few hundred dollars to the price of a car....How many times have we heard this with every other "safety" gizmo? No wonder I can't afford a new car. What will repair costs be? Will haveing a defective system flunk you on an annual inspection? What happens when parts are obsolete?

Anyone want to do a rally in Washington. Seriously.

Keith_Goodrich wrote: With each new mandatory safety device I hear about I see us getting one step closer to the movie Idiocracy. I wonder what will hapen to humans after we stop evolving.

Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections.

alfadriver wrote: I'm kind of trying to figure out why this is so bad. It's only on when you hit the R region of the trans, and it helps you see behind you.

Paying attention also helps you see behind you, and its free. Id also like to spend that 100 extra bucks on better driving lessons that also help you be a better driver. Lastly, Im not impressed by how technologically advanced (Read - average Joe cannot work on his own car without an advanced degree in applied electrical engineering) new cars are. I have a great idea, lets make it $135 more expensive to replace your rear-view-mirror when the 38 cents worth of crap adhesive gives it up. Nanny state = turdholio.

Eric, usually you and I are in relative agreement, but this time buddy, Uncle Sams directive will put more bucks in the R&D guys wallets. Me thinks your interests are conflicted.

Roll up windows, manual mirrors, seats with a spring lever, Optional AC, a hole in the dash where a Radio could go, 88 feet less wire, and %18 reduction in overall vehicle cost. I will take all of those in white and alloy wheels please. Oh what, you cant offer me that, ok then, I will go to the guy at the corner in my neighborhood and buy his SE-R - sure its got no warranty, but its also got WHAT I WANT, AND NONE OF WHAT I DONT. Give it to me or I will go elsewhere. kthanksbai

MCarp22 wrote: So reading the actual rule: "Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to specify an area immediately behind each vehicle that the driver must be able to see when the vehicle’s transmission is in reverse." That is *awesome*! They're not requiring backup cameras, they're requiring that you can see out of the car. With current car design trending towards making outward visibility an afterthought, it's believed that most car manufacturers will go the backup camera route.

Please don't actually read the article. How are all the "liberty" folk supposed to bitch about Obama's socialist, Nazi agenda if they actually know the facts?

It is completely beyond the NHTSA to require that you be able to see out of your car. You'll know when someone/something is behind you when you hear the screams or thump. That's how our Founding Fathers did it!

I think it is much more interesting that 80% of all knew cars sold will have direct injection by 2014. But why should big brother have the right to demand that we get more gas mileage and more horsepower in one shot? Ben Franklin would have wanted carbs mandatory on all cars.

lolz...

motorcycle?

/thread

"Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to specify an area immediately behind each vehicle that the driver must be able to see when the vehicle’s transmission is in reverse."

This is how 134a came into use. They mandated a change or include A/C monitoring in the OBD systems. There are unused channels in the OBD codes. These were meant for A/C. Was easier to do 134a. And I suppose no one from the 134a industry was happy about that!

By mandating it as visibility they force the manufacturers to either reengineer their models or add a stupid camera. Which do you think is easier?

UGGHHHHHHH

I would like a forward visibility camera to watch while I'm driving. I am too busy to use the windshield.

Keith_Goodrich wrote: With each new mandatory safety device I hear about I see us getting one step closer to the movie Idiocracy. I wonder what will hapen to humans after we stop evolving.

In the movie all the mandatory safety devices were required because we were too stupid to do it on "our" own. You're implying that the nanny laws are making us dumber.

A better arguement is that we should evolve to be smarter, then any law would be unnecessary. But the Republicans on thier religious high horse don't believe in birth control, so maybe they are responsible for the decline in IQ? If there are less dumb kids, there is also less "things" to run over while in reverse too.

Unfortunately the fact that 300 people are killed and 18,000 are injured yearly due to being backed over just proves that "we" are dumb and need more safety devices. Stop being dumb and they'll stop making laws to protect us from ourselves.

It's like Glen Beck arguing that big gov't (FDA) isn't needed because we have the safest food supply in all the world and it's just another way for Obama to control us. You know why we have the safest food supply in the whole world...because we have the FDA. Duh!

How about every soccer mom that wants to buy an SUV that is 10X bigger then what they need to haul little Cody and Dillon to practice has to complete an obstacle course to prove that they can pilot such a huge barge?

thank god government is there to make us not hurt ourselves! :rolleyes:

how is it govt's role to determine if your chosen vehicle is 'too big' though? that last statement you added goes back to the correct argument of where's the proper training so we can rely on ourselves first?

Cone_Junky wrote: How about every soccer mom that wants to buy an SUV that is 10X bigger then what they need to haul little Cody and Dillon to practice has to complete an obstacle course to prove that they can pilot such a huge barge?

Sir, where might I find the petition needed to get your new legislation moving? I would like to sign it.

WilberM3 wrote: thank god government is there to make us not hurt ourselves! :rolleyes: how is it govt's role to determine if your chosen vehicle is 'too big' though?

....or too small? (or unsafe?) No, I'm not being sarcastic.....I want the honda beat and the suzuki cappuchino to be available here. They can't be any less safe than motorcycles....