3 ms·

Backup cameras probably saved the economy from an insane amount of damages. I've never had an accident at speed, but I do have one insurance claim from reversin

Backup cameras probably saved the economy from an insane amount of damages. I've never had an accident at speed, but I do have one insurance claim from reversing into a vehicle (sadly totaled another car because I had a Blazer with brutal rear visibility).

stuaxo 5y ago
Exactly, 5.7 millions is probably nothing compared to a years worth of reversing based accidents.
- 988747 5y ago
  I understood it as "5.7 million per life saved" so you need to mulltiply that number by few thousands.
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    I found a stat that suggested ~100 [1] (another stat says 500 and 15,000 injuries (!) [2] and there's a 3rd between them [3]), so say 600 million. Given the insurance cost of replacing vehicles, that would only be 30k accidents prevented to pay for itself. FWIW, I've heard anecdotally that the insurance companies pushed for backup cameras more than anyone else, but given the benefits to lower insurance (arguable, but in theory), less deaths and less injuries, it seems like a win. The technology will also get cheaper over the years. [1] https://www.theregreview.org/2012/05/30/30-rowell-camera/ https://www.theregreview.org/2012/05/30/30-rowell-camera/ [2] https://safetyresourcesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vehicle-backing-safety-fact-sheet.pdf https://safetyresourcesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vehi... [3] https://kelleyuustal.com/rear-view-cameras-reduce-90-of-back-over-acciden/ https://kelleyuustal.com/rear-view-cameras-reduce-90-of-back...
hermannj314 5y ago
My point was about government mandated safety features. Backup cameras have value for the consumer in preventing accidents and damage, the government didn't need to mandate their inclusions on cars as consumers voluntarily were willing to add this feature for years. However, when the government forced all consumers on all to have to add this feature that is where the line was crossed. I drive a fuel efficient Chevy Spark, it cost me maybe $11000 brand new. I drive an average of 5000 miles a year. When I have to replace the car, it will cost a lot more because now it will have cameras and drunk driving gadgets, etc. I dont even have an automatic transmission or power locks - these features are a waste of money for me, but the government is forcing me to purchase safety features and the economic value to society is spurious. I'd rather there be a sticker where my rear view camera is saying 'in lieu of camera we made a $2000 gift to clean water in Africa, it saved more lives, trust us'
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Sometimes you need government mandates otherwise the industry standardizes a model that actually costs the consumer more. Bumper height and construction for example should be standardized because the incentive is for ineffective bumpers. Forward visibility and pedestrian impact standards need to be set to prevent monster grills. A lot of this will actually lower total cost of ownership at little or no cost.
- dahart 5y ago
  > in lieu of a camera we made a $2000 gift to clean water in Africa, it saved more lives, trust us Wait, so do you mean you don’t care about the extra cost at all, and you don’t care if Chevrolet charged you a lot more than the cost of a backup cam in order to donate? It’s just the government safety rule you object to? Or are you saying you think backup cameras cost $2000? And why didn’t you acknowledge the valid point that the economic value to society of backup cameras is in reduction in accidents, and not limited to loss of life situations? Are you being honest with a dollars per life calculation? It seems misleading. What about the property damage value, how much is that? What about injuries? According to the stats I found with a quick search that were used to justify the backup cam rules, there were 15,000 injuries per year in addition to the ~200 deaths. And one third of all backup related deaths are children under 5. What is the economic value of a child, and are you sure it’s less than 5.7 million? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/04/07/2014-07469/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rear-visibility https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/04/07/2014-07...
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    This is a super-interesting transcript I ran across with some discussion re: COVID, but actually mentions backup cameras. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
    - dahart 5y ago
      I checked out the part out that mentions backup cameras, and it’s got misinformation contradicted by the report I already posted above. For example, the people talking claim nobody tried to analyze the benefit to people other than children, which isn’t true, and they claim the benefits of backup cams “didn’t work out”, while the report above shows the calculation isn’t expected to pay off until 2028 and isn’t expected to reach maximum benefit until around 2050, but will on the whole be a positive to the economy. “Not that many lives saved” just seems like such an awful position to take, when we’re taking about per-vehicle costs that are less than a week’s gasoline.
quickthrower2 5y ago
I’ll take the backup camera even if it costs more than my expected savings on car damages because of the value of not having your day ruined by needing to talk to insurers. I got yelled at once by locals when I slightly nudged a car behind because they assumed I wouldn’t tell the owner of the other car! That sort of shit as well!

stuaxo 5y ago

Exactly, 5.7 millions is probably nothing compared to a years worth of reversing based accidents.

988747 5y ago
I understood it as "5.7 million per life saved" so you need to mulltiply that number by few thousands.
- mmastrac 5y ago
  I found a stat that suggested ~100 [1] (another stat says 500 and 15,000 injuries (!) [2] and there's a 3rd between them [3]), so say 600 million. Given the insurance cost of replacing vehicles, that would only be 30k accidents prevented to pay for itself. FWIW, I've heard anecdotally that the insurance companies pushed for backup cameras more than anyone else, but given the benefits to lower insurance (arguable, but in theory), less deaths and less injuries, it seems like a win. The technology will also get cheaper over the years. [1] https://www.theregreview.org/2012/05/30/30-rowell-camera/ https://www.theregreview.org/2012/05/30/30-rowell-camera/ [2] https://safetyresourcesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vehicle-backing-safety-fact-sheet.pdf https://safetyresourcesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vehi... [3] https://kelleyuustal.com/rear-view-cameras-reduce-90-of-back-over-acciden/ https://kelleyuustal.com/rear-view-cameras-reduce-90-of-back...

hermannj314 5y ago

My point was about government mandated safety features. Backup cameras have value for the consumer in preventing accidents and damage, the government didn't need to mandate their inclusions on cars as consumers voluntarily were willing to add this feature for years. However, when the government forced all consumers on all to have to add this feature that is where the line was crossed. I drive a fuel efficient Chevy Spark, it cost me maybe $11000 brand new. I drive an average of 5000 miles a year. When I have to replace the car, it will cost a lot more because now it will have cameras and drunk driving gadgets, etc. I dont even have an automatic transmission or power locks - these features are a waste of money for me, but the government is forcing me to purchase safety features and the economic value to society is spurious. I'd rather there be a sticker where my rear view camera is saying 'in lieu of camera we made a $2000 gift to clean water in Africa, it saved more lives, trust us'

rdtwo 5y ago
Sometimes you need government mandates otherwise the industry standardizes a model that actually costs the consumer more. Bumper height and construction for example should be standardized because the incentive is for ineffective bumpers. Forward visibility and pedestrian impact standards need to be set to prevent monster grills. A lot of this will actually lower total cost of ownership at little or no cost.
dahart 5y ago
> in lieu of a camera we made a $2000 gift to clean water in Africa, it saved more lives, trust us Wait, so do you mean you don’t care about the extra cost at all, and you don’t care if Chevrolet charged you a lot more than the cost of a backup cam in order to donate? It’s just the government safety rule you object to? Or are you saying you think backup cameras cost $2000? And why didn’t you acknowledge the valid point that the economic value to society of backup cameras is in reduction in accidents, and not limited to loss of life situations? Are you being honest with a dollars per life calculation? It seems misleading. What about the property damage value, how much is that? What about injuries? According to the stats I found with a quick search that were used to justify the backup cam rules, there were 15,000 injuries per year in addition to the ~200 deaths. And one third of all backup related deaths are children under 5. What is the economic value of a child, and are you sure it’s less than 5.7 million? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/04/07/2014-07469/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rear-visibility https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/04/07/2014-07...
- mmastrac 5y ago
  This is a super-interesting transcript I ran across with some discussion re: COVID, but actually mentions backup cameras. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843
  - dahart 5y ago
    I checked out the part out that mentions backup cameras, and it’s got misinformation contradicted by the report I already posted above. For example, the people talking claim nobody tried to analyze the benefit to people other than children, which isn’t true, and they claim the benefits of backup cams “didn’t work out”, while the report above shows the calculation isn’t expected to pay off until 2028 and isn’t expected to reach maximum benefit until around 2050, but will on the whole be a positive to the economy. “Not that many lives saved” just seems like such an awful position to take, when we’re taking about per-vehicle costs that are less than a week’s gasoline.

quickthrower2 5y ago

I’ll take the backup camera even if it costs more than my expected savings on car damages because of the value of not having your day ruined by needing to talk to insurers. I got yelled at once by locals when I slightly nudged a car behind because they assumed I wouldn’t tell the owner of the other car! That sort of shit as well!