3 ms·

My point was about government mandated safety features. Backup cameras have value for the consumer in preventing accidents and damage, the government didn't ne

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.
    - mmastrac 5y ago
      Interesting, thanks. I think the transcript was specifically calling out the low value of human lives that were used in the past. This report seems a lot more rigorous than the other investigations and articles I've seen. This is also from 2014, which means the net cost/vehicle has probably come down a fair bit (camera modules are <$5 and most cars including entry-level are shipping with screens already).

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.
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    Interesting, thanks. I think the transcript was specifically calling out the low value of human lives that were used in the past. This report seems a lot more rigorous than the other investigations and articles I've seen. This is also from 2014, which means the net cost/vehicle has probably come down a fair bit (camera modules are <$5 and most cars including entry-level are shipping with screens already).