3 ms·

It's not alarming, it just seems pointless. This isn't going to save lives, because rear view cameras are used when reversing, which happens at low speed. The b

It's not alarming, it just seems pointless. This isn't going to save lives, because rear view cameras are used when reversing, which happens at low speed. The best thing this will do is cut down on kids getting run into while a car is backing up. But I never hear of that happening on the news, I don't know anyone who's tragically lost someone in a low speed reversing accident. I do know several people who've died in car accidents between 20-60 mph. I mean, I love the tech of back up cameras, but this just seems like a pointless regulation that will increase the cost of cars for us, the consumer.

DirtyAndy 13y ago
In New Zealand there have been 30 deaths since 2000 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11219228 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...), a country of 4 million where like the US most people have a driveway (as opposed to Europe where most people do not). The article claims this move might save 59-69 deaths per year, which would indicate that at least that many die each year (although I struggle to believe cameras will save that many).
dippyskoodlez 13y ago
I agree. This line just confirms this: >Many vehicles, including luxury models, already carry rear-facing cameras, and an auto industry group applauded the move.
syntern 13y ago
I disagree about being pointless. I am using my rear view camera, and it prevented some minor accidents. If you haven't seen such so far, you are probably lucky, others are not.
vilhelm_s 13y ago
We don't have to estimate this from news reports, according to the article they have already done the math and expect it to save "between 59 and 69 deaths per year". I agree that's not a lot compared to the total number (34,080 deaths in 2012). It would be interesting to see the cost per life, how much does the camera increase the car price?

DirtyAndy 13y ago

In New Zealand there have been 30 deaths since 2000 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11219228 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...), a country of 4 million where like the US most people have a driveway (as opposed to Europe where most people do not). The article claims this move might save 59-69 deaths per year, which would indicate that at least that many die each year (although I struggle to believe cameras will save that many).

dippyskoodlez 13y ago

I agree. This line just confirms this: >Many vehicles, including luxury models, already carry rear-facing cameras, and an auto industry group applauded the move.

syntern 13y ago

I disagree about being pointless. I am using my rear view camera, and it prevented some minor accidents. If you haven't seen such so far, you are probably lucky, others are not.

vilhelm_s 13y ago

We don't have to estimate this from news reports, according to the article they have already done the math and expect it to save "between 59 and 69 deaths per year". I agree that's not a lot compared to the total number (34,080 deaths in 2012). It would be interesting to see the cost per life, how much does the camera increase the car price?