4 ms·
In general I'm not in the "government is too invasive" camp but this one did have me scratching my head. Isn't the market working just fine? Backup cameras firs
by jusben1369 13y ago
In general I'm not in the "government is too invasive" camp but this one did have me scratching my head. Isn't the market working just fine? Backup cameras first appear on top of the line models. Slowly make their way into mid priced cars and now some of the "low end" new cars have them. I'm sure by 2018 they'll be in 90% of new cars so why add a regulation? Oh well.
- unethical_ban 13y agoIt's the "do something" mentality of people who value the strength of government over the people. This way, the government can pat itself on the back, knowing it wouldn't get resistance from the auto industry since, as you said, they're already trickling the tech down. Why would an auto-industry group applaud the move? They're the bastards who have the power to install rear cameras on 100% of new vehicles. It's all a show. --- As an aside: I own a vehicle with a rear camera, and it's an amazing feature. About a month ago, I told a friend "If I were one to support arbitrary government power, I would say we need a law requiring these!". I guess that's the world we live in. The only vehicles that have comparable visibility were old Broncos and large trucks. New cars, with their low-visibility rear windows and high backends, seem to be designed with the intention of getting more people into accidents.
- adventured 13y agoI assume for the same reason they require brakes, seat belts, mirrors and airbags. Guaranteed minimum spec.
- jusben1369 13y agoFair point. Hadn't realized it was for airbags.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]