6 ms·

According to Wikipedia there are approximately 254 million passenger vehicles in the USA. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_Stats

According to Wikipedia there are approximately 254 million passenger vehicles in the USA. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_Stats http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Uni... Also there are approximately 15 million new cars sold per year. http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1567645#bmb=1 http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1567645#bmb=1 At a cost of ~$100 per vehicle for these cameras that means to get the entire passenger fleet compliment with this law will cost 25.4 billion dollars and 1.5 billion per year in additional costs. The article states that they estimate 58-69 lives per year to be saved, round that up to 70. 70/1.5 billion and we are spending over $21.4 million per life saved. That seems absolute crazy to me. How many lives could be saved with that amount of money spent in a more efficent way?

GauntletWizard 13y ago
The actual cost is lower; Some percentage, probably even a significant one, of existing car sales already have these cameras equipped. If the price drops and the feature is compelling anyway, I can see it being a tenth that in actual cost, which brings it into line with real life-saving programs. Preventing deaths is expensive. My instinct was along your lines, though, and I'm not entirely certain that the whole idea isn't just a gift to automakers for yet another reason to jack up prices. What used to be a costly extra is now 'required'.
- prbuckley 13y ago
  I think you are likely correct on the cost. I would honestly like to know what the most cost effective way is to save a life. My guess would be vaccines in 3rd world. There is something that still bothers me about laws like these. A very vocal minority drives the cost up for everyone, while the effectiveness of the law is questionable. It is of course a tragedy when a young person is killed in an accident but is this really a good use of the government and law? People need to be careful when they are operating a car. Also who is going to argue against saving a toddlers life? That is probably a poor political move. This just seems like another sign of how weak willed our political system is at standing up for what is in the interest of the general public and not a vocal minority.
lambdaphage 13y ago
It's on the high end, but it's only a factor of three off of the roughly $7 million the EPA uses in cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps a bad call, but not wildly innumerate.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Not to mention that $100 per vehicle is probably wildly high. The quality on these things isn't great (and doesn't need to be). If I can buy a fully featured IP camera at a retail price of $50 complete with pan and tilt, I doubt car makers are going to pay more than $10 or so wholesale for a lesser camera with no networking and no motors. The screen is going to cost something too, but most cars already have those now.
  - x0x0 13y ago
    hell, you can get a chinese android phone for $100 -- and that includes the camera and color display, plus all of the rest (battery, storage, wifi, wireless, gps, bluetooth, etc). Anyone who claims adding this to a car costs $100 is ridiculous.
    - elithrar 13y ago
      $100, including labour, does not seem so incredible. Auto electricians may charge more than that per hour, too.
      - x0x0 13y ago
        What does that have to do with manufacturing a car, or sliding in a prefabbed camera into an area of the car already covered with cabling (brake lights, backup lights, rear door open indicator switch)?
        elithrar 13y ago
        The grandparent touched on the costs for upgrading existing vehicles.
rossjudson 13y ago
You're not including the general cost savings from accident prevention. It's likely that this measure will significantly reduce some kinds of "fender benders".
- notatoad 13y ago
  yes, looking at lives saved seems like a rather silly metric to judge this by. Most accidents that happen while somebody is reversing probably cause a couple hundred dollars in damage and go un-reported.
gregpilling 13y ago
It was expected that 73% of cars would have it anyway, so your numbers would be changed by that factor.

GauntletWizard 13y ago

The actual cost is lower; Some percentage, probably even a significant one, of existing car sales already have these cameras equipped. If the price drops and the feature is compelling anyway, I can see it being a tenth that in actual cost, which brings it into line with real life-saving programs. Preventing deaths is expensive. My instinct was along your lines, though, and I'm not entirely certain that the whole idea isn't just a gift to automakers for yet another reason to jack up prices. What used to be a costly extra is now 'required'.

prbuckley 13y ago
I think you are likely correct on the cost. I would honestly like to know what the most cost effective way is to save a life. My guess would be vaccines in 3rd world. There is something that still bothers me about laws like these. A very vocal minority drives the cost up for everyone, while the effectiveness of the law is questionable. It is of course a tragedy when a young person is killed in an accident but is this really a good use of the government and law? People need to be careful when they are operating a car. Also who is going to argue against saving a toddlers life? That is probably a poor political move. This just seems like another sign of how weak willed our political system is at standing up for what is in the interest of the general public and not a vocal minority.

lambdaphage 13y ago

It's on the high end, but it's only a factor of three off of the roughly $7 million the EPA uses in cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps a bad call, but not wildly innumerate.

mikeash 13y ago
Not to mention that $100 per vehicle is probably wildly high. The quality on these things isn't great (and doesn't need to be). If I can buy a fully featured IP camera at a retail price of $50 complete with pan and tilt, I doubt car makers are going to pay more than $10 or so wholesale for a lesser camera with no networking and no motors. The screen is going to cost something too, but most cars already have those now.
- x0x0 13y ago
  hell, you can get a chinese android phone for $100 -- and that includes the camera and color display, plus all of the rest (battery, storage, wifi, wireless, gps, bluetooth, etc). Anyone who claims adding this to a car costs $100 is ridiculous.
  - elithrar 13y ago
    $100, including labour, does not seem so incredible. Auto electricians may charge more than that per hour, too.
    - x0x0 13y ago
      What does that have to do with manufacturing a car, or sliding in a prefabbed camera into an area of the car already covered with cabling (brake lights, backup lights, rear door open indicator switch)?
      - elithrar 13y ago
        The grandparent touched on the costs for upgrading existing vehicles.

rossjudson 13y ago

You're not including the general cost savings from accident prevention. It's likely that this measure will significantly reduce some kinds of "fender benders".

notatoad 13y ago
yes, looking at lives saved seems like a rather silly metric to judge this by. Most accidents that happen while somebody is reversing probably cause a couple hundred dollars in damage and go un-reported.

gregpilling 13y ago

It was expected that 73% of cars would have it anyway, so your numbers would be changed by that factor.