2 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoI 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.