Because Some People Don't Watch Their Children Very Well
...The rest of us should pay $160 to $200 more per car as of 2014 as the nanny state mandates that automakers put backup cameras in every car. Nick Bunkley writes for The New York Times about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's new mandate:
On average, two children die and about 50 are injured every week when someone accidentally backs over them in a vehicle, according to KidsAndCars.org, a nonprofit group that pushed the government to begin tracking such tragedies. And more than two-thirds of the time, a parent or other close relative is behind the wheel....However, in a preliminary version circulated for public comment, regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle. At least some of the cost is expected to be passed on to consumers through higher prices.
But regulators say that 95 to 112 deaths and as many as 8,374 injuries could be avoided each year by eliminating the wide blind spot behind a vehicle. Government statistics indicate that 228 people of all ages -- 44 percent of whom are under age 5 -- die every year in backover accidents involving passenger vehicles. About 17,000 people a year are injured in such accidents.
"In terms of absolute numbers of lives saved, it certainly isn't the highest," Mr. Ditlow said. "But in terms of emotional tragedy, backover deaths are some of the worst imaginable. When you have a parent that kills a child in an incident that's utterly avoidable, they don't ever forget it."
It's terrible that this happens, but I don't have children, don't have a driveway, and parallel park. And I'm an extremely cautious driver -- and parker (I'm one of those who pulls in and out of the space in a whole bunch of tiny increments to avoid touching your car.) And I live in an area where kids have playdates in fenced-in yards and are not allowed to roam the streets -- especially as toddlers. Why should I have to have a backup camera in my car as anything other than optional equipment?
At the risk of being repetitive... Perhaps we've discussed this before.
Government is the new religion. People live their entire lives with government and government power as the focus of their enthusiasms, their aspirations, their trust and what they'd call their virtue.
(Go to dinner with friends; keep a pad and pen discretely in your lap; count the number of topics discussed, and subtract the number which don't connect or terminate with some expression of government power or policy. That number will approach zero.)
The reasons people feel this way is that government power is irresistible. It can take your money, and there's nothing you can do about it. It can make the rules and you have to obey them.
If government insists that you get a camera for your car (for your own good), then you get one. If government insists that you get a radon detector for your home (for your own good), then you get one. If government insists that your genitals be fondled by a bitter, power-mad high school dropout at the airport (for your own good), then fondled you will be.
The people who want you to do all these things (for your own good) may mean well, or at least think they do... But their fantasies are coercive and authoritarian nonetheless. So government power grows ever more concentrated, and shabby little industries (car cameras, radon detectors, TSA uniforms) support these power plays to sustain their enterprises.
--
I'm serious about the dinner topics thing. Try it... No one can imagine doing anything in human culture without government power. No one even tries to imagine.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at February 28, 2012 7:45 AM
At least some of the cost is expected to be passed on to consumers through higher prices.
At least some of the cost????
More proof journalists do not get business or economics.
All of the cost will be passed on to consumers along with a mark up known to evil business persons as profit.
What do you want to bet the number of kids who get hit by cars going backwards remains the same, because the real cause is bad parenting?
Old Guy at February 28, 2012 7:46 AM
Human culture! Human culture!
You know what I meant.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at February 28, 2012 8:00 AM
Bittibrained bureaurats need to justify their existence. This sort of foolishness is direct evidence that they are over staffed and need to have their budgets cut.
BarSinister at February 28, 2012 8:19 AM
I have had a car with a backup camera for the last 8 years or so. While the "save the chldren" line is trotted out for emotional impact, I expect the reason for the push to require the cameras is really about reducing insurance claims. In my experience, the camera drastically reduces the chances of minor parking lot fender-benders.
The death of a child is a tragedy and gets our attention immediately. Insurance companies paying up for tens or hundreds of thousands of non-injury accidents has less emotional appeal, but represents a real drag on the economy. I'm not opposed to requiring backup cameras as a collision avoidance device, but a better alternative might be for auto insrance companies to offer a reduction in insurance premiums for cars equipped with the cameras. In any event, having more of the cameras should be a net economic gain as the number of claims paid out will be reduced. As a beneficial side effect, the lives of one or two children a year might be saved.
Factual Interjection at February 28, 2012 9:10 AM
> the lives of one or two children a
> year might be saved.
Also, it's a tremendous thrill to tell other people what to do.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at February 28, 2012 9:50 AM
How about, they offer backup cameras as an option and let the purchaser decide? Oh, wait, they were doing that already. I have backup cameras. My old van did not. It's nice, but not necessary. Paying attention to what the heck you are doing and not backing up like you think you're in Daytona IS necessary.
2 kids die that way a WEEK? Seems high. Not government intervention high, by any means. But I would have thought 2 a year.
momof4 at February 28, 2012 10:14 AM
We have massive blind spots because we have massive C-pillars and high belt lines blocking our vision.
Massive pillars, A, B and C, along with high belt lines, help the automakers rate highly in government safety tests, ultimately making the cars less safe for kids in the driveway ...
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 28, 2012 10:20 AM
Re: The statistics
I suspect they are counting every child injured while a car is backing up regardless of whether a blind-spot camera would help, which includes children darting out into the path of a car and accidents with drivers too impaired to even be driving.
I'm also sure one or two are due to someone selecting the wrong gear, again making the blind spot camera useless since they wouldn't be looking at the monitor for it.
Joe at February 28, 2012 11:55 AM
"Massive pillars, A, B and C, along with high belt lines, help the automakers rate highly in government safety tests, ultimately making the cars less safe for kids in the driveway ..."
Is that why the Chrysler 300 is so plug ugly? I can fix this whole thing real fast: Mandate that all cars must be completely transparent, bumper to bumper, sunroof to oilpan. Then there won't be any blind spots.
"Paying attention to what the heck you are doing and not backing up like you think you're in Daytona IS necessary."
But why tell people to be careful when you can make people do something? Actually, the car I just bought has the backup camera. It's nice to have, but hopefully I'll have accounted for any nearby kids before releasing the brake. If the camera does save me from hitting somebody, I'll eat my words then.
Old RPM Daddy at February 28, 2012 12:41 PM
Wait, my state already has a law to prevent these types of accidents! Why do we need more laws?
Seriously, in Oregon before you get in your car to backout you are supposed to walk around behind it and look for obstuctions, aka usually kids. After that you can legally get in your car and drive. They used to use this question to trip kids up on the learner's permit tests.
Sio at February 28, 2012 3:02 PM
I worked with a women several years ago that accidentally backed over her son. Crushed his foot and part of his leg. However, in this accident and most of these accidents, a camera would not have prevented this. As she was backing out of the driveway, initially clear of all children, her son ran up and jumped on the running board of her SUV. He, then, accidentally fell underneath the front tire. This was not her fault, but the child who was old enough to know better.
Cat at February 28, 2012 3:33 PM
But a hell of a lot safer for those inside: automotive death rates have plummeted over the last twenty years.
This isn't all about you. And you won't likely be the only owner of your vehicle. And never is a long time.
The fundamental problem here is that when you back up, you are moving several thousand pounds while being substantially blind. The technology is available -- and I'll bet the incremental cost is far closer to $50 (2 megapixel USB cameras go for $70 apiece) than $160 -- to fix that.
Why the heck would you, or anyone around your car, not want you to see where you are going?
Hey Skipper at February 28, 2012 4:10 PM
My father has a 40' RV with rear and side camera's.
When he's on the highway with his 20' trailer the rear camera is useless. The side cameras are still good for showing vehicles in his blind spots.
But the issue I can see the owners of these vehicles doing is using the backup cameras exclusively in backing out of a parking space and no looking side to side to look for the idiot coming from the side at 15-20 MPH up the row they are backing into.
Jim P. at February 28, 2012 7:42 PM
Having watched people drive who know nothing about their cars - even how far it is to the back of the damned thing - I do not expect them to look at the monitor and understand what the hell they're looking at.
Radwaste at February 28, 2012 7:59 PM
"Paying attention to what the heck you are doing and not backing up like you think you're in Daytona IS necessary."
Try telling JP Montoya that.
(Sorry, couldn't resist... it's been a meme all day!)
Cousin Dave at February 28, 2012 8:35 PM
I wanted to add one to my car because I now have to do a lot of parallel parking. The radio had died so I wanted to get something new there anyway.
I went to local car stereo shop. $50 for the camera license plate holder. Estimated $1500 to have it installed. I didn't get it. I tried another shop ... they guy said they didn't do install but he had "a friend who could probably help me out if I helped him out."
I also noticed that there is now one tiny chain (3 shops) and 1 indie shop...there used to be a lot of car stereo shops but the all seem to be gone.
The Former Banker at February 28, 2012 11:59 PM
So the same number of kids that are killed each year (104) by cars backing up, is about equal to the number of boys who are killed by botched circumcisions each year, but I don't see any mandate to stop those from happening.
And I want to drive a pirate to work.
E. Steven Berkimer at February 29, 2012 5:01 AM
We got the backup sensor in my wife's CRV. It's good enough to tell if someone or something is behind you when backing out of a parking spot. It's not necessary on my civic because the rear glass extends low enough to let me see what's behind me.
I think a camera lens would get too obscured by road grime during the winter to be much use. This is a typical governmental one-size-fits-all solution to a minor problem.
How much do you want to bet that New York state will prohibit their use during the drivers license road test? It will make parallel parking too easy.
MarkD at February 29, 2012 5:11 AM
Why don't they just make cars that are completely transparent, like glass or plastic? I like the glass idea. Then you can always see everything!!
Chrissy at March 2, 2012 9:57 AM
Leave a comment