(12-28-2012, 01:56 PM)Duchess Wrote:

My car has a backup cam but I never use it.

Your car or the backup cam?

The camera.

...actually that could apply to my car as well. I never take her out unless the weather is perfect. For example, if we get snow tomorrow, I won't drive her again until it's gone, I'll drive my beatup SUV.

(12-28-2012, 01:53 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: There is really no reason to not make the backup cameras available as an option, OPTION, not regulation. This stupid bitch is attention whoring to avoid taking responsibility for it.

I haven't bought a new car in 8 years, but I always chose to buy them stock. I don't need or want electronic locks, airbags, built in navigation, etc... Heat, that's what I want installed when I drive it off the lot. I then buy and install my own stereo system (and now have a plug-in portable GPS).

I think if I bought a new car today, what used to be offered as "options" would be considered "standard". For those features that are standard now due to consumer demand, that's understandable. It's market-driven and you can't please everyone. But, as the article notes, increasingly regulated features have made it difficult for the auto industry to offer affordable vehicles to many people and contributed to the average price of a new car being $25,000. I'm out of date, I guess. That's an insane amount of money to me. I agree with you that optional features are great - the more the better. But, I don't like the government reducing the options available to those of us who like to keep it simple and minimize costs.

Here's a snip from the article that doesn't surprise me:
One recent study by a researcher at Oregon State University found that only one in five drivers used a rearview camera when it was available, but 88 percent of those who did avoided striking a child-sized decoy.

I suspect that the majority of people who neglect to use their rearview mirrors will fail to use the rearview cameras as well.

I agree with your post, Hair, and i would like to apologize for previous post where i thought you had sent me pm. You never have and
i had that screwed up. When you get to be my age, your lucky if you remember your name, so I am sorry,
More on topic, my father was a Pontiac dealer so i was spoiled in the sense of having a new car to drive every few months. I had convertible but never put top down as wind would blow hair,blah, blah.......I now drive car older than Hair's car, but people says it looks brand new and it gets me from point a to b. Have never been new car person with all the options and don't think i would use the options you all mentioned. It is such a habit for me to use rear view mirror, then crank neck to look and still run over someone so
i try to find parking spaces i can drive out without backing.

(12-28-2012, 03:20 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: Pontiac

Poor ol' nigger thinks it's a Cadillac.

Get it?

I don't want to burn in Hell.

That reminded me. A few days ago, I discovered a 1908 edition of Uncle Tom's Cabin signed by my husband's grandmother that she had given to my husband's uncle. He passed away and somehow we ended up with it.

No worries about the mix up, BlueberryHill - water under the bridge.

The first car that I ever made out in was a black 1979 or 1980 Trans Am, eagle-hood and all. I don't remember if it had any blind spots. But, I do remember it being a very fun car for passenger cruising and parking; forever a Pontiac fan.

I have to disagree here.

It's true people are responsible for their actions but it's the auto companies who should be held accountable in this case. I don't know about the specific case under consideration but it's a simple fact that they make cars now that it's impossible to see behind you. You can not back a car safely other than to jump in it and hurry out of the parking space. You used to be able to back the old cars at close to 30 MPH but these new ones are impossible. A cynic would suggest they calculated the hundreds of kids and thousands of pets that would be killed and their odds of having to pay off on them in order to get the government to mandate cameras.

Of course no one is responsible for anything any longer so why should car companies care about such carnage. Most people don't even realize almost everything behind them is a blind spot until they back over a kid.

It's not the car's fault. It's the fact that parents should know where their kids are.

If I don't have a back up camera and my neighbor's kid decides to hide behind my car, whose fault is that? I would argue that the parents of the neighborhood kid should have known where their child was; not that me or my car were somehow negligent.

(12-28-2012, 10:22 PM)username Wrote: It's not the car's fault. It's the fact that parents should know where their kids are.

If I don't have a back up camera and my neighbor's kid decides to hide behind my car, whose fault is that? I would argue that the parents of the neighborhood kid should have known where their child was; not that me or my car were somehow negligent.

Werd.

Your operating a fucking 3000 Lb machine, not floating on a cloud. Walk around the vehicle, Look around, pay fucking attention. Its pretty much that simple

(12-28-2012, 10:15 PM)cladking Wrote: I have to disagree here.

It's true people are responsible for their actions but it's the auto companies who should be held accountable in this case. I don't know about the specific case under consideration but it's a simple fact that they make cars now that it's impossible to see behind you. You can not back a car safely other than to jump in it and hurry out of the parking space. You used to be able to back the old cars at close to 30 MPH but these new ones are impossible. A cynic would suggest they calculated the hundreds of kids and thousands of pets that would be killed and their odds of having to pay off on them in order to get the government to mandate cameras.

Of course no one is responsible for anything any longer so why should car companies care about such carnage. Most people don't even realize almost everything behind them is a blind spot until they back over a kid.

I call bullshit





Unless you drove one of these




My parents taught us to always walk in front of the car. People used to do that.

I used to drive a '63 Valiant. You could floor it in reverse and maintain control if you were careful. You could see everything behind you by turning around and looking but with these new cars all you see when you turn around in the back seat. You could back with your mirrors and see almost everything. If a dog got behind you while you were parked you'd probably see it coming up. Now days the mirrors are distorted.

Every single car I ever had was OK to back until an '07 Hyundai but it seems they're all impossible now.

Everybody makes mistakes and miscalculations and this goes many times over for little children who can walk up under your mirrors. I don't think children should die for a mistake. I believe a thinking individual designing a car might have noticed that his design greatly increased the chances of such accicdents. Accidents like this used to be unheard of. Now there are dozens every year and we'll be paying for more stupid crap on cars we shouldn't have needed in the first place. Also each year there are dozens of people mowed down on sidewalks and in restaraunts. You used to operate the gas, break, etc, etc. Now you only inform the computer what you want it to do. You used to push a button and a machine turned on but now it turns on wehen it god damn feels like it. Nothing works right and people don't even seem to notice.

(12-28-2012, 10:15 PM)cladking Wrote: I have to disagree here.

It's true people are responsible for their actions but it's the auto companies who should be held accountable in this case. I don't know about the specific case under consideration but it's a simple fact that they make cars now that it's impossible to see behind you. You can not back a car safely other than to jump in it and hurry out of the parking space. You used to be able to back the old cars at close to 30 MPH but these new ones are impossible. A cynic would suggest they calculated the hundreds of kids and thousands of pets that would be killed and their odds of having to pay off on them in order to get the government to mandate cameras.

Of course no one is responsible for anything any longer so why should car companies care about such carnage. Most people don't even realize almost everything behind them is a blind spot until they back over a kid.

Please look up the definition of carnage and stop exaggerating every single second of every single day.

It's not true. Child death rates have decreased by at least half (per capita) since the 1960s. Cars have about a hundred more safety features than they used to have. EVERYTHING has improved product safety. How the hell we all lived is beyond me.

You still have to take care of your kids. That's pretty much the bottom line. You can't blame anyone but yourself if you back over one or let one drown in the pool. Your watch, your bad.

(12-28-2012, 11:46 PM)OnBendedKnee Wrote: Please look up the definition of carnage and stop exaggerating every single second of every single day.

Hyperbole.

(12-28-2012, 11:53 PM)Cracker Wrote:

(12-28-2012, 11:46 PM)OnBendedKnee Wrote: Please look up the definition of carnage and stop exaggerating every single second of every single day.

Hyperbole.

I'm sorry you missed it the first time around...

"stop exaggerating..."

"every single second of every single day."
(That was an exaggeration on my part.)

Never as funny when it needs to be explained.

I got it. I apparently have a basic understanding of literary devices.

Don't try to lecture me, lapsed-Mormon man. You people let me down this year.

(12-29-2012, 12:03 AM)Cracker Wrote: I got it. I apparently have a basic understanding of literary devices.

Don't try to lecture me, lapsed-Mormon man. You people let me down this year.