This post uses a gift link with a view count limit. If it runs out, there is an archived copy of the article
The safety features are worth millions of crashes prevented and thousands of lives saved, making them remarkably cost-effective.
Capping the luxury features and size of passenger vehicles would do a lot more to bring down costs than removing safety features.
Nonetheless, you’re arguing that the government should force people to install cameras on their private property in the interest of public safety, are you not?
Same vein: Should drivers be required to keep over-the-air software delivery enabled so that manufacturers can distribute safety-critical updates to their cars as fast as possible?
A backup camera doesn’t require any kind of connection to anything other than the display for the driver. At the most basic level it is a safety feature like headlights at night and brakes that does not have an inherent connection to anything other than the camera. No recording requirement, not broadcasting, nothing.
You are conflating things that don’t have anything to do with that basic concept.
In a vacuum, sure.
In practice, the government has moved from speed cameras (benign monitoring) to ALPRs (pervasive surveillance) without the public blinking. In practice, many auto manufacturers (Telsa, Hyundai, GM brands) have made it a matter of regular policy to ship home audio and video data from drivers’ cars to use for marketing and surveillance.
Backup cameras are a small drop in the bucket compared to other transportation design choices if you’re serious about a Vision* Zero endgame, and in my book, the potential for abuse makes them a liability rather than an asset towards that end.