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.
the only life a republican values (other than their own) is that of a fetus, and even that is temporary.
And only if the fetus ain’t miscegenated…
Profit over people. The Republican mantra.
Generally true politically. But these are questions that need to be asked.
Yes, it’s tempting to say, “a human life is priceless, no price to save a life is too high.” But there are an infinite number of ways dollars can be spent to save lives. And by making cars more expensive, that puts less money in people’s pockets to pay for healthcare, quality nutrition, etc.
What if someone invented a miraculous but expensive safety device? Imagine if someone invented a device that decreased traffic deaths by 95%, but at the cost of $250k per vehicle. We would make vehicles incredibly safe, but at the cost of completely shutting working people out from vehicle ownership. Would it still be worth it? There will always be some point where safety just isn’t worth the cost. Not because we don’t care about human life, but simply because there are many potential ways for us to spend money to enhance human safety and well-being.
These were evaluated on a cost-effectiveness basis before being mandated. They are cheap and work.
What makes vehicles expensive is that its much more profitable to sell a huge luxury vehicle instead of a mid-sized sedan. So automakers build giant trucks with fancy interiors instead of cars the typical person can buy new.
Yeah, generally of a feature is vaguely expensive, they will not mandate it.
Where airbags hit the scene, they said that would work, but since it is so expensive you can do automatic seatbelts instead.
We are talking about a few dollars on a 30,000 dollar purchase…
Yep, that $2 sensor is really driving up costs.
And running the wiring with the rear lights wiring is sooooooo expensive to install.
Honestly the Canyonaro doesn’t even seem that big anymore.
OMFG, these things (I can’t call them people) are monsters [get rid of rear-seat reminders]!
Capping the luxury features and size of passenger vehicles would do a lot more to bring down costs than removing safety features.
The average cost isn’t the problem; the base cost is.
There are good arguments for limiting vehicle size and weight for safety reasons, but that’s a separate issue.
Let R’s own making seatbelts optional.
Compact cars are all in the low $20,000 range, so I don’t know what affordability problem they’re talking about for vehicles. Oh, that’s right, many Americans have an insatiable desire for mobile fortresses that cost $100,000. Well, I’m sure not having ABS or rear cameras on those will turn out well for everyone else and shave off $500.
And I’ve never been inconvenienced by an alert that I had stuff in the back seat after a trip to the grocery store. It keeps forgetful parents from leaving their kids in hot cars, especially in the aforementioned parking lot tanks.
I basic light truck ran $19k in 19. A sedan, $14k.
Wages haven’t gone up.
Wage increases have outpaced inflation every year since 2020 (first year I checked) except 2022. MSRP has not changed significantly for compact cars, adjusted for inflation. MSRP has actually dropped for all vehicles in the last year (at least). This means that compact cars have actually become cheaper, at least by a small amount.
The people complaining about affordability aren’t buying these cars.
Edit: I guess it’s easier to down vote than researching it yourself. None of this implies affordability isn’t a broader problem.
The same basic, 2x4, light trucks, no frills, Nissan Frontier and Chevy Colorado have increased from $19k to $29k, last check, between 2019 and 2024. 4 cylinder, “truck shaped sedan” models, in terms of capacity and the ability to fit in any parking space.
That’s quite a reduction in MSRP.
Wage increases are not there. You typing it feels like a Mike Johnson sound byte. Jobs that paid $20-$24 in 2019 still pay $20-24 in 2025. Federal minimum wage remains at $7.25/hr, or $1160 a month for 40h/wk.
I’ll grant you, healthcare saw a jump, but with Covid, had it not, more of the work force would have switched careers. Most of those hourly personnel had not seen much in the way of pay increases since pre-2008, until Covid.
Buddy my whole car was $500 and I have an insatiable desire to keep it that way. Less components not more across the board please. I don’t know what kind of bougie-ass bubble you’re living in where a cheap car is $20k, but I sure hope it pops while we’ve still got a planet
I’m talking about new compact car prices, not used car prices, because the article is talking about attempting to bring down new car prices by removing safety features.
Car prices have always been around that much, adjusted for inflation.
Clankers shouldn’t be allowed to drive at all, much less mandated. I miss when cars were more “dangerous” but cheaper, simpler, and more efficient. My 1994 Toyota pickup will still be running long after the last of these rolling smartphones are bricked by a lack of updates or Certified Service Components. We’ve been through this already on heavy equipment, I’m mad about having to hack tractors and mad people would fall for safety as an excuse to complicate basic tech we rely on and increase dependence on corporations for service
I appreciate the online update/kill switch/repaiarability, lock out concerns, but these systems are surprisingly good for safety
On an early outing with my kid driving, we were going on a freeway next to a long line of cars waiting at an exit. Well suddenly someone pulls right in front of us, in a way that even if it happened to me I think I would have hit it, and certainly the car couldn’t brake in time and my kid swerved instead, a good call but one I’m sure would have left us running into the ditch at the speed we were going and no experience with that maneuver. However it was like a professional driver, managing to dramatically yank the car around the sudden slow car and neatly back in the lane after avoiding.
I was shocked my kid pulled that off with only 10 hours of driving experience, turns out the car had an evasive steering assist. Saved our asses.
Tons of videos about the emergency braking tests that should easily convince anyone of their value to safety.
I’ll say it: Ditching ABS is horrifically stupid, but mandating backup cameras and backseat alarms is equally stupid in the opposite direction.
E: The article is talking about full-auto emergency braking and not ABS. I never thought I’d say these words, but I’m with Ted Cruz on this one.
Mandating backup cameras is not stupid. There’s a legitimate blind spot that has caused numerous child deaths. It’s okay for a car to cost a little more if it means it’s less likely to kill someone.
No comment on backseat alarms.
Are the backseat alarms smart enough to only alert when there’s something back there yet? Otherwise it seems like it’s just an annoyance or something that people will start to mentally filter out.
In my car I haven’t figured out what sets it off, it happens all the the with nothing in the backseat.
I appreciate the intent, but at least in my car the false positive rate is so high I could imagine ignoring it
They seem to use weight to determine if a person is in a seat so they will mistake anything considered a significant enough weight as a person. Doesn’t keep you from turning the car off or anything just dings and puts an alert up on the screen.
Thanks, the few times I’ve been in a car with that feature it seemed to just go off no matter what and was super annoying.
Ugh, I hope it’s better than the last car I drove, couldn’t set groceries on the seat or it’d trigger the seatbelt alarm.
Seatbelt alarm seems to need more weight than the backseat check alarm.
That sounds absolutely ridiculous. What’s the point of needing less weight to set off backseat alarms? A gallon of water is only like 4kg and that’s enough to set off seatbelt alarms.
Infants
Fucked if I know. All I know is groceries haven’t set off the seatbelt alarm while car/boosterseats set off the check backset alarm.
If I open the back doors of my car before I get in the driver’s seat and drive it then I’ll get the notification when I shut the car off.
With a backup camera comes a video screen necessarily in view of the driver, contributing to distracted driving at all times the vehicle is not in reverse. How many kids have been killed because of such distractions?
The mandate isn’t that cars have infotainment screens, it’s that they have backup cameras. The choice to use the infotainment screen is the automakers, not the regulators. Early backup cameras had the screen embedded behind the rearview mirror, which was a much safer solution IMO. But cost cutting killed that because it was a second screen.
That could have been the mandate. They could have mandated that be the only allowable screen. It shows what’s behind you, and that’s it. No distractions tolerated. No pop-up logos or other advertising. No driving controls on that screen. Touch screen disabled while in motion, with all essential functions actuated by physical controls.
But they didn’t. They mandated a rearview and monitor, but didn’t restrict its use. And that failure has probably caused more injuries and deaths than it has prevented.
Okay so we should do either everything or nothing, no solutions can exist between extremes. Got it 🙄
I see where you’re coming from, but that’s mostly a problem with trucks, vans, and SUVs. Let’s stop incentivizing manufacturers to pump out tanks first, then we can talk.
The increasing digitization of auto manufacturing has led to all sorts of second-order effects, including vastly more difficult repairs (ask your local mechanic if you don’t believe me), massive invasions of consumer privacy (see linked expose), and generally made cars far more brittle.
You’re one step away from advocating for the telescreens from 1984.
Back up cameras are also important for sedans, hatchback, and anything else where you can’t see something 24 inches tall right behind the rear bumper. They are a benefit for every enclosed vehicle, just like airbags and abs.
They also put a distracting video monitor in front of the driver 100% of the time, not just the 0.2% while backing. Manufacturers have moved a lot of controls to that screen, rather than leaving them on tactile buttons and switches that could be operated without taking eyes off the road.
How many collisions have been caused by distractions from the these screens?
This isn’t the fault of regulators. They would have done this regardless of backup camera regulation.
Unless they only permitted that screen to show a rear view. They could have prohibited any other use, or prohibited non-tactile controls that required ocular attention while driving. They could have required that touchscreen controls be disabled while driving. But they didn’t.
They mandated the distracting screen, and probably killed more people than they saved.
The law doesn’t mandate a touch screen, nor that it be on while driving. And why should it? The goal is to address the blind spot, not to tell automakers how to build head units.
They would have done the screens without the backup cameras.
Not if those distracting screens were prohibited.
They could ban the screens and keep the camera with a small screen that only displays the rear camera when in reverse and nothing else.
And enforcing telescreens into every citizen’s home is critical to ensuring public safety. Without constant monitoring, how can the State prevent sedition and deviancy? If you let people disable their telescreen speakers, how will they stay informed and alert if there’s an emergency?
If you don’t accept your telescreen, you’re neglecting your duty to protect others.
Back up cameras as a requirement does not require an infotainment that steals data, just a camera and a way to display it to the driver. The fact that car companies tied it into other things doesn’t make the core requirement comparable to 1984.
For example, at least one car I drove had the backup camera display in the rear view mirror, not the infotainment screen.
Just a screen, camera, sensor, relay, 20ft of wire, nbd right? It’s not like that makes stuff more expensive or harder to work on or anything
Same with requirements for cruise control, lights, brakes, and pretty much everything else on the car. Hell, most windshield wipers are probably more complex than just having a camera that displays on a screen when in reverse.
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.
Put yourself in the shoes of one of the far-too-many Americans that have accidentally killed a child because they could not see them, regardless of whether they were driving an F-250 or a Fiat 500. This is a safety problem we faced and addressed with regulation. This is a good thing. The second-order effects are not the fault of the regulators trying to make cars safer, that falls squarely on the auto companies who would have done that regardless of regulation.
The second-order effects are not the fault of the regulators trying to make cars safer
This is where you’re losing me. The second-order effects are within the purview of those regulators and should have been addressed in-hand with the mandate.
Why would the automakers be willing to comply with safety regulation but disregard telemetry regulation?
Because it’s hard enough to get regulation passed, and telemetry is completely unrelated to backup cameras.
From an engineering perspective, tying the backup camera to the CAN (and by extension, telemetry units) dramatically increases the possible modalities of failure.
The two are absolutely connected.
Not just Ted. Legacy auto too. You should see what Chinese EVs have been doing to Euro NCAP lately.
NHTSA last year required automatic braking systems in new cars starting in 2029; automakers have tried to block the rule from taking effect, arguing NHTSA’s standards are impractical and could cause rear-end collisions by braking before drivers expect. The agency said this year that it was considering extending the deadline.
Nope, it’s screaming metal deathtrap or the feature that beeps if someone is detected picking their nose and can only be reset by the vendor.
We need ranked choice voting so badly.
