I just backed over my kid, it must be the cars fault!

Twerp128

Twerp128

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
3,662
Location
Indiana
Car(s)
'91 Miata, '09 Street Triple
The Department of Transportation today is proposing a new safety regulation that would effectively make rear-view cameras mandatory equipment in all new cars by late 2014. The proposed rule is intended to help eliminate blind zones.

The rule itself would not explicitly require cameras, but it would mandate that new vehicles provide a 180-degree field of view behind the vehicle when it is in reverse -- so it would have the practical effect of requiring rear-view cameras as standard equipment.

The proposed rule change, put forward by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was required by Congress as part of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. The legislation was named for two-year old Cameron Gulbransen, who was killed when his father accidentally backed over him in the family's driveway.

The NHTSA estimates that, on average, 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries occur each year because of drivers backing over people, and children and the elderly are particularly at risk.

"There is no more tragic accident than for a parent or caregiver to back out of a garage or driveway and kill or injure an undetected child playing behind the vehicle," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "The changes we are proposing today will help drivers see into those blind zones directly behind vehicles to make sure it is safe to back up."

If the rule is made final, which would happen sometime early next year, it would start getting phased in the following year with 10 percent of auto-manufacturers' fleets required to meet the standard by September 2012, 40 percent by September 2013, and 100 percent by September 2014.
Click to expand...
Ten bucks says it passes, another special interest feel good bill.:|

Source
 
And, oh look, every car's price just went up $2000.

Idiots.
 
Last edited:
Would a "180 degree field of view" be satisfied by nonoptical equipment such as ultrasound?
 
Last edited:
AiR said:
Don't forget Ray Lahoods mandatory mobile phone jammer. This is of course stupid, and made even more so by the fact that 80% of american car accidents are caused by people eating. The logical choice would therefore be to ban all cupholders, but that might offend the fatty voters I guess.
Click to expand...

And those of us who buy coffee on the way to work in the morning or bring it from home.

+rep for that avatar though, I could watch it for hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AiR
narf said:
Would a "180 degree field of view" be satisfied by nonoptical equipment such as ultrasound?
Click to expand...

Judging by past US government regulation and stupidity? No. Field of view will mean optical field of view, as in you must be able to see a 180 degree swath behind the car.

Edit: By the way, that means a 180 degree swath not only horizontally but vertically. Given that the resulting image is going to be compressed in both dimensions to fit on a screen and how people have problems processing such compressed images (see the fun of fish-eye door viewers and cameras), it might as well not be there since most people won't be able to make sense of it.
 
Last edited:
Why the fuck have people become such huge pussies?? You ran over your kid? Guess what! Its not the car's fault, you're just a goddamn moron who is abso-fucking-lutely clueless behind the wheel. I fucking hate these dumbasses with the IQ rivaling that of a tumbleweed who do something stupid and then ruin it for the rest of us. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!
 
AiR said:
This is of course stupid, and made even more so by the fact that 80% of american car accidents are caused by people eating. The logical choice would therefore be to ban all cupholders, but that might offend the fatty voters I guess.
Click to expand...

...I guess my inclination to sit down inside rather than opting for the drive-through (over here, drive-in) has saved billions of lives and counting :lol:


LeVeL said:
Why the fuck have people become such huge pussies?? You ran over your kid? Guess what! Its not the car's fault, you're just a goddamn moron who is abso-fucking-lutely clueless behind the wheel. I fucking hate these dumbasses with the IQ rivaling that of a tumbleweed who do something stupid and then ruin it for the rest of us. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!
Click to expand...

Also, he failed to educate his kid. These days I see tons of people walking on the street with their kids instead of on the sidewalk, rarely looking out for cars. Way to teach them to survive!
 
Last edited:
smib said:
And those of us who buy coffee on the way to work in the morning or bring it from home.

+rep for that avatar though, I could watch it for hours.
Click to expand...

Thanks :D
I wouldnt want to ban cupholders either altough it'd make more sense than to jam all phones. Removing cupholders might cause even more accidents as is the case with bans on texting. Unsurprisingly Ray LaHood is not pleased with that article either.
Observation: Roy LaHood got his job because his name contains an auto part? :think:

LeVeL said:
Why the fuck have people become such huge pussies?? You ran over your kid? Guess what! Its not the car's fault, you're just a goddamn moron who is abso-fucking-lutely clueless behind the wheel. I fucking hate these dumbasses with the IQ rivaling that of a tumbleweed who do something stupid and then ruin it for the rest of us. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!
Click to expand...
I think it's because in the US your own stupidity/carelessness can reward you with huge sums of money.
 
Last edited:
LeVeL said:
Why the fuck have people become such huge pussies?? You ran over your kid? Guess what! Its not the car's fault, you're just a goddamn moron who is abso-fucking-lutely clueless behind the wheel. I fucking hate these dumbasses with the IQ rivaling that of a tumbleweed who do something stupid and then ruin it for the rest of us. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!
Click to expand...

"But but but.... we won? Yes, we can??"

Elections have consequences. One of the consequences of 2008's was that the government is now run by idiots that want to kid-proof the world. This is just the latest evidence thereof. This is a pattern of behavior with this particular group of people, too. Behold their masterpiece from a couple of iterations ago, when they also had control:

nadarbike.jpg


Same idiots. Only difference is that 30 years have passed. By the way, that's the back of the 'bike' closest to the camera. And please note that I haven't named any parties because there's some of these f***ing morons in both. However, the group is readily identifiable no matter what their technical political affiliation.

AiR: Thing is, IIRC the guy lost the lawsuit and didn't get any money for running over his kid. So he didn't get rich - which is probably why he thought 'there oughtta be a law' and lobbied Congress. And LaHood got the job because he's connected in the Illinois political establishment despite nominally being a Republican (hah), not because he has any real qualification for the post.

Edit 2: The previous occupant of the post worked her way up through the ranks of the Arizona Department Of Transportation from 1985 on and was appointed the director of said agency in 1998. President Bush appointed her to the Federal Highway Administration in 2001 and she became Transportation Secretary in 2006. Lots of experience there - but LaHood's highway management experience amounts to "being drunk and driving on the highways of Illinois while managing not to crash in any way that would go on his record."
 
Last edited:
Uh, Spectre...

The proposed rule change, put forward by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was required by Congress as part of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007.
Click to expand...

The ball started rolling on this pre-Obamaunism. You can't blame everything on him you know.
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
And you're forgetting that the Democrats took over Congress with the 2006 elections. The Democrats had total control over Congress from that point on.
Click to expand...

The 2006 election left Democrats with a 51-49 lead in the Senate and a 233-202 lead in the House. This is not a "supermajority" needed to overcome a presidential veto. So any legislation that was enacted in 2007 had both the blessing of a Democratic-majority Congress and the blessing of George W. Bush. So comments that try to blame this all on one party, like the following, are totally unwarranted:

One of the consequences of 2008's was that the government is now run by idiots that want to kid-proof the world. This is just the latest evidence thereof. This is a pattern of behavior with this particular group of people, too. Behold their masterpiece from a couple of iterations ago, when they also had control
Click to expand...

And as for this:

Also, it is funny but I don't recall actually mentioning Obama at any point prior to this in this thread.... A little sensitive, are we?
Click to expand...

We all know what you were talking about when you said:

"But but but.... we won? Yes, we can??"

Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...

You were blaming it on Obama until 2Billion reminded you it was 2007 legislation.
 
No, actually, I wasn't. Interesting interpretation, though. I was actually mocking the sort of idiot that votes for this sort of measure, given that the commenter I was responding to was from Mass, a state that commonly votes in this sort of thing.

However, since this has been brought up, let's say that Obama hadn't been elected and that Ms. Mary Peters had continued in her position instead. I guarantee that this measure (if sent up in its current state) would have been put up as a proposed rule, shuffled way onto the back burner and then quietly taken out back and shot for being economically unfeasible and stupid. The law in question (by the way, have you even read it? I have!) does not actually mandate a 180 degree rear camera system, but only that some sort of sensor or camera tech should be used to expand the rearward field of firevision. Here's the quote.

(b) Rearward Visibility- Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to revise Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 (FMVSS 111) to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons. The Secretary may prescribe different requirements for different types of motor vehicles to expand the required field of view to enable the driver of a motor vehicle to detect areas behind the motor vehicle to reduce death and injury resulting from backing incidents, particularly incidents involving small children and disabled persons. Such standard may be met by the provision of additional mirrors, sensors, cameras, or other technology to expand the driver's field of view. The Secretary shall prescribe final standards pursuant to this subsection not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
Click to expand...

The camera concept is not required by the law, and was produced solely by this current Administration. This could be resolved through simpler and cheaper bumper sensors that produce an audible alarm in the cabin, but noooooooo, we gotta have them cameras!

I did correct the "total" adjective in the initial post - but I might as well have left it as because with the RINO defectors in the Senate they had their supermajority in all but name. Snowe, Collins, Graham and others might as well caucus with the Democrats most of the time.

Edit: By the way, the law doesn't actually say that the SecTrans must actually create the new rule, only that the rulemaking process must be initiated. The process can be (and often is) aborted at any time, often due to protests or lobbying, so technically they *don't* have to change anything at all. If you check the very next section of the law, Section 2(d), it actually mandates a real change, that of requiring a brake/shift interlock for automatics. DOT doesn't get a choice in that one, so contrast that with the "initiate a rulemaking" verbiage.
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
Also, it is funny but I don't recall actually mentioning Obama at any point prior to this in this thread.... A little sensitive, are we? :lol:
Click to expand...

You did mention his campaign slogan, at least suggesting you blame Obama for the 2007 legislation.
 
narf said:
You did mention his campaign slogan, at least suggesting you blame Obama for the 2007 legislation.
Click to expand...

As I said before, I was mocking Democrat/leftist voters. "Yes we can" didn't originate with the Obama Presidential campaign, you know. :p Use in the US dates back at least to 1972. And, being from California, I saw a LOT of posters carrying that slogan in English and Spanish whilst growing up. Edit: And, by the way, the same expression I used is one I heard a lot when some of these idiots realized exactly what it was they'd voted for. Even prior to 1995. It just happens to also be the same expression a lot of Obama voters use now... Probably for the same reasons.

And while he did use that slogan while initially running for Senate, I can't blame him specifically for this bill because when the vote was called in the Senate... he wasn't there. Other votes on the same day (14 Feb 08), he voted "Present" instead of for or against. Which he was apparently really good at doing. :p
 
Last edited:
"Yes, it can be done" is not quite the same as "Yes, we can".
Building a CPU can be done, however we can't build a CPU because we are no specialists. Or, to put it in American union context, building cars properly can be done yet it does not mean they can build cars properyly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top