probowler Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 That ship sailed a long time ago and why would you not want one? Its built into the head unit. Have a neighbor friend that had a tragic accident with their son. This is the type of technology that can help with this stuff. I use mine all the time. I actually would like backup camera on my car, that's not the point... the federal government shouldn't be mandating these things... I should have the option... Everyone should, and for those people, who don't want it, can't afford it or don't value the added cost, shouldn't be forced to buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 I can do everything you just said except the dash cam. I guess I'm way behind the times then! My newest car is my 10-year old Escape. I know the aftermarket is going big into Smart Start but I didn't realize Ford was there too... Last I heard the fanciest thing Ford key could do was stop your kids from speeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 I guess I'm way behind the times then! My newest car is my 10-year old Escape. I know the aftermarket is going big into Smart Start but I didn't realize Ford was there too... Last I heard the fanciest thing Ford key could do was stop your kids from speeding. It started with Lincolns a couple of years ago. You can remote unlock, see your tire, gas and battery status, locate it, schedule service, find parking, remote start, schedule a remote start in the future - lots of cool stuff. I think sync connect and FordPass gives you most if not all those options on Fords. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 I actually would like backup camera on my car, that's not the point... the federal government shouldn't be mandating these things... I should have the option... Everyone should, and for those people, who don't want it, can't afford it or don't value the added cost, shouldn't be forced to buy it. Some people are too stupid or too cheap to buy some of these safety features. In the case of the backup camera, that can cost an innocent child his life. Just like seatbelts and airbags and tire pressure monitors. If I hit somebody and they’re not wearing their seatbelt and they die I could be charged with vehicular homicide. If you blow a tire you could hit other innocent drivers. It’s not always about protecting the driver, sometimes you need to protect others from someone else’s poor decisions. But I do generally agree that less government interference is usually better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assimilator Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 (edited) That's ridiculous... If the market wants backup cameras, the market can buy cameras. We don't need uncle sam forcing it down our throats. Tell that to the kids and pets that are accidentally run over everyday, something my family has experienced so I know it's not uncommon. I don't mean to be rude at all, but I see your vehicles are decades old, I suspect you are never going to pay for a new vehicle (which is smart) so eventually all these affordable used cars will be equipped with these cameras which is great! Edited March 17, 2018 by Assimilator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Only upside to requiring cameras on cars is that instead of them being limited by customer want, they'll be required on every car-dropping the unit prices of them. So it should only be say $200 a camera vs $400 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Tell that to the kids and pets that are accidentally run over everyday, something my family has experienced so I know it's not uncommon. His argument is not about whether or not backup cameras should be available, it's about whether or not the gov't should be mandating them. That's a political discussion, rather than a car discussion, and doesn't belong in this part of the forum, so I'll just leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 That ship sailed a long time ago and why would you not want one? Its built into the head unit. Have a neighbor friend that had a tragic accident with their son. This is the type of technology that can help with this stuff. I use mine all the time. Yep, friend of the family backed over his girlfriends 2 yr old daughter. Ask him his thoughts on backup cameras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted March 18, 2018 Author Share Posted March 18, 2018 Just as soon it'll be mandatory to have some "sensor" inside a vehicle that will alert someone they left a baby behind, since we have so many of those issues occurring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 His argument is not about whether or not backup cameras should be available, it's about whether or not the gov't should be mandating them. That's a political discussion, rather than a car discussion, and doesn't belong in this part of the forum, so I'll just leave it at that. . Same argument ensued over seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, padded dashes....etc, etc, etc... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Poke Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) When seatbelts were mandated by the federal government in the 1960s, car manufacturers said it was an unnecessary intrusion in the marketplace and would drive up the cost of cars to the point that most people wouldnt be able to afford new cars. Now we cant imagine cars without them and only idiots would want to go back to the days (remember metal dashboards?) without those and other safety features (safety glass, air bags, etc.). When car manufacturers were required by federal law (sponsored by U.S. Senator Robert S. Kerr) in the 1960s to put window stickers with a vehicles contents and list prices on new cars, Ford Motor Company in particular declared it would bring about the end of the auto business and probably result in bankruptcy. Waa, waa, we have to have safe vehicles. Get over it. Edited March 18, 2018 by 1984Poke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Poke Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 (wouldnt and cant and vehicles ... I dont know why this board is not showing my apostrophes or accepting my attempts to edit my posting, above.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 It’s a bug. We don’t know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Oh wait - mine just worked. Maybe it’s your browser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 Oh wait - mine just worked. Maybe its your browser. Ive noticed it does it on the mobile version but not the full desktop version Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 18, 2018 Share Posted March 18, 2018 (edited) When car manufacturers were required by federal law (sponsored by U.S. Senator Robert S. Kerr) Right state, wrong Senator. It was Mike Monroney who got the window stickers--that's why they're called Monroney stickers. (Kerr might've been a co-sponsor, but it was Monroney's bill.) Edited March 18, 2018 by SoonerLS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Poke Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Im writing (perhaps I should say I am writing) from a cell phone. I think fuzzymoomoo has hit the nail in the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Poke Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 (edited) Ah, yes, you are correct in that it was Senator Mike Monroney, not Robert S. Kerr (thanks for pointing that out). My Oklahoma History professor would dock some points from my grade for that. Ten lashes with a wet noodle for me.... Edited March 19, 2018 by 1984Poke 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 If Alabama wants to make a law mandating reverse cameras and ass massagers in vehicles, good for them... But it is wrong for the federal government to mandate these rules upon the states and the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Feds have no business meddling with what we put in our bodies or our cars. It's sad that so many people in this country want the government to protect and care for everything in their lives. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 The Feds have no business meddling with what we put in our bodies or our cars. It's sad that so many people in this country want the government to protect and care for everything in their lives. I think the millions of people whose lives have been saved by federally mandated safety equipment would disagree with you. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 If Alabama wants to make a law mandating reverse cameras and ass massagers in vehicles, good for them... But it is wrong for the federal government to mandate these rules upon the states and the people. Writing standards for safety-related components, systems, and design features of motor vehicles like rearward visibility is not something handled by Alabama or other state governments. In the USA they are codified by the federal government in FMVSS, 49 CFR Part 571. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/part-571 The backup camera rule came from Public Law 110–189 passed in the U.S. Congress, not from a state legislature. https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ189/PLAW-110publ189.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Also: Title 49 USC 30103 (b1) (US Codes) prohibits any state from forbidding a system that conforms to FMVSS 108. Click here Code of Federal Regulation – Title 49, Volume 5, Parts 400 to 999 – Revised as of October 1, 2000 From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 49CFR571.108] [Page 236-307] TITLE 49: TRANSPORTATION – CHAPTER V, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PART 571, FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS – Subpart B–Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards – Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 When the device can enhance safety for people OTHER than the driver, that's when I'm an advocate for requiring it. A rear camera does precisely that. A driver can choose their own safety, but the small child behind the car cannot. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 I actually would like backup camera on my car, that's not the point... the federal government shouldn't be mandating these things... I should have the option... Everyone should, and for those people, who don't want it, can't afford it or don't value the added cost, shouldn't be forced to buy it. Like airbags and ABS then? This is a safety feature that has proven to save lives. Way of the world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Writing standards for safety-related components, systems, and design features of motor vehicles like rearward visibility is not something handled by Alabama or other state governments. In the USA they are codified by the federal government in FMVSS, 49 CFR Part 571. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/part-571 The backup camera rule came from Public Law 110–189 passed in the U.S. Congress, not from a state legislature. https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ189/PLAW-110publ189.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.