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.
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.
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.
https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/blog/privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-every-car-brand-reviewed-by-mozilla-including-ford-volkswagen-and-toyota-flunks-privacy-test/
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?
They would have done the screens without the backup cameras.
Not if those distracting screens were prohibited.