PSA: Never buying a (Toyota) nav system again?

[aja8888]

I'm with Gumby.
Having a back up camera gives car designers an excuse for not designing a car that has good visibility.

You mean like this?

 

[misanman]

DS and DIL both work as engineers in the auto industry. They say that poor rearward visibility is largely due to various government safety regulations that dictate the parameters of car design. So it seems to me that the safety regulations have resulting in a unsafe condition, thus we need another safety regulation.

 

[braumeister]

Absolutely!
Like the hearing protection required because of the extra-loud backup alarms.

 

[Gumby]

If you look at the link I gave they do an analysis of costs v. Benefits which I found interesting. For example, property damage to cars is also reduced through this because people hit fewer things.

Anyway if you go to that link they do analyze the costs in great detail.

Didn't have time to look this morning, because I had to go to w*rk. I'll take a look now. Edit to add: Now I have reviewed the proposed rule, I see that the NHTSA generally agrees with me on the cost per life saved -- between $15.9 million and $26.3 million. Taking all costs and benefits into account, they believe that the rule will have a negative return -- between negative $202 million and negative $281 million per year. That means they have accounted for the injuries, the deaths and the property damage and the rule still has no net financial benefit.

Let's take the low number of -$202 million. They say it will avoid 58 - 69 deaths and avoid 1125 to 1332 injuries. Lets take the top of that range. So we, as a society, will be paying $202 million to avoid death or injury (no matter how slight) to a total of 1400 people --equaling roughly $144,000 to avoid even one slight injury. I'd be willing to bet that I can prevent more than one death or injury for $144k. For example -- the website surrogatemothers.com quotes a fee to the surrogate of $0 - $20,000 for obtaining the services of a surrogate mother. If I took the $144,000 and went around to abortion clinics, I might be able to pay 7 or more women to carry their babies to term and give them up for adoption rather than go through with a termination. Indeed, if we just look at deaths and the $15.9 million to prevent even one, I might get 795 women to take me up on my offer. That would save far more lives than NHTSA's rear view camera rule.

I agree wholeheartedly that, as a parent, your children are priceless. My point is that in a world of limited resources, we need to put those resources to the place where they will do the most good. Backup cameras are not that place.

 

[Texas Proud]

Deleted... already talked about by others...

 

[Texas Proud]

I'm a retired actuary so this type of analysis warms my heart. There's not enough of it. I've always said that if we want safer cars we could all drive around in tanks, but (thank God) the market won't support that because they'd be too expensive, wouldn't go fast enough and would probably get 2 mpg. At some point you need to make an intelligent decision about what you're spending to prevent something and whether the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Actually it could be done for a LOT less... make the seats stronger so they do not break in a crash... have everybody wear 5 point seat belts like they do in racing cars.... and heck, have a roll cage installed... look at the guys in NASCAR who walk away from a 150 MPH collision....

 

[bUU]

Indeed. What the new regulation is doing already reflects directing resources to the place where they will do the most good.

 

[Free To Canoe]

You mean like this?

View attachment 19524

Exactly! What a beauty!

 

[MichaelB]

I had a similar thing happen with my old Garmin bean bag friction mount.

I did fix that problem with some extra anti-slip grip tape.

Amazon.com: Incom RE3952 Black Gator Grip Anti Slip Safety Grit Tape, 4-Inch by 15-Foot: Home Improvement

I smeared silicone caulk all over the bottom of mine once it got slippery and that worked for a long time. As I live on a dirt road, eventually the dust worked its way into the silicone and it, too, became slippery.

Worth considering. Do either of these scratch or mark up the dash?

 

[easysurfer]

Worth considering. Do either of these scratch or mark up the dash?

In my case, no the dash was fine when I removed the tape to sell the car. (When applied, the grit side was up and that made contact with the slippery bean bag mount surface). Of course, the car was already about 15 years old so I didn't care had the dash got scratched up. But no scratches, at least on an old Plymonth Neon dash.

 

[travelover]

Worth considering. Do either of these scratch or mark up the dash?

The dust imbedded into the tacky rubber was super fine - like talcum powder - and thus did not scratch.

 

[ERD50]

Indeed. What the new regulation is doing already reflects directing resources to the place where they will do the most good.

What is your basis for that?

Gumby did the math a few posts back, and it does seem that there could more effective options available - giving us more benefit for fewer $ (though I will not comment on his proposal for fear his example will drive this thread off the rails, which I see as odd behavior for a mod/admin).

I haven't taken the time yet to verify his math - I found that pdf to be rather convoluted with changing terms throughout, so it would be easy to get tripped up, but I'll assume he got it right for now.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

Gumby did the math based on a backhanded and cynical attempt to trivialize the decision to terminate a pregnancy by claiming he'd bribe women to carry babies to term. If you considered that a serious reply and proposal, then we really have no common ground on which to converse about the topic.

Regardless, different assumptions (assigning a higher value of life than NHTSA did, and taking Gumby's partisan irrelevancies out of the calculations) yields the opposite result. Reasonable people disagree. It is critically important to understand that in order to understand what other people say to you. Clearly, that which you prefer didn't prevail in this case. That's life.

 

[Gumby]

Gumby did the math based on a backhanded and cynical attempt to trivialize the decision to terminate a pregnancy by claiming he'd bribe women to carry babies to term. If you considered that a serious reply and proposal, then we really have no common ground on which to converse about the topic.

Regardless, different assumptions (assigning a higher value of life than NHTSA did, and taking Gumby's partisan irrelevancies out of the calculations) yields the opposite result. Reasonable people disagree. It is critically important to understand that in order to understand what other people say to you. Clearly, that which you prefer didn't prevail in this case. That's life.

An argument examines facts and analyzes them to arrive at a proffered conclusion -- in this case that the proposed backup camera rule is uneconomic and should not be implemented. An argument may use hypotheticals and counterfactuals to illustrate the reasoning. My post was an argument. Yours is unsupported opinion -- essentially, "do this because I think it is important".

I chose the hypothetical I did to illustrate, as starkly as possible, what may occur when the choice is made to invest society's limited resources in one way and not another. The fact that promoters of the backup camera point particularly to saving children as a prime benefit of the proposed new rule prompted my use of that particular hypothetical. It is not a statement reflecting my views about abortion or what factors may or may not go into a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy. It is not a proposal that we bribe women to carry to term. It is merely an illustration. It seems you are unable to comprehend that and would prefer to ascribe malicious motives to me. I call foul.

 

[ERD50]

Gumby did the math based on a backhanded and cynical attempt to trivialize the decision to terminate a pregnancy by claiming he'd bribe women to carry babies to term. If you considered that a serious reply and proposal, then we really have no common ground on which to converse about the topic.

Regardless, different assumptions (assigning a higher value of life than NHTSA did, and taking Gumby's partisan irrelevancies out of the calculations) yields the opposite result. Reasonable people disagree. It is critically important to understand that in order to understand what other people say to you. Clearly, that which you prefer didn't prevail in this case. That's life.

Well, I do agree with you that his comparison was quite off the wall - I'm not (and will not) talk about that.

But assuming his math regarding $/benefit (reduced death, injuries, and property damage) on the cameras is correct, then it does strike me as a high ratio, and I imagine (though have not given any examples) that there could likely be more effective uses for that money.

The only thing we seem to be disagreeing on is whether backup cameras are a clear-cut best use of our funds to reduce death, injuries, and property damage. I think the question is open.

In the overall scheme of dumb things the govt mandates, I doubt this would make the top 100. It may be far from optimal, but it isn't outright stupid or bad, IMO.

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

The only thing we seem to be disagreeing on is whether backup cameras are a clear-cut best use of our funds to reduce death, injuries, and property damage. I think the question is open.

Which has pretty much been my point from the beginning. Emotion is no substitute for analysis when it comes to making public policy. A point that I believe you yourself have made many times on this forum.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
The only thing we seem to be disagreeing on is whether backup cameras are a clear-cut best use of our funds to reduce death, injuries, and property damage. I think the question is open.

Which has pretty much been my point from the beginning. Emotion is no substitute for analysis when it comes to making public policy. A point that I believe you yourself have made many times on this forum.

Agreed, but you are losing me ...

Looking back, it wasn't until post #117 that you said you looked at the numbers. But in post # 111, you said:

I think the backup camera is a fine option for those who see some value in it. I don't think it should be mandatory for everyone.

.... So I'm lost as to how you came to the conclusion that they should not be mandatory before you looked at the numbers? It would appear to be an emotional response.

I'm still undecided, but just as I said earlier (and I'll repeat here for clarity), if your analysis was correct/close, it does strike me as a large cost relative to benefit, and I would think there are better 'bang for the buck' places to invest that money. I'm not sure what those would be offhand, but I'd bet that some experts in traffic safety have a list.

I don't think Solar Roads are one of them

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Some numbers:
WP Article "How Much Does it Cost to Save a Life?"
From the article (1993 numbers). Figures are "dollars per life-year saved". Going this route avoids the emotional/political minefield of the surrogate mother example:

• -child safety seats in cars, $73,000
• -flammability standards in upholstered furniture, $300
• -flammability standards in childrens clothing, size 7-14, $15,000,000
• -flammability standards in childrens clothing, size 0-6x, $220,000
• -child resistant cigarette lighters, $42,000
• -signal arms on school buses, $420,000
• -influenza vaccine age 5+ $1,300

The article has a link to a much bigger study of this, with hundreds of examples. Including (1993 costs):
Smoke detectors in homes: $210,000
Widen shoulders on rural two-lane roads to 5 feet (from 2 feet): $120,000
One-time cervical cancer screening for women age 38: $1,200
Prenatal care for pregnant women: $ 2,100

If these camera systems are going to cost about $200 x 20 million new cars/trucks sold per year in the US, and if 60 lives per year will be saved (approx 50 life-years average per case, my guesstimate) by the cameras, we're at about $1 million per life-year saved. Even if we double the 1993 costs in the article to account for inflation, it is clear that LOTS of things have much more bang-for-the-buck than these backup cameras, at least until those opportunities are used up. Heck, just making everyone in a vehicle wear a $20 bicycle helmet would probably be a better payoff.

 

[Texas Proud]

Agreed, but you are losing me ...

Looking back, it wasn't until post #117 that you said you looked at the numbers. But in post # 111, you said:




.... So I'm lost as to how you came to the conclusion that they should not be mandatory before you looked at the numbers? It would appear to be an emotional response.

I'm still undecided, but just as I said earlier (and I'll repeat here for clarity), if your analysis was correct/close, it does strike me as a large cost relative to benefit, and I would think there are better 'bang for the buck' places to invest that money. I'm not sure what those would be offhand, but I'd bet that some experts in traffic safety have a list.

I don't think Solar Roads are one of them

-ERD50

I am sure Gumby will respond.... but I think his first stmt does not relate to the mandate...

IOW, there are people who will value the backup camera more than $100... and would pay the extra money to have one... not a mandate... but it has 'value' to them...

 

[Gumby]

Some numbers:
WP Article "How Much Does it Cost to Save a Life?"
From the article (1993 numbers). Figures are "dollars per life-year saved". Going this route avoids the emotional/political minefield of the surrogate mother example:
The article has a link to a much bigger study of this, with hundreds of examples. Including (1993 costs):
Smoke detectors in homes: $210,000
Widen shoulders on rural two-lane roads to 5 feet (from 2 feet): $120,000
One-time cervical cancer screening for women age 38: $1,200
Prenatal care for pregnant women: $ 2,100

If these camera systems are going to cost about $200 x 20 million new cars/trucks sold per year in the US, and if 60 lives per year will be saved (approx 50 life-years average per case, my guesstimate) by the cameras, we're at about $1 million per life-year saved. Even if we double the 1993 costs in the article to account for inflation, it is clear that LOTS of things have much more bang-for-the-buck than these backup cameras, at least until those opportunities are used up. Heck, just making everyone in a vehicle wear a $20 bicycle helmet would probably be a better payoff.

Thank you for this information. It is more helpful than my admittedly farfetched hypothetical.

 

[bUU]

An argument examines facts and analyzes them to arrive at a proffered conclusion -- in this case that the proposed backup camera rule is uneconomic and should not be implemented.

Reasonable people disagree.

It seems you are unable to comprehend that and would prefer to ascribe malicious motives to me. I call foul.

Call foul all you want: Your attempt at "argument" was offensive as well fallacious. Since you disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Gumby]

I am sure Gumby will respond.... but I think his first stmt does not relate to the mandate...

IOW, there are people who will value the backup camera more than $100... and would pay the extra money to have one... not a mandate... but it has 'value' to them...

If I had small children around and a large SUV with limited visibility, I probably would see the value in a backup camera. But I don't and therefore I don't. It was, as you note, an observation about my personal valuation of the option, not a particular statement about the NHTSA rule. However, while it's hard to recreate precisely what one was thinking in the past, I suspect that underlying my statement was an intuitive view that it would be a waste of money for every last one of us to have one. It was actually ERD's post immediately following (#112) that prompted me to evaluate the rule on the numbers.

In any event, I have hijacked the original thread far beyond all recognition, so I'll stop now.

 

[MichaelB]

Thanks to Samclem and Gumby. I thought putting numbers to this exercize was useful and enlightening. It's not an off-topic discussion, the cost estimates being used don't include repair. I don't know if backup camera will have a higher failure rate than ABS or seat belt but I suspect yes and guess costly repair was not part of the calculation.

 

[ERD50]

I am sure Gumby will respond.... but I think his first stmt does not relate to the mandate...

IOW, there are people who will value the backup camera more than $100... and would pay the extra money to have one... not a mandate... but it has 'value' to them...

Well, I'm still a little lost, but that's OK, it looks like that conversation has run its course, I'll move on as well ...

Thanks to Samclem and Gumby. I thought putting numbers to this exercise was useful and enlightening. It's not an off-topic discussion, the cost estimates being used don't include repair. I don't know if backup camera will have a higher failure rate than ABS or seat belt but I suspect yes and guess costly repair was not part of the calculation.

For any safety mandate that makes good sense, I'd like to see a very long warranty period mandated as well. I'd go a step further, and say that any failure also results in a fine equal to the cost of the repair. That could go into a fund for other safety investments.

That would motivate the manufacturers to make these things reliable and repairable, and maybe use standardized modules and connectors where applicable to keep costs down.

-ERD50

 

[Mulligan]

I am sure Gumby will respond.... but I think his first stmt does not relate to the mandate...

IOW, there are people who will value the backup camera more than $100... and would pay the extra money to have one... not a mandate... but it has 'value' to them...

I have had to drive my parents vehicle around for them for a few city trips they needed done recently. I haven't even noticed the back up camera and do not even use it while driving. They, however, like it and use it, when they drive, so I believe there is value to them. I do not think they are worried about backing into kids. I think they are worried about mailboxes and other cars.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk