this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
69 points (98.6% liked)

politics

26475 readers
2254 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dgdft@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] jfrnz@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seatbelt alarm seems to need more weight than the backseat check alarm.

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 1 points 23 hours ago

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.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

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

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] jfrnz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jfrnz@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

Okay so we should do either everything or nothing, no solutions can exist between extremes. Got it 🙄

[–] dgdft@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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?

[–] jfrnz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This isn’t the fault of regulators. They would have done this regardless of backup camera regulation.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jfrnz@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

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.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

They would have done the screens without the backup cameras.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Not if those distracting screens were prohibited.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 2 points 19 hours ago

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.

[–] jfrnz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dgdft@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] jfrnz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because it’s hard enough to get regulation passed, and telemetry is completely unrelated to backup cameras.

[–] dgdft@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] evenglow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago

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.