By Eric Peters on 3.2.07 @ 12:07AM
A parent who needs a TV screen to keep him from running over his children is doing a lousy job raising them.
Should back-up cameras (designed to prevent kids from being run
over by vehicles moving in reverse) be mandatory equipment in every
new car sold? If legislation introduced by Sens. Hillary Clinton
and John Sununu -- the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act
-- is signed into law, they will be.
But should they?
A number of not-unreasonable objections might be raised. Just in
the way of food for thought:
For one (and unlike, say, padded dashboards or even anti-lock
brakes) the "safety" advantage of back-up cameras is debatable. In
the first place, one could all but eliminate the chances of running
over a child by making sure no babies or small kids are left
sitting in the path of the vehicle before one even thinks of
putting the vehicle in reverse. This does not seem an undue burden.
Small children should be supervised at all times to begin with;
it's arguably negligent (and not the vehicle's fault) to operate
any machinery when small children are present. Lawn mowers -- or
SUVs. Make sure the kids are not nearby. Turn your head; take a
look back there.
It's not all that difficult.
The real problem is harried, over-extended (and thus
not-paying-attention) parents aren't doing that. With one hand on
the cell phone and half their attention someplace else -- and
always in a big hurry -- they jump in the vehicle and throw it in
Reverse with nary a thought to what might be laying in harm's
way.
And since our society's first impulse is to look anywhere but in
the mirror for a scapegoat, the automakers get targeted. It's their
fault -- for not having closed-circuit cameras (with jarring
buzzers, of course) to warn us of our own negligence before we have
to deal with the consequences of that negligence.
One feels terrible for the children who have been harmed as a
result of parental negligence. But it is, ultimately, an issue of
parental negligence. Adding expensive idiot-proofing technology to
vehicles doesn't address the underlying idiocy; it will almost
certainly find expression elsewhere.
Closed circuit monitors and back-up cameras add yet another
potential distraction to the vehicle -- which is itself a safety
hazard. Instead of paying attention to what's going on around us,
we gape at a TV screen. Brilliant. Moreover, it's probably not
savvy to encourage yet more reliance on yet more technology --
rather than encouraging people to using their brains (and,
hopefully, common sense).
Another point: Not everyone has kids. In fact, more than half
the population doesn't have kids. Forcing them to buy back-up
cameras designed specifically to prevent the driver from running
over a small child while backing up is not much different, when you
think about it, from requiring everyone to drive a minivan with
baby seats -- kids or not.
No kids, no need for a back-up camera. But Senators Clinton and
Sununu want to score political points with the "safety" lobby --
and hand the bill to you.
And the bill is considerable. Scan the options sheets of new
cars that offer back-up cameras as optional equipment. The less
expensive ones are several hundred dollars. Some are "bundled" with
other things --like GPS navigation -- that add $1,000 or more to
the bottom line. Bear in mind, the technology requires a closed
circuit TV monitor built into the dashboard someplace, along with
the cameras themselves and all the related gizmos and gadgetry.
On top of that, like any complex system, eventually, the thing
will stop working or need expensive repairs if you own the vehicle
more than couple of years. Pity the second owner -- or you, if you
are the kind of person who keeps his car for eight or ten years or
more.
The bill's out there, waiting for you.
For Sens. Clinton and Sununu, a couple hundred bucks more or
less (or even $1,000) on the front end -- and whatever it costs to
fix the thing down the road -- is just so much small change. They
are both millionaires and can afford to indulge themselves. Most of
us, of course, are not -- and cannot. A couple extra hundred bucks
can be a very big deal indeed -- let alone $1,000 (or more).
Especially when turning around to look before we back up -- and
making sure we know where our kids are before we do -- is so much
cheaper.
topics:
Hillary Clinton, Law, NATO
