SmashTagLives t1_j6hjtih wrote

You’re splitting hairs. You know I meant “cameras enable poor drivers” just as much as I meant that they can indeed make a driver less attentive than they otherwise would be. And again, I’m basing this on how everyone I know drives. Before, and after, and the ones only with cameras.

It is an opinion and a theory, difficult to quantify a metric for.

So now that all of that is settled, answer my question.


SmashTagLives t1_j6h9z7v wrote

I’m quoting the evidence you posted?

And you say it yourself “improve the chances of a careful driver”

I’m saying that the careful driver shouldn’t need a camera to avoid running over a child.

The evidence you posted from that class action lawsuit site, cites this evidence. I’m not “waffling” (unless you’re using that word incorrectly) because I haven’t changed my mind.

I’ve been steadfast in my claim that cameras enable poor drivers in a similar way that automatic parallel parking does. Not in the silly way you think, but in the way that it removes the operator from learning how to be careful actually driving a vehicle. And the more it enables lack of skill and awareness.

You completely ignored my direct questions in my last reply, about the drivers running over their babies, the statistic you sent me, then mocked me for “quoting”. Who are they?

Instead you respond with statistical platitudes and boring verbs that have two different continental definitions.

So I ask again, you think that the babies being killed are gonna be saved by cameras?

Or are you going to try again to poorly slap together a pathetic little jab, vaguely refer me to “the stats” and drop another buzzword to avoid my questions


SmashTagLives t1_j6h7z7x wrote

“The evidence supports this”...

The evidence supports my point; which is that 50 times a week in the United States, people who shouldn’t be driving any car, no matter how many, or how few cameras it has, have no business driving whatsoever. Do you disagree?

Oh and remember, the ages of the baby road kill is 12-24 months. 12-24 months. I contend this age group supports my baby night crawler theory. Because I’m the father of a three year old. And there weren’t many times he was quick enough to surprise someone with or without a camera in their car. Because they can barely walk.

So it may stand to reason that it’s the parents or elderly family members running over relatives. At BEST it would be a neighbor. I mean how far can a 1-2 year old make it in the time it takes for their caregiver to see them, or the driver to back out of the driveway they LIVE IN.

you are saying “these cameras save lives” and I’m saying “No they don’t, the assholes that need them aren’t even paying attention”

I make a point. Admit it


SmashTagLives t1_j6gzahd wrote

That’s what you say. I say I’ve seen different. I say that the screen detracts from the actual skill it takes to be aware of your surroundings. I say that the screen removes you from the visceral Reality of commanding a motor vehicle. I say that if you take a bad driver and give them a camera, they will be equally as bad. But, now they will pass a test easier.

You say it doesn’t, but you really aren’t basing that on anything other than “you think”. It’s not like you are Giving me raw data about the reduction in vehicle fatalities. Only the data of morons running over kids backing out Of their driveway. You really think a camera can help this person? They are the people looking into the camera as they hit the gas instead of the brake.

And you have to admit, I made a point. Those cameras aren’t there because car companies or the government give a shit about people being safe. Because if they did, they would mandate bangs they would make an actual impact


SmashTagLives t1_j6ch7fo wrote

I’m not being silly. And I contend it is you sir, that is becoming sillier.

Extra protective gear? Yeah, a helmet is gonna save a dude going 200 riding a rocket into an F150.

We also have Laws like negligible man slaughter, but we got the cameras anyhow. So why aren’t there breathalyzer in every car? Could it be because booze is taxed? Or because auto companies know people won’t buy a car with one if they can get one without?

If you think cameras have been put in place because the government wants people to be safe, you’re very silly indeed. And if you think that the auto industry cares about human lives over profit, you’re a regular clown.


SmashTagLives t1_j6cew2y wrote

I’m not being silly whatsoever. Im saying the deaths you’re talking about are almost certainly all caused by incompetent drivers that have no business owning a car.

And you think cameras are mandated for safety? Now who is being silly. If the auto industry, or the government actually cares about safety, they wouldn’t go to “camera” for it.

They would do things like “maybe cars shouldn’t be allowed to exceed the speed limit by 100 miles an hour” or even “hey, maybe motor bikes shouldn’t be a thing”.

But instead of adding a breathalyzer to every car decades ago, they’ve added cameras to really Make a difference!

I think you need a camera to pull your head out of your ass


SmashTagLives t1_j6c8m8x wrote

Incorrect. Unless you run over baby night-crawler, or you are backing up through a playground, you have no excuse for terrible, criminally negligent driving.

And if I wasn’t clear, I’m saying that cameras are a good thing. A very important new safety feature.

But if you need a camera to avoid killing children, you shouldn’t be driving at all. It’s situational awareness. It’s knowing the difference between being in a school parking lot, or pulling out from a lone cabin, and everything in between.

Cameras are great, but the people that need them shouldn’t be allowed on the road.


SmashTagLives t1_j6bxhzf wrote

Wow, coming out hot with calling me an “asshat”.

Perhaps you fall into the camp of people that shouldn’t be allowed to drive, you know, stupid idiots.

What I said wasn’t against cameras. They are an important safety feature. I’m all for them.

What I’m saying is that I’m not a piece of shit that can’t drive a car. I’m saying that the reasons cameras exist is BECAUSE stupid people (you) don’t understand how to.

You check your surroundings by physically exiting the vehicle. You check underneath your car (I’m sure one day, when you or someone as stupid, run over a sleeping child, the under-car camera will exist), you check your surroundings. You are aware if you are at a playground, or at a deserted parking lot.


I’m saying that cameras are very important. BUT; if you are killing kids without a rearview camera, you can eat my shit. You shouldn’t be on the road to begin with.

Does this compute? Or do you need a camera


SmashTagLives t1_j6bj42a wrote

Oh damn. I’m sorry dude. That’s actually a completely legit response. I took my test in that camping van becuae we needed something for my quadriplegic father to fit in with his wheelchair.

But I stick to my guns about passing the test without them when it isn’t an accessibility issue.

I swear that my mom, brother, and wife, have become less attentive drivers after getting a car with a camera as well.

I guess what I’m actually saying is that most people are terrible drivers, and it isn’t an extra vantage point that should be blamed


SmashTagLives t1_j6biejz wrote

Well shit if it’s mandated then I guess every driver is more capable now! And I guess they are retrofitting SO MANY cars with them!

I’m saying if you need a camera to drive, you shouldn’t be allowed to drive. You know why rearview camera are a thing? Becuae so many clowns can’t understand something might be behind them, and check for it/be aware of their surroundings.

I ask you, when do you use yours? Backing out of your driveway? A parking spot? Because every person I drive with that was raised with them stares into them like they are playing a video game, not even looking up or to the side or basically anywhere else.