A recent law requiring back up assistance cameras to be installed on all new cars will go into effect in May 2018, and not all are singing its praises. The rule was first introduced in response to staggering statistics that revealed the growing dangers of driving on congested roads. About 200 people are killed, and an additional 14,000 are injured annually in the United States.
Regrettably, nearly half of these are children under the age of five, according to a recent article published on autoblog.com. A government analysis report found the reason for the disproportionate number of children to adult injuries to be a result of the inability of the driver to see the child’s small stature from the rearview mirror. This is a tragic accident that the report claimed could be greatly reduced with the installation of back up cameras that allow a full view of space behind the vehicle.
While, intuitively, the new requirement would save lives and be hard to object to, opponents point to what they believe will be an elevated price tag of new vehicles as an unfair impression of regulation on the consumer marketplace, though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported the cost would only be $43-45 on cars with pre-installed visual display, and $132-142 for cars without visual systems.
As debate grows throughout the country over what role the government should play in regulating industry as a whole, it is important that we do not lose sight of the benefits, and necessity, of some of this regulation. Regardless of one’s stance on the legalization of, say, drugs or abortions, measures like the requirement of back up cameras should, morally speaking, come with no opposition whatsoever.
As resistance to government regulation goes, it seems to nearly always break down into value; that of monetary value and personal values, such as religious dispositions and beliefs, and that’s a good thing.
Our country offers us the freedom to debate and express viewpoints without retribution. The problem lies in when this freedom is exploited to the point of objection to regulation that will save hundreds of lives a year.
To see the value, morally and financially, of these cameras, one need only look to those who have lost a child to such tragic circumstances.
Opponents of the law might be hard pressed to continue to advocate against the cameras when faced with a mother placing toys and blankets on her son’s grave, or a father having to explain to his son why his sister won’t be coming home. Janette Fennell, the president and founder of the nonprofit organization KidsAndCars.org, summed it up best by saying, “These are not accidents. These are predictable, preventable tragedies.”
