If you don't want a backup mirror don't buy a new car. They are already standard equipment on 90% of the new cars sold. This regulation is not really going to have that much of an economic effect except on possibly some junk cars that would come out of China.
There are legitimate reasons for some federal regulations. Safety is a legitimate ground for regulation of interstate commerce.
The Commerce Clause is often abused with unconstitutional burdensome regulations, but the safety of vehicles sold and used in interstate commerce is a legitimate concern of the federal government.
Our founders did put the commerce clause in the constitution. The federal government does have a legitimate role in the regulation of interstate commerce and vehicle safety is a legitimate purpose for which that clause can be used. If you don't like it, then change the Constitution.
You know, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but my overall issue is that the negative impact(s) - several which have been cited here- are never taken into account. Will the addition of these cause additional deaths and accidents? Of course. Have “they” looked into it in any attempt at logical reasoning? Of course not.
Wrong. Don't FORCE your views on the marketplace because you're too stupid to LOOK before you back-up, dumbass.
They're not "standard equipment" on 90% of new cars. You have no flipping clue what you're talking about. They're a luxury priced item. You don't know JACK about which cars do or do not have them.
There are legitimate reasons for some federal regulations. Safety is a legitimate ground for regulation of interstate commerce.
This isn't one of them at $520,000,000 per "life saved."
The Commerce Clause is often abused with unconstitutional burdensome regulations, but the safety of vehicles sold and used in interstate commerce is a legitimate concern of the federal government.
The Commerce Clause is being abused here also. Safety has nothing to do with it, it's about putting more money in the Auto Union's pockets. Remember them? They have majority stakeholder status in both GM and Chrysler/Fiat.
You have no damn' clue.
Our founders did put the commerce clause in the constitution. The federal government does have a legitimate role in the regulation of interstate commerce and vehicle safety is a legitimate purpose for which that clause can be used. If you don't like it, then change the Constitution.
Oh, I get it, because you're a nanny state statist who insists on putting your hands in my wallet when buying a new car, I should change the Constitution to stop you from doing so? Oh you're a hoot!
I don't need to change the Constitution to stop the likes of you. The Free Market's gonna have a say on this.
If back-up cameras are standard equipment on 90% of new vehicles, why is a government mandate needed?
It appears you want to empower government as the sole arbiter of what constitutes safe practices. In other words, government is charged to provide a risk free environment. I have a more economical and sensible solution.
I think your drivers license should have been suspended for one-year as a result of your accident. That would have more impact on safety than requiring everyone else buy a camera. You could rely on public transportation, which would make many of us feel safer. That puts the hardship on you where it belongs, not on people that are better and more conscientious drivers.