The manufacturers were opposed to them being required. I think they claimed it would cost an extra $200-250 per car. But they sure won’t pass up on the ads if they think they can get away with it!
Comment on Parking police
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Rear view cameras have been required by law for a few years now. I’m pretty sure it was a ploy by manufacturers to get a screen on every dashboard so they could sell ads.
jqubed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Negative. They were very against the law. A guy backed over and killed his own child and made it a multi year mission to force back up cameras as a requirement. Politicians look bad if they don’t want to “save the children.”
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Politicians look bad if they don’t want to “save the children.”
How many school shootings so far this year?
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Clearly that’s an unsolvable problem 😉
kameecoding@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Peak lemming take
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
They’re not wrong? It’s an open secret in the business world that information is the new gold. M
If something is free, you’re the product.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
But a rear view camera isn’t free, you usually buy it as an option.
Also, I have never seen an ad on any dashboard screen. Maybe if you installed some android app, but never from the manufacturer themselves.
kif@lemmy.nz 2 weeks ago
I mean, it’s not an option if it’s required by law. As to your second point, I have seen news articles talking about “sponsored recommendations”, but nothing as blatant as tv/radio ads. stuff.co.nz/…/ev-drivers-be-bombarded-incar-adver…
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
My guess is that you’re not in the US like I am, but I hear so many ridiculous stories and laws over there which are privacy-invasive, because it is not a secret that corporations and governments want data to surveil and manipulate its citizens, and then train AI.
dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
I am the product of linux
stickly@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
They’re the manufacturers. They could just… Put a screen in anyway?
Consumers definitely want the cameras regardless of legislation. It’s one of the very few decent features added to cars recently.
UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
People in their big SUVs were running over their kids in the driveway. Similar to people in their Ford exploders that were rolling over because they didn’t check their tire pressures and the negligence of Firestone causing tires to seperate, so they now have tpms sensors.
Grostleton@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Yo fuck those sensors tho. My old ass car has em and they started all dying from age, fuckers want 90 bucks each plus whatever bullshit amount for labor to replace them, so now I gotta click past a stupid warning whenever I start my car to see the digital speedometer 🙄
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Dealer pricing?
Grostleton@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
IDK, I looked around online and the ones I need cost about what they were saying wherever I looked. Even if it was $50 each tho it’s too much, imo, just to get rid of a minor annoyance.
FishFace@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
This is a conspiracy theory as nuts as fake moon landings
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Law where??? I still see junker cars from the 60s driving around here where I live.
clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
For new car sales.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
us transportation made it a law in 2014 but effective 2018 that all vehicles made after 2018 under 10000 pounds are required to have a backup screen. so any new car made in the reletive past decade will probably have one. laws for cars are not retroactive usually.
dryfter@ani.social 3 weeks ago
Just curious if you’re aware of any laws for cars that ARE/HAVE BEEN retroactive?
Just generically I can’t really think of anything that “could be”, but I’m no mechanic or lawyer. 🤣
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
off the top of my head, no. but I know for the seatbelt law at least, if a car before the mandatory seatbelt law had optional seatbelts, having the seatbelt became mandatory. Cars that had no seatbelts nor had optional ones are exempt.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Maybe around car alarms?
The after market ones are awful, but car theft in the early 2000s was also way higher (like 2x) than anything we’ve seen since.
velindora@lemmy.cafe 3 weeks ago
Portland? Haha
CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’ve never seen an ad on my car’s screen. My brother’s car from 2013 has a backup camera, and that car literally cannot communicate to any server that could serve ads.
If car companies wanted to put ads on screens, they wouldn’t need an excuse to put in a screen, they’d just do it. But they wouldn’t do that, because ads are a safety hazard and they’d have their pants sued off. I can’t even connect a new Bluetooth device to my car (pressing 1 button) unless the parking brake is applied. Stellantis is in hot water for their braindead attempt at “ads” in their cars, and that’s just a pop-up that shows up when the car is stopped.
Not even Google maps advertises to me when I use Android Auto, and ads are Google’s thing
LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
It is the only new feature in cars since excluding crash safety that has made them safer
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I also hate ads, but I think it was more likely to minimize how many children old people were squashing :
www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/…/2130