Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1ndomitablespirit t1_j52ipn7 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in The lights have been on at a Massachusetts school for over a year because no one can turn them off by Didyoucallforme

Jeez, people just latch onto the backup camera thing like lemmings, eh? I agree with you, but I had to buy a car last year when there weren't a lot of options. So I had to get one with a backup cam and all the bells and whistles. My car has remote start, but it only works with the app. People who are saying modern cars aren't IoT aren't paying attention.

−4

ghloperr t1_j52tkrc wrote

It's weird because the purpose of backup cameras is to avoid running over children... It comes off as really psycho when people get mad about it or refuse to use it.

8

1ndomitablespirit t1_j52wo0i wrote

I guess that makes weird sense if you don't want to be observant, but it isn't like there was an epidemic of child squishing before backup cameras. Before I had a car with one, I would see around me if there were someone nearby that could possibly be near my car when I backed out. If there were, I'd tell them to stay back, and then I'd watch them in my mirrors. Somehow, I managed to not run over any kids or bikes or anything.

The unintended consequence with tech like this is that it will only lead to people paying even less attention to their surroundings while operating a 2 ton machine that can go 100 mph.

People and things are still getting backed into even with cars with backup cameras because people are allowing themselves to be too distracted. There is no fix for willful obliviousness.

−4

ghloperr t1_j52x4ph wrote

https://www.rearviewsafety.com/safety/news/vehicle-safety-statistics-backovers

17,000 injuries and 200 deaths a year, and half of those are children. You literally cannot see a child in the review of a large truck, SUV, or crossover. It doesn't matter how observant you are. Really disheartening to see people so callously dismiss the deaths of over 100 children a year.

5

1ndomitablespirit t1_j52xrui wrote

Oh Christ, you sound like an Evangelical

−3

ghloperr t1_j52xxzy wrote

Good argument. I guess "I don't care about kids dying" isn't very convincing so you might as well turn to personal insults.

4

1ndomitablespirit t1_j52yb1v wrote

That's literally what pro-lifers say. It is a dishonest response from them, and is from you too. Not thinking backup cameras are the bees knees does not make someone pro-child death. Crappy emotional logic to deflect the point is exactly what Evangelicals do.

0

ghloperr t1_j52ys2y wrote

Did you just equate a woman getting an abortion with someone running a kid over lol

5

1ndomitablespirit t1_j531260 wrote

If that's what you take from it, sure. Again, another thing Evangelicals do is make a statement that is only possible by willfully ignoring the content of the entire argument. Maybe you're a troll, and that's cool, but if you are being honest with your responses, then yes, you argue in a dishonest way that is very similar to that of pro-lifers. I am not trying to insult you. I am just saying that you may share a certain "logic" that is not open-minded nor fully rational. If you want to help the world, being dogmatic and obtuse isn't helpful.

1

ghloperr t1_j53236w wrote

You're hating on child safety features in cars for no logical reason other than "technology and internet bad" and somehow I'm the dogmatic one.

You have no argument and, again, are using personal attacks and calling me a christian evangelical (???) instead of actually defending your position. Your argument being that evangelicals also base their arguments around child safety so I'm like them? Hitler didn't like smoking, does that mean that people who are anti smoking are nazis?

I'm not a troll, I was trying to see if you had any empathy for dead toddlers but I guess not.

1

SaltyBarDog t1_j54y7ss wrote

If a fetus was behind my car that would be a salient argument. Just take the "L" and move on.

2