I call this the 'Ooh, shiny!' principle. People buy new cell phones every year not because they need (or use) any more functionality, but because it's new and shiny. We increasingly see people buy cars based on the same principle.

... and I suspect many posters are only 13, so they have no real experience with cars.

It exchanges a mechanical system for a computer/electrical system. Sure, there's less to mechanically fail, but there's more that is subject to programming and electronics. Repairs go from looking for a broken part to looking for bugs & glitches.

Back-up cameras are being mandated because of a sob story of someone backing over their child. But even that took years.

Are all manufacturers on board with that system? The last time I checked, everyone was doing things a little differently.

I've always had a philosophical problem with requiring an automatic to go through reverse. I've thought a shift lever that works like

that image makes me sad

It's easy to say "best chance," but few know what that costs.

For the Mazda3, I blame the stylists more than the need for the plate. They could have created a space for it other than in the middle of the grille like they did with the 6.

I drove an Escort with these. Something you learned quickly was to never open the door to look or reach out of the car, e.g., hitting a button for a gate. They would rap around your arm/neck and pull you out of the seat. The other thing it did was sometimes try to move the wrong direction. Instead of moving away, it…

I learned a long time ago that fault doesn't matter. When you get hit, you lose regardless who is to blame. I also learned that even if I am not at fault, I can often prevent the incident, anyway. That's the theory behind defensive driving.

I'm all for safety, but I recognize there is a limit to the benefits of regulation. There comes a point where the costs outweigh the benefits, and also a point where people become complacent and casual with safety. Pedestrian impact regulations & other impact requirements have led to terrible visibility out of cars,…

Pretty much every car enthusiast on the internet sounds like a hipster.

Per the NHTSA's estimates, it will add around $100 on ave to every new car. Also per their estimates, it won't save over 100 lives each year. Given their expectations for sales volumes, it works out to $18M per life saved.
How expensive is that? It seems excessive to me.

More people die each year falling out of bed than by being backed over. And drivers with the cameras don't even use them that often because that's just how lazy we are. Per the NHTSA's own figures, this rule will cost ~$18M/life saved. Personally, I'm sure there are better ways to spend that money to save lives.

No. Fallon isn't funny.

I agree. They may show some teaser renderings & maybe some details on the engine, but won't see the full car till this fall.

My 13 yr old stereo has never had lag issues, never need time to boot up/read files/pair to my phone. It has never crashed. I can identify every button without looking at it. It still looks good in my car, even 13 yrs later, and I doubt it will look bad after another 13.

You make a very critical point—do not replace a control unless that control makes the job simpler/easier.

Indeed. I also have gotten great mileage out of my Look-at-the-Map-before-You-Leave-So-You-Know-Where-You're-Going system.