There is already a graduated system of punishment that is far, far too lenient IMO. First time offenders are often let off with a slap on the wrist. Then there is a gradual ratcheting up of punishment as they continue to be repeat offenders. How else do you explain people who are in the paper being charged with their 8th or more offense? Then when they do go on trial, the lawyers can have all kinds of information suppressed that would certainly sway a jury. BTDTBTTS. Sat on a jury where the guy was let go. Found out afterward he was a multiple repeat offender. That fact was inadmissible as well as the fact he had refused a breathalyzer. The cops were jerks on the stand and that didn’t help, but c’mon…
Only time I have been called for jury duty was a civil case of an elderly couple suing a young man for damages from his alleged driving drunk, running a red light at high speed and hitting their car. During potential juror questioning I properly answered, yes, a cousin was killed by a drunk driver. The young defense attorney made the mistake of asking couldn’t it have been equally her fault. I said as she was properly wearing her seat belt riding in the back seat of a car driven below speed limit by a sober driver and was killed when a drunk driving in excess of 100 mph crossed the center line I wasn’t certain which of her bloody mangled body parts the attorney considered at fault for her death. Not surprisingly, I wasn’t seated on the petit panel of jurors.
BTW, years later I am still puzzled by the defense attorney. Forty perspective jurors all filled out long questionaires from both sides attorneys. Then attorneys could ask follow up questions. I wasn’t the only prospective juror asked a question by the defense which seemed oddly poisoning of the jury pool against his own client.
Returning to the original topic about unsafe car features . . . I don’t understand the reason for the current car and SUV styling trend that badly impairs outward visibility. No wonder backup cameras are now mandated. Rearward visibility is horrid on most models with huge blind spots.
The reason prosecutors are so aggressive is that voters vote for the law and order prosecutors. If a prosecutor drops a case against someone for any reason, it goes in their loss column, the the next challenger will use that against him or her.
Be careful what you ask for and be very careful of what and who you vote for.
Styling. There’s no real engineering reason why visibility has to be as poor as it is on many models. While modern bucket seats with headrests have made it impossible to put one’s arm over the seat and look out the back window he way we used to, rearward visibility could certainly be improved… except it might ruin the styling.
Well as far as lawyers asking dumb questions, from the time I spent on the juries, there are some pretty dumb lawyers. One of the dumbest I saw was the son of a judge that I had some issues with. One of the questions he should have asked me is if I knew his father and if that would influence my judgement? I tried to be fair anyway regardless of my bitterness with his father. Heh heh. I voted guilty of DUI as did the others.
I’ve been call to jury duty three times. Never been selected for the panel and never attempted to wiesel out of it. ( once was for the federal court in Albuquerque, 140m 1way )
Around these parts there is a lot of DUI and , just by my town alone, could been seen as pre-decided for the harshest penalty .
Also, when selecting a jury of their piers, I’m just a tad too white unless they’re purposely picking a mixed group.
Had I been chosen for that jury I would have made no assumptions and would have been careful to listen to all the evidence and arguments from both sides. My caustic reply to the screening question by the defense was prompted by the lawyer’s tone of voice, facial expression and body language as much or more than by the question itself. I could have expected the complainants’ counsel to use that question to influence all potential jurors but remain baffled why the defendant’s counsel asked. Weird.
Anyway, I digress from car related discourse. My apologies.
As TSM notes, I miss being able to turn and look behind the car with arm over the back of the seat. I make use of the backup camera on my car but do not rely exclusively on it.
I find the backup camera almost useless. It’s washed out by the sun frequently, and when it’s not, you have to switch your attention between the 3 mirrors and the camera, meaning you don’t really look at any one closely.
And yes, the visibility problems on today’s cars is horrible and the car manufacturers should be ashamed. Not that they care…
When I traded cars last year one of my top criteria was outward visibility and ability to check blind spots. Quite a few models were quickly eliminated due to horrid blind spot styling.
I find the backup camera somewhat useful in the wifes new car, but hope people do not rely on the backup camera forgetting to look for oncoming traffic,
I muat correct my previous comment . . . I do still turn with arm on the back of the passenger bucket seat but with high headrests, lack of bench seat back, and bolstered bucket seat, I cannot turn around as fully nor get a full clear owls eye view out back.
I’ve long said that I’d like to have a set of three rear-facing cameras arranged such that combined they form a 180 degree panoramic view from the left side through the rear and to the right side of the car. Perhaps two of them could be mounted on the front fenders, the way many old sports car mirrors used to be (only a camera would be much smaller). I’d want the display to be a three-part segmented “screen” high up on the dashboard, the first thing below the dashboard’s upper edge, right in front of the driver. Or even as a strip of displays mounted on top of the dash, lust below the driver’s windshield view.
Even an aftermarket system consisting of three cameras and a three-segment screen would be fantastic. With today’s technology, it would seem highly viable. And could probably be affordable as well.
Anybody want to join me on “Shark Tank”?? 
Styling. There's no real engineering reason why visibility has to be as poor as it is on many models.
Can go the exact opposite and design a car with FANTASTIC visibility…but is butt ugly…Remember the AMC Pacer?
I've long said that I'd like to have a set of three rear-facing cameras arranged such that combined they form a 180 degree panoramic view from the left side through the rear and to the right side of the car.
In order for cameras to replace mirrors…they have to do a better job making sure it works in all kinds of weather. The camera on my highlander is useless if it’s raining or snowing.
I’d have no problem with a car looking like the Pacer. For me, functionality outweighs style by a large margin.
But how about a 1970 volvo wagon for great visibility? It has classic style, IMHO.
I agree Mike, they haven’t invested much in making them useful in all conditions. Look at the side mirror, it has a housing projection to protect the surface from rain/snow/splash. They even heat side mirrors to reduce fogging.
The rear view cameras are relatively new and I believe mostly just designed to meet the minimum mandated requirement(s). I believe that will change as they become more ubiquitous.
For example, why not replace that cheap pinhole camera and flat lens with a stereographic fisheye lens? Cost difference would be negligible…and with some simple software, they could easily remap the image to produce an almost non-distorted 180 deg panoramic view. My Ody has the camera tucked under a lip in the rear door so that helps in rain/snow but a simple lip projection on top (like you see on traffic lights) could be used to enhance the protection…etc…