Print 71 comment(s) - last by PCMerlin.. on Apr 12 at 1:56 PM

Secretary of Transportation repeatedly postponed making a decision on this legislation

Lawmakers in Washington have been considering a mandate that would force automakers to install rear view cameras in most all-new vehicles. Two members of Congress and parents of children injured (or killed) by inattentive drivers backing over them are now calling on regulators to finalize the regulations.

The advocates are urging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to finalize regulations that have been delayed four times since 2011. Congress approved legislation in 2007 that was signed into law by President George W Bush requiring the government to set regulations for rear visibility by February 28, 2011.
However, that date has come and gone many times with Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood repeatedly choosing to delay making a decision on the rule.

The NHTSA has proposed standards that would have required automakers to install backup cameras on all new vehicles by the year 2014. The regulation was expected to be in effect by September of 2014 and was estimated to cost the auto industry in the area of $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion annually. The regulation would also likely increase the purchase price of new vehicles.

NHTSA administrator David Strickland recently said that the ruling would happen "at some point in the near future." He did point out that the rule is still under review, commenting, "We are still working through a number of issues. It's a very important rule for the department… We want to make sure we get it right."

The backup camera regulations are intended to help eliminate the blind spots on vehicles that could obscure pedestrians, particularly the elderly and children, from the driver's view. The NHTSA says that about 100 children age 5 or under die each year in backup accidents and more than half of those are one year old or younger. 

Source: Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

this is flawed rulemaking
By chromal on 4/9/2013 10:07:27 AM , Rating: 5
Thanks. Because of oblivious drivers in large SUVs, I've got to have a backup camera in any new subcompact, compact, or convertible/roadster I buy? This is ridiculous, any good driver knows you turn your head to face the direction your vehicle is moving. This should absolutely only be mandatory on vehicles with poor rearward visibility. It should not be a one-size-fits-all requirement, period.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By lagomorpha on 4/9/2013 10:11:10 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Sure, mandate it on giant poor visibility SUVs driven by retarded mothers but there is no reason to add several hundred dollars to the price of a hatchback that doesn't have visibility problems.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By FITCamaro on 4/9/2013 10:35:25 AM , Rating: 3
Or just don't mandate it on anything. Why make already expensive SUVs even more expensive? We didn't have back up cameras in the 60s and 70s yet this didn't seem to be a problem.

This is a people problem, not a technology one. Even having the camera doesn't make accidents stop happening. Now people will likely entirely become dependent on the camera. So instead of looking around possibly, they'll just stare at the camera as they back up. Ignoring cars, people riding bikes, or people running coming in from either side until it's in the camera at which point its probably too late.

Then they'll blame the camera for not showing it.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Brandon Hill on 4/9/2013 10:40:34 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. My dad has a backup camera in his '11 Durango and it's so distracting. I'm so used to looking left and right (multiple times) and through the rear window to backup.

When you look solely at the screen, you zone out miss if someone is directly beside your vehicle and just lack overall situational awareness.

It's a crutch being pushed by people who can't even keep tabs on their own kids.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By ClownPuncher on 4/9/2013 11:09:47 AM , Rating: 3
Hey, we need the government to step in and make everything more expensive because 1% of the population is inept.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Dr of crap on 4/9/2013 12:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's much smaller than 1% !!
And while we're at it -
How about forward mirrors on the passenger side so you can see how close you are and not swerve way out to the left to avoid things,
louder horns so that the hard of hearing can HEAR you when you use them to tell the inept that they are doing something wrong,
self volume reducing radios so that you can hear the ambulance coming up behind you and move over,
and while I'm at it - a common sense hat that MAKES you smarter behind the wheel and MAKES you pay attention to WHICH exit you need to take!

If they can mandate cameras to save 300 kids, why not something really useful that'll save much more lives!!

By ClownPuncher on 4/9/2013 1:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is much smaller than 1%. I was being extremely generous.

I would bet that back up cameras will do absolutely nothing to stop injury and death from happening.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Adonlude on 4/9/2013 12:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Tech cannot replace good old fasioned parental supervision.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Sazabi19 on 4/9/2013 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't find mine distracting at all, but I do find it quite helpful. My '11 Nissan Rogue (crossover) has a small back window and some decent blind spots. I like the idea of backup cams and think they are a great addition to autos. With that being said I don't think it should be MANDATED, but instead able to be offered any any vehicle after 201x year as a low cost option. These shouldn't be expensive as the cam nor the screen need to have great resolution, not saying blurry or laggy, but not HD. I can't stand seeing people backup and still have 15ft of clear space behind them to pull forward and then back again when if they had a cam they would have seen how much space they would have had and just kept backing up to pull out fully. Just over the weekend a woman did this and tapped the vehicle parked in front of her (special kind of idiot). I think they help people who embrace them.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/9/2013 3:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just over the weekend a woman did this and tapped the vehicle parked in front of her (special kind of idiot). I think they help people who embrace them.

You cant stop this bro. Women destroy cars by death of a thousand cuts... That's why my gf will never drive my vehicles!

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By JediJeb on 4/9/2013 5:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
My ex-fiance wrecked all three of my vehicles, so I can concur :(

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/9/2013 5:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Is that why she's the ex now? lol

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By superflex on 4/9/2013 10:55:41 AM , Rating: 4
You can't legislate against stupid.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By kingmotley on 4/9/2013 12:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why make already expensive SUVs even more expensive?

To get them off the road.

As for the rest of it, it's because people want to blame something other than themselves. Children (5 years and younger) should not be playing unattended in the driveway.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Drexial on 4/9/2013 2:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am actually going to agree with you on something.

Especially considering the ludicrously low instances of this actually being a scenario that effects people.

This is one of the worst safety proposals in history.

The part I will disagree on is that the modern SUV didn't exist in the 60's and 70's, at most you had vans but they weren't 40% of the cars on the road.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Spuke on 4/9/2013 4:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
The part I will disagree on is that the modern SUV didn't exist in the 60's and 70's, at most you had vans but they weren't 40% of the cars on the road.
They aren't 40% of cars on the roads now.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By JediJeb on 4/9/2013 5:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
True, they are just big so more people recognize them over the small vehicles.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Drexial on 4/10/2013 2:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
I was mixing up my numbers and still a little off. Of new car sales they are over 30% of sales. Total on the road they are closer to 12%

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Drexial on 4/10/2013 2:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
oops one more piece of info, if you include truck sales it becomes over 40% of new vehicle sales.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By PCMerlin on 4/12/2013 1:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
FITCamaro... you hit the nail on the head with this one.

My uncle used to back his car into the ditch beside his driveway all the time. The last car he got had one of these fancy rear-view cameras built in. Now instead of just backing into the ditch, he got to watch himself do it!

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By JediJeb on 4/9/2013 5:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Sure, mandate it on giant poor visibility SUVs driven by retarded mothers but there is no reason to add several hundred dollars to the price of a hatchback that doesn't have visibility problems.

Could you see a 2 year old sitting behind a hatchback? Or the infant in the carrier that you sat down right behind the rear wheel?

I am definitely not in favor of mandating these things, but to say only large SUVs would benefit while small compacts would not is totally incorrect. Then again, if you did sit that baby carrier right below the bumper, would you even be able to see it with the backup camera? What about the person who sits the baby carrier on top of the car and forgets it? Once that happens I guess we will have to mandate either a roof mounted 360degree view camera there or pressure sensors or something.

As said here in a few other places, it is a people problem not so much a tech problem. In other words know where your kids are at all times, and teach them not to play around vehicles, even if it takes a swat on the rear to get it through their heads. Better a sore bottom than a dead child.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Samus on 4/10/2013 9:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
The other problem is drivers license vehicle type designation has been flawed for decades.

It should be tiered like motorcycle licensing, where at least in most states, you have a different test for bikes larger than 500cc.

In Illinois, no special license is needed for <50cc (scooter/moped) but bikes up to 499cc need a motorcycle license (written and road test) and bikes larger than 500cc need a written, road test, and safety course.

The same should go for large truck/SUV drivers. There is just too much of a gray area between Class D (vehicle up to 16,000lbs) and CDL. A truck/SUV operator should have additional testing, it just isn't like driving a Fiesta, and that's where this legislation's roots are.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 10:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
For all we know, the people demanded it are real but they probably got a helping hand from automakers since this help increase vehicle price.

If this cost more than $500 per vehicle then i call BS. It basically uses a the same cam as a web cam with fish eye lens. A small LCD doesn't cost that much and an ARM chip to process the video is dirt cheap these days. Since this will become mandatory, it should be in the design of the vehicle instead of optional. The real cost of adding this should be less than $100 per vehicle. Unless you are GM and the union expects you to pay $20+/hr for some kid out of high school.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By FITCamaro on 4/9/2013 10:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
How do you figure considering that a smart phone ACTUALLY costs $500-700 to manufacture and sell.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 11:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
a smartphone doesn't cost $500 to make or even close to it.

A smartphone has a lot of things in it. This is just a simple cam and screen. A smartphone screen is normally much better and more expensive. A vehicle screen needs brightness more than picture quality. It doesnt need high pixel density either.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/9/2013 11:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not the most elegent solution but it is cheap. If they can make a profit from selling these on amazon then theres no reason it should cost that much.


or $65


I particularly like the last one.

Regardless, this shouldn't be legislated

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Keeir on 4/9/2013 12:56:38 PM , Rating: 2

what do you do if your cheap web cam fails? -> 40 dollar fix

what do you do if the web cam embedded in your bumper/sheet metal which runs wire throughout your car to a screen located in your dash fails? -> hundreds of dollar fix (potentially)

Electrical equipment installed in a car is typically significantly more robust than equipment sitting at a desk. It has to last longer, in significant vibration and temperature variations because early failure and the hundreds of dollar fix -will- piss people off.

But, but all means, cut a hole in the sheet metal of your car to mount a 40 dollar device from amazon... it won't be the automakers fault when it fails or if your holes leak.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/9/2013 3:22:43 PM , Rating: 1
Hey ya big dummy. Those cameras are weatherproof. They're designed to mount on the license plate or in the case of the other one, where ever you want it. They are not desktop webcams. They have a fixed focal length(no moving parts) so they are quite robust. As far as the wires go, you run them usually through a grommet aka a rubber seal. Most use the same one that the license plate light uses and then they reseal it if need be. If you do install it where it require the wires to run externally for a bit I'd imagine you would use a drip loop like you do with for example the wiring bung for a trailer.

If I install anything aftermarket, it's never the automakers fault if it fails. I don't know where there would be an exception to that.

Next time read before you make a smart @$$ comment.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Keeir on 4/9/2013 6:50:35 PM , Rating: 3
Next time read before you make a smart @$$ comment.

Maybe you ought to read your own comment

"Not the most elegent solution but it is cheap. If they can make a profit from selling these on amazon then theres no reason it should cost that much."

A OEM quality back-up camera installed in the factory will <never> be as cheap as tacky retro-fit option that relies on purchaser to install with personal tools and glue.

My guess from your idoitic comment and follow on reply you have never actually engineered or managed any type of change like this.

To retrofit even the most basic camera onto a Nissan Versa (for example) would indeed be in the 150+ range. Heck, thats really only about 50 dollars in parts + 20 minutes extra installation and testing time.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/10/2013 3:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
My god you're a moron. That was in response to another post about the cost of the parts. I put those link up to show that if they are selling for that cheap at a profit then there is no reason for the parts to cost that much.

You went off on a tangent about webcams and cutting holes in sheet metal. You obviously have never retrofit/custom or performed any kind of aftermarket install before. I have, and they aren't difficult at all.

As far as OEM CCD cameras go, they aren't expensive either. They are more than the CMOS cameras I linked but not by much. If I can purchase them for that cheap then the automakers can get them for far far cheaper.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 3:28:35 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see it much different than trying to change a light bulb. Of course, it's probably slightly harder and you definitely don't need a mechanic or electrician to do this.

The way I see it, a phone gets more abuse and shock than a light bulb on a car. The camera on my phone still works after years of use. I don't see why it wouldn't work on a car.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Spuke on 4/9/2013 4:11:54 PM , Rating: 3
The way I see it, a phone gets more abuse and shock than a light bulb on a car.
Really? Temperature extremes, panic stops, potholes and such. Your phone goes through more than that?

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By JediJeb on 4/9/2013 5:14:31 PM , Rating: 1
Well if the phone is with him in the car I guess it would go through all of those. Then more when he is walking out in the cold or hot weather, hiking, biking, or other activities. So I guess I can see it happening.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Brandon Hill on 4/9/2013 10:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
This should absolutely only be mandatory on vehicles with poor rearward visibility. It should not be a one-size-fits-all requirement, period.

If I recall, that's exactly the way the law is written. If visibility is good enough to see a certain distance behind the vehicle out the rear window (I don't remember the exact number), you do not need a backup camera.

However, if the driver can't see an object at the minimum distance, the camera is required. But given the rising beltlines and poor side/rear visibility in general, I doubt many cars would qualify to go "cameraless"

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By FITCamaro on 4/9/2013 10:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
The rising beltlines and poor visibility is also the fault of government constantly trying to solve a problem they will never be able to. Stupid people and accidents can't be legislated away.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 10:56:24 AM , Rating: 1
We need back up cameras because of poor visibility from rising beltlines.

Rising beltlines was mandated because of the high mass of vehicles. That resulted in vehicles literally chopping people in half or severely injure pedestrians.

High mass of vehicles is because of strict regulations of safety features. This forced a lot of mandatory safety equipment and extra steel in body/frame.

High and strict standards of safety regulation was because of our love for big, powerful vehicles and high speed.

We like big powerful and fast vehicles because we have plenty of roads and highway to roam and cheap gas. Big vehicles are convenient too.

I blame this back up cameras stupidity on our fantastic road systems, cheap gas, and convenience lol

Too bad cheap gas and free flowing highways doesn't really exist anymore near big cities. People are adopting smaller vehicles. All the reasons that led up to this are actually disappearing quickly. Stop this back up camera madness!!!

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Topweasel on 4/9/2013 10:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
Hey I hate driving in reverse and a the camera in my car is so fantastic at helping me out (not view wise but the turn guide). I think a lot of people would enjoy the device in their car. That said I think this is a horrible idea.

I hate to be the evil guy in the room just number crunching instead of "thinking about the children". But 500 kids a year isn't that much. I mean we have population of 313 million. Crap happens. We can't regulate out stupid. We can't count for every accident. We certainly can't make the public spend ~1.5-3 Billion dollars more a year (14.5 million cars at $200 a pop, with unknown amount with the feature already). That is spending 4 million a year per child and it would be 5 years before you see any measurable decrease in incidents and 10 years before enough cars will have been circulated before you could come close to that 4 million per child. For the first 15-20 years the numbers will be closer to 6.5 million dollars per child lost.

That assumes that having a rear view camera would actually eliminate these types of accidents. It's a dumb tax, everyone else paying to help the stupid out just that much more. So yeah lets put that much more of a financial burden on everyone as a whole to help 500 people a year (the drivers) continue to be idiots but have yet another enabler.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By kingmotley on 4/9/2013 12:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not 500. 100. 1.5 billion dollars per year for 100 kids running around without adult supervision.

A better law would require all kids under the age of 5 to be attached to their parents by a leash. Costs $1 and only affects those who have kids that run around outside and might force the parents to actually spend time with them.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Dr of crap on 4/9/2013 12:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Good one - LMAO

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 1:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Parents forgot they need to be a parent. When I was teaching, I can't even count how many times I see parents come into school complaining about their kids behaviors at home even though they behave just fine in school.

They blame the school for their failures and then spends thousands on a psychologists. Then they send them to other therapists because they didn't like the answer of "your child is lonely, misguided, insecure, and needs your attention". After spending $20k or so they realize maybe the last 8 therapists are right. Then they buy all these stupid books and videos as a quick fix. Lol, it's funny how people try to solve family/relationship problems with money.

Please keep blaming the car's blind spot when you run your kid over because you can't properly operate a vehicle.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Spuke on 4/9/2013 4:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Please keep blaming the car's blind spot when you run your kid over because you can't properly operate a vehicle.
I like your point of view bro.

RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Topweasel on 4/9/2013 5:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah sorry thought I read 500 in the beginning. That's now 15 million dollars per casualty with the public eating up 7.5 billion dollars before any measurable return on implementation. A 20 year outlook being something like 24 million of tax payers money per child saved. Out of that 30 billion dollars spent in 20 years at 24 million spent per life saved you only managed to save 1250 Children or basically about half the children with most of that being well after the public has spent well over half the 30 billion dollars.

All that assuming that no kid is ever hit by a car with rear-view camera. Not that it wasn't people not paying attention for whatever reason or under the influence of something. But honestly the sad part is it would probably be worse if a large amount of people didn't care for their car more then the people around them. I imagine most of these accidents are by unobservant people driving beaters. So really it's probably going to take even longer to completely eradicate the cars that they are using without a camera and they will find another excuse to why they murdered someone once they have a car with one (which will be so old it probably won't work or they let it get covered by so much dirt they can't see anything).

By KrustySanchez on 4/9/2013 11:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
Listen, I have a backup camera. I love my backup camera, and won't buy another car without one. _That_ is how they become more widespread.

There is no need for the nanny state to come in and mandate them and they do not appreciably increase safety. I like them for parking lots - that's it. They help avoid bumping the car behind me when backing out.

When backing out of my driveway, for example, I still have to look both ways and use my mirrors/crane my neck.

RE: Nonsense.
By Dr of crap on 4/9/2013 12:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense - I have a back up camera too, it's called eyes. AND when I turn around I can see so much of what is behind my car I have never hit anything going in reverse!
If I were to buy a car with this option installed, the first thing I'd do is take out the fuse for it or cover the damn screen up. I don't want it period!

RE: Nonsense.
By KrustySanchez on 4/9/2013 3:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
You've never used one then.

Without camera: I can backup, scoot forward, backup, scoot forward, etc..

With camera: I can backup to within 2 inches of the car behind me, and pull out.

They are awesome, but should not be mandated.

RE: Nonsense.
By Manch on 4/9/2013 3:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about now, but in drivers Ed they use to teach you to find the "edge" of your car. I can back up all of my vehicles to within a couple inches of whatever. That is of course a learned skill, and maybe that's the problem. They don't teach people how to properly operate vehicles anymore.

On the flipside, I do like the back up camera in my pops F350. I don't drive it often so I don't know the "edges" of his truck very well. It's great for lining up the trailer hitch

RE: Nonsense.
By BRB29 on 4/10/2013 11:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
Like everyone here would agree, back up camera is good for parking. The whole thing started because of ~100 kids a year getting hit by vehicles due mostly to a combination of bad parents and drivers.

I'll spend a few more seconds to scoot scoot scoot instead of running over kids that doesn't know safety because of their dumb parents.

RE: Nonsense.
By Manch on 4/9/2013 5:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
You turn around? Didn't drivers Ed teach you to trust your mirrors? :D

Not everybody is perfect. Accidents can happen
By happyfirst on 4/9/2013 12:08:24 PM , Rating: 3
IMO, some of these responses are just sad.

So anybody that ever backs into something is an idiot? inept? Because they can't somehow look back left, back center, and back right all at the same time, while also looking forward to make sure they don't clip something with the front of their car?

Fact of the matter is, most people get it right because there are such few accidents. But I'd bet their are a ton of close calls. And this has always been a problem, even in the 60s and 70s. Not just now. Should we go back to cars without airbags, anti-lock brakes, and even seatbelts?

But when something does happen, it's a terrible thing.

So basically, what a lot of people are saying here is that either somebody gets it right or they're an idiot. No inbetweens. No such thing as an "accident". No such thing as doing everything in your power not to back over somebody and yet, it still happened, somehow....

To the poster about an '11 durango, I have an '11 durango with the backup camera, and the think works awesome. I don't zone out. You need to learn how to use the tools available to you properly. I look left, I look right, but while moving my head from left to right and quickly glancing down the middle,I also glance at the camera. A backup camera isn't there for you to just lock eyes on it and stare at it all day. And not just the backup camera is great, but also the durango's rear cross path detection (not standard). Many times it has "helped" me by 'notifying' me that something is getting ready to cross behind me from a blind spot that I can't even see because a van or another suv is parked next to me.

There is NO visibility through the tailgate of most SUVs. Look all you want, you won't see a small child BEHIND you. And some cars, that are now more about form then function, they have blind spots that are just as bad as an suv or crossover. No doubt, some smart-@ss will comment that we're suppose to look before getting in. What happens in a parking lot that you've looked, it's clear, you get in, and then the car next to you, those people show up, and they are distracted and they are the idiots and they let a small child get behind you in that split second you were looking back left and missed the child to the back right? ACCIDENTS CAN HAPPEN.

I refuse to believe that all these perfect other posters get in their car, and they maintain a constant 360 vision around the car the complete time until they back out. None of them have ever gotten into a car, but then not left? Maybe they took a call? Maybe they smartly finished all their texting? Who knows. Am I really to believe these "perfect" non-idiot drivers maintained constant 360 vision while they finished texting? Or did they really get back out to look behind them? I doubt it. IMO, most of you are just lucky.

Of course, the government isn't forcing anybody to actually look at the camera, that's YOUR choice. The real hangup here is the cost. That's what it really boils down to. And for most SUVS where this really should only apply, with more and more cars including screens already on their dash, IMO, the cost is trivial. $50 at most for a camera?

If seatbelts were optional, and only cost $50, I wonder how many of these "perfect" drivers would pass using the flawed thinking that they'll never mess up or have an accident. But what happens if the OTHER person messes up?

IMO, many ignorant posters here that just "know-it-all" and they've never EVER made a mistake or had an accident. They are perfect in every sense. They have no flaws. They have 360 vision, and are just that good. They never make a mistake.

For the record, I am against this legislation applying to all cars. But I do think there should be some type of legislation and some type of test to determine vehicles with extreme poor visibility and those cars should have the requirement. Or at a minimum, maybe not the camera, but at least beeping backup sensors.

By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
airbags, ABS, stability control systems, and power steering are all good inventions and increases driving safety.
A back up camera has too many flaws.

Everyone admits that there's always a blind spots but you have enough visibility to drive safety in almost all vehicles. Only the vehicles that a cam is a big clunky thing like a suburban. But a good driver can go life time without a single accident.

Your arguments are as sad.

1. I suppose children just appear behind vehicles to get hit. If your kids love to play around moving vehicles then it's your fault as a parent. I never let any kids play around vehicles whether it's moving or not. They can damage the vehicle or they can get hit by it.

2. Even if there happens to be a kid or anything behind you, you need to glance around your car before you get in and drive. After you are sure there's nothing/nobody obstructing your path then keep awareness of your environment. Don't put on makeup, talk on the phone, text 20 people, and eat your burger. Keep awareness and slowly back out. Slow down near side walks. It's really that simple.

3. A back up camera is perfect for parking but terrible for accounting moving objects which you most complained about. If you stare at a screen and a kid/pet run behind your vehicle, then you won't see it until it's too late. But if you are aware of your environment and use peripherals and mirrors effectively, then you will detect them almost immediately and stop in time.

4. why are you looking in front to make sure you don't clip anything? You should be looking at your mirrors, rear and sides. You want to look at where your vehicle is going to avoid hitting stuff!!! You should already know how much you have to crank your wheel to avoid hitting anything from the front. Consumer vehicles usually have short overhang past the front wheels so you shouldn't not easily clip things unless you are a really bad driver. If you have to spend more than a split second glance to the front when backing up then you are a bad driver!.

This back up camera is another unnecessary driver aid. It will have a positive impact in the short term and then a negative impact over time because people will lose awareness and common sense when driving. It should stay optional for those who needs it but should not be mandatory.

The cellphone was a very positive invention. Look at all the problems it's causing. The dependencies and now traffic accidents and even psychological disorders.

By Topweasel on 4/9/2013 1:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
If it was a mere accident that isn't avoidable at all there wouldn't be only 100 deaths a year. It's true that it will inevitably happen. I mean Billions of backups are made a year, so your bound to catch a few kids here or there. But the fact is that there are a million different options to avoid it and if you miss them all then you are an idiot. First up paying attention to your surroundings when you get into the car. Are there kids playing in the yards near by? Yes then pay close attention, watch the mirrors while you prep before backing up. Pay special attention to the area the kids are playing at when looking in the mirror and when craned around. Watch for the slightest disturbance.

Between not thinking you own the area behind your car and parents taking in account of their kids while playing outside 99% of these issues would go away. People not cluttering up their yards with bushes and trees to look pretty will allow others to see your car is in reverse before you pull out. That gets rid of the other 1%. Now you are left with 1 death in like ten years where there was nothing anyone could have done to prevent it that a camera might have prevented.

So yes the Stereo type would be that either the driver or the Parent screwed up an were idiots. Specially the parents because well they had the most precious thing in the world and lost it over whatever the hell they were doing that wasn't watching them. But you know what would be a lot easier than a law forcing everyone to spend an extra $200 a car to make up for at worst 300 people failing to do their responsibility a year? Telling people to back into the drive way and that way they are pulling out forward. It's 100x easier for people to see what your doing and the biggest worry is farther up in your driveway not at the sidewalk where anyone can be. But much like asking drivers to pay more attention to their surroundings and especially when kids are around, or asking parents to actually be parents to their youngsters that don't know better,it takes to much time away from a day filled with accomplishing nothing to put the extra seconds/minutes in.

By Keeir on 4/9/2013 6:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Scale is a problem people have difficulty with...

~700 people die a year from "back-up" accidents. 300 of them are "children" and 100 are "children under 5".

Even the postive leaning folks people say a backup camera would only save ~50% of these people, if installed on -all- cars. We are talking in the range of spending 10-80 million dollars per life saved depending on your assumptions.

Yet today hundreds/thousands of people die due to a variety of factors which would cost a lot less than 10 million a death to "solve", let alone the high estimates of 80 million.

On top of these, backup camera are already becoming a standard... why enforce through regulation a problem to go away. Unless the regulation has a sunset provision, we may be required to have rear view cameras on our transparent transport bubbles of the future.

This may sound cruel, but...
By amanojaku on 4/9/2013 11:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
The NHTSA says that about 100 children age 5 or under die each year in backup accidents and more than half of those are one year old or younger.
The number of deaths is too low to warrant such sweeping mandates. It's not even 1% of 1% of 1% of the population!!!

300,000,000 x 0.01 x 0.01 x 0.01 = 300 people

And I want to know how a child who can't even walk yet gets run over by a car...

RE: This may sound cruel, but...
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 11:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
maybe not your children but my nieces and nephews all walk at around 12 months. Regardless, I don't rely on back up cameras to save them because I don't let them play around vehicles, especially moving ones.

RE: This may sound cruel, but...
By Schrag4 on 4/9/2013 2:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. All 3 of my kids started walking between 9 and 10 months. You better believe they never left our sight for very long unless they were in an extremely controlled environment. Heck, my youngest is 5 now and I still don't like to let her play at the neighbor's house because I can't keep an eye on her there. I much prefer to have the neighbor kids come over and play in our fenced-in backyard.

RE: This may sound cruel, but...
By M'n'M on 4/9/2013 6:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's not cruel and it's even more stupid than your numbers suggest. I recall that the number of children squashed was reported in earlier articles as being higher. But that the NHTSA estimated that only 50% of the deaths would be avoided by this regulation. So perhaps it's all for 50 children a year ?

Bad idea
By djcameron on 4/9/2013 10:17:36 AM , Rating: 4
This will encourage people to NOT turn around and look, and then they'll miss seeing someone that's just out of camera view. We have a Honda CR-V with a backup camera, the display is 2D, and you don't really get any depth perception. In our '08 328i it has radar sensors and no camera. This encourages me to turn around and LOOK, but I still get a beeping sound that gets faster as an object gets closer.

RE: Bad idea
By Rukkian on 4/9/2013 11:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
I have used both the cameras and the sensors, and I feel the sensors are much better. They can provide coverage for the whole bumper without the view getting skewed and do not get people lazy and not checking around.

I wonder how many of the kids hit were by their own parents, who want to push the blame on somebody, cause it couldnt be their fault for not paying attention.

Ultrasonic, not backup cameras
By foxalopex on 4/9/2013 4:39:58 PM , Rating: 4
Personally I think these systems are a good idea. After all besides hurting someone, backing up a modern car into something will cause in some cases thousands of dollars of damages to yourself or others. For this reason, I picked the backup camera option on my new car. It's not something you should cheap out on.

However a backup camera isn't actually that useful as I discovered! In the winter, it constantly gets clogged with snow and the fishbowl perspective screws up your idea of where things are. It also discourages you to look back which is probably not safe. The ultrasonic sensors which came with the camera however are very nice. Basically they beep when they detect you coming too close. That encourages you to look when you backup and let's you know for the most part if something is in the way, or if you're not sure if it's too close. Ultrasonic sensors I would support. Backup camera no because it doesn't really work that well.

By 143BPM on 4/9/2013 10:32:09 AM , Rating: 3
For $2.5 billion annually, they could save a hell of a lot more lives than this idiotic idea. Utilization of more high strength steel, improved side impact know, things that actually protect YOU instead of an oblivious soccer mom too lazy to turn her head.

By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 10:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
I like it but it shouldn't be mandatory. Why? this is more like an extra tool. Sure it helps but good old awareness is better than any back up camera. Do people not know how to use mirrors, estimate distance and reference points? Do people not glance around their vehicle first and be aware of things coming?

I can see when back up camera become mainstream that people will collide with moving people/objects even more. People will concentrate on the damn screen instead of being aware of the surrounding and using all their mirrors.

Nanny State
By eagle470 on 4/9/2013 10:29:05 AM , Rating: 2
This is just another dumb and stupid requirement. If you can't drive your vehicle with out a camera, having one will only make things worse. Why? Because the field of vision on a camera is MUCH smaller than your own and people have a tendancy to look at ONLY the camera and never check their surroundings. This will lead to more kids/pets/people/toys being backed over. The more people stare at their tiny little screens......

Oh and my subaru outback has a backup camera. I've stopped using it because I nearly ran someone over once. I was guilty of what I just described. And after talking to people about it, I'm not the only one that's done that.

By Mathos on 4/9/2013 10:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
I like the one where we didn't have the problem back in the 60's-90's. It's absolutely true. Then again back then we had the common sense to pay attention to where our children were. And I don't know about you, but my momma taught me to not stand behind moving vehicles. Or to watch for people backing out of driveways, parking spots, etc. And you generally waited for them to finish backing out, then went by. Not, the other way around. Because we had the common sense to realize, just because I can see them, doesn't mean they can see me.

The other big issue would be cell phones, and thats on both sides of the line. People walking, staring at there cell phone, waiting for that next none important tweet. Instead of paying attention to their surroundings. I've literally seen people walk out into roads doing this. Not to mention, drivers doing the same thing.

To me, it doesn't matter how much tech we put into vehicles. The only real solution is to cure the root cause of the problem. And that's people not paying attention on both sides. Seems like the more technology we have, the dumber people are getting, because they start depending on it too much.

Simple solution
By PeaJay on 4/9/2013 11:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
Put the screen at the back of the vehicle so that it flips down from the headliner when you shift into reverse. That way, people would be forced to look behind and their peripheral vision should spot any other hazards that they may not see if they are just staring straight ahead at the LCD screen.

Cost to automakers?
By euclidean on 4/9/2013 11:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
For those who don't have the optional Backup Camera already, there will be R&D cost...

But whomever tries to say that there will be an Annual cost added to the auto industry are insane - they will pass that extra cost to the consumers (what's another $300 when you're already paying 20K-30K or more? ... ).

Meh, I enjoy the camera's, but I like the sensors more for "mandatory" regulations...but why not just skip the camera phase and move directly into the self driving cars...That would remove the "stupid"* driver syndrome that caused this problem in the first place...

(* - Stupid refers to more than just stupid drivers...bad drivers, distracted drivers, etc.)

Being Held Accountable
By Noonecares on 4/9/2013 8:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
The NHTSA says that about 100 children age 5 or under die each year in backup accidents and more than half of those are one year old or younger.

So 50 kids a year that are 1 or younger. Are you serious? Start fining or ticketing bad parenting or something. If you can not keep track of an infant that can at best move at the speed of a fast turtle. Then your kid would have probably gotten into a serious accident when they got older. Baby gates, back pack leashes, teaching your kids to not be in the road or driveways, and other "common sense" things.

All you have to do watch a kid is "watch" the kid. Pay attention to your surroundings. It pays off in so many ways.

By M'n'M on 4/9/2013 9:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
For all the concern over backing over a child, it seems that nobody is concerned about the other 50% (min) that are run over when going forward. Yes, according the, about 905 kids have been killed by their parents (usually) when backing out of their own driveway in the last decade. BUT ANOTHER 445 were killed when the vehicle went FORWARD out of the driveway.

But wait it's worse ! In the most recent years it appears to me that the number of frontovers is nearly the same as the number of backovers. So that's 70 squashed kids a year that backup cams won't help. We NEED front bumper/grill cams TOO ! And perhaps sideview cams. Personally I want an RFID chip installed in every kid and an auto-detection system to locate any child with 20' of any car (or motorcycle). I mean ... if it saves just 1 life ...

And then I want auto-AC systems mandated for cars. We've all hear stories of kids left in cars who die from heat stroke. Why should that be allowed to happen ? I say if we can remote start cars to heat them or cool them now, why not mandate that ! I suspect it's only another couple hundred of $$s, less if your car has that option already ! If we can mandate airbags because people are too stupid to use seatbelts, tire pressure monitoring because people are too stupid to check your tires (or learn how to drive), backup cams because people are too stupid to check on your kids ... why not this. It's at least 39 kids per year saved.

Safety is good
By Dan Banana on 4/9/2013 11:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
I love the rear view camera in my car. If they are mandated they will have economies of scale large enough to greatly reduce the present costs. Like any mandated safety improvements in autos the ever-suffering, cranky conservatives will moan and groan and cry the blues about the travesty, the travesty of it I tell you but they will soon realize it's a good idea and quietly shut their cake holes about it. I mean which cons want to go back to cars without safety belts, padded dashes, standardized lighting standards, collapsible steering columns, minimum crash standards, minimum tire safety standards, air bags and with windows that would break and slice your jugular in a crash instead of harmlessly crumbling into small non lethal pieces and so on.

I give up...
By Stuka on 4/10/2013 12:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Just do it already. By the end of the decade, a small Fiesta/Yaris sized car is gonna cost $20k base due to legislations of some kind or another, so might as well just get it over with.

By xenol on 4/10/2013 12:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
Technology like this creates hazards, it does not improve lives. People will grow accustomed to this and soon forget that they need to actually pay attention to their surroundings, rather than what's going on on some screen. And when an collision or something occurs, the driver can blame technology has failed them. And in the asinine courts we have today... that will be a valid excuse to be let with a less serious sentence (if any at all)

I'm not against technology to improve driver safety, though. ABS and TCS are good systems. One of the SUVs/Vans/Crossovers with a radar system that beeps at you if there's a hazard is good as well.

But any "safety feature" that will take over the vehicle or allow the driver to look at something other than the freakin' direction they're going should be banned.

Here's a thought
By 7eregrine on 4/11/2013 6:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of everyone whining about this in the comments of a website, try contacting the NHTSA and let them know how dumb this is. Here I will even help:

I sent an email. Will you? Step up America.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki