Print 51 comment(s) - last by Azzr34l.. on Mar 2 at 9:20 PM

Back-up cameras could be required for all new 2014 vehicles   (Source:
The new rules, if finalized, would cost the auto industry $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion per year, but would save approximately 100 lives

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has asked Congress for an extension to finalize the new regulations that require automakers to improve rear visibility in all new models by 2014. 

The new regulations were supposed to be completed by today, but the NHTSA has requested more time in order to finish the new rules that are meant to save the lives of those involved in backup crashes.

The new regulations, which were proposed in December 2010, aim to eliminate blind spots in vehicles by improving overall visibility or adding backup cameras in all new vehicles by 2014. The proposal is meant to be a solution to the 300 fatalities associated with “backover” accidents that occur annually. It is also a response to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Act, which is a 2008 law named after a young boy who was accidentally ran over by his father, and was meant to address such issues. 

Approximately 100 out of 300 fatal backovers consist of children ages five and under, and one-third of the deaths involve senior citizens who are 70 and older. Blind spots behind vehicles can make it hard to see pedestrians or cars approaching while backing up, and while automakers have already added video cameras and other detection sensors to vehicles, these devices are optional on many vehicles, and only about 20 percent of new models have such equipment.

"There is no more tragic accident than for a parent or caregiver to back out of a garage or driveway and kill or injure an undetected child playing behind the vehicle," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.  

The new rules, if finalized, would cost the auto industry $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion per year. The regulation would add $159 to $203 in costs to each vehicle without a display screen (those with in-car navigation systems), and $58 to $88 to each vehicle with a display screen. 

According to a cost-benefit analysis conducted by the NHTSA, "the costs per life saved ranged from $11.3 million to $72.2 million - above its comprehensive cost estimate for a statistical life of $6.1 billion." 

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which is a trade group representing the Big Three automakers in Detroit as well as other auto companies, has stated that it needs more time to comply to the new regulations.  

"While the alliance supports the need for improvements in rearward visibility, the regulation as proposed involves a significant additional cost per vehicle," said the group earlier this month. 

But the NHTSA is pushing for the new rules regardless of cost, arguing that the cost automakers have to pay per vehicle is worth saving a life. So far, the plan proposes that 10 percent of the United States' new fleet will have to meet the new standards by 2012, while 40 percent will have to meet these standards by the 2013 model year, and then all new vehicles must comply by 2014.  

"The public comment period on this safety proposal only recently closed, and NHTSA has asked Congress for additional time to analyze public comments, complete the rule-making process and issue a final rule," said the NHTSA in a statement today.

Comments     Threshold

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

By zaxxon on 3/1/2011 4:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
The easy solution:

know where your kids are playing
open your eyes
don't have kids playing behind your car

the american solution:

regulate the hell out of it and spend a lot of money.

more people are killed per week in Afghanistan and Irak than by this 'tragedy'...

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By mwc4897 on 3/1/2011 4:57:10 AM , Rating: 3
Not to say that you don't have a point.. but you'll sound smarter if you spell Iraq correctly.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By Souka on 3/1/2011 2:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! Irak....

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By DanNeely on 3/1/2011 7:02:04 AM , Rating: 2
because of course noone has ever backed over the neighbors kid, and kids can never move from blind spot to blind when your eyes are focused on something else.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By Hieyeck on 3/1/2011 9:03:50 AM , Rating: 4
Regulations and more nanny state to replace proper parenting! Neighbour's fault for not watching his kid. When I was growing up, my parents took me to this place called a 'park'. It's typically protected from the road by a 'curb' and usually surrounded by very solid 'trees' that tend to stop vehicles.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By vapore0n on 3/1/2011 10:15:19 AM , Rating: 2
So you are saying I should pay more attention to what my kids are doing, and pay attention while I'm driving?

To hell that. We need more laws and regulations so someone else can pay for my mistakes.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By omnicronx on 3/1/2011 11:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
I was not aware that rear cameras covered all your blindspots..

I doubt these rates would drop more than 10-20% even with rear cameras.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By Argon18 on 3/1/2011 8:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
It's true. When everyone these days drives a huge ass monster SUV with massive blind spots and horrible visibility- what did you expect would happen? Once people realize they don't need a living room on wheels to drive their kid to school, these kinds of accidents will drop dramatically.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 8:48:13 AM , Rating: 5
So in a nation of over 300 million people, because there are 100-300 ACCIDENTS a year, we need to impose yet another nanny state requirement on automakers? We already mandated tire pressure sensors for idiots too stupid to check the air pressure in their tires every now and then.

What's after this? Mandated auto-braking technology that prevents people from rear-ending one another?

These cameras still can't see everything and you're still relying on people even looking at the camera. On the flip side you'll have people who ONLY look at the camera and back out in front of someone causing an accident.

You can't fix stupid. This phrase still applies no matter how many feel good regulations are passed. Accidents will still always happen. Tragedies will still always happen. More of these kinds of accidents happen because people are in a hurry and don't look period than because they can't see. If you're not in a rush and pay attention to whats around you as you get in the car, this kind of thing doesn't happen.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By Flunk on 3/1/2011 10:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, mandated auto-braking systems are what's next.

They'll stop you from hitting things (most of the time) and stop you at red lights. Soon the car will drive itself.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By Jaybus on 3/2/2011 3:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
I hope so. Vision tests, blind spots, backup cameras, and radar seem to be given much attention by regulatory agencies, yet are these really major causes of accidents? No. The major cause of accidents is clearly alcohol and/or drug impaired drivers. A close second is driver texting or otherwise playing with a cell phone and not paying attention. So, most accidents are due to drivers that are too stoned to see straight or who don't bother too look at all. Third on the list is simply stupid mistakes.

If you consider driving while intoxicated and driving while playing with a cell phone to also be pretty stupid, then nearly all accidents are caused by stupid drivers. I have long said that we don't need an eye test for getting a driver's license, we need a drug/alcohol screening and an IQ test. Some people are simply too stupid to be trusted to drive a vehicle. No amount of visibility improvements and screening for the blind, regardless of cost, will fix, or even significantly alleviate the problem.

The only real fix for human error being THE major cause of auto accidents is to take control of the car away from the humans. This is already being done in aircraft. Unfortunately, it is harder to do in cars than it is in aircraft. But hopefully the technology to enable fully automated cars will be available soon. It would be nice to be able to travel without fear of being killed by a drunken/texting/slow witted driver.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By omnicronx on 3/1/2011 11:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just really surprised in the way they pushed this. I 100% agree that you don't impose a national law for 100-300 people, let alone 1000 people.

That said, why no mention of money saved on NON death incidents? Where I work, all I need to do is go to the mall and I see 2-3 parking lot accidents each day from someone backing into something.

I.e this is going to save insurance companies alot of money ,let alone do it yourself repair costs for a lot of people, and most likely far exceeds whatever amount they are claiming it costs per death per person.

So why not do this a different way? Perhaps impose insurance savings rules on vehicles that have a rear display? Seems to me as though that would be far more effective then just shoving it down everyones throats.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By bitterman0 on 3/1/2011 12:31:47 PM , Rating: 3
So why not do this a different way? Perhaps impose insurance savings rules on vehicles that have a rear display? Seems to me as though that would be far more effective then just shoving it down everyones throats.

But insurance incentives are already in place! Don't run over anybody for an extended period of time and voila - you've got your "good driver" discount. Isn't that neat?

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 12:36:16 PM , Rating: 1
The government doesn't have the power to mandate giving discounts for having certain equipment in your car. Car insurance is a state by state thing.

Course I know that won't stop liberals from trying to pass a law doing it anyway.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By lightfoot on 3/1/2011 10:00:32 PM , Rating: 1
I know that won't stop liberals from trying to pass a law doing it anyway.

And if it just so happens to bankrupt the nation and send us back to the stone age, so much the better.

RE: ahhhhhhhwww....
By jeepga on 3/1/2011 8:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't visibility. The problem is attention span. And cameras aren't going to solve that.

Anyone that backs over someone is going to say they didn't see the person. And that's true, not necessarily because the couldn't see them, but they weren't watching enough or were going too fast.

Rear cameras are a good idea
By arthur449 on 3/1/2011 7:37:18 AM , Rating: 1
Rear cameras for vehicles that already have an an in-dash LCD screen would cost mere pennies to implement considering how small and cheap low resolution video cameras have become.

Any significant increases in price due to this regulation are due to auto manufacturers desperately trying to trick people into thinking these features are worth 10 times more than they cost.

Other overpriced features: climate control - just how hard is it to monitor the current across a thermistor and turn the AC on/off? Variable intermittent wipers - Toyota still thinks that this is far too expensive for base models.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 8:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
You realize that the vast majority of cars sold still don't have an in-dash LCD screen right? Even if its an available option.

You're probably talking another $100-150 then.

And like any product or service, if you don't think its worth the money, don't buy it. I don't. Now the difference is you don't have a choice. Daddy gubbament says you have to.

Seems like every month they give me a reason to not want to buy newer vehicles.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By bah12 on 3/1/2011 9:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like every month they give me a reason to not want to buy newer vehicles.

Don't get me wrong I'm usually right there with you on your anti-nanny state rants, but come on how does having a backup camera make a car LESS attractive? Emission controls, automated drive by wire stuff sure, but a camera...don't get too crazy for me to agree with you fit.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By vapore0n on 3/1/2011 10:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
Price. The cost of the new radio with big screen, camera, wiring, union job to install all of this, etc, will get passed on to the consumer by increased price or lower quality.

I can make a bet that lower quality will be the choice by the bean counters.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By Flunk on 3/1/2011 10:23:24 AM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with emission controls? They don't slow you down or inhibit you in any way.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By chick0n on 3/1/2011 11:21:48 AM , Rating: 1
Emission controls DO slow you down. Weight, restrictive muffling, etc.

Don't get me wrong I like some emission stuff cuz I hate cars with mid pipes shit smells really bad and bad for my brain.

but hey, nanny state said we need more and more. go green FTMFL !

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 12:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
They lower fuel economy.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By Gzus666 on 3/1/2011 9:33:29 PM , Rating: 1
I like breathing, so I am OK with that. Maybe you can breath soot and smog, but I can't.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 11:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because every car that doesn't have emissions control systems billows ash and soot. A properly tuned car burns up the fuel. Cars without cats can still pass emissions tests if tuned well enough.

By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 11:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Also cats are worthless for people with short commutes because they don't have time to get up to temperature.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By DanNeely on 3/2/2011 1:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
They pass a test, but the test is based on the normal emissions levels from when the car was built. Not current standards. A car from 1970 is allowed to release ~1000x more smog producing exhaust than a 2010 model.

By FITCamaro on 3/2/2011 1:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
What's your point? If you want to pay to buy me a new engine when my car is 30 years old then fine. Otherwise, I like my engine. And even in Commifornia, if a car is from 1970, it doesn't have to pass emissions controls.

By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 12:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's an added cost. And one more thing that can break. The main reason I'm against mandated tire pressure sensors is because I don't want to pay to replace the sensors when they go bad. I should have a choice in what kind of technology I want in my car. If I don't want something like that in my car, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By lowsidex2 on 3/1/2011 10:51:16 AM , Rating: 2
Any significant increases in price due to this regulation are due to auto manufacturers desperately trying to trick people into thinking these features are worth 10 times more than they cost.

Airbags, passenger air bags, side curtain airbags, internal trunk release, traction control, tire pressure monitoring, roll over sensors, black box data recorders, automatic crash reporting, back up camera, etc, etc, etc....

Each incremental step saves lives, yes. But each incremental step adds to the cost of the car, adds to the cost of fixings that car, adds to the cost of insurance, etc, etc, etc. Government regulations will slowly cripple us all(not just with cars) while making headlines. 'Hey look at us, we're helping! But please don't pay attention that this will increase the cost of owning your vehicle by $2000 over it's life.'

On a side note.. I wonder how many people will side swipe stuff because they only looked at the camera and not over the shoulder to the left and right?

By arthur449 on 3/1/2011 6:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously this means they need to mandate side 'over-the-shoulder' cameras too.

RE: Rear cameras are a good idea
By ewhite06 on 3/2/2011 1:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I hate to admit it, Chevrolet has a great implementation of this. My sister's Chevy Equinox has a backup camera but she does not have a nav system, so no full screen in the dash. So the video image from the camera is displayed in the rear-view mirror - right where most people look when backing up. Yes it's kind of small but it and it's damn handy. Plus you don't have the added expense of a full nav/entertainment system (for those of use that refuse to buy one).

This might be around in other manufacturers but it was new to me.

I'm sorry but...
By KrayLoN on 3/1/2011 10:44:20 AM , Rating: 2
cameras won't cure "stupid."

The bottom line is that some people should not be driving. What the government needs to do is submit drivers to a mandatory basic IQ test and physical exam (include drug test - don't worry MJ is legal for medical uses) as well as a driving test.

If they fail (69% or less) the basic IQ test or physical exam they should not be allowed to drive. If they get 70%-89% on the IQ exam and pass the phyical exam they should be required to take a written/driving test every year and not every four/eight years (please forgive me if the laws in MI are different from other states. Here anyone can get a license and they only have to renew their license every four years and take a written test every eight years).

If you get a 90% or higher then you can go two years without being submitted to the tests again.

I also think that anyone over the age of 60 that wants to carry a license needs to be tested yearly.

This would solve a lot of issues:
1) Stupid people won't be allowed to drive. This may not stop them from driving but will stop them from driving legally.
2) People who are not allowed to drive will be healthier because they will have to walk more or ride a bicycle. Healthier people mean less crowded hosptials and lower insurance premiums.
3) Elderly who are no longer fit to drive won't be able to drive with license.
4) Less drivers on the road driving under the influense of drugs.
5) Less drivers on the road mean less accidents and less traffic.
6) People who can't drive will need public transportation. This will generate jobs and revenue for the state or business providing such transportation.

I am sure there are more benefits. Please feel free to add them to the list.

RE: I'm sorry but...
By chick0n on 3/1/2011 2:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but the test Thing won't work. simply because as soon as they put that kind of "test" out, the government will be sue for billions of dollars for breaking "RETARDED" people's "RIGHT" to drive.

Same thing goes for physical test.

my opinion is that all they need is just make the test 10 times harder, instead of 10 f-king question (in NY), make it 100, and you need to get at least 80% right to pass. then for the road test, make those dumbass to go thru cones with super tight space between them, u knock one over you fail automatically, test them to park on a hill, if you keep hitting the curb you fail. etc.

it will keep the majority of "retarded" dumbass out of road without getting sue.

RE: I'm sorry but...
By ignatius on 3/1/2011 3:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is, people don't want to pay for public transportation, or to rebuild cities to be bike/pedestrian/public transit friendly. After 5+ decades of building cities based on the illusion of cheap cars, cheap parts, and cheap gas, the accumulated costs of change are extremely high. The reason why America has some of the lowest motorist licensing standards in the developed world is because it's the path of least resistance and least cognitive effort. And 40,000 preventable deaths and millions of preventable injuries every year are a testament to selfish insularity.

An intelligent, foresighted country would follow your proposal. Such a country would also realize that infrastructure has both short-term and long-term (as in centuries) cost and would plan appropriately. You do not live in such a country. And unless war or other massive catastrophes destroy some significant urban and economic centers, America may never become such a country.

RE: I'm sorry but...
By Ben on 3/1/2011 5:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
cameras won't cure "stupid"

You hit the nail on the head. End of discussion folks. Move along, nothing to see here.

P.S. It should be obvious, but for anyone that is surprised by this: as long you keep voting liberal democrat, you can expect more big-brother, nanny state government designed to protect the helpless minority groups (i.e. the blind, the deaf, the children, etc.).

Numbers can't be right
By lightfoot on 3/1/2011 2:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
The numbers in the story can't possibly be right. It states that the backup cameras will cost the auto industry $1.9 BILLION per year to implement. This will save 100 lives per year. By my math that is spending $19,000,000 per life saved.

As much as I hate attaching price tags to human life, $19 million is FAR too much to spend for any single individual. Costs like that would bankrupt our society. The only thing I can assume is that the author, like most journalists, doesn't know the difference between Million and Billion. $19,000 per life would make sense, $19 million does not.

RE: Numbers can't be right
By ignatius on 3/1/2011 3:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read the article? It's 300 deaths: only 100 of those are children. The problem with your analysis is that you're only factoring in deaths, and only deaths of children at that. The cost is less than you assume because at least 1/4 of that cost would theoretically be made up in the lifetime of the child, assuming they grow up to be a productive citizen and work until retirement.

But there are plenty of other costs to consider. Injuries result in lost productivity as well as increased health-care costs. There is also the problem of property damage, which happens with nearly every accident, even if it's just the one vehicle involved. In other words, there are offsets to the costs, but it's not as easy to calculate those and they don't make for sensational headlines.

And it's not like the automakers are just going to take a loss: the price of a car will go up. Owning a car is not a right, unless you own your own land and your own roads.

RE: Numbers can't be right
By lightfoot on 3/1/2011 9:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with your analysis is that you are assuming 100% effectiveness, and assuming that every child injured or killed would automatically be an above average head of household breadwinner. Neither assumption could ever be assumed to be true.

My point isn't that this isn't valuable technology, or that it is not for a good cause. It is only that for $11 to $83 million (the figures stated in the article) you can do a whole lot more to improve and save people's lives than this technology will accomplish. Honestly, can you think of no better use of that money?

Is a single life really worth 4-5 entire lifetimes of work to save?

You are saying that in order to ensure that a single child reaches adulthood we should sacrifice the product of 175 man-years of labor. That math simply doesn't work and is utterly insane by any measure. And this is assuming the best case scenario (most lives saved at the lowest expected cost.)

Even after factoring in all injuries and property damage that may be reduced by this technology, it is still a losing proposition.

RE: Numbers can't be right
By ignatius on 3/2/2011 1:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not assuming 100% effectiveness, I'm just pointing out the shallow analysis with ever-so-slightly less shallow analysis. There's much more to a cost than an up-front dollar amount, and how much more depends on the myriad consequences that flow from the choice to bear that cost, or to hope the unseen cost is lower.

Plenty of costs seem absurd at that level of aggregation. Was the "Big Dig" worth $4-6 billion/mile? (And some people think public transportation is expensive!) Airbags easily run at 10 times the cost of this proposal. If the fatality rate is cut by 90%, we'll be saving roughly the same number of lives per-dollar spent. (I'm way oversimplifying here: $1000 for airbag parts and computer system, 17M new cars sold, 27K lives saved.)

That doesn't make this a great proposal, or even a good one. But there are significant wasteful expenditures, often grossly so, in both business and government. This is just one more in an infinite series, so I (fatalistically) just can't bring myself to care.

By laweijfmvo on 3/1/2011 8:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
if this is mandated, then anyone who wants to buy a car will have to buy a car with a camera. so the auto maker can pass 100% (or 200% or ...) of the costs to the buyer.

so what's the argument? they're just going to start marketing this as an awesome feature instead of a requirement, and make money from it.

RE: so?
By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 8:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is before they could sell it as a $1000 option and make money off of it. Now they will have to include it as a standard feature but likely will not raise the price of the vehicle by $1000 because they try to keep the costs of the vehicle relatively the same from year to year.

RE: so?
By Spuke on 3/1/2011 12:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
Now they will have to include it as a standard feature but likely will not raise the price of the vehicle by $1000 because they try to keep the costs of the vehicle relatively the same from year to year.
I don't know about that. Look how much the Focus costs now compared to before. Sure, the new car is 100% better with more features and stuff but extra cost is extra cost. The price of cars sure isn't going down. The thing is we're collectively demanding these features and the automakers and the government is more than happy to comply. Quite frankly, I see an Egypt in our future but only well after we've been bent over and raped repeatedly.

PS - Who's going to be the one to set themselves on fire?

By Azzr34l on 3/2/2011 4:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm generally very conservative and like the government to stay out of my personal business, but this is one case I'd have to agree.

When it comes to auto safety, federal mandates have done us a whole lot of good. Think seat belts, air bags and other minimum crash test requirements.

It may only be 300 kids, but I bet if it was your kid, you'd have a different tune. So the cost is a whopping $150 on top of the $35K you're dropping? That adds up to an additional 3 cents per payment? Oh noes!!!!

It's pretty obvious most of you don't have kids, and that's probably a very, very good thing. I find the recurring comment of "know where your kids are before backing out" rather funny. If you had kids, you'd know they can be unpredictable at times. Accidents happen, as it were. What happens when your kids are at grandpa and grandma's house? Seniors account for 1/3rd of the accidents. How exactly are you going to force your "backing out" standards on them?

And finally, the comments about accidents occurring because of large SUVs? Paaaaaalease. There's blind spots behind EVERY car, truck and van. Plop a 3 year old behind your Prius and let me know if you can see him.

Regarding the non-human injury aspect of this. Sure, it will lessen backing out type fender benders and avoid insurance claims. But tell me, how exactly is that a bad thing for you? You either don't have to file a claim if you're the offender and risk your rates going up, or you have a lesser chance of getting hit if someone else has the camera.

Think for yourselves people. It helps.

RE: Wow....
By Warwulf on 3/2/2011 6:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
A few things come to mind:

1. Parenting: Teach your kids that being behind a car backing up is a bad idea. Seriously, it works. The other 200 million or so parents don't seem to have much trouble with it. Hell, it even worked for me.

2. Consequences: Realize that there are negative consequences for both lousy parenting and poor driving... and don't make the rest of us have to bear the burden of it.

3. Choice: If you want it, don't trust your kids, driving, etc... buy it. You can get one aftermarket now if you really want. I don't want it; I don't need it.

RE: Wow....
By Azzr34l on 3/2/2011 9:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
Love the passive aggressive tone. I'll play...

Even if you are parent of the century, I'm pretty sure your kid is going to make 1 or 2 mistakes at some point in their perfectly sculpted lives you've outlined for them. God forbid that mistake happens behind a car backing up.

The majority of kids killed by this type of accident are under 2 yrs old. Your kids must be prodigal gifts from god if at 9 months old they were able to understand it's dangerous to be behind a vehicle with someone in the drivers seat.

Get the facts before you neo-con, gun-toting, don't tread on me types post. This isn't a problem with teenagers, it's very young children, many of whom are barely able to communicate (if at all), let alone grasp the concept of "it's not safe to do this".

Not a good solution
By Beenthere on 3/1/2011 9:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
How many people would actually look at the screen when talking on their cellphone or texting while backing up?

You can't mandate good judgment or driving skills. We all pay dearly for the braindead who get behind the wheel of an auto.

RE: Not a good solution
By verteron on 3/2/2011 12:02:06 AM , Rating: 2
The more that is mandated that people do, the less that actually will. You can regulate pilots, but not the common folk.

Somebody pays politicians again
By room200 on 3/1/2011 6:46:16 AM , Rating: 2
You can pretty much bet a lot of money changed hands and that the guys making these cameras slid some money under the table. Time to invest in the companies manufacturing these things.

My 2 cents
By The Raven on 3/1/2011 11:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
The new rules, if finalized, would cost the auto industry $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion per year, but would save approximately 100 lives

...This sub-heading should be replaced with the following snippet from the body of the article. There is no point in mincing words...
The regulation would add $159 to $203 in costs to each vehicle without a display screen, and $58 to $88 to each vehicle with a display screen.

According to a cost-benefit analysis conducted by the NHTSA, "the costs per life saved ranged from $11.3 million to $72.2 million - above its comprehensive cost estimate for a statistical life of $6.1 billion."

Factor in the cost of lives lost to idiots using the screen as a DVD player/GPS/visual touchscreen music selector, etc. (as these screens will invariably also be used for) and the numbers won't jive I'm sure.

We just had a venting of public opinion here on DT with the various myTouch and Sync (or whatever they are called) products being OFFERED by Ford, GM, etc. Most people seemed to think that it was just another shiny object for simpletons and sophisticates alike to get distracted by and kill someone.

Again I am making assumptions as to where this goes here (eventual addition of GPS, etc.) but imagine now that the gov't is MANDATING these devices.

These cameras are widely available as options on new cars and you can easily get them installed on used ones. Can't convince mom and dad to invest in the tech to potentially save their little ones' lives and have them installed voluntarily? Hmm... maybe it is because the chance is so slim that you'd better spend your money on shark attack or lightning strike insurance. So why are we mandating this? And if it is so important, why not mandate them on ALL cars? Not just new ones. Because it is about money I'm sure. The auto makers don't care. I know...I'm in the auto manufacturing industry. We will just pass on the expense to the customer. You've been had. We will be making another sale.

Instead of passing laws like this, we should be passing laws to prohibit this. I'll even take it back to seatbelt and helmet laws (not that I wouldn't refuse either if it was purely a choice instead of a law). This crap is rediculous.

This is stupid...
By Warwulf on 3/2/2011 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
If each back up camera system cost only $100, that'd be $30B nationwide to save 300 lives. That's $100M a person. We can't even spend that much money to protect our frontline soldiers from IEDs.

13 people die every year from vending machines falling on them. Where's the legislation to regulate these death traps!?

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

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