backtop


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: reviews.cnet.com)
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

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
quote:
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.).


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki