Print 66 comment(s) - last by InCarExperts.. on Dec 12 at 9:37 AM

NHTSA pushes for the mandate to save lives while opponents such as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers reminds it of costs associated with implementing the rule

New regulations that require automakers to improve rear visibility in all new models by 2014 were proposed in December 2010, and now, the backup camera rule is part of the national debate about safety, federal regulations, and jobs.

The backup camera rule would require the installation of backup cameras in all new vehicles by 2014. It was proposed by President Barack Obama, and is 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's car.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about 292 people die from back-over accidents per year. By implementing the backup camera rule, half of those lives would be saved annually.

While the backup cameras could clearly be beneficial, the topic is up for debate because opponents say the requirement would be too costly and would result in job losses.

According to an August 30 letter the president sent to House Republican leaders, the backup camera mandate is in the top five list of the five most costly rules under consideration at this time.

The backup camera rule could cost as much as $2.7 billion, and would equate to about $18.5 million per life saved. Adding the cameras to vehicles would tack on an extra $58 to $203 per vehicle.

"Congress built flexibility into this law to balance safety and cost, and unfortunately NHTSA has ignored Congress by mandating an expensive, one-size-fits-all solution for rearview cameras," said Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

So far, individual automakers have not said anything negative about the rule despite these costs. In fact, Ford plans to have backup cameras in all Ford and Lincoln models by the end of this year.

The backup camera plan calls for 10 percent of the United States' new fleet to meet standards by 2012, 40 percent to meet the standards by 2013, and all new vehicles to comply by 2014.

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

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

modest proposal
By DockScience on 11/25/2011 2:06:28 PM , Rating: -1
Why don't we have IQ limits for driving?
Anyone below IQ 80 is not allowed to drive.

Should really clear out those parking lots around government offices.

RE: modest proposal
By Camikazi on 11/25/2011 10:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
Could be because having a high IQ doesn't mean you will drive well, I know quite a few very intelligent people who can't drive at all, I mean they are horrible drivers and I also know some not so smart people who are better drivers then me (with me being a definite standard of course :P). Seriously though, I don't know how you think that IQ has anything to do with driving skills, they aren't comparable.

RE: modest proposal
By Kurz on 11/26/2011 8:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
THIS: Like every skill it requires active attention and thought to improve and become a master. You might have talent, but it means nothing if you don't put forth your effort.

RE: modest proposal
By Skywalker123 on 11/26/2011 12:31:00 AM , Rating: 3
But then you'd have to ride a bike to work.

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

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