backtop


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


  (Source: dieselpowermag.com)
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

RE: Personal Responsibility
By drycrust3 on 11/25/2011 4:07:47 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
Totally agree, besides these kinds of incidents prevent people who are dumb enough to not check where their kids are from propagating their genes through our society.

I think your response shows a complete lack of compassion and understanding. In one sense you are right, if you are reversing you should be checking your mirrors, and all the children should have been inside, and someone should have been supervising the vehicle while it was backing, and the driveway should be straight and not curved, and someone should have been standing by the pavement to warn people there is a vehicle backing, and the vehicle should have had a warning buzzer sounding, and there should be overhead lighting to ensure there is adequate visibility 24 hours a day for all seasons of the year, etc, etc, etc. Or maybe you should park on the street, or have a driveway that has a separate entrance and exit, so you don't need to reverse at all.
But maybe all those things aren't practical in every possible circumstance. Notice that? As much as you try, there are always going to be circumstances whereby you can't cater for every eventuality. What then?
So the problem isn't that people aren't careful and can't do this or that, but that they need to have things that are practical for the majority of circumstances they encounter.
Having a reversing camera gives the driver better visibility at the rear than almost any other method. No one knows for sure whether a camera would or wouldn't have saved this child's life, but the probability is that it would have.
To install one as an after market product is expensive, but when you look at the price of a not too sophisticated webcam, you realise that maybe these could be fitted during manufacturing without the need for a significant price increase.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By corduroygt on 11/25/2011 5:57:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think your response shows a complete lack of compassion and understanding. In one sense you are right, if you are reversing you should be checking your mirrors, and all the children should have been inside, and someone should have been supervising the vehicle while it was backing, and the driveway should be straight and not curved, and someone should have been standing by the pavement to warn people there is a vehicle backing, and the vehicle should have had a warning buzzer sounding, and there should be overhead lighting to ensure there is adequate visibility 24 hours a day for all seasons of the year, etc, etc, etc. Or maybe you should park on the street, or have a driveway that has a separate entrance and exit, so you don't need to reverse at all.

No it just requires common sense and personal responsibility. Make sure you know where your goddamn kids are when backing up or take them indoors. Why the f*** do I have to pay for a rearview camera because some dumbass ran over his kid? I don't even have any kids!

You can't control everything in life so occasionally some kids will get run over by idiot parents backing up. I bet that dad makes sure to check behind the car before he's backing up now.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By michael67 on 11/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Personal Responsibility
By GuinnessKMF on 11/26/2011 8:59:47 PM , Rating: 5
Sheesh, after reading your post all it made me think was that they should take the money and spend it on education, anything so I don't have to read this type of crap anymore.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By drycrust3 on 11/26/2011 1:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why ... do I have to pay for a rearview camera because some dumbass ran over his kid? I don't even have any kids!


If you consider that you already pay taxes, and a fair amount of that, directly and indirectly, goes into the cost of bringing up children, then why object to something that protects the investment already made in that child and yet potentially doesn't cost you anything as a tax payer?
Since children are currently being hit by a reversing vehicles, then you are already paying for their hospitalisation or death. So unless the injury is just a scratch the cost of that injury (or death) is going to be more than the cost of fitting the camera, thus potentially the cost to you is less by fitting the camera.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By corduroygt on 11/26/2011 1:35:22 PM , Rating: 4
I'd like to see how you came to that conclusion. 14 Million cars a year * 200 bucks = 2.8 Billion dollars a year would be the extra cost of this measure. It'll be useful in protecting 100-150 kids from their idiot parents. I'm sure letting those 100-150 kids die costs less, and also forces people to pay attention when they're driving and not letting such idiots breed is always a plus.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By yomamafor1 on 11/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Personal Responsibility
By corduroygt on 11/28/2011 5:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's unreasonable to expect everyone to pay for it because you were stupid and made a mistake. Rear view cameras are options on many vehicles and those 100-150 people can just get one for their own vehicle without forcing it on everyone.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By BobfromLI on 11/26/2011 6:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
I just picked up a used Expedition. My son put in a fancy radio and we felt we needed, NEEDED a way to see what was behind us. The camera cost $14 retail. If there were no screen like the one that is used on nav systems, retail cost of systems is about $120. I figure that auto companies can do it alot cheaper. Even if I don't hit a kid, I might not hit another car or the fire hydrant my wife fought with (and lost to) two years ago.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Dorkyman on 11/26/2011 12:49:04 AM , Rating: 5
I know! I know!

We need to pass a law mandating that everyone outside needs to wear an airbag vest, so if/when they are about to fall down or collide with something the airbag will save them.

Sure it will be a hassle, but if just one child is saved, won't that be worth it?


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Dark Legion on 11/26/2011 1:27:02 PM , Rating: 5
Won't somebody please think of the children!!


RE: Personal Responsibility
By someguy123 on 11/26/2011 8:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
You idiot. Don't you realize that airbags can crush toddlers?

What we need is to encase all children in titanium bubble and cushioned with tempurpedic mattresses. Inside this bubble will be an additional black box, which will give us valuable information in case the titanium is somehow perforated.

All this will be provided by my company, which I coincidentally launched right before I wrote this bill. Remember, it's for the children.


RE: Personal Responsibility
By Dr of crap on 11/28/2011 11:16:10 AM , Rating: 2
No, no, the future is coming.
You inject a GPS tracking device into the kid when born.
It will have cell phone ability with another part inserted into the ear. It will monitor your glucose level, HDL, LDL, exercise level, and food intake. From now on ALL people will be monitored!

Yes, some kids get run over.
Some commuters get into crashes on the freeway.
Some house burn to the ground.
You can't let the govt get into every little detail of our lives.
With the addition of the rear facing camera, we now have even more crap to deal with and still about 100 kids, but they reports, will be run over.
HOW WILL WE SAVE ALL THE KIDS!???!

And don't forget about the fools that will try and use the camera to switch lanes and merge. Oh yes, you think that sounds stupid, but it can happen. And maybe they'll only work if the car is in reverse, but that can be fixed as well.
You can fix stupid!


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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