backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by rdhood.. on Jan 2 at 3:05 PM


Judy Neiman with a picture of her daughter Sydnee  (Source: Yahoo News)
They suspect cost is the driving force

Even though the regulations for backup cameras in new vehicles is near, grieving parents and safety advocates want to know what the heck has taken so long.

The rearview camera mandate would make it so every vehicle would have a backup camera for seeing behind the vehicle when in reverse. The idea was triggered by the 300 deaths and 16,000 injuries annually caused by a driver's inability to see behind their vehicle when backing up. Many of the injuries and death affect young children and senior citizens. 

Judy Neiman, 53, of West Richland, Washington, is just one of the many people who have experienced a tragic death due to driving a car in reverse without properly checking her surroundings before backing up. She accidentally backed over and killed her 9-year-old daughter, Sydnee.

"They have to do something, because I've read about it happening to other people. I read about it and I said, 'I would die if it happens to me,'" said Neiman. "Then it did happen to me."

The White House is doing something about it, but there have been several delays in regulating the use of these cameras. The rearview camera regulations date back to 2007, when Congress initially approved legislation to set these standards by February 28, 2011. This date was delayed to February of this year, and again to December 31.

While the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are both behind the making of these new standards, others, namely automakers, have worried that the cost of installing these cameras on each vehicle would drive the price up too high. Parents and safety advocates blame worries regarding cost for the delays in safety. 

NHTSA estimated that adding backup cameras to every car would add $58 to $88 to the price of vehicles that have an existing dashboard display screens. It would cost $159 to $203 for those without them.

DOT Secretary Ray LaHood said he is meeting with White House officials to finalize the regulations by December 31.

In the meantime, Neiman grieves over her lost child who had survived four open-heart surgeries like a champ, but was eventually killed due to her mistake. She couldn't see her 4-foot tall daughter behind her van when pulling out of the garage.

Source: Yahoo News



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Why..?!
By drycrust3 on 12/27/2012 8:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why not require daytime running lights, a feature I have been griping for to be standard for over a decade, one which I'm sure will save far more lives and property.

A lot of things that collectively will reduce road fatalities are things that aren't expensive, they just need people to put in some effort to do it.
Another thing that will reduce lives is governing a vehicle to the legal maximum speed limit.
I think having a law that requires people to have the reversing camera makes it easier to justify the expense of the camera, because there are people around who will say "I don't need it". Yes, you don't need it, but this isn't about you, this is about someone who hasn't much money and their child. By having the government mandate it, then no one really cares that you don't need it because the government has said you do. Consequently the costs associated with installation are much lower because every vehicle has it.


RE: Why..?!
By M'n'M on 12/27/2012 9:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, you don't need it, but this isn't about you, this is about someone who hasn't much money and their child. By having the government mandate it, then no one really cares that you don't need it because the government has said you do.


If you want to subsidize other people's children then go ahead, do it. Guess what ... it's not my responsibility to pay for other people's decision to have kids. Not my job to feed them, clothe them or anything else. People who can afford a new car can also afford to pay for the extra cost of such a system, if indeed their type vehicle even warrants such a system.

And yes if I'm paying for it, it is about me. Not solely, but I do have a stake in it. The more we get away from people paying for what they want, the more lost we get. If "we" all benefited equally from this you might have a case but as it is ... you don't.

You want a compromise, here's one. Require every vehicle with a GVWR > X lbs offer such a system as an option (no doubt integrated w/the nav system). People who want it can pay for it. I'm willing to unfairly share in the development costs.


RE: Why..?!
By drycrust3 on 12/27/2012 11:12:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
it's not my responsibility to pay for other people's decision to have kids.

You are correct, it isn't your responsibility to pay for other people's children, but it is always and forever your responsibility to reverse your vehicle safely.
It isn't just small children who can be hit by reversing vehicles, it can be cyclists (happened to me), adults walking in the same area as a reversing vehicle (nearly happened to me), even other vehicles (and, yup, it happened to me). This year I had a guy reverse his car at high speed across a busy pavement straight into the side of my stationary bus. Of course, the bus was barely damaged, and it was a miracle he didn't hit any pedestrians, but how could he not have seen a bus? I really have no idea, but if he didn't see the bus, then you can bet he wouldn't have seen anyone or anything else. Of course, it's pretty hard to blame the bus driver when you reverse into the side of a crowded stationary bus, especially when the driver takes photos of the accident scene.
One of the problems that happens with any vehicle related incident is "the blame game", and it is so easy to blame a child, especially a dead child, when they are hit by a reversing vehicle.
To me, by fitting a reversing camera you place the responsibility back into the driver's seat. Actually, this statement is incorrect: the responsibility has always been in the driver's seat, it is only that people have made excuses to avoid that responsibility.

The cost of $206 is a one off cost, so the question is this: Is it cheaper for everyone to pay the $206 and live with a reduction in vehicle damage, injuries, and death, and to place the responsibility of reversing safely back into the driver's seat, or to not pay the $206 and dump the responsibility for deaths on the victims and for the cost of vehicle damage and injuries on those paying taxes and insurance (as currently happens)?
I would suspect the cost of $206 on each new vehicle is small in comparison to the hidden costs.


RE: Why..?!
By slickr on 12/27/2012 11:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
So you are spending 60k on a vehicle, but don't want to pay the added $200 for camera?

Ops the vehicle doesn't come with a camera(that doesn't even help with reverse, it hinders), then buy a vehicle that has a camera! Its called choice, its called free market!

You make the choices, you spend the money, you enjoy/suffer the consequences.


RE: Why..?!
By 91TTZ on 12/28/2012 10:47:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The cost of $206 is a one off cost, so the question is this: Is it cheaper for everyone to pay the $206 and live with a reduction in vehicle damage, injuries, and death, and to place the responsibility of reversing safely back into the driver's seat, or to not pay the $206 and dump the responsibility for deaths on the victims and for the cost of vehicle damage and injuries on those paying taxes and insurance (as currently happens)? I would suspect the cost of $206 on each new vehicle is small in comparison to the hidden costs.


You're making the assumption that these cameras will reduce these deaths. There is a third, very real possibility that you did not mention- the possibility that these things are mandated, you spent an extra $200 on your car, and it still doesn't help the problem.


RE: Why..?!
By Rukkian on 12/28/2012 11:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
Having used one a few different vehicles, I am pretty sure it wont help at all, and probably make it worse. I am not sure where anybody has tried blaming the child when they are hit (other than absolute a-holes).


RE: Why..?!
By tng on 12/28/2012 11:26:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The cost of $206 is a one off cost, so the question is this: Is it cheaper for everyone to pay the $206 and live with a reduction in vehicle damage, injuries, and death, and to place the responsibility of reversing safely back into the driver's seat, or to not pay the $206 and dump the responsibility for deaths on the victims and for the cost of vehicle damage and injuries on those paying taxes and insurance (as currently happens)? I would suspect the cost of $206 on each new vehicle is small in comparison to the hidden costs.
Here is what I see in this.

Looking at the picture of the woman in the article standing behind the Cadillac (which was surely not just an entry level vehicle) what was the added cost for the BUC system when she bought the vehicle? It was probably an option and yet she did not see the need for it then?

This may seem like I don't care, but since she didn't deem it necessary to get the camera on her own vehicle then, tough, she should not be able to mandate that everybody have one. Why should the rest of us have to pay just so she can feel better about her guilt?

I have a Backup Camera for my car sitting in my rollaround toolbox in the garage. It has been there for 3 years now and even though I thought it would be a cool thing, just haven't seen the need for it.

quote:
You're making the assumption that these cameras will reduce these deaths. There is a third, very real possibility that you did not mention- the possibility that these things are mandated, you spent an extra $200 on your car, and it still doesn't help the problem.
Exactly!!!!!!

Yet there will be a bunch of nannies out there that will feel much better about themselves since they forced the rest of us to get cameras put on our cars. There will be a bunch of politicians out there that will use it as a campaign point claiming how many lives it will save, yet it may it may just be window dressing to make certain people feel better at the general public's expense.


RE: Why..?!
By slickr on 12/27/2012 11:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
So you are spending 60k on a vehicle or 40k or even 20k on a vehicle and you don't have the $200 that would install a camera on it?

You want everyone else to pay those $200, even though you are already buying a 40k, 60k, 100k vehicle?

Second of all it ain't the governments business telling car companies how to build their cars. This particular car even had all the safety gadgets like sensors and audible effects, none of it helps if you have a fat slob that isn't aware of the environment.

I mean for god's sake her daughter was supposed to be IN the car, how can you not hear the door opening and closing? How can you not look at the rear view, sideview?

How do you not stop when you feel a bump with your vehicle?

Heck how do you know this "mother" didn't murder her daughter? To me its a very high possibility. I mean you either have to have no brain(which is possible) or want to kill your child to be able to kill it in such a way.


RE: Why..?!
By nocturne on 12/29/2012 7:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Started off good.. but went a lil too far.. xD

Reminds me of the only time I found myself stuck watching Oprah while channel surfing. The guests were this young couple, who had tragically lost their young child after leaving them unattended in their backyard while chatting on the phone inside, and ultimately their child drowned in their pool.

In that case, should we mandate hard pool covers for everyone with a pool..? Sad thing, they had one that they weren't using. At least they got a lump of cash and a free vacation from Oprah as a prize for their stupidity..


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














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