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 tng on 12/28/2012 11:26:02 AM , Rating: 1
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.

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.

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.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

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