backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by PCMerlin.. on Apr 12 at 1:56 PM

Secretary of Transportation repeatedly postponed making a decision on this legislation

Lawmakers in Washington have been considering a mandate that would force automakers to install rear view cameras in most all-new vehicles. Two members of Congress and parents of children injured (or killed) by inattentive drivers backing over them are now calling on regulators to finalize the regulations.

The advocates are urging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to finalize regulations that have been delayed four times since 2011. Congress approved legislation in 2007 that was signed into law by President George W Bush requiring the government to set regulations for rear visibility by February 28, 2011.
 
However, that date has come and gone many times with Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood repeatedly choosing to delay making a decision on the rule.

The NHTSA has proposed standards that would have required automakers to install backup cameras on all new vehicles by the year 2014. The regulation was expected to be in effect by September of 2014 and was estimated to cost the auto industry in the area of $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion annually. The regulation would also likely increase the purchase price of new vehicles.

NHTSA administrator David Strickland recently said that the ruling would happen "at some point in the near future." He did point out that the rule is still under review, commenting, "We are still working through a number of issues. It's a very important rule for the department… We want to make sure we get it right."

The backup camera regulations are intended to help eliminate the blind spots on vehicles that could obscure pedestrians, particularly the elderly and children, from the driver's view. The NHTSA says that about 100 children age 5 or under die each year in backup accidents and more than half of those are one year old or younger. 

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

this is flawed rulemaking
By chromal on 4/9/2013 10:07:27 AM , Rating: 5
Thanks. Because of oblivious drivers in large SUVs, I've got to have a backup camera in any new subcompact, compact, or convertible/roadster I buy? This is ridiculous, any good driver knows you turn your head to face the direction your vehicle is moving. This should absolutely only be mandatory on vehicles with poor rearward visibility. It should not be a one-size-fits-all requirement, period.




RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By lagomorpha on 4/9/2013 10:11:10 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Sure, mandate it on giant poor visibility SUVs driven by retarded mothers but there is no reason to add several hundred dollars to the price of a hatchback that doesn't have visibility problems.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By FITCamaro on 4/9/2013 10:35:25 AM , Rating: 3
Or just don't mandate it on anything. Why make already expensive SUVs even more expensive? We didn't have back up cameras in the 60s and 70s yet this didn't seem to be a problem.

This is a people problem, not a technology one. Even having the camera doesn't make accidents stop happening. Now people will likely entirely become dependent on the camera. So instead of looking around possibly, they'll just stare at the camera as they back up. Ignoring cars, people riding bikes, or people running coming in from either side until it's in the camera at which point its probably too late.

Then they'll blame the camera for not showing it.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/9/2013 10:40:34 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. My dad has a backup camera in his '11 Durango and it's so distracting. I'm so used to looking left and right (multiple times) and through the rear window to backup.

When you look solely at the screen, you zone out miss if someone is directly beside your vehicle and just lack overall situational awareness.

It's a crutch being pushed by people who can't even keep tabs on their own kids.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By ClownPuncher on 4/9/2013 11:09:47 AM , Rating: 3
Hey, we need the government to step in and make everything more expensive because 1% of the population is inept.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Dr of crap on 4/9/2013 12:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's much smaller than 1% !!
And while we're at it -
How about forward mirrors on the passenger side so you can see how close you are and not swerve way out to the left to avoid things,
louder horns so that the hard of hearing can HEAR you when you use them to tell the inept that they are doing something wrong,
self volume reducing radios so that you can hear the ambulance coming up behind you and move over,
and while I'm at it - a common sense hat that MAKES you smarter behind the wheel and MAKES you pay attention to WHICH exit you need to take!

If they can mandate cameras to save 300 kids, why not something really useful that'll save much more lives!!


By ClownPuncher on 4/9/2013 1:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it is much smaller than 1%. I was being extremely generous.

I would bet that back up cameras will do absolutely nothing to stop injury and death from happening.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Adonlude on 4/9/2013 12:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Tech cannot replace good old fasioned parental supervision.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Sazabi19 on 4/9/2013 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't find mine distracting at all, but I do find it quite helpful. My '11 Nissan Rogue (crossover) has a small back window and some decent blind spots. I like the idea of backup cams and think they are a great addition to autos. With that being said I don't think it should be MANDATED, but instead able to be offered any any vehicle after 201x year as a low cost option. These shouldn't be expensive as the cam nor the screen need to have great resolution, not saying blurry or laggy, but not HD. I can't stand seeing people backup and still have 15ft of clear space behind them to pull forward and then back again when if they had a cam they would have seen how much space they would have had and just kept backing up to pull out fully. Just over the weekend a woman did this and tapped the vehicle parked in front of her (special kind of idiot). I think they help people who embrace them.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/9/2013 3:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just over the weekend a woman did this and tapped the vehicle parked in front of her (special kind of idiot). I think they help people who embrace them.


You cant stop this bro. Women destroy cars by death of a thousand cuts... That's why my gf will never drive my vehicles!


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By JediJeb on 4/9/2013 5:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
My ex-fiance wrecked all three of my vehicles, so I can concur :(


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/9/2013 5:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Is that why she's the ex now? lol


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By superflex on 4/9/2013 10:55:41 AM , Rating: 4
You can't legislate against stupid.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By kingmotley on 4/9/2013 12:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why make already expensive SUVs even more expensive?

To get them off the road.

As for the rest of it, it's because people want to blame something other than themselves. Children (5 years and younger) should not be playing unattended in the driveway.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Drexial on 4/9/2013 2:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am actually going to agree with you on something.

Especially considering the ludicrously low instances of this actually being a scenario that effects people.

This is one of the worst safety proposals in history.

The part I will disagree on is that the modern SUV didn't exist in the 60's and 70's, at most you had vans but they weren't 40% of the cars on the road.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Spuke on 4/9/2013 4:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The part I will disagree on is that the modern SUV didn't exist in the 60's and 70's, at most you had vans but they weren't 40% of the cars on the road.
They aren't 40% of cars on the roads now.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By JediJeb on 4/9/2013 5:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
True, they are just big so more people recognize them over the small vehicles.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Drexial on 4/10/2013 2:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
I was mixing up my numbers and still a little off. Of new car sales they are over 30% of sales. Total on the road they are closer to 12%


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Drexial on 4/10/2013 2:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
oops one more piece of info, if you include truck sales it becomes over 40% of new vehicle sales.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By PCMerlin on 4/12/2013 1:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
FITCamaro... you hit the nail on the head with this one.

My uncle used to back his car into the ditch beside his driveway all the time. The last car he got had one of these fancy rear-view cameras built in. Now instead of just backing into the ditch, he got to watch himself do it!


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By JediJeb on 4/9/2013 5:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly. Sure, mandate it on giant poor visibility SUVs driven by retarded mothers but there is no reason to add several hundred dollars to the price of a hatchback that doesn't have visibility problems.


Could you see a 2 year old sitting behind a hatchback? Or the infant in the carrier that you sat down right behind the rear wheel?

I am definitely not in favor of mandating these things, but to say only large SUVs would benefit while small compacts would not is totally incorrect. Then again, if you did sit that baby carrier right below the bumper, would you even be able to see it with the backup camera? What about the person who sits the baby carrier on top of the car and forgets it? Once that happens I guess we will have to mandate either a roof mounted 360degree view camera there or pressure sensors or something.

As said here in a few other places, it is a people problem not so much a tech problem. In other words know where your kids are at all times, and teach them not to play around vehicles, even if it takes a swat on the rear to get it through their heads. Better a sore bottom than a dead child.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Samus on 4/10/2013 9:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
The other problem is drivers license vehicle type designation has been flawed for decades.

It should be tiered like motorcycle licensing, where at least in most states, you have a different test for bikes larger than 500cc.

In Illinois, no special license is needed for <50cc (scooter/moped) but bikes up to 499cc need a motorcycle license (written and road test) and bikes larger than 500cc need a written, road test, and safety course.

The same should go for large truck/SUV drivers. There is just too much of a gray area between Class D (vehicle up to 16,000lbs) and CDL. A truck/SUV operator should have additional testing, it just isn't like driving a Fiesta, and that's where this legislation's roots are.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 10:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
For all we know, the people demanded it are real but they probably got a helping hand from automakers since this help increase vehicle price.

If this cost more than $500 per vehicle then i call BS. It basically uses a the same cam as a web cam with fish eye lens. A small LCD doesn't cost that much and an ARM chip to process the video is dirt cheap these days. Since this will become mandatory, it should be in the design of the vehicle instead of optional. The real cost of adding this should be less than $100 per vehicle. Unless you are GM and the union expects you to pay $20+/hr for some kid out of high school.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By FITCamaro on 4/9/2013 10:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
How do you figure considering that a smart phone ACTUALLY costs $500-700 to manufacture and sell.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 11:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
a smartphone doesn't cost $500 to make or even close to it.

A smartphone has a lot of things in it. This is just a simple cam and screen. A smartphone screen is normally much better and more expensive. A vehicle screen needs brightness more than picture quality. It doesnt need high pixel density either.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/9/2013 11:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not the most elegent solution but it is cheap. If they can make a profit from selling these on amazon then theres no reason it should cost that much.

$40
http://www.amazon.com/Koolertron-License-Plate-Bac...

or $65
http://www.amazon.com/Inch-Widescreen-Resolution-A...

or
http://www.amazon.com/Abco-4-3-LCD-Rearview-Mirror...

I particularly like the last one.

Regardless, this shouldn't be legislated


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Keeir on 4/9/2013 12:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmmm...

what do you do if your cheap web cam fails? -> 40 dollar fix

what do you do if the web cam embedded in your bumper/sheet metal which runs wire throughout your car to a screen located in your dash fails? -> hundreds of dollar fix (potentially)

Electrical equipment installed in a car is typically significantly more robust than equipment sitting at a desk. It has to last longer, in significant vibration and temperature variations because early failure and the hundreds of dollar fix -will- piss people off.

But, but all means, cut a hole in the sheet metal of your car to mount a 40 dollar device from amazon... it won't be the automakers fault when it fails or if your holes leak.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/9/2013 3:22:43 PM , Rating: 1
Hey ya big dummy. Those cameras are weatherproof. They're designed to mount on the license plate or in the case of the other one, where ever you want it. They are not desktop webcams. They have a fixed focal length(no moving parts) so they are quite robust. As far as the wires go, you run them usually through a grommet aka a rubber seal. Most use the same one that the license plate light uses and then they reseal it if need be. If you do install it where it require the wires to run externally for a bit I'd imagine you would use a drip loop like you do with for example the wiring bung for a trailer.

If I install anything aftermarket, it's never the automakers fault if it fails. I don't know where there would be an exception to that.

Next time read before you make a smart @$$ comment.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Keeir on 4/9/2013 6:50:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Next time read before you make a smart @$$ comment.


Maybe you ought to read your own comment

"Not the most elegent solution but it is cheap. If they can make a profit from selling these on amazon then theres no reason it should cost that much."

A OEM quality back-up camera installed in the factory will <never> be as cheap as tacky retro-fit option that relies on purchaser to install with personal tools and glue.

My guess from your idoitic comment and follow on reply you have never actually engineered or managed any type of change like this.

To retrofit even the most basic camera onto a Nissan Versa (for example) would indeed be in the 150+ range. Heck, thats really only about 50 dollars in parts + 20 minutes extra installation and testing time.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Manch on 4/10/2013 3:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
My god you're a moron. That was in response to another post about the cost of the parts. I put those link up to show that if they are selling for that cheap at a profit then there is no reason for the parts to cost that much.

You went off on a tangent about webcams and cutting holes in sheet metal. You obviously have never retrofit/custom or performed any kind of aftermarket install before. I have, and they aren't difficult at all.

As far as OEM CCD cameras go, they aren't expensive either. They are more than the CMOS cameras I linked but not by much. If I can purchase them for that cheap then the automakers can get them for far far cheaper.



RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 3:28:35 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see it much different than trying to change a light bulb. Of course, it's probably slightly harder and you definitely don't need a mechanic or electrician to do this.

The way I see it, a phone gets more abuse and shock than a light bulb on a car. The camera on my phone still works after years of use. I don't see why it wouldn't work on a car.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Spuke on 4/9/2013 4:11:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The way I see it, a phone gets more abuse and shock than a light bulb on a car.
Really? Temperature extremes, panic stops, potholes and such. Your phone goes through more than that?


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By JediJeb on 4/9/2013 5:14:31 PM , Rating: 1
Well if the phone is with him in the car I guess it would go through all of those. Then more when he is walking out in the cold or hot weather, hiking, biking, or other activities. So I guess I can see it happening.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/9/2013 10:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This should absolutely only be mandatory on vehicles with poor rearward visibility. It should not be a one-size-fits-all requirement, period.


If I recall, that's exactly the way the law is written. If visibility is good enough to see a certain distance behind the vehicle out the rear window (I don't remember the exact number), you do not need a backup camera.

However, if the driver can't see an object at the minimum distance, the camera is required. But given the rising beltlines and poor side/rear visibility in general, I doubt many cars would qualify to go "cameraless"


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By FITCamaro on 4/9/2013 10:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
The rising beltlines and poor visibility is also the fault of government constantly trying to solve a problem they will never be able to. Stupid people and accidents can't be legislated away.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 10:56:24 AM , Rating: 1
We need back up cameras because of poor visibility from rising beltlines.

Rising beltlines was mandated because of the high mass of vehicles. That resulted in vehicles literally chopping people in half or severely injure pedestrians.

High mass of vehicles is because of strict regulations of safety features. This forced a lot of mandatory safety equipment and extra steel in body/frame.

High and strict standards of safety regulation was because of our love for big, powerful vehicles and high speed.

We like big powerful and fast vehicles because we have plenty of roads and highway to roam and cheap gas. Big vehicles are convenient too.

I blame this back up cameras stupidity on our fantastic road systems, cheap gas, and convenience lol

Too bad cheap gas and free flowing highways doesn't really exist anymore near big cities. People are adopting smaller vehicles. All the reasons that led up to this are actually disappearing quickly. Stop this back up camera madness!!!


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Topweasel on 4/9/2013 10:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
Hey I hate driving in reverse and a the camera in my car is so fantastic at helping me out (not view wise but the turn guide). I think a lot of people would enjoy the device in their car. That said I think this is a horrible idea.

I hate to be the evil guy in the room just number crunching instead of "thinking about the children". But 500 kids a year isn't that much. I mean we have population of 313 million. Crap happens. We can't regulate out stupid. We can't count for every accident. We certainly can't make the public spend ~1.5-3 Billion dollars more a year (14.5 million cars at $200 a pop, with unknown amount with the feature already). That is spending 4 million a year per child and it would be 5 years before you see any measurable decrease in incidents and 10 years before enough cars will have been circulated before you could come close to that 4 million per child. For the first 15-20 years the numbers will be closer to 6.5 million dollars per child lost.

That assumes that having a rear view camera would actually eliminate these types of accidents. It's a dumb tax, everyone else paying to help the stupid out just that much more. So yeah lets put that much more of a financial burden on everyone as a whole to help 500 people a year (the drivers) continue to be idiots but have yet another enabler.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By kingmotley on 4/9/2013 12:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not 500. 100. 1.5 billion dollars per year for 100 kids running around without adult supervision.

A better law would require all kids under the age of 5 to be attached to their parents by a leash. Costs $1 and only affects those who have kids that run around outside and might force the parents to actually spend time with them.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Dr of crap on 4/9/2013 12:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Good one - LMAO


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 1:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Parents forgot they need to be a parent. When I was teaching, I can't even count how many times I see parents come into school complaining about their kids behaviors at home even though they behave just fine in school.

They blame the school for their failures and then spends thousands on a psychologists. Then they send them to other therapists because they didn't like the answer of "your child is lonely, misguided, insecure, and needs your attention". After spending $20k or so they realize maybe the last 8 therapists are right. Then they buy all these stupid books and videos as a quick fix. Lol, it's funny how people try to solve family/relationship problems with money.

Please keep blaming the car's blind spot when you run your kid over because you can't properly operate a vehicle.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Spuke on 4/9/2013 4:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please keep blaming the car's blind spot when you run your kid over because you can't properly operate a vehicle.
I like your point of view bro.


RE: this is flawed rulemaking
By Topweasel on 4/9/2013 5:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah sorry thought I read 500 in the beginning. That's now 15 million dollars per casualty with the public eating up 7.5 billion dollars before any measurable return on implementation. A 20 year outlook being something like 24 million of tax payers money per child saved. Out of that 30 billion dollars spent in 20 years at 24 million spent per life saved you only managed to save 1250 Children or basically about half the children with most of that being well after the public has spent well over half the 30 billion dollars.

All that assuming that no kid is ever hit by a car with rear-view camera. Not that it wasn't people not paying attention for whatever reason or under the influence of something. But honestly the sad part is it would probably be worse if a large amount of people didn't care for their car more then the people around them. I imagine most of these accidents are by unobservant people driving beaters. So really it's probably going to take even longer to completely eradicate the cars that they are using without a camera and they will find another excuse to why they murdered someone once they have a car with one (which will be so old it probably won't work or they let it get covered by so much dirt they can't see anything).


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














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