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

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.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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