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 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.


or $65


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

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
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
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.

"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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