Print 103 comment(s) - last by KITH.. on Apr 2 at 6:27 PM

This spans cars, SUVs, trucks and vans

It's official: all new light vehicles will be required to have backup cameras by May 2018.
According to The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), it has issued a proposed regulation Monday that will require all vehicles with a gross weight rating up to 10,000 pounds to have the backup cameras. This spans cars, SUVs, trucks and vans. 
The backup cameras are a result of feedback from consumer groups and families who have or have been affected by a vehicle backing over a child or loved one. Some parents have accidentally backed out of their garage, for example, and did not see their child playing behind the car before doing so. They have called for enhanced auto technology that can allow drivers a clearer view behind the vehicles. 
The backup cameras being pushed by the NHTSA will give drivers the ability to see a 10-foot by 20-foot zone directly behind the vehicle. 
"We are committed to protecting the most vulnerable victims of back-over accidents—our children and seniors," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "As a father, I can only imagine how heart wrenching these types of accidents can be for families, but we hope that today's rule will serve as a significant step toward reducing these tragic accidents."
NHTSA estimates that 58 to 69 deaths will be prevented annually once the entire road vehicle fleet has the rear-view systems -- which will likely be by about 2054.

The conversation about backup cameras has been ongoing since 2007 when Congress passed a law that ordered the Transportation Department to have a rule regarding backup cameras on light cars and trucks in place by 2011. The original goal was for all light vehicles to be equipped with them by the 2014 model year, but this has been delayed by many public comment periods and other delays.

The legislation would begin phasing backup cameras into 10 percent of vehicles after May 1, 2016 models, 40 percent a year later and 100 percent in May 2018.

In further efforts to prevent annual auto-related deaths, the NHTSA decided in February to require vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems in all new cars and trucks. The DOT and NHTSA have not yet set forth an exact date for when vehicles will be required to implement V2V technology.  

Source: NHTSA

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Another stupid law
By zozzlhandler on 3/31/2014 5:41:51 PM , Rating: -1
You never look at it. Sounds like you have a large dose of the "stupid" that you say you cannot legislate out of people. You, sir are an idiot.

That said, while the government cannot do those thing you said, they *can* (and thank God, occasionally do) pass legislation that make vehicles safer. This is one of those occasions. You may not be safer with a backup camera, but most people will be, and vehicles will be therefore on average be safer.

We had the same stupid arguments about safety belts, and a zillion other features that have saved countless lives.

RE: Another stupid law
By shikigamild on 3/31/2014 7:33:44 PM , Rating: 5
How difficult is it to look behind the car BEFORE going out?

A camera that shows you what you could easily see if you LOOKED OUTSIDE is not comparable in any way shape or form with the safety belt.

Also, this is supposedly for "the children"... what about people who do not have children?
They will still have to pay for the premium of irresponsible parents not doing their job.

RE: Another stupid law
By SublimeSimplicity on 3/31/2014 8:37:45 PM , Rating: 3
Cameras can show you angles you can't see from the driver's seat. For instance, backing out of a spot with a big van/truck next to you. With the camera on the rear of the car, you can see around the car parked next to you.

RE: Another stupid law
By Samus on 4/1/2014 4:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
How difficult is it to look behind the car BEFORE going out?

Due to the aerodynamics of modern vehicles (teardrop shape) the rear windows are becoming more and more narrow. This shape increases fuel efficiency with a reduced drag coefficient, but has also led to an increase in reverse-collisions with objects over the past two decades.

Anybody who has driven a Prius, CRX, Insight, Focus, etc knows how painful it is to safely backup. The blind spots at the rear below the hatch and left-to-right. Practically any crossover (Venza, CX5, new Escape, and so on) suffer even worse as the ground clearance is significantly higher while the hatchback-effect raises the rear windscreen.

Camera's are the most effective solution to eliminating these blind spots. It's no surprise camera's were offered on all of these vehicles years before talk of a federal mandate even surfaced.

Obviously, many cars don't need these types of devices. My old Focus felt like a box of glass compared to newer vehicles, but its drag coefficient was also .32 while the new one's is under .30 making a significant difference in fuel economy at highway speed.

RE: Another stupid law
By marvdmartian on 4/1/2014 7:23:01 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sort of surprised that no car manufacturer has ditched outside mirrors entirely, in favor of an interior monitor and a series of video cameras outside the car. For sure, it would help most people with seeing other vehicles in their blind spot areas (since most seem to have no idea how to set up their outside mirrors properly). Added benefit would be the lower drag on a car (though not much, every bit helps).

This would also have the dual purpose of having a backup camera on, pretty much all the time.

However, advocating for a backup camera in every new vehicle, and forcing it by regulation, are two different things. This law isn't being made for people in parking lots, its main declared benefit is to prevent drivers from running over people while backing out of their driveways.

Honestly, how difficult it is, to do a quick walk-around behind your vehicle, before you hop in and back up?

RE: Another stupid law
By SublimeSimplicity on 4/1/2014 10:09:28 AM , Rating: 2
Side view mirrors are required by the NHTSA.

Tesla has wanted to ditch them since the roadster, but have been consistently denied, but it seems like they have some allies now (GM, Ford, Toyota) that all want to do this.

You'd be surprised how much effort goes into the aerodynamics of those mirrors, just to reduce wind noise.

RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 1
Well I'm ok with getting rid of them but honestly I'd still want them on my car since otherwise how do you easily see what is coming up alongside you but that is out of your view. I'd be willing to pay for the option though.

They probably want to get rid of them for the reasons you stated and because those mirrors add a lot of extra drag on cars that the government is telling them have to meet an efficiency target. I remember reading that part of the reason for the design of my car's headlights (2013 Nissan Altima) is because they added a little to reduce the wind resistance of the side view mirrors. The headlight helps push the air out of the way for the mirror coming.

RE: Another stupid law
By toffty on 4/1/2014 12:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
There's something called a 'camera'. These can be put on the side of the car instead of mirrors

RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: Another stupid law
By marvdmartian on 4/2/2014 2:14:28 PM , Rating: 3
Seems my idea may be instituted, if the car manufacturers get their way:

As far as a narrow field of view, or blind spots (as someone tried to make the point about), they DO make wide angle lenses for cameras too, so that shouldn't be much of an issue.

RE: Another stupid law
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 10:11:46 AM , Rating: 4
Honestly, how difficult it is, to do a quick walk-around behind your vehicle, before you hop in and back up?

That would require personal responsibility and a tiny bit of forethought. Obviously we can't expect that from today's Americans

We're forever becoming a society that bends over backwards for a few stupid people. This, predictably, causes more people to become stupid because we no longer require them to think for themselves.

Oh you bought a $300k house on a $25k yearly salary and had to foreclose? No problem Government mortgage relief is here!

Oh you got pregnant because you were too stupid to think about birth control? No problem, we'll suck that little bastard out on the taxpayers dime!

Oh you burned yourself because something that's obviously hot was hot? We'll put "HOT" warning labels all over everything from now on!

Oh you were such a careless parent, you didn't even know your kid was playing behind your car? We'll just make EVERYONE but backup cameras. There there, better now?

Uncle Sam the Nanny is here. He loves you. He cares for you, so you don't have to!

RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 12:22:50 PM , Rating: 1
Uncle Sam the Nanny is here. He loves you. He cares for you, so you don't have to!


RE: Another stupid law
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 5:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh you burned yourself because something that's obviously hot was hot? We'll put "HOT" warning labels all over everything from now on!

That one wasn't the government it was the bottom feeding lawyers.

RE: Another stupid law
By ipay on 4/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 12:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have a hard time thinking of a car that doesn't offer this in some trim package. But if you want/need something like this, buy a car that offers it. The government shouldn't mandate a feature or even mandate an option be offered.

Companies started offering these features because they knew they were desired. And because they could make a profit offering them in higher trim packages. By mandating the feature, companies are now required to offer it and can't really make any profit on it since then they'd have to raise the base price of the car even more. And some people don't want to pay for it. My fiance has a 2012 Nissan Sentra that is the base model. Why? Because she wanted a cheap, economical car.

Every single time the government does this crap, they basically tell the population who doesn't want or need certain things "Sorry you're stupid if you think you don't need this and now you're going to pay for it whether you like it or not."

RE: Another stupid law
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 6:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
Try looking behind my Tacoma, you can't see anything under 4' or so high.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

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