backtop


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 ATX22 on 4/1/2014 9:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
No, in summary; pay attention to what you're doing instead of being dependant on gadgets to do that job for you. You're not operating an iPod here, you're operating a heavy piece of equipment that has the potential to maim and kill.. it's no joke when you aren't driving it right and get someone hurt or killed. This isn't about hoping an accident won't happen.. fact is accidents WILL HAPPEN, mandatory back up cameras or not. This is about taking some personal responsibility for your actions and being an attentive driver. No amount of stupid prevention on vehicles is going to prevent stupid from happening.. It's going to increase the likelihood of stupid happening since these safety features allow people to become that much more complacent.

Also...

When the little sonar devices are covered.. Yeah they don't work so well, and while I don't know about all trucks, but the one I drive, the actual camera is on the damn tailgate.. So, tailgate down = you staring at your license plate and bumper. If the truck used the camera to discern between objects and nothing, I guess it would let me know that my tailgate is a little close..


RE: Another stupid law
By boeush on 4/1/2014 12:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
It must be nice to not be human. Unfortunately, we actual humans are prone to making mistakes - no matter how much we strive not to. Personal responsibility doesn't un-flatten an extra-flat brat...

In a few years, cars will be self-driving, and will be far less mistake-prone than us humans. If that's not the ultimate in stupid prevention, I don't know what is... Until then, technology can and does assist - no matter whether it's in line with your blind ideology.

As for your truck's unfortunate design choices, don't complain to me. Complain to the manufacturer and/or buy from a smarter company. Me, I'd mount one megapixel sensor with fisheye optics above each tail light, for full coverage and good stereoscopy for practically negligible cost (less than the front facing camera on the cheapest smart phone.)


RE: Another stupid law
By ATX22 on 4/1/2014 9:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
So… let me see if I’ve got this right… you admittedly lack the intellectual competence to drive a car that doesn’t practically take care of all the driver attentiveness requirements of driving said car for you, nor do you posses the brainpower to.. do basic maintenance on your vehicle without some light or siren going off notifying you to do so (or have someone else take care of it for you). That about right? So when I, someone who’s basically Joe Average, but who can do what from your view point is not humanly possible doesn’t like having more and more safety and stupid prevention devices forced upon me and dare protest this insanity; you’re going to argue with me when you’ve spent all this time trying to paint yourself as the intellectual light-weight of the two of us? That’s just brilliant how?

If you don’t possess the brainpower to back a car down your driveway without a camera painting where you’re car will be if you keep going, stop driving, find a job that lets you work out of your house. Please. STAY OFF THE ROAD.

This equipment should be OPTIONAL, if you WANT it, you should be able to purchase a vehicle with all this stuff installed, if you don’t want it, you shouldn’t have it forced upon you because some politician or government agency wants to look like they are doing something to justify their “job”.

Or, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and just ask you to stop being a troll.. and a bad one at that. One which I should probably stop feeding.


RE: Another stupid law
By M'n'M on 4/1/2014 10:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It must be nice to not be human. Unfortunately, we actual humans are prone to making mistakes - no matter how much we strive not to. Personal responsibility doesn't un-flatten an extra-flat brat...

While I agree that "to err is human" let's not kid ourselves either. The kids getting backed over are being done-in by their parents, or granmPa/Ma or some other relation. These are random kids getting run over by the local idiot. The very people who should be most careful about where their kids are and what they're doing, aren't.

Most people have an "accident" and say, "oh well, it's just an accident". I say that's a crap attitude. In 35 years of driving I've never had an accident (though I've been hit 3x when stopped) because I pay attention and know what I'm doing. Maybe if people had my attitude and not (seemingly) yours, they'd be less "accidents", let alone the meager amount that include backing over kids.

Again let's recall what's being mandated and how effective it's ardent supporter (the Govt) says it hopes it'll be. If seat belts failed 75% of the time would you call that a success ?

ps - TPM was mandated because it was thought that the higher rollover rate of SUVs was (partially) caused by tires not being maintained by their careless owners. And when these tires overheated and blew out, people "lost control" and were killed as a result. This, as anyone who drives for real knows, is crap. While under-inflated tires can indeed overheat and blowout, that shouldn't cause loss of control. Nope THAT is caused by panicky drivers who do stupid things like jerk on the wheel or jam on the brakes in a vehicle that isn't a Miata. I can attest to blowing out a few tires at high speeds on various cars and one Jeep and guess what, I'm still here. TPM was intended to let these morons know their tire was under-inflated before it had months of abuse (and failed), not to let you know you just ran over a nail during a road trip.

How about we start mandating stuff that will really make a difference in the ~40k people killed in car "accidents" each year. Until your self driving cars come along (and find new ways to crash) how about we test every driver every 2 or 3 years with a real driving test, one that shows real driving deficiencies. Or mandate a "high performance" (not racing) school be attended every 2 or 3 years. It might cost you a $1000/yr but if it saves just 1 life isn't it worth it ? You can put off that new cellphone until next year, after all driving is a privilege not a right ... right ?


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














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