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

Another stupid law
By venym76 on 3/31/2014 5:30:23 PM , Rating: 5
So first off, I have a backup camera on my car, and you know what, I never look at it. Forcing car companies to include this is just another overstep by government that wants to control every part of your life. There are 2 things you can't legislate:
1. You cannot legislate "Nice".
2. You cannot legislate the stupidity out of people.
Trying to do these two things has led to almost every horrible law on the books. People are dumb and this law will not change that. The "if it will save one life" line is irrelevant, you might as well legislate we have to all live in padded rooms from cradle to grave, it will save lives, but no one can live free.




RE: Another stupid law
By zozzlhandler on 3/31/14, Rating: -1
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
quote:
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

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/z9scRZb2XaN-Tzw0...


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:

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/04/02/automake...

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


/everyonerunsscreaminginterror


RE: Another stupid law
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 5:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.


RE: Another stupid law
By BioHazardous on 3/31/2014 5:46:53 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, I have one, and it seems pretty useless. I do much better looking around like I'm supposed to. Staring at the backup camera screen limits the ability to really see what you're doing when backing up, especially in crowded parking lots. Also if I set my screen to dim because I was driving the night before, the backup camera then the next day is dim in broad day light when I get in the car to backup (impossible to see). Yeah I could adjust it back, but I don't look down until I'm in reverse, and I can't change the setting when the backup camera screen is on. Overall, I find it not helpful when backing up.


RE: Another stupid law
By Jeffk464 on 3/31/2014 6:22:21 PM , Rating: 3
They are super convenient when backing up into a spot even if you are not worried about the safety factor.


RE: Another stupid law
By Samus on 4/1/2014 4:48:03 AM , Rating: 2
I forgot to point that out I my previous post. Even though my new truck doesn't have backup sensors, the camera has prevented me from ever tapping a car when parallel parking. I'd say I love-bumped 2-3 times a year in my last truck, but almost never in my old Focus. No real excuse in a car that small.


RE: Another stupid law
By Mint on 4/1/2014 6:01:06 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't be surprised if the non-human damage toll alone will pay for the cost of the cameras. How many times do you think the average driver does some minor damage (to either car) when backing up over the lifetime of a car? 10 times? 50?

If they don't notice, think damage was there before the tap, or are just plain uncourteous, there won't even be any note left behind. Same with minor damage that isn't worth your time to pursue compensation. I once noticed my car had a faint crease in the plastic bumper when washing it, clearly because somebody bumped me. A month later, the paint started peeling from there.

Even if a third of these fender-benders get avoided, it should dwarf the <$50 needed to implement this in a car.


RE: Another stupid law
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 9:15:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
it should dwarf the <$50 needed to implement this in a car.


Can you prove it will cost less than $50 to put these in all vehicles? Stop with the absurdly unrealistic biased estimates. Nothing you're saying in this entire post is backed by any objective or verified facts.

And, again, the issue isn't whether or not these cameras are of some benefit. The issue is the Federal Government mandating them as standard equipment in all vehicles. That should up to us as a society and the free market to decide!

This is a perfect example of your Liberal wishy-washy belief system. You scream "free market!!" when Tesla want's to direct sell it's vehicles, but you think backup cameras should be mandated equipment. You either believe in a free market or don't, which is it?


RE: Another stupid law
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 11:39:55 AM , Rating: 1
Liberals don't necessarily pass more laws that restrict your behavior. Which states are legalizing the marijuana, conservative or liberal? Conservatives are normally the ones trying to use the penal code to enforce their version of morality on everybody else.


RE: Another stupid law
By rountad on 4/1/2014 11:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
Can we agree that they are both awful?

The default state should be freedom, not a constantly expanding government...


RE: Another stupid law
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The default state should be freedom, not a constantly expanding government...


Thank you!

The argument is hardly ever about that, sadly. It seems to be about which side can "better" manage a monstrously overpowered and invasive Government.


RE: Another stupid law
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 5:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
Rountad, you got my vote on that one


RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 12:32:54 PM , Rating: 1
Every penal code is the imposition of someone's morality on everyone. The question is who's. Our founders created this country exactly for the purpose of having a limited federal government handling national matters (defense, borders, international relations) and everything else left to the states for the people in them to decide what is best. That includes the penal code.

Man I wish we had a time machine so I could send you back to 1790 when to live in a state meant that your tax dollars were going towards the state's sponsored religion. Not mandatory belief, but mandatory support. Why? Because the Constitution allows for states to decide if they want to support a religion while not forcing belief in it.

It is secular morality which has allowed for the murder of over 70 million children in the past ~40 years in the United States alone. So excuse me if I believe in holding citizens accountable to a higher law than one that men can change like the fleeting wind. And if people disagree, they can move to another state. And if by some great act of God and all the states disagree with you, you can always leave the country as well or petition to create a new state.


RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 1:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens.” – George Washington, Farewell Address (note that Washington is actually going so far as to say that if an individual attempted to separate religion and morality from politics, he could not be called an American Patriot)

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. - Patrick Henry

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” – John Jay12 Oct, 1816 First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Member of Continental Congress

“Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it, that, entering upon the sixty-second year of our national existence, you have honored with an invitation to address you from this place, a fellow citizen of a former age, bearing in the records of his memory, the warm and vivid affections which attached him, at the distance of a full half century, to your town, and to your forefathers, then the cherished associates of his youthful days? Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day?—And why is it that, among the swarming myriads of our population, thousands and tens of thousands among us, abstaining, under the dictate of religious principle, from the commemoration of that birth-day of Him, who brought life and immortality to light, yet unite with all their brethren of this community, year after year, in celebrating this the birthday of the nation? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon the earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfilment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?” – John Quincy Adams 4th of July Speech 1837

“He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.”- John Witherspoon

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed … No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.- Noah Webster, Preface Noah Webster Dictionary, 1828

“I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law … There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Harvard Speech, 1829

But we weren't founded as a nation that, while not trying to mandate belief, was set on Christian principles.....right.....


RE: Another stupid law
By Reflex on 4/1/2014 3:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, we weren't, and two centuries of law have demonstrated that.

Also, your understanding of history and the founders is fairly...incomplete. The express purpose of the country was not to have a small central government. It was to have a moderate central government with divided powers. There was a huge amount of debate between both sides of the argument over sides and scope, with Jefferson and Hamilton on opposing sides. Neither side 'won' that debate, and both shaped the future of the nation equally.


RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/2/2014 7:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
One only has to look at the STATED powers that the government was given to see that it was to be small and limited. Not the unlimited, endless, authoritarian powers that liberals today try to extract out of things that are taken so far out of context, they might as well take the Constitution out of National Archives and shred it.


RE: Another stupid law
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 6:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Washington is actually going so far as to say that if an individual attempted to separate religion and morality from politics, he could not be called an American Patriot)


Really, because by and large the Japanese aren't really religious but they are about the best behaved society on the planet. How do you explain that?


RE: Another stupid law
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 6:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not entering the whole religious debate, but what you just said was pretty stupid.

First off, that's a stereotype. Secondly the Japanese are deeply spiritual people.


RE: Another stupid law
By Samus on 4/1/2014 10:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, considering most cars now have screens, we're talking a 720x480 iR camera. Weather-proof models cost about $10 in bulk.

I'd be shocked if it cost anywhere near $50 to implement these during assembly. The camera usually runs off the reverse-light circuit (where it gets power) and the video feed is an RCA cable (single wire) in the accessory harness. The camera, gasket, and wiring probably costs manufactures $20.

Vehicles without a screen usually implement it inside the rearview mirror. Those mirrors from Gentex cost around $100 in bulk, or $200 MSRP. But again, many vehicles just use the infotainment screen they already have.


RE: Another stupid law
By hughlle on 4/1/2014 5:58:02 AM , Rating: 3
Myself, i just learnt to drive.


RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 12:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
Convenience shouldn't be mandated by the government.


RE: Another stupid law
By boeush on 3/31/2014 10:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
The cameras would be more useful if they also provided audible warning for any obstruction in the path of your car -- similar to the radar or sonar based systems. This could be enabled with a stereo camera (that has depth information over its field of view). Probably total cost wouldn't be all that much higher...


RE: Another stupid law
By boeush on 3/31/2014 11:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Come to think of it, such systems could even auto-apply the brakes (when the car is in reverse-drive mode) if they detect that the rear bumper is about to make contact with something...

That way, the whole driver inattentiveness issue and/or reaction lag won't matter much anymore.

By 2020 or so, systems like that ought to cost (in terms of BOM) about as much as a used computer mouse today...


RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 12:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps in terms of hardware yes. But software is where the expensive part comes in.


RE: Another stupid law
By toffty on 4/1/2014 5:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
The cost of developing the software can be spread across all cars from a manufacturer over many years so even if the development is expensive, the final cost to the customer is very small. So the key is the hardware’s cost, not the software’s.


RE: Another stupid law
By Reflex on 3/31/2014 6:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, the cost is trivial to the price of a car, and if anything it'll make that 'feature' cease to be a high priced add on for whats essentially a webcam and a cheap display.

And yes it will save lives. And yes that's a good thing. Children get backed over on a regular basis and this will reduce that. Personally speaking, while I don't 'need' this feature for day to day driving, it will certainly help with parallel parking in tight locations.


RE: Another stupid law
By Jeffk464 on 3/31/2014 6:24:09 PM , Rating: 1
Should be minimal cost, most cars already have an LCD screen and low res camera's are practically free these days.


RE: Another stupid law
By Reclaimer77 on 3/31/2014 7:54:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Children get backed over on a regular basis and this will reduce that.


How much do you want to bet it doesn't dramatically lower the occurrence?

If you were too inattentive before, you'll still be camera or no.

quote:
Personally speaking, while I don't 'need' this feature for day to day driving, it will certainly help with parallel parking in tight locations.


Then you should be free to choose these cameras as a factory option.

Mandating them for everyone, by law, is an abomination.


RE: Another stupid law
By Reflex on 3/31/2014 10:14:29 PM , Rating: 1
So buy an older car if you don't want it. The cost is negligible. And it WILL save lives. If it only saves one life it is worth it in this case given the low cost. Driving is not a right it is a privilege.

I'm glad seat belts are mandated. I'm glad air bags are mandated. And unless you are going to certify that your only passenger in your vehicle is going to be yourself, then its not all about you and it never was.

As I said, it will help me with not backing over things or backing into things. More importantly, it will help others not back into me or my vehicle. Win/Win situation all around.

I'm sorry you feel you have the right to put others in danger with your cheapskate ways. But fortunately for the rest of us, we have regulations to keep people like you in line.


RE: Another stupid law
By sorry dog on 4/1/2014 1:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So buy an older car if you don't want it. The cost is negligible. And it WILL save lives. If it only saves one life it is worth it in this case given the low cost. Driving is not a right it is a privilege.

That is Fud for the convenience of the state. As soon as you demand equal access for all then it pretty much becomes a right.


RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
If a child is playing right under your bumper on the other side of the car, you will not see them in the camera or as you are getting in. Tragic ACCIDENTS where kids are run over is because people are in a hurry and not paying attention. Adding a camera won't stop those kinds of accidents from occurring. They could actually increase them because people will just stare at the camera rather than looking behind them or around to see what's coming.

Please show me the right to drive in the Constitution as well. A right is something that cannot be denied barring you being a criminal who has sacrificed his rights. Our nation defines its rights in legal documents. Driving is not among one of them. The federal Constitution does not claim that the rights it defines are the only ones that exist, but the expectation is that the states will define the rest because the people will help enshrine them. But I don't know of a state that does that for driving.

quote:
I'm sorry you feel you have the right to put others in danger with your cheapskate ways. But fortunately for the rest of us, we have regulations to keep people like you in line.


Spoken like a true statist.

When learning to drive, yes, I backed into a pole. You know what that taught me? Look behind me when backing up. Not "not having the ability to see behind me with a camera should be against the law."


RE: Another stupid law
By atechfan on 4/1/2014 5:10:15 AM , Rating: 3
This won't make any difference with my kids, since if they are outside when I am about to back up, I yell at them to get away from the driveway cause I'm backing up. Then I wait until I can see that they are all accounted for. But I still want a back-up camera in my next van.

If you drive anything larger than a ricer, you'll have blindspots. There is no avoiding that. In parking lots, people are stupid. I don't know how many times some idiot has stepped behind me while I was already backing out of the spot. A camera that covers my blindspots would have allowed me to see them before they walked into my path, avoiding me slamming on the brakes.


RE: Another stupid law
By Dr of crap on 4/1/2014 12:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
And there it is.
What would be better is if ALL drivers where better able to control there vehicle, hence be better drivers, and NOT need parallel assist, backup cameras, and anything else that SHOULD BE AN OPTION.

I hear some places do not even make you do a parallel park on the drivers test. WE all need to be able to parallel park and also just pull into a parking space and be straight in between the lines. The amount of vehicles I see that can't do either has increased as the years have gone by.


RE: Another stupid law
By tng on 3/31/2014 6:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.

I think that this is shortsighted. I bet if every car in the US had a BC that some lives would be saved, but the majority of those ~60 people would still die.

As venym76 said, you can't legislate the stupid out of people.

There is someone out there pushing this who jumped in their car, was in a big hurry and ran over and killed their kid. Making the rest of the public deal with your guilt through legislation is not a good way to write law.


RE: Another stupid law
By ven1ger on 3/31/2014 6:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
Since you have a backup camera on your car, I guess you will go and demonstrate to the government that they can't legislate you by backing up over a child the next time. Prove that they can't legislate stupid out of you.

"In the U.S. at least fifty children are being backed over by vehicles EVERY week. Forty-eight (48) are treated in hospital emergency rooms and at least two (2) children are fatally injured every WEEK."

This is meant to save the lives of numerous innocent kids that are backed over. But lets not worry about them shall we, just for your convenience.


RE: Another stupid law
By Noonecares on 3/31/2014 6:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I guess parents don't teach their kids that cars are dangerous anymore. Sure it will save some lives, but it will be like every other gadget in your car that most people don't use or know how to use. I'm all for saving the lives of kids. Just more in favor of prevention by education. Also if you run over your own kid that is 1 year or less, you will need more than just a backup camera.


RE: Another stupid law
By Reflex on 3/31/2014 7:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
People still teach children that cars are dangerous, and they always did and likely always will. But children forget or make mistakes in judgment. Because they are children. Imagine that.


RE: Another stupid law
By Reclaimer77 on 3/31/14, Rating: -1
RE: Another stupid law
By Reflex on 3/31/2014 10:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
According to the article, hundreds of people make this mistake every year. So its not some 'stupid ass parent'. Its a lot of people who occasionally make mistakes. Because they are human.

When all humans are as perfect and as attentive at all times as you must surely be, then we can talk about eliminating these forms of regulation, as they will most certainly be obsolete.

Until we achieve Reclaimertopia however, we'll go with what works to save lives and reduce injuries. Somehow I am sure you will get by...


RE: Another stupid law
By tng on 4/1/2014 8:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the article, hundreds of people make this mistake every year. So its not some 'stupid ass parent'.
As Reclaimer said, uh, yes, it is some stupid ass parent...
quote:
The new regulations, which were proposed in December 2010, aim to eliminate blind spots in vehicles by improving overall visibility or adding backup cameras... It is also a response to the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Act, which is a 2008 law named after a young boy who was accidentally ran over by his father , and was meant to address such issues.
He killed his kid and now wants to lessen that guilt by making everybody live with a new regulations.


RE: Another stupid law
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 9:50:38 AM , Rating: 3
How many parents leave their kids locked in a vehicle every year? Seems like quite a few.

I propose the "(insert kid name) Kids Anti Car Lock-in Act". Because I was a horrible parent and locked my child in a car for 6 hours on an 95 degree day, we need to mandate sensors that detect if someone is in a vehicle for 5+ hours with the engine off and mate them with cellular gear that informs the police automatically.

For the children!!!! (and my own guilt)


RE: Another stupid law
By boeush on 3/31/2014 11:14:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
BS. I STILL remember the first time my parents caught me playing in the street. I can tell you one thing, I sure as hell never did it again.

But now capital punishment is all but illegal
I hope you mean corporal punishment... Unless you're the ghost of Reclaimer77? :-P


RE: Another stupid law
By tng on 4/1/2014 8:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope you mean corporal punishment... Unless you're the ghost of Reclaimer77? :-P
My dad made me wish I was dead... Never forgot those lessens, once was enough.


RE: Another stupid law
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 9:08:50 AM , Rating: 1
LMAO!! Ooops!

Yes, I mean corporal punishment. hahaha doh!


RE: Another stupid law
By Dorkyman on 3/31/2014 7:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
I really think the feds should try to save two HUNDRED children every week by requiring a speed governor of 25mph on all light vehicles. Also helmets for anyone under 12.

It's for the children. You are a despicable person if you don't want to save more lives.


RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 1:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ban sweets because they cause diabetes.
Ban anything sharp because it can stab people.
Ban blunt objects because they can be used to beat people.
Ban running because people can trip, fall, and hurt themselves.


RE: Another stupid law
By M'n'M on 3/31/2014 8:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is meant to save the lives of numerous innocent kids that are backed over. But lets not worry about them shall we, just for your convenience.

IIRC when this was first mentioned here it was 200 kids getting killed by backovers and the Govt expected to reduce that by 50% w/cameras. Then I recall a number just under 300 (292?) were being killed and now we're saving 60+, around 20-25%. Sounds to me like we need a better solution because this one seems to suck at saving innocent children.

As for ...
quote:
But lets not worry about them shall we, just for your convenience.

Yes let us not worry. How about instead we let the people with the children worry. You can already buy aftermarket systems. Now my next Mini will have to have one along with some dorky infotainment system that I won't use and don't want.

Put this right along with the tire pressure monitoring systems for lazy morons who can't be bothered to check their tires. How many times are you going to let the inmates run the asylum and drive up your next car costs, for no good reason ?


RE: Another stupid law
By boeush on 3/31/2014 10:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes let us not worry. How about instead we let the people with the children worry.
How about the people with the children worrying about YOU backing over their children? Didn't think of that one, huh...
quote:
Put this right along with the tire pressure monitoring systems for lazy morons who can't be bothered to check their tires.
Yeah because any time you're out driving, you should pull over and check your tires every -- let's say -- minute or so. Otherwise, you might miss the moment you run over a piece of metal on the road and one of your tires starts deflating...


RE: Another stupid law
By ATX22 on 4/1/2014 2:24:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about the people with the children worrying about YOU backing over their children? Didn't think of that one, huh...


What.. are people putting infants out into the road and other people’s driveways? Any child old enough to play out in the road should be taught by his or her parent(s) that vehicles are dangerous to be around, and to never expect the operator to actually SEE them. Parents SHOULD be worried about their kids being run over by ANYONE operating a vehicle.. that’s the WHOLE POINT to teaching kids safety around cars and trucks. And the need to educate children WILL NOT go away with the advent of mandatory backup cameras.. it will become even more important than ever as people will be looking DOWN at their dash by habit instead of looking around and behind them before backing up their vehicle.

quote:
Yeah because any time you're out driving, you should pull over and check your tires every -- let's say -- minute or so. Otherwise, you might miss the moment you run over a piece of metal on the road and one of your tires starts deflating...


Are you even old enough to drive? Do you drive?! Have you never picked up a nail in the road? It’s pretty easy to tell when you’ve got a low tire.. IT CAUSES YOUR CAR TO PULL in one direction or the other (not to mention.. the tire will appear to be LOW on air, yes, even low profile tires will be visibly low before reaching the point of failure). If you actually PAY ATTENTION to your vehicle it’s amazing what you’ll notice, but that’s the problem here.. people not being attentive. If you shred your tire on the road, TPM isn’t going to help.. by the time the dummy light warns you of a flat tire, YOU HAVE A FLAT TIRE DUMMY. If you pick up a nail you should notice that your car or truck is pulling, which means you need to CHECK and see WHAT is CAUSING your vehicle to operate out of spec.

Same with idiots and unlucky people running over kids, it’s always that one time you didn’t check that something bad happens.. this is life.. what’s next, having the vehicle stop on its own?! I hope farm trucks are exempt (for example); little things like… MUD or A TRAILER, or just having the tailgate down would render a truck useless.


RE: Another stupid law
By boeush on 4/1/2014 5:08:16 AM , Rating: 2
In summary, the best strategy for accident prevention is to hope the accident won't happen. Though on second thought I'd rather save fifty bucks on my next new car purchase than risk not backing over some careless brat, especially when it's not one of mine. Also, run-flat tires haven't been invented yet. Uhhh, yupp.

Also truck designers never figured out how to electrically hook up a trailer, or detect a lowered/unsecured tail gate. And lastly, stereoscopic optics can't tell mud on the objective lens from an object in 3D space. Yup, yip yup.


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 ?


RE: Another stupid law
By Cerin218 on 4/1/2014 5:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, so far to day I have backing into EXACTLY ZERO children. I have backed OVER ZERO CHILDREN. I haven't even BUMPED into a child. In fact in 20 YEARS of driving I have backed into ZERO things. But by all means, please mandate a new law that keeps me safe from myself, because I'm such a threat to myself and others. Idiocracy isn't a movie, it's way of LIFE for a lot of you. Remember, crops like Brondo because it's got ELECTROLYTES!!!


RE: Another stupid law
By Dr of crap on 4/1/2014 12:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Taking that a step further,
Why not outlaw sweet snacks, it makes kids fat,
then outlaw video games it makes kids play them and not go out and exercise,
then outlaw soda, kids get fat from it,
then outlaw guns, do you know the number that get killed/hurt from accidents with guns,
then outlaw lawnmowers, the hurt and KILL kids and adults at least as much as being backed over.

You see how much there is that can hurt/kill people, yet this one thing only will save a few of the millions of kids out there. Seems silly to me and a lot of others on here.

WE NEED TO GET LAWS ON THE BOOKS FOR ALL TO BE SAFE FOREVER.


RE: Another stupid law
By Arsynic on 4/1/2014 10:15:20 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. There is a common theme coming from this administration: You're too stupid to do the right thing, so we have to make you do it.

No one is saying that this is a bad thing, but it's none of the government's damn business. This is just too intrusive. It must be an election year because stupid laws are coming out of the woodworks.


RE: Another stupid law
By Cerin218 on 4/1/2014 5:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's the mentality of the Left in general. They aren't the party of Tyranny for nothing.


RE: Another stupid law
By FITCamaro on 4/1/2014 12:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
I also have one and it should in no way be standard equipment. Yet another example of government overreach. The only reason for tragic accidents is stupidity and laziness. This will do nothing to lower either. If anything it will only increase them.


pricey
By Murloc on 3/31/2014 6:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
if it was low-cost, I'd be behind this.
But this basically kills low-cost cars completely. Unless the mark-up on these accessories is currently crazy which is also a possibility.
Americans will be the guinea pig for the world.




RE: pricey
By AdamAnon on 3/31/2014 7:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Most phones have two cameras, including one high quality HD camera. I don't remember anyone complaining about the cost.


RE: pricey
By Solandri on 3/31/2014 7:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
The display is the pricey part. Not an issue if your car has a navigation or infotainment display, but most still don't.

I still don't get why backup cameras are the preferred solution to this problem. A simple fresnel lens is considerably cheaper, cannot be blocked by a tiny bit of mud or snow, does not reduce your situational awareness by requiring you to look in the opposite direction you're moving, and is visible both through the rearview mirror and when you turn your head around.
http://image.dhgate.com/albu_444223372_00-1.0x0/wi...


RE: pricey
By Reflex on 3/31/2014 10:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
You do not need an infotainment display. Most of the aftermarket solutions implement it in the rearview mirror or a clip on dash mounted screen. The entire cost of an aftermarket back up camera system is $50-100. A integrated mass produced solution is going to be significantly cheaper than that(less than half the price most likely).

For example: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0037WNONS/

Its not expensive to implement. It wouldn't shock me if its no more than $25 on the sticker price. Well worth the lives saved.


RE: pricey
By KITH on 4/2/2014 6:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
If it is so cheap and easy to implement why does it need to be mandated?

The cost of the hardware might be quite low but the installation costs can be high.

This adds to the design costs to integrate in each vehicle model.


RE: pricey
By Reflex on 3/31/2014 10:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
As pointed out this is already standard in much of Asia. And no, they are not expensive to implement and yes the current markup is crazy.


Cost
By BreezeDM on 4/1/2014 11:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
To potentially save 60 lives we are adding something that costs $300-$500 more to vehicles. If we sell around 8 million cars in the United States per year it will cost us 2.4 billion to 4 billion for the potential to save these lives. That's 50-66 million per person. This is also assuming the camera will save lives, but the view is worse in same cases for the cameras. For example, you can't see someone approaching your car if you are just looking at the camera. Even when assuming that it is 100% effective it is a stupid idea. Someone at the NHTSA must have stock in companies that manufacture these systems. I know we don't like to put a price on a life, but it is definitely less than 50 million.




RE: Cost
By boeush on 4/1/2014 12:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
For every dead pedestrian, there are usually at least 10 severely injured or permanently crippled ones. I guess they don't count in you new math... Also 300 dollars for a low res camera hooked up to a display that's typically already included in the price? I can buy a pretty decent point and shoot with a nice display, good lens, and much better sensor for significantly less. Let's focus less on limited quantity aftermarket products and/or ripoffs, and more on realistic costs of mass-produced factory-installed standard parts...


RE: Cost
By BreezeDM on 4/1/2014 3:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
Alright 5 million is still too much. A camera that lasts longer than the electronic warranty, integrated into the dash, not screwed onto the license plate, weather proof, and can survive tons of vibration. Put that $300 camera at the end of your bumper and see how long it lasts.


RE: Cost
By Reflex on 4/1/2014 1:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Cost is around $50 for an after market solution. For an integrated mass produced solution it will be a fraction of that price. This is a very cheap safety item.


RE: Cost
By BreezeDM on 4/1/2014 3:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
you could not get a screen for that price. Let alone the cost of something that is integrated into the dash and has automotive level of reliability. We can just duct tape a cheap screen or camera into a car. But they need to add something that doesn't look awful and lasts longer than the warranty. Something similar is GPS. you can buy one for $50 bucks but replacing it costs $500 to $1400 for the part that's integrated into the dash.


Normally I am against forced safety features
By atechfan on 3/31/2014 6:06:50 PM , Rating: 3
Airbags were a complex, expensive and sometimes dangerous feature of dubious benefit, especially if you are already wearing a seatbelt.

But in this case, since everyone insists of having stupid infotainment systems in their cars anyway, might as well do something useful with the screen. Adding a camera sensor adds little extra cost if the screen is already there.




RE: Normally I am against forced safety features
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 11:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, I said the same thing and got marked down to a 1 and you got marked up to a three.


By atechfan on 4/1/2014 1:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
That is why I never pay attention to my rating.


By M'n'M on 4/1/2014 10:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But in this case, since everyone insists of having stupid infotainment systems in their cars anyway, might as well do something useful with the screen. Adding a camera sensor adds little extra cost if the screen is already there.

Yes and no. Yes it cost's less than it would if there weren't some dorky infotainment system. But no you're forgetting what adding this system implies in spare parts (mandated by the Govt), inventory and supply chain management. The automakers, having decided on a camera, can't just depend on the whims of the camera maker to continue making that camera for as long as the car company want's it. Especially if (as would be most likely) that camera part is shared with some other device (a smartphone) to reduce costs. Think what happens when, to be competitive, the smartphone market moves to a newer, "better" camera. One that isn't compatible with the car system. It's the same problem that defense contractors have trying to use COTS parts. It isn't the $$ saver it's thought to be.

And has been mentioned elsewhere, a camera that has to last XX years in a bumper in a car environment is a different beast than one that lasts 2 years in a smartphone.

Lastly think of the legalities this system opens up for sue-happen America. The car companies will be sued when someone, despite a working camera, backs over their kid. How much of that cost must be factored into every system ? Let alone when one fails and the kid is run over. It's the hidden costs that people who don't manufacture things themselves don't know about.


Install beeping Reverse Radar Kits instead
By freeman70 on 3/31/2014 7:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of a very costly solution like this, they should mandate a cheaper and very effective audible reverse radar kit for all vehicles. I have been using a very simple one for over 10 years and have yet to hit anything. As soon as you shift into reverse, it emits a high pitch beeping that increases the frequency of the beeps as you get closer to objects in the rear. If you are very close to something, it's emits a constant high pitch tone as a warning that you are about to hit something.

This kind of system provides a simple means of avoiding rear collisions while in reverse and also decreases your inclination to back up quickly. The system is also very robust and reliable.




By acx on 3/31/2014 10:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
Deaf people can still drive. But blind people can't. They could replace the audible beep with pulsating lights. Then everyone's car will look like a disco party?!


By ie5x on 4/1/2014 2:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more. The parking assist sound makes me more aware and I *need* to use my eyes as usual to ascertain I won't hit anything. I have experienced the video screens but for me they are a pain to use as they have a disconnected feel.

For people with poor hearing, why not have throbbing vibration modules in the steering wheel!? That'd be cool!


By Arsynic on 4/1/2014 10:21:55 AM , Rating: 1
If something's behind the car, make warning sounds and flash a red light that says, "Object Behind Vehicle".

But they really don't give a shit about saving lives. Don't kid yourselves. Let's follow the money trail. What Senator or Congressman is taking money from a company that sells rear-view cameras to auto manufacturers?




By boeush on 4/1/2014 12:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Radar isn't very good at detecting non-metallic things...


By marvdmartian on 4/2/2014 1:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
A form of sonar, similar to what bats use, would be much more effective. Radar requires something to reflect the electromagnetic waves (metal is great, but even doppler weather radar will be reflected by clouds full of water droplets).

However, human beings tend to have a negative effect around radar. Something similar to putting them in a microwave oven, if it's powerful enough. ;)


Back to the Future...
By boeush on 3/31/2014 10:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
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.
Golly gee, I hope by 2054 my car will friggin' drive itself already. That is, whenever it isn't flying itself. Seriously...




RE: Back to the Future...
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 11:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
2054 hmm, right now most major cities have stop and go traffic by 2054 I'm guessing it will just be stopped traffic.


Critical error in reasoning, as usual
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/1/2014 10:33:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not every fatality involving a vehicle in reverse would have been prevented with the use of a backup camera.

1. You have cases where people simply arent paying atention. Give them all the cameras in the world and there will still be people not paying attention.

2. You have cases where a pedestrian enters the path of the reversing vehicle, and are simply hit before the driver can react. This will still happen. Again it comes down to people not paying attention.

3. You have cases where the pedestrian is out of the view of the camera. For example, they could be under the rear bumper. When this inevitably happens, will there be a mandate for undercarriage cameras?

This is about as big a waste of money as you can get. It might save a dozen lives a year. Let the market address this issue. There are already bluetooth cameras that tether to a smartphone. In 5 more eyars, everyone will be able to get one of these cameras for $20, and it will have a buttery smooth app to display the imagery. There is no need to force yet another massive malinvestment in the vehicle's outrageously overpriced center console.




By Reflex on 4/1/2014 1:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
1) No one claimed it would prevent all such injuries. But it will certainly prevent many, if not most of them.
2) This is cheap. As I have pointed out, aftermarket solutions start at about $50. Integrated factory systems would cost a fraction of that.
3) These systems are beneficial for more than just injury prevention.


Shameful
By corduroygt on 4/1/2014 11:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
It's embarrassing that ABS isn't mandatory but this is.
Both should be mandatory, backup cameras are super useful and will pay for themselves due to less insurance claims for backing up into other objects, without even taking into consideration the lives they will save




RE: Shameful
By M'n'M on 4/1/2014 11:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's embarrassing that ABS isn't mandatory but this is.

Actually it is. ABS went into all EU cars in 2007. Stability control (which uses ABS) was phased into US cars btw 2009-2012.

Interestingly the US car insurers were all for ABS, even offering discounts, and pushing for it's mandate until it became common. Then they (supposedly) looked at the data and found ABS wasn't preventing as many accidents (and saving them $$s) as hoped for.

My guess is that the data is correct (but the insurance companies would have fought any reduction in their premiums in any case) because bad drivers are even more stupid than even ABS can make up for.


By Chaser on 4/1/2014 1:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
But I will say this: the car's camera with the parallel lines and the wheel turning lines can make you a pro with backing into tight parking spots if you figure out of to use them correctly, even when turning/backing at an angle.

Once you get it you can use the camera exclusively to line it up perfectly and avoid a lot of neck aches.




We could solve unemployment
By Cerin218 on 4/1/2014 5:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
If the government would simply pay an unemployed person to sit on the back of your car and warn you with verbal and hand signals when something was behind you...




By kep55 on 4/2/2014 6:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
Every car I've owned since 1972 has had back-up monitors. They're called mirrors. And eyes. What a joke.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














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