NHTSA - Autos may be required to have back-up cameras

[-..__...]

It's bull shit like this why I kept my last vehicle running for 23 years rather than having to buy something newer with government mandated enhancements...

:grr: :silly:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed a new auto safety regulation Friday that would, essentially, require rearview back-up cameras in all new cars, pickups and SUVs by 2014.

Based on the proposal, drivers must be able to see directly behind the vehicle whenever the vehicle is shifted into reverse. The rule would be phased in over the next four years, starting with 10% of new cars sold expected to comply with the mandate by Sept. 2012; 40% by Sept. 2013 and 100% by Sept. 2014.

The rule was demanded by legislation passed in 2007, called Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act. The act was named after a 2-year-old boy who was killed, when his father accidentally backed over him in the family's driveway

More...

I'm just wondering which cam manufacturer greased some palms in DC to get this brain storm proposed.

[glinda]

1. Most likely a conservative one.

[hlthe2b]

2. I have one on my 2007 Prius.... but for the life of me...

I don't see how they help. There is so much distance distortion between what one sees in the camera, versus what you see in your rear and side view mirrors, it seems rather unhelpful. I haven't had the car that long, so maybe I'm just too used to turning my head and checking/double checking....:shrug:

[hlthe2b]

19. I should have added to the above post...

that I have no problem with NTHSA adding this requirement.... I just think either it is unclear how much they would help on conventional vehicles that have reasonable rear and side view mirror views. Trucks, vans and other vehicles, would surely benefit. I was really intrigued to find my Prius had it installed when I bought it.... Maybe after a few months, I'll have gotten used to the camera and will think differently. The thought of running over a child or dog has always haunted me, so I am cautious to the point of paranoia about looking behind me.

[-..__...]

29. I see it as another distraction...

and something people could put too much faith in.

maybe I'm just too used to turning my head and checking/double checking

This is the right answer.

[NuclearDem]

30. Honestly, while I love a lot of new safety features coming out....

I still see more people getting in accidents when shiny new Focuses and Malibus than I see in old Camrys and pickup trucks. All that shiny safety equipment is useless if the driver is just an idiot.

Like the MORANS out here in Nebraska who take their 'vettes out for a spin at 75mph on the interstate during the winter...

[ananda]

3. Well...

When I was little, one of my classmates lost her toddler sister when
her father backed over her in the driveway. It was such a tragedy.

So I can't for the life of me see any problem with having a camera
that might save a child's life.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. +1

[-..__...]

27. And...

where was the person/persons responsible that allowed the toddler to be placed in a perilous position to begin with?

At what point do we stop legislating safety measures meant to protect "the children" when common sense, awareness and responsibility would be sufficient?

[hughee99]

4. I don't know who did the greasing, but I know who sponsored it.,

Senators John E. Sununu (R-NH) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) introduced S. 1948 on October 31, 2005.

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_product_safety/003693.html

[RamboLiberal]

5. I don't see a problem with this

We've got the technology. It's probably not that expensive.

I have almost a phobia about backing out of my little driveway or out of a parking spot shopping. Too many close calls with someone zooming down my alley or at the mall. I back into my driveway and try to find spots where I can pull out forward.

I've read too many stories of kids killed by parents or relatives by backup accidents.

I'd like to have a backup camera in my vehicle. Heck I'd like to also have blind spot technology. Anything to make my commute safer - well except for LaHood's stupid kill cell phones in cars idea.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. I do the same thing. I avoid backing up whenever possible.

[Better Believe It]

7. Have they stopped making rearview and sideview mirrors? Can we no longer turn our heads?

[Tesha]

9. This is primarily an issue forced on us by the prevalence of Suburban Assault Vehicles...

...from the driver's seat of which there is no hope whatsoever
of seeing what's behind you down at ground level.

Tesha

[Warren DeMontague]

11. When backing over small children and dogs is outlawed, only outlaws will back over small children

and dogs! You can't force me to have a camera in my car, fascist!

FUK YAH!!!!! :crazy:

[happyslug]

16. VW 235 mpg Test car had no rearview mirrors, to much wind resistence

In the proto type from several years ago the rear view mirrors were replaced by camera for greater wind aerodynamic.

VW plans to come out with a variation of it in 2012:

http://www.greencar.com/articles/volkswagen-1-liter-235-mpg-extreme-fuel-efficiency-car.php

[RamboLiberal]

17. I use my mirrors and turn my head

But there are blind spots below the rear window and other areas of the vehicle. And I've sat in some vehicles which had piss poor design for visibility out the rear or side windows.

Kids are victims because they are small and below the visibility of the driver.

[madrchsod]

8. the new body styles suck...

i like to see out my windows when i drive. back up warning and cameras are needed to see what is behind your car or truck.

i was installing cameras on road construction trucks in the late 90`s.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Actually, the cameras are great.

I don't know if they should be legislated, but I can't really feel the outrage over them, either. They also make parallel parking WAY easier.

[happyslug]

12. These are DIRT CHEAP today

I recently when to the B&H photo site and saw a still digital camera with 5 meg capacity with movie feature (i.e. you can NOT only take still pictures, but also movies) for $40.00. You would also have to buy a SD card and shipping, but total would be less then $40.00. This camera included a 2.5 x 2.5 inch viewing screen.

To make a system that goes from the rear of the car to your front dash and have a adequate size screen and then to install that system on EVERY CAR in the production line would cost less then $10 a car. Cheap at four times the price.

Sorry, just because the Government mandates something, does not make it bad, ineffective or costly. Often the requirement is worth way more then the cost to impose that requirement. Some requirements are questionable (For example the third brake light in the middle of a Car) but tend to be cheap (The brake light, when installed when the car is made, cost is minimal, about $5 at best).

Other requirements cost more but also do more (for example the requirement that all passenger cars, but NOT trucks or SUVs, retain body integrity in a roll over, saved a lot of lives, including people in SUVs that after numerous lawsuits also adopted that rule even when the Government did not require it for trucks or SUVs).

I could go on and on about "Government Mandates" that save lives, for instance safety glass in cars, required by most states by WWII (some states permitted just plate glass till after WWII).

Now some government regulations do not make sense. A case of that involves Seat Belts which only became required by Federal Law in 1967. The reason the Federal made seat belts required was that some states had previously actually outlawed seat belts. I knew a Car Dealer who owned a Volvo Franchise in the 1960s and was told by the State of Pennsylvania they had to remove the Seat belts for they had NOT been approved by Pennsylvania. This despite the fact that seat-belts were mandated in Sweden at that time and study after study had shown seat belts had saved lives. The reason for the State Regulation was the big three did NOT like the idea of a good example so lobbied the state to outlaw them. In the 1980s and 1990s before the Federal Government forced car makers to install shoulder belts in all seats of a car, dealers would refuse to install shoulder belts even through the cars were designed for later installation of shoulder belts (The later a federal Requirement). Thus no one could get shoulder belts installed for no one sold them after market for regular cars AND no one would install them.

Sorry, every so often we need FEDERAL REGULATION, It tool over three decades for every state to outlaw plate glass windows in a car and by the 1960s that was to slow. The Federal Government stepped in and force a set on minimum safety standards. The states were permitted to exceed those standards but none did (California did so as to pollution but NOT safety).

Furthermore in an assembly production line, the cost to install anything is minimal and the cost to produce things that goes in a car in minimal (the old joke: Detroit, where they put $40,000 worth of parts in a $10,000 Vehicle). The biggest cost is setting up the assembly line, the individual items installed are minor compared to the assembly line as a whole. The Big Three (and their Foreign competitors) want to keep cost low, thus they will gladly install a $1 piece of junk instead of a $1.10 cent quality part for over the cost of production that 10 cents can add up to millions of dollars. On the other hand that 10 cent part will have minimal affect on the cost of any one car.

Most safety devices are worth the cost to install them, especially on the production line. After market is a whole different story, but people are installing such rear camera in their car post production for safety reason, based on how cheap and good they can be when backing up. In my opinion the cost to install the back up camera is worth every penney such a device will cost per car.

[-..__...]

23. There's the catch...

"Most safety devices are worth the cost to install them, especially on the production line".

What's it going to cost the consumer to replace/repair the unit if it becomes damaged or broken?

Because auto manufacturers are currently not required to share equipment, info and training with local repair shops, consumers oftentimes have no choice but to take their vehicle to a dealership for repairs... certainly a lot more than $10.00... certainly more than $40.00.

You seem to have some knowledge/background/experience with the profession or business end of the industry.

What's the average mark-up for factory/OEM repair parts at a dealership (a part that will have no industry wide standard where one camera/screen will fit all manufacturers... all models... all years), .vs purchasing the same part from a parts vendor?

What's the labor costs that a dealership charges .vs what your local garage would charge?

I have little doubt that the cost difference on the dealerships end, amounts to what most people would consider legalized rape.

Even if your local ratchet-head had the knowledge and tools to replace the unit; because it's a mandated piece of safety equipment, they wouldn't want to (nor could they afford to), take on the liability for installing it.

It's hard enough for people too afford even purchasing a new car as it is... maintaining it becomes even more of a headache and expense because of unnecessary requirements like the one proposed.

[happyslug]

13. Dupilcate

n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

14. It's all part of the TSA plot to compel obedience to authority.

Next, the TSA is going to stick a camera in your ass. FASCISM!!!! :o

[Wickerman]

15. I used a friend's vehicle that had one when camping

and it was great to back up to a trailer. However, it was worthless if it got a drop of water on it or if there was even a shadow. I think I've rather keep my mirrors and ability to turn my head than to grow dependent on a camera that worked only in some circumstances.

[Stevenmarc]

18. Thank God you were able to let go of the buggy whip

But thank you for your feigned righteous indignation

[-..__...]

25. Yes... advances in technology are always so wonderful...

that everyone should get on board.

Go with whatever shiny object the advertisers wave in your face as the next "must have" is.

Just don't drop it in my lap and tell me I have to go along for the ride.

[madinmaryland]

20. If you haven't run over anyone, then you have nothing to worry about...

:P

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. I have one on my car and I love it

[rustydog]

24. Sadly, it usually is a loved one who accidentally kills the victim

They try to deal with the tragedy by burying themselves in lobbying their legislator(s) to pass a law "So that this will NEVER happen again." Megan's law...

I am not downplaying the tragedy, but these guilt-ridden legislative actions do not stop "it" from "ever happening again."

Children are still abducted no matter how punitive we make the crime. stiffer penalties against DWI offenders have not stopped "it" from ever happening again.

[Owl]

26. just say no

[NuclearDem]

28. I'll buy my own, thankyouverymuch

[Owl]

31. Offered as an option... fine. Required... no way.

[ibegurpard]

32. just think of all the potential surveillance data that could provide...

[Odin2005]

33. Another good example of corporate welfare in the name of "safety"

Just like the recent "food safety" bill.

[FreeJoe]

34. Why is it...

When I see these sorts of things proposed, I never see the data that any reasonable person would need to make the decision. Approximately how many lives would be saved? About how much property damage would be avoided? How much would this add to the consumer's cost to purchase and maintain a vehicle? Give me some unbiased estimates of these things and I'll tell you whether I think it is a good idea.