DoT sued over backup camera recommendation

[Exterous]

A 2008 law signed by President George W. Bush directed the DOT to revamp rear visibility standards by February 2011. But the DOT pushed back the deadline several times and now plans to issue a final rule by January 2015.

"Assuming DOT does not again delay the rule, the backover rule-making will have taken nearly seven years — more than twice as long as Congress envisioned for the rule-making — at a significant cost in human lives," according to the lawsuit.

Separately, U.S. officials said on Tuesday they added rear view video systems to its list of recommended safety features, which has historically encouraged automakers and consumers to consider vehicles equipped with the technology.

"While adding this technology to our list of safety features is important, I remain committed to implementing the rear visibility rule as well," U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement.

Backover accidents cause an average of 292 deaths and 18,000 injuries a year, according to a 2010 study conducted by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. About 44 percent of the deaths are children younger than five years old.

If installed in all new U.S. vehicles, backup cameras could save annually at least 95 lives and prevent more than 7,000 injuries, NHTSA said in the 2010 study.

Requiring these cameras would add between $58 and $203 to the vehicle's price, or as much as $2.7 billion to equip a fleet of 16.6 million vehicles. The last time U.S. new light vehicle sales reached that level was in 2006.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-usa-autos-camera-idUSBRE98O03Y20130925

In the grand scheme of things is 95 lives really worth this additional regulation at a cost of $28,420,000 per life saved? Seems like we could find a much better $:life saved ratio somewhere else - like feeding starving children

The lawsuit against the DOT is brought by Public Citizen on behalf of a group that includes Greg Gulbransen, who lobbied for a change to DOT standards after he accidentally backed into his son Cameron, who died. The 2008 law is named after Cameron.

The other petitioners are Susan Auriemma, whose daughter Kate survived a similar accident, the nonprofits Consumers Union of United States and Kids And Cars, Inc, and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.

Ooooohhhhhh - now I get it. These parents backed over their kids so now they need the government to step in and make everyone else in the country who buys a car pay more because they fucked up

 

[michal1980]

I was hoping this lawsuit was going the other way. IE block this stupid idea.

 

[JTsyo]

I prefer the rear sensors that beep over the cameras.

The cameras would do more than just stop kids being run over. How much money would be saved from less damage been taken?

 

[glenn1]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-usa-autos-camera-idUSBRE98O03Y20130925

In the grand scheme of things is 95 lives really worth this additional regulation at a cost of $28,420,000 per life saved? Seems like we could find a much better $:life saved ratio somewhere else - like feeding starving children

The problem isn't the $58-203 per vehicle cost for this particular piece of safety equipment, which you could make a business case for.

The bigger problem is that years of rule making have added dozens of such $58-203 items to vehicles over the years in patchwork fashion. That's greatly increased the price of vehicles without a holistic review of what safety features are truly worthwhile and how they work together systematically. A rationalized checklist of features might both reduce costs and increase overall safety by removing redundancies and covering any gaps left by previous requirements.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I prefer the rear sensors that beep over the cameras.

The cameras would do more than just stop kids being run over. How much money would be saved from less damage been taken?

I'd never owned a car with the sensors or backup camera until I bought the 2012 Ford Focus Titanium and now I couldn't imagine not having those things. My previous car, a Toyota Matrix XR, did not have them and I managed to bang my front air dam and rear bumper several times, same with previous cars. It's likely the savings in car damage alone will more than pay for the inclusion of this tech. But, I think the sensors are more useful than the camera.

The cost to include a camera in a car, particularly if it's millions of them per year will drive the cost to do so way down. I think the car makers biggest complaint is that it encroaches on the upsell they would prefer to make by not offering it in the base models and getting a premium for it in the higher trim models.

So, in the end, this will likely actually reduce total car costs by reducing damage so the number of lives saved could be viewed as a bonus...


Brian

 

[PottedMeat]

what was this caused by? changes in style -> decrease in viewability?

 

[BlitzPuppet]

what was this caused by? changes in style -> decrease in viewability?

I'd put my money on more distractions and the general public's stance of "gotta go gotta go right now, me me me".

I like backup cameras, makes backing up without hitting the car behind you so much easier in parking lots. Some cars just have crappy visibility or are super long.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

2 Things:

You're a complete idiot if you aren't looking behind you (by that, I mean your covering your blind spots/sides). Hence- if you're looking forward at a rear camera, you are, in fact, a moron. To this day I still remember one of the most golden rules about my drivers education days: Never backup more than you need to.

That rule has been completely forgotten, it seems. I'm with JTYso if anything - the beeping sensors keep you focused on what you should be looking at.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

$50-200 per car

not bad deal IMO

 

[Spungo]

The bigger problem is that years of rule making have added dozens of such $58-203 items to vehicles over the years in patchwork fashion.

Tire pressure sensors - because I'm too retarded to look at the tires.

What we really need to do is find an easier way to have new children to replace the dead ones. All this test tube business is complicated. Why can't children be caused by something simple like drunk sex with some guy I met an hour ago? Or we could just open the boarder. I hear Mexico has a huge surplus of people.

 

[Smoblikat]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-usa-autos-camera-idUSBRE98O03Y20130925

In the grand scheme of things is 95 lives really worth this additional regulation at a cost of $28,420,000 per life saved? Seems like we could find a much better $:life saved ratio somewhere else - like feeding starving children



Ooooohhhhhh - now I get it. These parents backed over their kids so now they need the government to step in and make everyone else in the country who buys a car pay more because they fucked up

Essentially, people need to either watch where they are going, manage their children better, or stop using a car until their head is out of their ass.

 

[IronWing]

Essentially, people need to either watch where they are going, manage their children better, or stop using a car until their head is out of their ass.

Yep. Awhile back I helped jumpstart a guy's truck in his yard. When we got it going I prepared to leave. The guy's kids were playing in the yard. I drive an FJ which has perfectly crappy rear visability. So before I backup I look to see where the kids are. I see the guy wave me back and I see he has three kids next to him. The problem was that I actually counted four kids playing while we worked on his truck. So I get out of the truck and look to see one kid playing around my back tire. If I had taken the guy's direction I would have backed over his kid. It comes back to the driver, and no one else, being responsible for the movement of the vehicle.

 

[Spungo]

Yep. Awhile back I helped jumpstart a guy's truck in his yard. When we got it going I prepared to leave. The guy's kids were playing in the yard. I drive an FJ which has perfectly crappy rear visability. So before I backup I look to see where the kids are. I see the guy wave me back and I see he has three kids next to him. The problem was that I actually counted four kids playing while we worked on his truck. So I get out of the truck and look to see one kid playing around my back tire. If I had taken the guy's direction I would have backed over his kid. It comes back to the driver, and no one else, being responsible for the movement of the vehicle.

So the guy is behind you, he sees his kid near the tires, and he still waves you to back up? That wasn't an accident.

 

[WackyDan]

I have both the sensors and the camera on my new truck. They came with it as part of another feature set I wanted.

I can honestly say that while I don't rely strictly on the camera, the addition of both safety mechanisms has been a huge plus and I will not buy another new vehicle without out.

 

[dainthomas]

I'd put my money on more distractions and the general public's stance of "gotta go gotta go right now, me me me".

I like backup cameras, makes backing up without hitting the car behind you so much easier in parking lots. Some cars just have crappy visibility or are super long.

I've actually backed into a post with my Tundra. You could fit a rhino in the blind spot. My deck already has an input for a camera, so I'll just get one put in (when I get my bumper fixed).

 

[OCGuy]

I have 360 degree cameras that can zoom as well as move around.......that isn't standard yet?

 

[CPA]

2 Things:

You're a complete idiot if you aren't looking behind you (by that, I mean your covering your blind spots/sides). Hence- if you're looking forward at a rear camera, you are, in fact, a moron. To this day I still remember one of the most golden rules about my drivers education days: Never backup more than you need to.

That rule has been completely forgotten, it seems. I'm with JTYso if anything - the beeping sensors keep you focused on what you should be looking at.

Only thing I will say to this is that it's not always cut and dry. For instance, years ago, my wife and I were leaving the house to go somewhere. Just as I'm about to put the car in reverse, I noticed a flash of something in my side mirror. I got out of the car and looked behind it to find my 6 year old "hiding" behind the car. He was short enough (there are reasons), that I would have not seen him if I was backing up.

So, it's not always being an idiot that causes these kinds of accidents, sometimes things happen. I got lucky.

That said, I think the lawsuit is stupid. They are available now, customers have the option of buying them and there is no evidence that they would have caused any less amount of deaths.

 

[CPA]

I have 360 degree cameras that can zoom as well as move around.......that isn't standard yet?

The question really should be "did the government need to force you to purchase the camera?"

 

[dainthomas]

Tire pressure sensors - because I'm too retarded to look at the tires.

The tire sensor on my truck came on when one of the tires was down to 22psi, it didn't look noticeably different than the others at a glance, so I'm glad for it. Not to mention if you hit a nail or something while you're driving and get a slow leak.

 

[OCGuy]

The question really should be "did the government need to force you to purchase the camera?"

I kid....they are a little over the top imo.

I think cameras should be used as a helpful tool, not relied on solely. You cannot see a fast approaching object from outside the camera's view.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Tire pressure sensors - because I'm too retarded to look at the tires.

The tire sensor on my truck came on when one of the tires was down to 22psi, it didn't look noticeably different than the others at a glance, so I'm glad for it. Not to mention if you hit a nail or something while you're driving and get a slow leak.

Try to replace a sensor
$15 for the valve stem
$25 for the sensor

$75 for the package at the dealer.

Chrysler; the stem degrades and is not considered under warranty.
If you drive more than 200m on a flat, there is a good chance you will damage the stem and/or sensor. Limping to the gas station will damage the sensor because it is pinned against the wheel by the valve stem

 

[IronWing]

Try to replace a sensor
$15 for the valve stem
$25 for the sensor

$75 for the package at the dealer.

Chrysler; the stem degrades and is not considered under warranty.
If you drive more than 200m on a flat, there is a good chance you will damage the stem and/or sensor. Limping to the gas station will damage the sensor because it is pinned against the wheel by the valve stem

But they make great thermometers!

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm waiting for the lawsuit from the driver who backs over a kid anyway...

The car should have stopped itself, since some cars already have the technology to stop themselves from hitting things in front and in back, the car maker was negligent in not providing it...

Little Johnny would be alive today if the car had stopped itself...

 

[BlitzPuppet]

I'm waiting for the lawsuit from the driver who backs over a kid anyway...

The car should have stopped itself, since some cars already have the technology to stop themselves from hitting things in front and in back, the car maker was negligent in not providing it...

Little Johnny would be alive today if the car had stopped itself...

"Not one child left behind!" oops..I uh...I mean "If we can save just one!"

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I'm waiting for the lawsuit from the driver who backs over a kid anyway...

The car should have stopped itself, since some cars already have the technology to stop themselves from hitting things in front and in back, the car maker was negligent in not providing it...

Little Johnny would be alive today if the car had stopped itself...

Self driving cars are gonna be boss.