NHTSA to require backup cameras on all vehicles

[JulesMaximus]

I think its a mistake. I like having a backup camera. They're neat to have, but requiring them is a really poor ROI. If we were to require something safety related that's already in cars, I'd pick the blind spot warning system. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly hit someone camping in my blind spot on a lane merge or had to do evasive maneuver vs someone who clearly didn't see me. I've even gotten in two accidents that were directly related to shoulder checks for the blind spot. That and a rear proximity detector. That would help backing up, and can have a much wider area to sense cross traffic in parking lots, etc.

:thumbsup: Now that is a technology that should be in every car.

Another problem with the backup cameras is they are pretty worthless at night and when it is raining. Add a trailer hitch bike rack and a bike or two and it is completely useless.

 

[roguerower]

Seems like a pretty solid consensus on here, which I agree with. Larger vehicles definitely could use it. I remember learning how to drive in my families Expedition and that thing was a PITA to back up. That said, it would be an absolute waste of money on my Honda Civic.

The people who rely on this to backup are probably people who look at mirrors only when merging instead of physically rotating their head and looking.

 

[halik]

Kids who run behind a vehicle are not likely to be saved by a backup camera, imo

Backup warning sensors, yes.

I can tell you that I had to fight the tendency to look once at the camera, see nothing, and back up. That won't help if a child runs back there after you've looked.

It's a bad habit with a camera.

There's plenty of time for something to move behind you after you take that one look at the display.

Just about every car has the camera option, if you have kids, pay for the option. There should be no reason why my 911 needs to come with a monitor and a camera.

Early on with my Jeep, more than once the warning sensors told me just that. Something was behind me right now that wasn't there 2 seconds ago when I looked at the video display.

This. I managed to tap my neighbors car with my M3, reverse camera and all. Back up sensors are waaaay better in that department.

That being said, I have no kids and thus have no reason to be compelled to have a camera.

 

[WackyDan]

I have one on my F-150. I use both it and mirrors when backing up. Far more handy than I thought it would ever be, especially when hooking up the trailer. It came with the truck as part of a package, so it wasn't something I explicitly wanted.

That said, the reverse sensors that beep an audible alarm when I'm bakcing up and getting close to an obstacle are far more useful than the camera is.

 

[halik]

My friend ran over his kid.

Big SUV, wife was in the house & thought he had the kid, he thought she had the kid - simple miscommunication. Kid ran out the door as he was backing out, right under the line-of-sight of the rear window due to the vehicle's size. They lost a child, who would have been saved by a backup camera.

They wouldn't have lost a child had they bought the option, rather than making the government mandate said option.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Seems like a pretty solid consensus on here, which I agree with. Larger vehicles definitely could use it. I remember learning how to drive in my families Expedition and that thing was a PITA to back up. That said, it would be an absolute waste of money on my Honda Civic.

The people who rely on this to backup are probably people who look at mirrors only when merging instead of physically rotating their head and looking.

If your mirrors are adjusted correctly you should only need to turn your head about 25 degrees in either direction to be sure your blind spots are clear.

 

[Kaido]

They wouldn't have lost a child had they bought the option, rather than making the government mandate said option.

Backup cameras didn't exist (easily) at the time :\

Besides, that makes the perfect argument for putting them in ALL cars - that way the safety technology isn't limited to just the people who can afford the premium options. Look at EyeSight on the new Subarus - it's a $2,400 option. Heck, my first car was only $2,400.

 

[Mermaidman]

One benefit of making cameras mandatory:
Manufacturers cannot make it a pricey option anymore. Sure, the base price will supposedly be higher, but competition will keep the base price down. (I think it's easier for manufacturers to keep optional equipment overpriced because it's harder for consumers to comparison shop option packages.)

 

[Kaido]

:thumbsup: Now that is a technology that should be in every car.

Another problem with the backup cameras is they are pretty worthless at night and when it is raining. Add a trailer hitch bike rack and a bike or two and it is completely useless.

I haven't had that experience. I'm not sure if my wife's Civic has IR lights or just uses reverse lights, but you can see great at night in it. And it does well in rain too - I think the lens is curved so while you do get water spots, you can still see out of it.

 

[Kaido]

I have one on my F-150. I use both it and mirrors when backing up. Far more handy than I thought it would ever be, especially when hooking up the trailer. It came with the truck as part of a package, so it wasn't something I explicitly wanted.

That said, the reverse sensors that beep an audible alarm when I'm bakcing up and getting close to an obstacle are far more useful than the camera is.

Yeah, I think an alarm sound is better because then you're forced to listen to it, and annoying beeps are a higher priority for a quick reaction than glancing at a picture, I would think.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Why just when backing up? Turn the camera on all the time. Replace rear view mirror with screen. No more back glass needed.

 

[Kaido]

Why just when backing up? Turn the camera on all the time. Replace rear view mirror with screen. No more back glass needed.

I think Tesla's HD backup camera lets you turn it on while driving forward. They're also pushing for that exact concept - replace the mirrors with cameras:

http://www.carscoops.com/2014/03/tesla-and-us-auto-alliance-petition.html

Especially with motion detection technology that can say outline a car in fluorescent colors to help you see better or make you aware of another vehicle next to you, without having to take your eyes off the road. Especially if it was coupled with some sort of HUD system, that'd be neat!

 

[MiataNC]

Of all the safety features forced into cars in the last couple of decades, I think the backup camera is long overdue. It won't make bad/inattentive drivers suddenly better, but it will give every owner the ability to see what is behind them regardless of the design/scale of their vehicle.

 

[halik]

Backup cameras didn't exist (easily) at the time :\

Besides, that makes the perfect argument for putting them in ALL cars - that way the safety technology isn't limited to just the people who can afford the premium options. Look at EyeSight on the new Subarus - it's a $2,400 option. Heck, my first car was only $2,400.

Reverse camera kit on ebay is all of $30.

This is in the same vain as my fianceé parents being forced to include a fence around their pool (that is, a SECOND fence, within in the one around their property) and alarms on the patio doors and gate as part of build inspection for their garage. They had/have/will have no kids on their property.

 

[michal1980]

I love all the nanny state people in this thread.

again, is this worth 7-28 millions dollars per life?


What happens when the camera gets dirty and a person then runs over a kid? Will you mandate auto wipers for the camera?

And when that fails. Autobrake.


How about we do the following:

a) hold people responsible
b) accept the fact that some times bad things happen

 

[Midwayman]

That being said, i am interested in one of the unintended consequences of this. If all cars start to have large screens for the camera, does that mean the day of the plain old radio is dead? It seems that you would basically be making infotainment systems standard in all new cars.

My parents car has a LCD behind the mirror. It turns on when in reverse and you can see it through the mirror. This is likely what form the low end non-navigation enabled cars will end up with. You can buy ebay kits like this too really cheap that replace your factory mirror.

 

[Midwayman]

I love all the nanny state people in this thread.

again, is this worth 7-28 millions dollars per life?

It seems an odd thing to focus on. 70 deaths a year is nothing in terms of auto related deaths. Political BS. Stinks of getting rammed through for the appearance of "doing something".

 

[Thump553]

One benefit of making cameras mandatory:
Manufacturers cannot make it a pricey option anymore. Sure, the base price will supposedly be higher, but competition will keep the base price down. (I think it's easier for manufacturers to keep optional equipment overpriced because it's harder for consumers to comparison shop option packages.)

Totally agree. I was looking at replacing my car earlier this year. The 2008 model came with a backup camera as a standard feature. If I wanted one on this year's model I'd have to buy an option package consisting of the backup camera and a crappy built-in GPS for $1000-1500 more.

Personally having used one I'd rate backup cameras as very pleasant surprise-equivalent of seatbelts, remote door locks and day-night mirrors as low cost, very useful features.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I think Tesla's HD backup camera lets you turn it on while driving forward. They're also pushing for that exact concept - replace the mirrors with cameras:

http://www.carscoops.com/2014/03/tesla-and-us-auto-alliance-petition.html

Because what I want, instead of a mirror that works 100% of the time, is a piece of electronics that is heavier and nearly infinitely more prone to failure.

ZV

 

[ElFenix]

I think its a mistake. I like having a backup camera. They're neat to have, but requiring them is a really poor ROI. If we were to require something safety related that's already in cars, I'd pick the blind spot warning system. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly hit someone camping in my blind spot on a lane merge or had to do evasive maneuver vs someone who clearly didn't see me. I've even gotten in two accidents that were directly related to shoulder checks for the blind spot. That and a rear proximity detector. That would help backing up, and can have a much wider area to sense cross traffic in parking lots, etc.

or you could adjust your mirrors properly.

hint: there's no need to be able to see the side of your car. if the object is already touching the side of your car, you'd know it.

(although there are some very poorly designed mirrors out there and i'll blame the manufacturer for that. if your mirrors are the poorly designed ones, my apologies. speaking of poorly designed mirrors, why don't we have convex mirrors on the driver's side?)

 

[JulesMaximus]

I love all the nanny state people in this thread.

again, is this worth 7-28 millions dollars per life?


What happens when the camera gets dirty and a person then runs over a kid? Will you mandate auto wipers for the camera?

And when that fails. Autobrake.


How about we do the following:

a) hold people responsible
b) accept the fact that some times bad things happen

WTF???

It seems an odd thing to focus on. 70 deaths a year is nothing in terms of auto related deaths. Political BS. Stinks of getting rammed through for the appearance of "doing something".

I have a very close friend who lost his only child. He would do ANYTHING to get him back... :'(

 

[Midwayman]

Because what I want, instead of a mirror that works 100% of the time, is a piece of electronics that is heavier and nearly infinitely more prone to failure.

ZV

I'm not sure about heavier. You could replace the glass, motors and pod with a tiny tiny camera and a LCD. That doesn't weigh much. However the big reason to do it is aerodynamics. Mirrors kinda suck. Probably some more design freedom that will come from cameras vs mirrors. Also they wouldn't need adjustment driver to driver.

 

[MiataNC]

I love all the nanny state people in this thread.

Does a rear view camera compromise or change the performance of a vehicle? - NO
Does a rear view camera force the driver/passengers to drive differently? - NO
Does a rear view camera give the driver more information he/she can use as they wish? - YES

Does a rear view camera infringe in any way on individual personal rights? - NO

If you want to use the "Nanny State" argument for seat belts and motorcycle helmets, I will join in with you. These mandates directly impact the consumer whenever they get behind the wheel or throw a leg over a bike. I think people are stupid to not wear them, but we should all have the right to be stupid.

The ONLY downside to mandating rear view cameras is a potential price increase when buying a new car. Economies of scale will result (as they always have) in prices remaining the same or only increasing no more than they already do year over year. Tire pressure monitoring systems, ABS, Stability Control, etc. have not radically increased the price of new cars when mandated.

On the plus side mandated rear view cameras will most likely result in better infotainment systems in the base/stripper models. Most cameras are integrated into a 6-8" inch display shared with the radio.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Does a rear view camera compromise or change the performance of a vehicle? - NO
Does a rear view camera force the driver/passengers to drive differently? - NO
Does a rear view camera give the driver more information he/she can use as they wish? - YES

Does a rear view camera infringe in any way on individual personal rights? - NO

If you want to use the "Nanny State" argument for seat belts and motorcycle helmets, I will join in with you. These mandates directly impact the consumer whenever they get behind the wheel or throw a leg over a bike. I think people are stupid to not wear them, but we should all have the right to be stupid.

The ONLY downside to mandating rear view cameras is a potential price increase when buying a new car. Economies of scale will result (as they always have) in prices remaining the same or only increasing no more than they already do year over year. Tire pressure monitoring systems, ABS, Stability Control, etc. have not radically increased the price of new cars when mandated.

On the plus side mandated rear view cameras will most likely result in better infotainment systems in the base/stripper models. Most cameras are integrated into a 6-8" inch display shared with the radio.

I won't.

 

[michal1980]

Does a rear view camera compromise or change the performance of a vehicle? - NO
Does a rear view camera force the driver/passengers to drive differently? - NO
Does a rear view camera give the driver more information he/she can use as they wish? - YES

Does a rear view camera infringe in any way on individual personal rights? - NO

If you want to use the "Nanny State" argument for seat belts and motorcycle helmets, I will join in with you. These mandates directly impact the consumer whenever they get behind the wheel or throw a leg over a bike. I think people are stupid to not wear them, but we should all have the right to be stupid.

The ONLY downside to mandating rear view cameras is a potential price increase when buying a new car. Economies of scale will result (as they always have) in prices remaining the same or only increasing no more than they already do year over year. Tire pressure monitoring systems, ABS, Stability Control, etc. have not radically increased the price of new cars when mandated.

On the plus side mandated rear view cameras will most likely result in better infotainment systems in the base/stripper models. Most cameras are integrated into a 6-8" inch display shared with the radio.

your so far cuddled by the nanny state that aren't even aware of it.

When government forces everyone to spend billions dollars a year on a feature not everyone needs, or wants. In an effort to save a few lives. Thats a nanny state.

2 billion + dollars a year to save ~60 lives. If thats not a nanny state, you dont know what one is.

Edit:

When government forces me to spend money on things I do not want, or things I do not choose to buy that makes government a nanny state.