NHTSA to require backup cameras on all vehicles

[Midwayman]

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?)

Mine are adjusted just fine, I don't need to see the side of my car. The reason we don't have convex mirrors is they are illegal in the US. At least on the drivers side. I know some european cars have convex drivers side mirrors available.

 

[bruceb]

It is more than just a few dollars. You need extra wiring for power and video, a display panel or it has to part of the "in vehicle nav system" which is not easily / cheaply upgradeable as compared to units from Magellan or Garmin or TomTom .. and then there is the matter of cost when the unit fails, such as from hitting something or in an accident. I do not want anything to be mandatory on my car other than basic safety items, like headlights, tails, wipers, mirrors. Things like that that do not add to the car's already high cost.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

Welcome to the United States of America. Are you planning on staying long? If so, please register with the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, oh, and the INS.

WHAAAA!!! The government is forcing me to spend billions on things I don't want!!! Oh wait, I don't have billions of dollars, they are forcing me to spend tens of dollars on things I don't want!!!

 

[Mark R]

If it were the case that people bore the full cost of their stupidity, then I would have little problem with people not using seat belts, or disabling ABS, or whatever; the problem is that there is a societal cost for all of these: through increased LEO costs, insurance costs, healthcare costs, lost productivity, etc. The big problem is where do you stop, at least with rear view cameras, the cost is relatively modest when designed into a car.

(For a much more expensive mandate, look at mandated child booster seats - the evidence is not as compelling as the govt would like you to think, and the cost is substantial, especially as 4 different designs, related to child age are mandated. The studies with a high benefit - up to 28% reduction in death rate - are based on all seats correctly fitted. Other studies based on "real life" scenarios don't always find a benefit, because up to 76% of child booster seats are, in reality, "seriously misused". It also conveniently skirts the issue that the #1 risk factor for a child being injured in a car wreck is not being seat belted at all; and #2 is a drunk driver. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the mandate is wrong, but the costs are higher and the benefits lower than many people would have you believe)

In terms of the rear view cameras, in most vehicles, this could be addressed with better driver training - the vast majority of back-over deaths are avoidable, because reversing could have been avoided. My Dad always used to tell me, "Never park so that you have to reverse out, because you never know when the Russians might come". Whether he was being funny, I don't know.

But my driving instructor, and also my advanced instructor when I did advanced driver training said the same thing: Never reverse, unless you have just driven over or past the spot you are reversing into; that's the only way you'll know for sure that there's nothing there. With a little forethought, this is almost always possible. For example, if you don't have space to turn you car in your driveway, reverse in and drive out. You'll have got a clear view of the driveway as you drive past, so you can back in with confidence. Then when it comes to drive away, you can immediately see where you are going.

However, as many here already believe, many drivers simply have never be taught properly, or are too lazy to think things through properly; and we all pay the cost for that.

 

[MiataNC]

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.

No one is forcing you to buy a car today (or a new car in 2018 when the mandate goes into effect) that has a rear view camera. Not a single cent of your paycheck will go towards this mandate unless you decide to spend it.

So no, the government is NOT forcing everyone to spend billions. Try again.

 

[eng2d2]

This silly mandate is the same as the tire valve that has work for over 40 years(old one) and now want tire valve sensor that tell us our tire pressure is low. When will this end or is this another way to stimulate the economy?

 

[ElFenix]

Mine are adjusted just fine, I don't need to see the side of my car. The reason we don't have convex mirrors is they are illegal in the US. At least on the drivers side. I know some european cars have convex drivers side mirrors available.

yes, but why are they illegal?

This silly mandate is the same as the tire valve that has work for over 40 years(old one) and now want tire valve sensor that tell us our tire pressure is low. When will this end or is this another way to stimulate the economy?

low tires have ~3x the accident rate of properly inflated tires. in addition to sucking down extra gas for no reason.

 

[Midwayman]

This silly mandate is the same as the tire valve that has work for over 40 years(old one) and now want tire valve sensor that tell us our tire pressure is low. When will this end or is this another way to stimulate the economy?

I bet the tpms systems saves far more lives. I see people driving on dangerously under-inflated tires all the time.

 

[Midwayman]

yes, but why are they illegal?

Because convex mirrors distort depth perception and the congress critters don't think people can cope with it. Who know, maybe there is a study or something.

 

[BoberFett]

I wonder if the reduction of a few deaths due to backing over children will be offset by the increase in highway fatalities are people struggle with the horrible touchscreen interfaces that will inevitably replace physical knobs.

My Camry has a touch screen but fortunately it's limited primarily to the radio and phone, and I use the steering wheel controls most of the time for changing station/volume and starting/ending calls via bluetooth. Once you start mandating cameras and video, I can see more manufacturers opting to go for the fully integrated systems where climate control and everything is controlled via the touchscreen, and in my experience those are a garbled mess of horrible user interfaces. I see a distinct possibility that people will spend more time staring at the screen trying to turn on the A/C and cause more accidents than they do with physical controls.

 

[BoberFett]

I bet the tpms systems saves far more lives. I see people driving on dangerously under-inflated tires all the time.

I see friends and family driving around with the TPMS light blaring all the time. Tires aren't low because of lack of information. You can look at the tire and see it's low. It's low because people are too lazy or ignorant to actually do anything about it.

 

[BoberFett]

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

That's terrible for your friend, I can't imagine losing my daughter, but are all personal tragedies worthy of mandating the behavior of entire nations? People die in nearly infinite ways, do we need to spend billions to prevent every one?

 

[Midwayman]

I see friends and family driving around with the TPMS light blaring all the time. Tires aren't low because of lack of information. You can look at the tire and see it's low. It's low because people are too lazy or ignorant to actually do anything about it.

From the NHTSA site on TPMS
"Depending upon the technology chosen for compliance, the agency estimates that the total quantified safety benefits from reductions in crashes due to skidding/loss of control, stopping distance, flat tires, and blowouts, will be 119-121 fatalities prevented and 8,373-8,568 injuries prevented or reduced in severity each year, once all light vehicles meet the TPMS requirement.

Additional benefits are expected to accrue from the final rule as a result of improved fuel economy ($19.07-$23.08 per vehicle over its lifetime), longer tread life ($3.42-$4.24 per vehicle), and property damage savings and travel delay savings from avoided crashes ($7.70-$7.79 per vehicle)(assuming a three-percent discount rate).

The agency estimates that the average cost per vehicle to meet the standard�s requirements to be $48.44-$69.89, depending upon the technology chosen for compliance. Since approximately 17 million light vehicles are produced for sale in the U.S. each year, the total annual vehicle cost is expected to range from approximately $823-$1,188 million per year."

So cheaper and more effective than backup cameras.

 

[Throckmorton]

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

So all safety features should be optional?

Here's the thing... people don't usually buy safety features voluntarily. Nobody thinks they're going to crash, or be T-boned, or run over a kid. Ever wonder why cars didn't generally have airbags before they were mandated? Or why so few cars from the early 2000s had side airbags?

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

Oh shut up. You're whining about something that costs a couple hundred bucks on a car that costs $30k. And it WILL save many lives.

 

[JulesMaximus]

That's terrible for your friend, I can't imagine losing my daughter, but are all personal tragedies worthy of mandating the behavior of entire nations? People die in nearly infinite ways, do we need to spend billions to prevent every one?

I was just commenting on something someone else said about "70 deaths a year being nothing in terms of auto related deaths. Political BS. Stinks of getting rammed through for the appearance of doing something."

Sure, maybe this is coming out of emotion but I can certainly understand why a parent who had gone through this might be completely beside themselves at trying to understand or come to terms with how this could happen and try to make sure it didn't happen to anyone else. FTR, my friend did not lose his son in this way.

By the way, how many more non-injury accidents might this technology prevent? Some idiot in a jacked up pickup truck backed into the side of my car (my wife was driving it at the time) a couple years ago in a parking lot causing $2,000 worth of damage because he couldn't see her. Let me repeat that, he was backing up and HE SAID HE COULDN'T SEE HER! She was only driving a 3,500 pound 4 door sedan.

I have this technology in my car and in some ways it is beneficial but I can also see where it can be a distraction. I love the integrated Bluetooth and the NAV is definitely useful some of the time but the interface with it can be a bit clunky and frustrating at times which in and of itself can be a distraction and could cause an accident but you kind of have to deal with that as a law enforcement issue I think.

 

[michal1980]

Oh shut up. You're whining about something that costs a couple hundred bucks on a car that costs $30k. And it WILL save many lives.

70 lives at a cost of 8-28 million dollars each.

I can save far more lives for 8 million dollars.

 

[michal1980]

No one is forcing you to buy a car today (or a new car in 2018 when the mandate goes into effect) that has a rear view camera. Not a single cent of your paycheck will go towards this mandate unless you decide to spend it.

So no, the government is NOT forcing everyone to spend billions. Try again.

Ok government sheeple.

Yes the government is forcing millions of people to spend money on options they don't want or need.


Using your f'ed up logic, we shouldn't implement this at all, because people aren't forced to drive. Since no one is forced to drive we don't need back up camera's because people can walk, and when they walk they don't run over kids.

 

[JulesMaximus]

70 lives at a cost of 8-28 million dollars each.

I can save far more lives for 8 million dollars.

I bet you couldn't save a single life for $8 million dollars.

By the way, where are you getting the 8-28 million dollars each figure from?

 

[MiataNC]

Ok government sheeple.

Yes the government is forcing millions of people to spend money on options they don't want or need.


Using your f'ed up logic, we shouldn't implement this at all, because people aren't forced to drive. Since no one is forced to drive we don't need back up camera's because people can walk, and when they walk they don't run over kids.

You are the one with f'ed up logic.

Take a few minutes and read through this link:
http://icsw.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/FMVSS-Regs/pages/Part571.htm

The link is just a taste of what is currently mandated. It is mind numbingly comprehensive. There isn't a single system on a car that isn't regulated and mandated by the "nanny state".

So if you drive a car, you are as much a "sheeple" as anyone else tough guy.

So go ahead and bitch about backup cameras while I sit back and enjoy your ignorance.

 

[halik]

I see friends and family driving around with the TPMS light blaring all the time. Tires aren't low because of lack of information. You can look at the tire and see it's low. It's low because people are too lazy or ignorant to actually do anything about it.

Does tpms actually make noise? I only have one car with it and have yet to run into those issues.

 

[halik]

From the NHTSA site on TPMS
"Depending upon the technology chosen for compliance, the agency estimates that the total quantified safety benefits from reductions in crashes due to skidding/loss of control, stopping distance, flat tires, and blowouts, will be 119-121 fatalities prevented and 8,373-8,568 injuries prevented or reduced in severity each year, once all light vehicles meet the TPMS requirement.

Additional benefits are expected to accrue from the final rule as a result of improved fuel economy ($19.07-$23.08 per vehicle over its lifetime), longer tread life ($3.42-$4.24 per vehicle), and property damage savings and travel delay savings from avoided crashes ($7.70-$7.79 per vehicle)(assuming a three-percent discount rate).

The agency estimates that the average cost per vehicle to meet the standards requirements to be $48.44-$69.89, depending upon the technology chosen for compliance. Since approximately 17 million light vehicles are produced for sale in the U.S. each year, the total annual vehicle cost is expected to range from approximately $823-$1,188 million per year."

So cheaper and more effective than backup cameras.

I find it hard to believe that it only saves 20-30 bucks in gas over the lifetime of a vehicle. I can easily squeeze out extra 2 miles per gallon when going from 32 to 38 psi. Starting from the fleet average ~25mpg, that works out to 300 gallons saved for every car that rolls 100k miles

 

[halik]

So all safety features should be optional?

Here's the thing... people don't usually buy safety features voluntarily. Nobody thinks they're going to crash, or be T-boned, or run over a kid. Ever wonder why cars didn't generally have airbags before they were mandated? Or why so few cars from the early 2000s had side airbags?

No, clearly not - things like ABS, traction control or seatbelts have negative externalities on other drivers around you (plowing into people, losing control because you're not buckled in etc).

Hell i would even argue that blind spot detectors or radar alerts when you're too close are far higher on the list, than a reverse camera, as they have positive externalities to drivers around you. But won't people think of the children?

 

[Zenmervolt]

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.

Eh, I guess that you already have all the computer weight in most cars these days and the TFT screens wouldn't be that big.

Still the number of times the backup camera in rental cars has been obscured from dirt or snow is far greater than the number of times my mirrors have been similarly obscured. And even when wet the picture in my mirrors is clear, which is more than I can say for the image in back-up cameras during heavy rain.

Essentially, I simply cannot see cameras working better than mirrors, especially not more reliably. Given the number of electronic faults suffered in modern cars I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the concept of replacing mirrors with cameras.

ZV

 

[master_shake_]

even on cars with backup cams the screen tells you to check your mirrors..