NHTSA to require backup cameras on all vehicles

[JulesMaximus]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed rule Monday requiring all new light vehicles — including cars, SUVs, trucks and vans — to have "rear-view visibility systems," in effect, requiring backup cameras.

The rule -- which would be final in 60 days -- would start phasing in on May 1, 2016 models and be at 100% May 1, 2018.
The rule follows an outcry from consumer groups and by families touched by tragic back-over accidents, especially those involving children. They have pushed hard against more delays in the rule.

"We are committed to protecting the most vulnerable victims of back-over accidents — our children and seniors," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement.

Under the rule, all vehicles would have to give the driver a view 10-foot by 20-foot zone directly behind the vehicle. There are also requirements for image size and other factors that all but require rear-view cameras as the only solution that complies.

In a 2010 report, the DOT's NHTSA said that each year 210 people die and 15,000 are injured in light-vehicle backup incidents, with about 31% of the deaths among kids under age 5 and 26% adults over 70.

NHTSA estimates that 58 to 69 lives will be saved each year (not including injuries prevented) once the entire on-road vehicle fleet has rear-view systems, which it believes will be by about 2054.

Congress passed a law ordering the DOT to have a rule in place by 2011 to require cameras or other backup warning devices on all new cars and light trucks. The original goal was for them to be required on all light vehicles by the 2014 model year. Until Monday, however, there have been multiple delays over the details.

To try to break through, a coalition of car-safety advocates and parents sued the Obama administration in September. Two parents who accidentally backed over children were the lead plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York was scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday.

Advocates expressed relief that the regulation had finally been issued. "It's about time the motoring public will finally be able to see what's behind their vehicle while backing up," says Janette Fennell, president of KidsAndCars.org, in a statement.

Many automakers, responding to consumer demand, have gotten ahead of the regulation by putting standard or optional cameras on new models as they are redesigned, even on their smallest, most economical cars.

NHTSA estimates that 73% of light vehicles already voluntarily will have rear-view cameras by the final deadline of 2018 and that the cost per vehicle to equip the remainder will be $132 to $142 for a complete system, $43 to $45 to add the camera to a vehicle that already has an adequate display screen.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand I think some vehicles have gotten so big and/or are so difficult to see out of that this should be required but how effective is backing up using only a tiny screen to guide you?

Should be a boon to touch screen display manufacturing companies though.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I think it is somewhat expected (they keep mandating tighter and tighter safety standards that result in worse and worse blind spots), but still I'm annoyed at there being yet another forced expense on the consumer.

 

[Kelvrick]

So people won't even bother actually looking back now?

I've been wanting to add an actual screen to the inside of the hatch on my wagon to display what these backup cameras normally show.

EDIT: I think I might end up just mounting a dashcam on the rear windshield.

 

[waggy]

not totally against it. though in some vehicles its far more useful then in others

 

[LTC8K6]

I've been driving a vehicle with a factory backup cam since 2008, and I would say they are definitely a double edged sword.

I'm not sure we won't see an increase in incidents from reliance on a camera.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I've been driving a vehicle with a factory backup cam since 2008, and I would say they are definitely a double edged sword.

I'm not sure we won't see an increase in incidents from reliance on a camera.

I agree. I have one in my car and you can't rely on it. Nothing beats turning your head around and looking out the rear window. I always check mirrors first, turn head around and start backing slowly. When backing into a spot the rear view camera is useful though.

 

[phucheneh]

When necks are outlawed, only outlaws will have necks.

 

[waggy]

I agree. I have one in my car and you can't rely on it. Nothing beats turning your head around and looking out the rear window. I always check mirrors first, turn head around and start backing slowly. When backing into a spot the rear view camera is useful though.

yeah. i would like ot have one on my van. having when backing into a spot seems like the best use.

 

[michal1980]

so dumb. so very very dumb.

lets see, 14 million cars sold a year, x $132/car = 1,848,000,000 dollars a year/69 lives = 28million dollars per life saved.

talk about a waste.

This is nothing but a 2 billion dollar a year tax increase.

 

[Blackjack200]

Haha, I was just thinking 'yeah, I know someone that backed over their kid'

Then I realized I was fucking thinking of Breaking Bad.

Jesuschristgodalmightymylifeissad

 

[Blackjack200]

so dumb. so very very dumb.

lets see, 14 million cars sold a year, x $132/car = 1,848,000,000 dollars a year/69 lives = 28million dollars per life saved.

talk about a waste.

This is nothing but a 2 billion dollar a year tax increase.

Agree. But when someone backs over their kid, they are riddled with guilt. Getting a regulation like this put in place lets them pretend that they saved someone else's kid, so somehow their own kid's death had meaning.

I'd bet a lot of money that's what happened here.

If you took $2 billion and spent it improving roadways you'd save a lot more than 69 lives.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Agree. But when someone backs over their kid, they are riddled with guilt. Getting a regulation like this put in place lets them pretend that they saved someone else's kid, so somehow their own kid's death had meaning.

I'd bet a lot of money that's what happened here.

If you took $2 billion and spent it improving roadways you'd save a lot more than 69 lives.

maybe if they weren't so goddamn stupid they wouldn't have run over their kid.

but nooooo, we can't possibly say that a person is responsible for their own tragedy.

this is a waste of our money - make no mistake, we will be paying for it at the end of the day.

 

[TridenT]

I like it. I think backup cameras are pretty nifty. I virtually have no visibility out the back of a dodge charger from the rearview mirror OR from looking out back with my own two eyes (Which I am completely against and find hazardous anyway). Backup camera on that sucker is pretty damn awesome.

So, whatever. I'm all for it. I wasn't really thinking of the running over kids shit for this camera stuff though. I was thinking more along the lines of saving my cars bumper for parking.

 

[Kaido]

maybe if they weren't so stupid they wouldn't have run over their kid.

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.

On the flip side, I don't believe all cars need it. When I was car shopping a couple months ago, I was surprised to see that Nissan's top-end Nissan Versa Note (a tiny hatchback that maxes out at $18k fully-loaded) comes with their 360-degree "Around View" camera system. My parents have an older Versa. It's like the most glass for visibility you can get in a car. Plus it's like three feet long. Why it needs a backup camera, let alone FOUR cameras, I have no idea.

http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/avm.html

http://www.nissanusa.com/cars/versa-note

And part of the problem is, as mentioned, it can fool people into not turning their heads around. Until we get 180-degree bumper cams that stitch together the reverse, right, and left bumper views, a backup camera isn't going to cut it because it gives you a limited POV. It's a difficult battle for the government, industry, & safety lobbyists to fight because there's not a one-size-fits-all solution, but they can't go on a case-by-case basis because that won't work either. I guess it's better than nothing, and I'm definitely all for having backup cameras on every car they churn out, but I do think it's better served on things like Suburbans & Ford Explorers where visibility can be a serious problem.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

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.

 

[mmntech]

I have mixed feelings about this. It's another expense to add to new vehicles, which are getting pretty expensive as is. All because 69 kids per year fail the Darwin test. I really doubt how effective they'll actually be.

Though the cameras do make backing up large vehicles like SUVs and minivans a lot easier. People keep opting for these high vehicles that have tiny mirrors and huge blind spots. Hell, I can line up a bunch of cube trucks, backed in with the boxes almost touching no problem. Couldn't do the same with a minivan.

 

[Midwayman]

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.

 

[michal1980]

Agree. But when someone backs over their kid, they are riddled with guilt. Getting a regulation like this put in place lets them pretend that they saved someone else's kid, so somehow their own kid's death had meaning.

I'd bet a lot of money that's what happened here.

If you took $2 billion and spent it improving roadways you'd save a lot more than 69 lives.

All it says is that the nhtsa is to big. It needs to be scaled back, it has ran out of issues to address, so now its worried about saving 70 lives a year at a cost of 28 million dollars a life.

This has to be a new low for government mandates for number of lives saved per dollar. How many other ways could this money be spent that could save more lives?

I'm not big on foreign aid, but how many people could be fed or given a drug to save their lives for 27 million dollars?


Heck even if we accept their statement that 73% of people will on their own get backup cams, that's still 7.5 million dollars per life saved. still terrible ROI.

 

[bruceb]

Not needed on standard passenger cars. But on SUVs and pickup trucks and vans, it can be a big help. It also helps if you are trying to hook up to a trailer.

 

[jaha2000]

Another crutch for people who lack the basic ability to drive..
At least, on most vehicles. ON the FJ cruiser i had, parking lots would have been nearly impossible without it, that thing has the worst vision out of the back of anything that has ever been produced.

 

[phucheneh]

I like it. I think backup cameras are pretty nifty. I virtually have no visibility out the back of a dodge charger from the rearview mirror OR from looking out back with my own two eyes (Which I am completely against and find hazardous anyway). Backup camera on that sucker is pretty damn awesome.

So, whatever. I'm all for it. I wasn't really thinking of the running over kids shit for this camera stuff though. I was thinking more along the lines of saving my cars bumper for parking.

Stop driving immediately.

 

[imported_Irse]

I have both a backup camera and backup sensors on my truck. They both help but have their limitations. I did accidentally back into a car because I was relying on my sensor but had the radio too loud to hear the beeps. That was stupid and lesson learned. Thank God it wasn't a child. Can't rely on just one thing.

One issue I have is that my truck did not come with these aids. I had them installed after I bought the truck because I thought they were useful. Why is it that we have to have laws to do what common sense should have us do? If you have a hard time seeing out the back, buy something that will help. I seems like we put the responsibility on someone else instead of ourselves.

 

[phreaqe]

I don't like the idea of them being forced, because it is just another expense and something to break. I also feel like the people who are suing the administration are nuts. How is it the presidents fault they ran over a kid? If they wanted backup sensors and cameras they could have bought a car that had it as an option. No one forced them to buy a car that did not have that technology.

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.

 

[rh71]

The only time I use my backup camera is when parallel parking to see how far I can inch back. All other times I think people are perfectly fine with the park-distance-control audible tone. Say there's a garbage can behind your SUV and you can't see it, the moment you flip it into reverse the tone would sound. People shouldn't back up while looking frontward. You can't see peripherally what will come by, like a kid on a bike. Makes me nervous when my kids ride bikes in the neighborhood. I can only warn them that cars may back out without looking everywhere, but kids don't usually multitask too well.

 

[CurseTheSky]

I would like to see the back end of most cars redesigned instead.

I realize it's all about crash safety and whatnot, but I've driven or been in several late 90s - early 2000s cars that were easy to see out the back of. On the other hand, it seems like most cars in the past 5-8 years or so have extremely wide C pillars and a slightly upswept trunk area that limit your vision. I can see WAY better out of my wife's 2003 Malibu than I can out of my 2008 Fusion, and most of the other vehicles I've been in follow suit.

Another idea, though I'm sure it would be prohibitively costly, would be to add a 50% transparent camera feed projected onto a section of the back windshield. That way, drivers are (hopefully) still urged to turn around as they back up, but also have the assistance of a camera for anything below the bumper.