U.S. Rule Set for Cameras at Rear for all new Cars by 2014

[M II A II R II K]

U.S. Rule Set for Cameras at Cars’ Rear


February 27, 2012

By NICK BUNKLEY

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/bu...rear.html?_r=3

.....

Federal regulators plan to announce this week that automakers will be required to put rearview cameras in all passenger vehicles by 2014 to help drivers see what is behind them. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which proposed the mandate in late 2010, is expected to send a final version of the rule to Congress on Wednesday.

- “We haven’t done anything else to protect pedestrians,” said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety in Washington. “This is one thing we can do and should do.” A spokeswoman for the highway traffic safety agency declined to comment before the new rule was announced. However, in a preliminary version circulated for public comment, regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle. At least some of the cost is expected to be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

- But regulators say that 95 to 112 deaths and as many as 8,374 injuries could be avoided each year by eliminating the wide blind spot behind a vehicle. Government statistics indicate that 228 people of all ages — 44 percent of whom are under age 5 — die every year in backover accidents involving passenger vehicles. About 17,000 people a year are injured in such accidents. “In terms of absolute numbers of lives saved, it certainly isn’t the highest,” Mr. Ditlow said. “But in terms of emotional tragedy, backover deaths are some of the worst imaginable. When you have a parent that kills a child in an incident that’s utterly avoidable, they don’t ever forget it.”

- Meanwhile, in anticipation of the 2014 mandate, automakers have been designing models with camera systems in mind. Instead of including a camera in a $2,000 navigation package, many have made it standard or a stand-alone option for a few hundred dollars. When Honda revamped its CR-V crossover vehicle last year, it included a backup camera as standard equipment. On the 2011 model, CR-V buyers who wanted a camera had to buy the top-of-the-line EX-L trim with a navigation system, which cost $7,000 more than the base model.

.....

[zilfondel]

I have a feeling this will be useless for on-street parallel parking. I can see idiots getting rear ended as they back up into traffic as the they can only see a few feet behind them.

[M II A II R II K]

They should make wheels that can turn sideways for easier parking.

[Don B.]

More gadgets to break. And more governmental nanny-state bullshit that we don't need.

Thousands of people die every year from not wearing seatbelts, a problem that is at least ten times worse than this issue. We should be doing everything we can to ensure people wear seatbelts, which is a cheap and ineffective way to save thousands of lives, not 100. Maybe installing a device that will prevent the vehicle from starting would take care of this issue, and would be a better investment of our limited dollars. But backup cameras? Please...some people are still going to get run over. No way to prevent that from happening.

--don

[CentralGrad258]

This is complete overkill. I'm far from an anti-government libertarian, but this is regulatory over kill. In fact, stupid regulations like this, make it hard to justify other government actions that actually make sense because they all get lumped together.

[jaxg8r1]

I'm not so sure. Even basic cars now come with LCD screens, how much could it cost to really add a camera and connect them? I suspect that since you can buy basic cameras for <$10, adding them to existing screens won't be much more expensive (I know the article estimates the current cost, but I don't buy that). Once this is standardized across the whole industry, cost will come down even further.

I do get the whole "government is overstepping" thing. But I wonder if the costs can be lowered to $50, is it really a big deal? Especially since its probably less than 1/4th of 1 percent of an increase in cost for the average car.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by CentralGrad258

This is complete overkill. I'm far from an anti-government libertarian, but this is regulatory over kill. In fact, stupid regulations like this, make it hard to justify other government actions that actually make sense because they all get lumped together.

Yeah, based on what I've read, I'm definitely on the same page as you. I was incensed by this bit:

"In terms of absolute numbers of lives saved, it certainly isn’t the highest," Mr. Ditlow said. "But in terms of emotional tragedy, backover deaths are some of the worst imaginable. When you have a parent that kills a child in an incident that’s utterly avoidable, they don’t ever forget it."

It sounds like he's suggesting that the lives of 90 or so children are worth more than those of adolescents or adults many times that number. Weak sauce. Definitely not a legit rational for such costly regulation. And saving 100 lives a year in a population of 310+ million seems like a hugely inefficient way of spending $2.7 billion. If saving lives really is the priority here, I'm certain that amount, if it's to be extracted from consumers, could go a lot further.

ETA: I wonder how many of the parents who killed their kids were driving huge SUVs...

[10023]

Agree with everyone that says this is stupid.

What about cars that don't have a navigation system, where do they put the screen? Way to mandate screwing up the aesthetics of the vehicle.

Does the rear camera need to be active at all times or can you just switch it off? Even with a center console, I'd rather use it for other, useful things.

The problem is not a lack of cameras, it's that most Americans can't drive. If you back over your own kid in the goddamn driveway, that's your own problem.

[THE BIG APPLE]

This is available in the $16,000 Toyota Prius, but also in the $100,000 Lexus LS 600h. Both are Toyota companies, but if people want their car to park ITSSELF and a cam in the back then the Prius is the way to go (not to mention gas savings). I bet soon every car will have to be a mandatory hybrid.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by 10023

Agree with everyone that says this is stupid.

What about cars that don't have a navigation system, where do they put the screen? Way to mandate screwing up the aesthetics of the vehicle.

Does the rear camera need to be active at all times or can you just switch it off? Even with a center console, I'd rather use it for other, useful things.

The problem is not a lack of cameras, it's that most Americans can't drive. If you back over your own kid in the goddamn driveway, that's your own problem.

It depends on how the camera is wired into the vehicle. I've seen a few of them on commercial vehicles. In some cases the camera is always showing what is behind, although the screen can be turned off with a switch. While in other cases the camera doesn't activate until the transmission is put in reverse.

My biggest concern is that drivers will pay so much attention to the screen that they won't be paying attention to other things happening around them. I've backed up trucks with them and while they are nice for letting you see how far your bumper is from some other object. That is all they are good for. They don't show you a view that far back. Or at least of the cameras I've seen and used.

[jd3189]

This is already implemented in my mom's car, which is a 2006 Toyota Sienna. It's quite helpful,but it's a waste of government money if they are trying to implement it for every car.

[Kngkyle]

I can see this in 2020 perhaps, once even standard models have an LCD screen, but 2014 is way too soon.

[novawolverine]

It is overkill. A lot of cars come with sensors, so that should be enough as far as mandates go. I think in a few years, backup sensors/cameras will be standard, and in ten, there will be a lot more intelligent systems in cars. Audi is probably one of the most impressive manufacturer's on this front, not to mention what companies like Google are doing.

[N830MH]

What about Honda, Arcua, Lexus, Ford, Nissan, BMW and Volvo will install the camera? This should have it. Because it was too many involved the car accidents. You have be more extreme careful out there. You have save your life. They don't want to get involved the car accidents anymore. You have put your seatbelt on. They have followed the laws.

[Rizzo]

I'm on the fence for this one. They can prevent accidental deaths, but it's definitely quite the measure to have all new cars implemented.

Then again, people probably said the same about seat belts.

There's also some responsibility by the US government to keep the machines and devices we most commonly use up to date, and standardized if the market fails to respond to prudent safety measures.


The only time I was ever involved in an accident with another vehicle was when I was stopped behind an SUV at red light...on a bicycle, near the curb. Driver put the car in reverse, and would have ran me over had I not jumped off my bike. Bike got crushed, and the driver drove off scared.

The problem likely could have been avoided with warning sensors / cameras which automatically activate when in reverse.

[Markitect]

Originally Posted by cabotp

My biggest concern is that drivers will pay so much attention to the screen that they won't be paying attention to other things happening around them.

Oh, there's a solution for that...just put in additional cameras/screens that show the views out the front and sides of the vehicle.

[JHoward88]

Ridiculous! You look out the back window or use your mirrors, or (hopefully) both. The last thing drivers need to be doing is looking at a LCD display while they back up. While they look down at that big lit screen, they will forget what is on their right and left side, and approaching in the camera's inevitably huge blind spots.

Plenty can go wrong with *simple* automobiles without having all of those modern extras. I wish simple cars were still made. The kind that just had simple mechanics, lights, radio, and heater... like my 1986 Ford Ranger. I've never backed into anything with that.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by JHoward88

Ridiculous! You look out the back window or use your mirrors, or (hopefully) both. The last thing drivers need to be doing is looking at a LCD display while they back up. While they look down at that big lit screen, they will forget what is on their right and left side, and approaching in the camera's inevitably huge blind spots.

Plenty can go wrong with *simple* automobiles without having all of those modern extras. I wish simple cars were still made. The kind that just had simple mechanics, lights, radio, and heater... like my 1986 Ford Ranger. I've never backed into anything with that.

I think the problem is small children getting crushed, or when I was on a bike (being in the blind spot of a large vehicle). I mean c'mon man you work at Walmart and have had to see small children standing behind vehicles backing up while mom loads groceries in the trunk . Fortunately those drivers were aware.

But you're right let's be real here. People have been driving cars for around 80 years. Take the extra time to look around. Some technology can't substitute for cautionary driving behavior.

[denizen467]

What the hell is wrong with just having beeping sensors embedded in the rear bumper? Forcing an LCD screen onto people who wouldn't otherwise have one:
--increases the cost of the vehicle, not to mention repair costs when it breaks
--increases the weight of the vehicle
--increases energy consumption (both the equipment's and the very small fuel increase from carrying the extra weight)
--GIVES THEM MORE DISTRACTIONS when the screen is displaying other stuff during normal driving, very likely RESULTING IN MORE ACCIDENTS than the miniscule number of accidents this is going to save (especially compared to the situation where beeping sensors are installed)

And aren't these cameras useless unless you make sure to keep the lenses/covers clean?

Is this some kind of surveillance play?

[Rail Claimore]

I agree, this is overkill. I hate how they've made cars "idiot-proof" over the last couple of decades. And I'm acutely aware of this trend, being a driver of a manual-transmission vehicle in a country where most "drivers" are simply interactive passengers.

How much you wanna bet that most of the unnecessary deaths attributed to not seeing what's behind you were the result of drivers just paying attention to their LCD screens when backing up instead of verifying with their own eyes what's behind the car and what may be behind the car in the next 2 or 3 seconds.