NHTSA proposes mandatory backup cameras by 2014
#16
I may get flammed by this but is it worth the cost for 292 people, assuming all accidents are eliminated. If we mandate these cost for 292 people, why not for 150 or 50? When does the madness stop?
I do have a backup camera on my car and outside mirrors that tilt down when you go in reverse and like both those features but this shouldn't be mandated.
I do have a backup camera on my car and outside mirrors that tilt down when you go in reverse and like both those features but this shouldn't be mandated.
#17
Reminds me of the guy that tried to sue Nissan b/c Infiniti lacked a back up cam.
http://www.automotivearticles.com/12...Daughter.shtml
http://www.automotivearticles.com/12...Daughter.shtml
IMO, people that try to file lawsuits like this one, should lose their drivers license permanently, their lawyers should be disbarred, and both hit with a huge fine.
Last edited by Och; 12-05-10 at 11:43 AM.
#20
Like I said in my first post, if automakers would pay more attention to doing styling, rear-rooflines, C/D-pillars, etc...... that is as conducive to looking OUT of vehicles as it is to looking AT them, there would probably be less of a need for these cameras in the first place.
For those of you old enough to remember them, that's one reason, for example, why Volvo, back in the 1970s, refused to adopt the little "opera-windows" in the rear-quarters of many coupes (and some sedans) that were popular at the time. Volvo emphasized, even in commercials, that rear-visibility was more important than fad-styling.
For those of you old enough to remember them, that's one reason, for example, why Volvo, back in the 1970s, refused to adopt the little "opera-windows" in the rear-quarters of many coupes (and some sedans) that were popular at the time. Volvo emphasized, even in commercials, that rear-visibility was more important than fad-styling.
#21
i think its a great idea and it should decrease the amount of deaths a bit... i mean there are still gonna be older cars that will not have these cameras.... the back up camera in my car is fantastic... i absolutely hate backing up and not knowing how close i am to the car behind me.... make parallel parking 100x easier.
#22
the reason nhtsa doesn't propose those things is it might threaten their existence.
#24
It's not really cost-prohibitive any more - a couple hundred bucks will provide both a camera and a monitor screen - even at retail. Having fallen in love with the back-up camera on our RX, my wife wanted one on her old minivan when I did a little restoration on it a couple years back. For $125 she got a camera and a 3.5" monitor that helps see below the nearly blacked-out rear window. It's probably saved a grocery bag or two already.
One curious artifact of these aftermarket wireless cameras: they operate in the same 2.4 GHz frequency band as wireless internet, security, and even baby monitor cameras. Normally you wire your monitor to the ignition switch and the camera out back on the license plate frame to your backup lights. Put the car in reverse and up pops your camera on the screen.
Unless of course, there is another signal available. It is common to be driving along a residential street, particularly at night, when your backup monitor flickers to life, with a picture of a kid's room, or an office, or even a kitchen scene. Yup, people don't realize these cameras are BROADCAST devices, and their signals have a range of a hundred yards or occasionally more - and anyone can see them. Moral: don't go to the kitchen to fix a midnight snack while naked. You may be the cause of a wreck on the street in front of your house.
One curious artifact of these aftermarket wireless cameras: they operate in the same 2.4 GHz frequency band as wireless internet, security, and even baby monitor cameras. Normally you wire your monitor to the ignition switch and the camera out back on the license plate frame to your backup lights. Put the car in reverse and up pops your camera on the screen.
Unless of course, there is another signal available. It is common to be driving along a residential street, particularly at night, when your backup monitor flickers to life, with a picture of a kid's room, or an office, or even a kitchen scene. Yup, people don't realize these cameras are BROADCAST devices, and their signals have a range of a hundred yards or occasionally more - and anyone can see them. Moral: don't go to the kitchen to fix a midnight snack while naked. You may be the cause of a wreck on the street in front of your house.
#25
The problem is most evident with SUV's (not necessarily a styling problem) and all SUV's have these large lower blind spots to varying degrees. Agreed, the manufacturers cost of adding these type of devices (I'm not talking jacked-up retail costs) is not prohibitive.
For example all of the local accidents that I've read about involving children while backing up have been with SUV and pickup trucks, not cars.
For example all of the local accidents that I've read about involving children while backing up have been with SUV and pickup trucks, not cars.
#26
The thing is, manufacturers do not make a lot of profit when they sell you a bare bones base model. They make up for it by selling you option at higher rate. The more stuff that comes equipped in a base model, the less opportunity for them to make money by selling you optional equipment, and they will be forced to jack up the price of the base model.
#27
The problem is most evident with SUV's (not necessarily a styling problem) and all SUV's have these large lower blind spots to varying degrees. Agreed, the manufacturers cost of adding these type of devices (I'm not talking jacked-up retail costs) is not prohibitive.
For example all of the local accidents that I've read about involving children while backing up have been with SUV and pickup trucks, not cars.
For example all of the local accidents that I've read about involving children while backing up have been with SUV and pickup trucks, not cars.
And many small sport-coupes, despite their low stance, are also very difficult to see out of in back, because of their rooflines, rear-windows, and C-Pillar styling.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-06-10 at 12:58 PM.
#28
Yes, high-stance SUVs, even with square, shoe-box styling and large rear-windows, do have their share of back-up accidents. But more is involved in these type of accidents than just children. You have pets, small adults, bicycles, motorcycles, trash cans, lawn mowers, garden tools, boxes....all kinds of things.
And many small sport-coupes, despite their low stance, are also very difficult to see out of in back, because of their rooflines, rear-windows, and C-Pillar styling.
And many small sport-coupes, despite their low stance, are also very difficult to see out of in back, because of their rooflines, rear-windows, and C-Pillar styling.
Children, more often than adults have been the dead or injured victims of too many SUV and pickup back-up accidents.
#29
The thing is, manufacturers do not make a lot of profit when they sell you a bare bones base model. They make up for it by selling you option at higher rate. The more stuff that comes equipped in a base model, the less opportunity for them to make money by selling you optional equipment, and they will be forced to jack up the price of the base model.
#30
After years of delays, NHTSA issues backup camera rules
Cars being sold in the United States must come equipped with a backup camera by May 2018.
Federal safety regulators finalized a rule requiring the installation of rear-view cameras Monday morning after years of delays. They believe the law will reduce the number of pedestrians killed each year when they are accidentally backed over.
Roughly 200 people are killed and 14,000 are injured in such accidents every year in the United States, and slightly less than half the victims are children under age five too small to be seen from the driver's seat. A government analysis has shown that about half of the victims could have been saved by a backup camera.
Safety advocates hailed the finalization of the standards Monday, which came one day before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was scheduled to hear a lawsuit brought by safety groups seeking to compel a final ruling in a years-long process.
"This has been such a fight," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of KidsAndCars.org, a nonprofit organization that advocates for safer vehicles for children. "But we're ecstatic to hear the news."
It has been a bruising battle. Congress passed legislation requiring the adoption of a rear-view visibility standard in 2007. President George W. Bush signed the "Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act" into law. It required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue specific standards by 2011. But officials delayed the deadline for writing those rules five separate times. In December, several organizations filed a lawsuit to force NHTSA to release the rules.
"As a father, I can only imagine how heart-wrenching these types of accidents can be for families," said US Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "We hope that today's rule will serve as a significant step toward reducing these tragic accidents."
The rules apply to all vehicles that weigh less than 10,000 pounds, including trucks and buses. Cameras must show a field of view that encompasses a 10-foot by 20-foot zone directly behind the vehicle.
Data shows that backup cameras have already been popular with consumers. They're included on slightly less than half all new models sold today, and a NHTSA analysis concluded they'd be available on 73 percent of all vehicles covered by the rule by 2018 anyway.
The same analysis found that equipping a car with a backup camera would cost $43 to $45 per vehicle in a car already equipped with a visual display, and $132 to $142 for vehicles without one.
Critics of the legislation have said that the cost of enacting the law will tally between $700 million and 1.6 billion, a cost that will be passed along to car shoppers. With NHTSA reportedly employing a statistical cost of $6.1 million as the financial worth of a human life, this legislation is expected to cost between $11.8 million and $19.7 million per life saved.
Yet NHTSA's analysis doesn't discount the "emotional cost" of accidentally killing children is something that lies outside the scope of its normal cost-benefit analysis:
"The agency recognizes that most people place a high value on the lives of children and that there is a general consensus regarding the need to protect children as they are unable to protect themselves," the report said. "As backover-crash victims are often struck by their immediate family members or caretakers, it is the Department's opinion that an exceptionally high emotional cost, not easily convertible to monetary equivalents, is often inflicted upon the familes of backover crash victims."
Fennell, who has worked with many families involved in backover injuries and deaths, said the grieving parents often feel like they're the only ones to ever experience such an accident. But they often grow angry when they realize that an average of 50 such accidents are reported every week, but no standards have been reached to prevent them. Now, those standards exist.
"These are not accidents," Fennell said. "These are predictable, preventable tragedies."
Federal safety regulators finalized a rule requiring the installation of rear-view cameras Monday morning after years of delays. They believe the law will reduce the number of pedestrians killed each year when they are accidentally backed over.
Roughly 200 people are killed and 14,000 are injured in such accidents every year in the United States, and slightly less than half the victims are children under age five too small to be seen from the driver's seat. A government analysis has shown that about half of the victims could have been saved by a backup camera.
Safety advocates hailed the finalization of the standards Monday, which came one day before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was scheduled to hear a lawsuit brought by safety groups seeking to compel a final ruling in a years-long process.
"This has been such a fight," said Janette Fennell, the president and founder of KidsAndCars.org, a nonprofit organization that advocates for safer vehicles for children. "But we're ecstatic to hear the news."
It has been a bruising battle. Congress passed legislation requiring the adoption of a rear-view visibility standard in 2007. President George W. Bush signed the "Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act" into law. It required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue specific standards by 2011. But officials delayed the deadline for writing those rules five separate times. In December, several organizations filed a lawsuit to force NHTSA to release the rules.
"As a father, I can only imagine how heart-wrenching these types of accidents can be for families," said US Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "We hope that today's rule will serve as a significant step toward reducing these tragic accidents."
The rules apply to all vehicles that weigh less than 10,000 pounds, including trucks and buses. Cameras must show a field of view that encompasses a 10-foot by 20-foot zone directly behind the vehicle.
Data shows that backup cameras have already been popular with consumers. They're included on slightly less than half all new models sold today, and a NHTSA analysis concluded they'd be available on 73 percent of all vehicles covered by the rule by 2018 anyway.
The same analysis found that equipping a car with a backup camera would cost $43 to $45 per vehicle in a car already equipped with a visual display, and $132 to $142 for vehicles without one.
Critics of the legislation have said that the cost of enacting the law will tally between $700 million and 1.6 billion, a cost that will be passed along to car shoppers. With NHTSA reportedly employing a statistical cost of $6.1 million as the financial worth of a human life, this legislation is expected to cost between $11.8 million and $19.7 million per life saved.
Yet NHTSA's analysis doesn't discount the "emotional cost" of accidentally killing children is something that lies outside the scope of its normal cost-benefit analysis:
"The agency recognizes that most people place a high value on the lives of children and that there is a general consensus regarding the need to protect children as they are unable to protect themselves," the report said. "As backover-crash victims are often struck by their immediate family members or caretakers, it is the Department's opinion that an exceptionally high emotional cost, not easily convertible to monetary equivalents, is often inflicted upon the familes of backover crash victims."
Fennell, who has worked with many families involved in backover injuries and deaths, said the grieving parents often feel like they're the only ones to ever experience such an accident. But they often grow angry when they realize that an average of 50 such accidents are reported every week, but no standards have been reached to prevent them. Now, those standards exist.
"These are not accidents," Fennell said. "These are predictable, preventable tragedies."