Mandated Rearview Cameras?

[M-17]

Report: Rearview Camera Legislation May Be Finalized by the End of 2012

Written by: Karla Sanchez Motor Trend

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is pushing to finalize a law that would require all passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. to have a rearview camera. Although the proposal has been on the table for quite some time, LaHood has been meeting with White House officials in an effort to set a new deadline of December 31.

The mandated cameras would raise costs by up to $203 for vehicles without display screens. For cars that already have display screens, the extra cost is estimated at up to $88. The NHTSA says it’s worth the cost since rearview cameras help prevent injury to pedestrians and children, who have become the victims of several “backover” incidents. These types of incidents kill about 300 people a year and injure 16,000, reports The Detroit News. The NHTSA initially wanted to set standards requiring all vehicles have a back-up camera by 2014, which would cost the auto industry $1.9 to $2.7 billion a year. Back-up sensors were considered, as well, but were found to be inconsistent at detecting moving children behind the vehicle during NHTSA tests.

Some automakers have already started to equip new cars with standard rearview cameras; the most recent example of this is the new 2013 Honda Civic. Luxury automakers are also using advanced technology with their systems, such as many brands’ multi-camera technology that depicts views all around the car, and Infiniti’s Backup Collision Intervention, which applies the brake if it senses an obstacle in its path.

Do you think new car consumers would notice or care if MSRPs climbed from $88-$203 to account for a standard rearview camera?

Source Detroit News

Thoughts?

[JesseE]

took long enough... I say pass

[HunterGreene]

Looking at the stats, and please don't take offense, but 600 people killed vs. ~11,000 killed due to gun violence in the same time period, I think there are more important things than requiring another nanny-gaget.

While I'm on my cynic soapbox, I don't generally like backup cameras. It just gives you something else to be distracted by. I can't really say I am a better driver than most (can't really test it), but if you are looking at the damn screen while backing up your car, it focuses you on what is behind you rather than your general surroundings. People are already proving that you can't handle a mobile device while driving, why should this be any different? How many more side-scrapes would we see people getting out of parking spaces or their own garages?

For a quick glance behind your over-sized-gas-guzzling Suburban/Expedition/Sequoia/QX, I get it--those things handle like a small moon. But to use it as your back-up guide is asinine, stupid, and expensive.

/cynic soapbox

[zenki_levin]

The reason why so many accidents happen is cause people don't pay attention when they're driving. With the rearview camera people are going to be even more careless when they're reversing. Same with assisted braking, lane assists etc , what happend to driving the car yourself instead of depending on all those gimmicks.

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by Hachivic

The reason why so many accidents happen is cause people don't pay attention when they're driving. With the rearview camera people are going to be even more careless when they're reversing. Same with assisted braking, lane assists etc , what happend to driving the car yourself instead of depending on all those gimmicks.

Yep.

[n2oinferno]

It really depends on the vehicle. I have no problem seeing around myself in the Camry, but in my mother in law's Acadia, it helps out a good bit.

I don't really mind it if it's unobtrusive. Hers pops up on the rear-view mirror, so you can look out the back and see the screen at the same time.

[bestwheelbase]

So we're worried about mandating a camera that does what turning your head will do, but we won't mandate so many other things that people actually NEED in this country.

Sigh.

[serialk11r]

I really hope there are at least exemptions to this, someday when I buy a new car I would prefer if I could pick a model with just climate control and basic music playing capabilities and nothing more. Otherwise, I'm going to be driving an MR2 Spyder for a long time...

How about mandate it for cars with windows over a certain height? A small sports car that can see 30 inches off the ground can see some pretty small children through the rear window

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by bestwheelbase

So we're worried about mandating a camera that does what turning your head will do, but we won't mandate so many other things that people actually NEED in this country.

Sigh.

For the record, I cannot see my child if he's standing behind aforementioned SUV, no matter how much I look.

I agree with the above post. Window height should be taken into account when deciding which vehicles have this as a requirement.

[rice_classic]

Isn't it amazing all the new stuff that keeps getting mandated over the years?

Federally mandated seatbelt usage
Number of airbags (or any airbags for that matter)
Height of hoodline to reduce injury to pedestrians
Crumple zones
Traction control
ABS
and on and on and on...


You know what hasn't improved over the course of 60 years? That ONE thing that makes the BIGGEST impact on car/driver safety... That ONE thing that is barely even done nowadays...

Driver's training.

Spend more money on that, more time on that, more attention to THAT.... And watch how the world improves...

Just sayin'