Rear view monitor in new cars required by 2014?

[Alan]

I agree that it would be a good to mandate that proven safety devices on cars that are not required by law should be offered as extras without bundling them with a bunch of other stuff.

I didn't know my 2007 car had electronic stability control until I needed it when I skidded on a wet road 3 years ago. I don't think it is a mandated safety feature in the USA yet, but it has a much bigger potential to save lives.

The NHTSA in United States concluded that ESC reduces crashes by 35%. Additionally, Sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with stability control are involved in 67% fewer accidents than SUVs without the system. The United States Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) issued its own study in June 2006 showing that up to 10,000 fatal US crashes could be avoided annually if all vehicles were equipped with ESC[32] The IIHS study concluded that ESC reduces the likelihood of all fatal crashes by 43%, fatal single-vehicle crashes by 56%, and fatal single-vehicle rollovers by 77-80%.

 

[Texas Proud]

Just generally responding to the many posts about mandatory or not mandatory - a compromise, that wouldn't really cost anyone anything would be: How about the Gov't require that any safety feature like this be sold 'unbundled'? Seems to me, you can only get this on some models by buying the $3000 navigation package and so on. Maybe the car cos would lose a little on people who buy the bundle to get that back-up camera, but I bet that number is small, and would be offset by a higher number buying the back up feature (whether camera or sensor). But unbundling would very likely increase the adoption rate of this technology. Maybe to the point it voluntarily becomes standard equipment?

Even though I'm a 'small govt' kind of guy, I don't have a problem with the govt mandating safety features for cars when it makes sense. Safety isn't always all that evident or 'marketable' to the consumer, and sometimes we want cars to be safer as everybody benefits, and don't really want some people 'opting out' on that feature. As some of us have said, there must be bigger 'bang for the buck' mandates than this one (and maybe that is why the delay).


-ERD50

Yes... I have mentioned that it is an option in either a expensive package OR only offered on the top of the line model... I would not have a problem with them saying it has to be offered unbundled... but, I think that the car companies would price it very high as a stand alone...

 

[Independent]

Just generally responding to the many posts about mandatory or not mandatory - a compromise, that wouldn't really cost anyone anything would be: How about the Gov't require that any safety feature like this be sold 'unbundled'? Seems to me, you can only get this on some models by buying the $3000 navigation package and so on. Maybe the car cos would lose a little on people who buy the bundle to get that back-up camera, but I bet that number is small, and would be offset by a higher number buying the back up feature (whether camera or sensor). But unbundling would very likely increase the adoption rate of this technology. Maybe to the point it voluntarily becomes standard equipment?

Even though I'm a 'small govt' kind of guy, I don't have a problem with the govt mandating safety features for cars when it makes sense. Safety isn't always all that evident or 'marketable' to the consumer, and sometimes we want cars to be safer as everybody benefits, and don't really want some people 'opting out' on that feature. As some of us have said, there must be bigger 'bang for the buck' mandates than this one (and maybe that is why the delay).


-ERD50

Yes. That's a good intermediate approach.

If the estimated cost is $200 each, the reg says they must be available on all models as unbundled options for less than $400.
Making a car "camera ready" is probably very cheap (note that aftermarket systems are available), so they could even be available as dealer installed accessories.

My guess is that most new car buyers will opt for them. (I will on my next car, not because I have small children but because I figure one parking lot fender bender is more expensive than the camera.)
But, let people make that choice on their own.

 

[ERD50]

Making a car "camera ready" is probably very cheap (note that aftermarket systems are available), so they could even be available as dealer installed accessories.

That was another thought bouncing around my brain. The govt could mandate that the cars be 'camera ready', and then you could choose dealer installed or aftermarket. Though I suspect it would be hard to find one that the dealer didn't install and add to the price on the lot. But at least un-bundling would happen.


-ERD50

 

[Alan]

That was another thought bouncing around my brain. The govt could mandate that the cars be 'camera ready', and then you could choose dealer installed or aftermarket. Though I suspect it would be hard to find one that the dealer didn't install and add to the price on the lot. But at least un-bundling would happen.


-ERD50

That is a great idea. It happened in the UK around the 70's, I think, that all new cars had to have accessible anchor points for rear seat belts, and/or child seats, before it became mandated that all new cars had to have rear seat belts.

 

[tinlizzy]

This is what we have in the ups trucks Weldex Back Up Equipments - Weldex, WDRV-7041M, 7" RV Color Monitor 1 Camera View

The camera in the rear (mounted at the top of the truck frame) is tilted slightly down so I can view my bumper (for kiddies who want to joyride) and up to 2 car lengths behind me. I can also see the lanes on either side of the truck in the rear. FedEx has them too. Go investigate next time you see a delivery person!

 

[Nords]

I've learned that when I get in my Prius and there are people within a car length (loading their cars or walking by) that I have to stick my head out the window and say "Excuse me, I'm backing up!"

I still had a guy walk into my fender. In his defense, he was totally focused on his cell phone. Until he smacked it into the fender, anyway.

I'm not too familiar with the rear camera setup, but I have a couple of questions already.
Who or what can guarantee the camera lens to be kept reasonably clean? How about the device's view angel, height and minimal ambient illumination requirement? How effective is it to avoid object/person suddenly moving toward vehicle's backing path? From legal liability perspective, should vehicle transmission be disabled when it's is in reverse mode and the rear camera system malfunctions at same time? As an OEM safety device, how long should it be covered by warranty? How about its overall reliability and performance under severe environment and inclement weather?

So... from the tone of your questions I guess you're not going to want the hacker's guide to turning your Prius multi-function display screen into a mobile OTA TV receiver?

 

[ziggy29]

My guess is that most new car buyers will opt for them. (I will on my next car, not because I have small children but because I figure one parking lot fender bender is more expensive than the camera.)

Could be. It could also be the case that some auto insurers will eventually decide to give premium discounts for vehicles with this feature if it really does reduce the number of accidents and claims. That would be another factor in the cost analysis of these things.

 

[easysurfer]

From USA today: Chlid back-over deaths devastate families across U.S. - USATODAY.com

Pretty much the same discussion that we are having on this thread.

 

[Midpack]

From USA today: Chlid back-over deaths devastate families across U.S. - USATODAY.com.

Awful without question, but why no broader context? Backup cameras should definitely be an option...not sure about a universal law.

 

[tinlizzy]

I'll tell you the 5 rules for backing that are drilled into our heads.

1. Don't back.
2. If you must back, back first and to the driver's side.
3. Be aware of surroundings before and during the back. If you are unsure GOAL (get out and look).
4. Use your camera as a third mirror.
5. Tap your horn continuously during backing.

To add perspective (I'm not being snotty Midpack - it kind of sounds like this might be directed at you and it's not) - vehicles back less than 5% of the time yet backing accidents account for 25-30% of all accidents.

One factor is that drivers fail to exercise as much caution as possible because they believe that their significantly reduced speed provides protection and added response time while backing.

 

[rescueme]

How about a truck airhorn wired to a sensor? That will surely take care of those pesky cell/pod users who think "it's all about me" ...

 

[easysurfer]

I wonder if insurance companies give a discount on cars equipped with backup cameras?

 

[FIRE'd@51]

I don't believe the $200 number. We just got a new Volvo with BLIS (Blind Spot Information System) in which a light on the driver's side (or passenger's side) mirror comes on when a car in the adjacent lane approaches the driver's blind spot. The cost - $700, and there is no camera/monitor - just a light.

Also, I'm sure the cost of repair should the camera/monitor fail will be very expensive. Furthermore, in states where there is an annual inspection, I would expect this would be an item that would have to pass the inspection.

 

[Lancelot]

I forget the exact date but around 2007 the Cambodian government passed a law- requiring motos <motor bikes> to have rear view mirrors.

Real men don't look back... HA!