Rear view monitor in new cars required by 2014?

[easysurfer]

Rear view monitoring systems may be required in new cars by 2014.

http://www.fox17online.com/news/fox1...0,866956.story

I was in a van of a friend who had one of these. He was paralell parking. I told him, not much room in the back. He kept going until he got a beep and the monitor view showed on his rearview mirror. Pretty fancy.

[Texas Proud]

I would love to be able to get a camera on my cars.... but most of the newer cars make you buy an expensive package with GPS etc. to get one... they are not on the lower level models...

But, not sure if the cost of this is worth the benefits... if they sell 11 mill vehicles a year that is $2.2 billion cost to the consumer... based on the report that it would cost about $200 per vehicle...

[Midpack]

Seems unnecessary, but their cost estimate is a lot less than I was guessing. I was envisioning a full on nav screen with backup cameras, but I see there are simpler small screens embedded in rear view mirrors. There are a lot of old folks (none here mind you) who don't/can't turn around and look like they could when younger. I'll admit it's harder at 57 than it used to be.

The last phrase is pretty funny, who else could pay?

Quote:

While many welcome the idea of having rear view cameras in cars, it's going to cost you. Government officials estimate it could be about $200 a car and that cost will most likely be passed onto the consumer.

[easysurfer]

I think it's more of a concern of safety (to avoid children accidentally backed up on) than convenience.

[DougViages]

My 2010 Mercury Milan has a backup sensor system - like sonar with beeps/second indicating distance. I really like its simplicity.

[ziggy29]

On one hand, it seems like overkill to require it. On the other hand, with economies of scale I would suspect that the per-vehicle cost of these systems will be a lot lower if they are put into every vehicle.

[W2R]

My Venza came with one, and I use it but I feel safer when I use it only in addition to looking directly behind and in the mirrors. It scares me a little to think that some people might rely solely upon these monitors and not actually look, too. Does this make me an old fuddy-duddy?

I really like being able to check it, though, as a doublecheck to make sure no kids or pets are behind me. I notice that the image/video quality is better under some lighting conditions than others.

[Nords]

Gosh, parallel parking was one of my favorite parts of our daughter's driver training program. Maybe it was because I could sit in the driveway with an open container of frosty beverage instead of being buckled securely into the Seat of Doom front passenger position.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R I really like being able to check it, though, as a doublecheck to make sure no kids or pets are behind me. I notice that the image/video quality is better under some lighting conditions than others.

Yeah, as a "double-check" it's fine. I just hope people don't use it an excuse to not actually look in the rear-view mirror or over their shoulder...

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer I think it's more of a concern of safety (to avoid children accidentally backed up on) than convenience.

What makes you think that someone who does not even look will use the camera I bet that the # of deaths will go down by less than half... and that is a lot of money spend to save 50 or so deaths (and yes, we do a cost analysis on people's lives.... if we did not, then we would all be driving cars like they have in NASCAR so we could run into each other at 100 mph and walk away, but the costs do not justify it)...

[rescueme]

I have the sensor system on my SRX, with three lights just above the interior rear tailgate (that I can see in my rear view mirror), along with a different chime for each light.

They signify close, closer, and what the h-ll are you doing, idiot ...

It works well; I would never buy another SUV without some kind of "rear view", sensor or camera...

[Midpack]

I looked at some other sites for answers. As is often the case, I can find very convincing arguments for and against backup cameras (sigh). What was clear is it could be a hazard when/if people use the camera as a substitute for actually turning and looking, and inevitably that will be the case for some % of drivers/situations. Hopefully the impact will be a net positive, NHTSA should be most able to recommend what's best. Not surprisingly, it seems to come back to the driver no matter what...

[jclarksnakes]

We have one in our Honda Pilot. It is actually more difficult to judge distance to the car behind looking at the camera image than turning and looking back the old fashioned way. This is one idea that Honda did not execute well.

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I bet that the # of deaths will go down by less than half... and that is a lot of money spend to save 50 or so deaths (and yes, we do a cost analysis on people's lives.... if we did not, then we would all be driving cars like they have in NASCAR so we could run into each other at 100 mph and walk away, but the costs do not justify it)...

But, in the typical fashion of a politician pushing an agenda: "If it saves ONE life, it's worth it."

Figure, if I'm lucky, I have another 15 years to drive. I keep wondering if that will be a short enough time to still find older used cars that DON'T have GPS, rear-view (or other) camera, "tracking" devices, Lojack, On Star, etc., etc. Such devices make me a bit paranoid. And, don't forget: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. I guess I need to cut back on watching reruns of Law and Order. I also hate it when someone says "What do you have to hide?" Well, maybe nothing, but privacy is about more than "hiding" what you do. It's about being left alone. But, I think I've strayed from the original topic. Returning you now.

[Nuiloa]

After using a camera in the RV, I am seriously considering buying one for the car. Boy does it make parking easy!

[Midpack]

$20 million per life saved according to this source. Best use of consumers $2.3 billion per year?

Quote:

...228 annual fatalities blamed on backover incidents ...we [NHTSA] believe the annual fatalities that are occurring in backing crashes can be reduced by 95 to 112 ...total incremental cost, compared to the MY 2010 fleet, to equip a 16.6 million new vehicle fleet with rearview video systems is estimated to be $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion annually. These costs are admittedly substantial. That’s $20m+ per life saved…

Feds Eye Mandatory Backup Cameras | The Truth About Cars

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack $20 million per life saved according to this source. Best use of consumers $2.2 billion per year? Feds Eye Mandatory Backup Cameras | The Truth About Cars

Interesting... close enough to what the reporter said....

But is a life worth $20 million? I think that the courts value it less than that...

I was talking to one of my sisters... her daughter is in the Marines... she was on a mock jury and one of the questions was what it should cost for a wrongful death... said said "XX" (I can not remember the number)... she said if someone was killed in action defending the country the family got "XX", so that is what a normal citizen should get. That number is pretty low... I looked and could not find what it is.....

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack $20 million per life saved according to this source. Best use of consumers $2.3 billion per year?

Well, maybe with this perspective, it would sound better: The equivalent is about 2.5 Solyndras per year. Unfortunately, we get some of each whether they work or not. At least the cameras seem to work. I guess, within reason, I think these decisions should be left to the buying public. We have already heard several testimonials about the devices. Eventually, if they are that good, folks will not want to live without them. Then, the gummint won't have to get involved. Just my 2 cents worth and YMMV.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jclarksnakes It is actually more difficult to judge distance to the car behind looking at the camera image than turning and looking back the old fashioned way. This is one idea that Honda did not execute well.

So... "objects in the rear-view camera may appear closer than they are"?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack $20 million per life saved according to this source. Best use of consumers $2.3 billion per year? Feds Eye Mandatory Backup Cameras | The Truth About Cars

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Interesting... close enough to what the reporter said.... But is a life worth $20 million?

I don't think 'is a life worth $XX' is the right way to look at it (and I don't think Midpack was going that way).

The real Q should be - are there other changes that would save more lives for fewer dollars? If so (and I'm sure there are), then it is a lost opportunity. You can turn it around and say their decision is costing lives, as more could have been saved.

One for the Freakonomics guys.

-ERD50