Rear view monitor in new cars required by 2014?

[Brett_Cameron]

they should require camera systems on on tractor-trailer big rigs to eliminate blind spots.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 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

I agree... I barely remember a John Stossell (sp?) show where the fed gvmt mandated something be done in a small town (I believe with the water system, but who knows)... the town had to spend a LOT of their money to get it done and it was estimated it would save 1 life (or some small number... it was a long time ago and it is very very hazy)... the town wanted to spend it on something else that would save (say) 10X the lives, but could not....


I also think that a system with the sonar is cheaper and would do the same warning... so the camera is not all about saving lives...

[Bestwifeever]

I know of someone in my town who was hit in a parking lot by a backing up driver--she's profoundly injured and institutionalized for the rest of her life. She was bending down and the driver could not possibly see her but is emotionally traumatized as well. So aside from the fatalities, the injuries also need to be added to the equation.

[jclarksnakes]

Quote:

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

No, other way around.

[tinlizzy]

Have a rear view camera (with sound) in my UPS truck. LOVE IT! We had them for about a month and I backed into a regular parking spot, within the lines one day. An old guy stopped in his tracks and waited for me to get out of the truck. He said, "You could park that thing in a back pocket!" Indeed I could with that camera - lol....

[caninelover]

I bought a new Subaru Forester in December and it came with a rear view monitor. I love it. It even shows you these 'lines' on the screen that are green, yellow, red to help you gauge distance.

[Alan]

2006

I was on business in England with a rental car. First day, I was reversing out of a parking space in a pub car park. I hear a beeping sound and wonder what it is. The beeps speed up just before I hit a trash can that had blown over in the wind, and was below my line of vision directly behaind the car. Cool device if I'd realized what the b'jeebers was going on. Not driven a car with a rear view camera yet.

I've rented many cars in the UK and Europe with those beeping devices on, and I think they are great. That trash can I reversed into 2006 could have been a (small) human being.

[Telly]

Rear-view car cameras are a great idea... turning around to look back interferes with texting.

[skipro3]

I picked up a rear view camera system at AutoZone a few weeks ago for $60. The camera is powered off the back-up lights circuit and it's a wireless signal to the monitor that clips to my visor. Works great.

Peak/Wireless back-up camera system with 2.4 in. LCD monitor (PKC0RA-01) | Back-Up Camera System | AutoZone.com





I use it to back up to my trailer and to back my boat down the boat ramp straight.

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipro3 I picked up a rear view camera system at AutoZone a few weeks ago for $60. The camera is powered off the back-up lights circuit and it's a wireless signal to the monitor that clips to my visor. Works great.

You beat me to it. I think the aftermarket ones will remain a better value, like the $1,500 factory GPS vs. the $100 one at Target, Wal-Mart, etc.

Also a lot easier to upgrade if something better comes out that makes the cost worthwhile.

[ratto]

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?

[frank]

ratto has asked the hard questions. going from a 60 dollar device from autozone that works good to a device required by the government at enormous cost to the consumers is what is wrong with this country. If people want this device they should pay for it, not be required to have it by the government. Any time the government gets involved it anything it becomes bloated, convoluted and expensive.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by caninelover I bought a new Subaru Forester in December and it came with a rear view monitor. I love it. It even shows you these 'lines' on the screen that are green, yellow, red to help you gauge distance.

They're already an option on many vehicles, and that's the way it should be. I'm not sure I agree that consumers should be forced to pay $2.2B/yr for a mandate requiring them. If they're really that effective, everyone will have them eventually as optional equipment.

Reviewing. NHTSA has stated there were 228 deaths due to backovers, and backup cameras could prevent about half of them at a cost of $200 per vehicle. Works out to about $20M per life saved.

It's estimated there are about 11,000 deaths due to drunk driving each year. A car breathalyzer can be installed at a cost from "several hundred to $1000." If it was mandated that automakers install car breathalyzers in all cars, let's say the cost would be about $500. If half the deaths were prevented, works out to about $1M per life saved. Yet, no such mandate.

It's curious how we decide what we'll spend our tax dollars on.

Did you know that those who no longer fly due to 9/11/01, more of them have died on the roads than ever would have died had they continued to fly? Curious...

[easysurfer]

As long as commercials don't find their way onto the monitoring screens, I'm all for the possible law .

IMO, it's just one more aid in safety like break lights above the trunk, passenger side mirrors, air bags.

[Bestwifeever]

Implementation delayed:

Quote:

In a letter to lawmakers, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said his department needs more time for "research and data analysis" before it can issue regulations.

U.S. delays phase-in of rear view safety systems on cars - chicagotribune.com

Also from the article:

Quote:

The rear visibility standard was required by a law Congress passed in 2008 in response to dozens of accidents in which children were backed over. At issue in particular were blind zones in large sport-utility vehicles and pickups. Nearly 300 people are killed and 18,000 injured each year in back-over accidents, according to NHTSA data. Many occur in driveways and parking lots. Nearly half the deaths involve children younger than 5. The elderly also are frequent victims.

[W2R]

BestWifeEver, that is interesting that the elderly are often victims of such accidents. One often thinks of looking for kids and pets, but it's true that the elderly also might be run over since sometimes they do not see or hear well and sometimes they have a bent over stature that might make them hard to see.

Overall, I'm actually glad the implementation is delayed since it scares me to think that some would depend on these cameras and stop looking directly and using their mirrors. The cameras just aren't as good as direct line of sight, IMO. Also, even though my Venza has one, I don't like the idea of being required to buy one.

[Koolau]

Remembering back to when DW was just dear girlfriend, she had a really stupid cat. Said cat had a litter of kittens - and DGF was thrilled. Unfortunately, stupid cat decided to move her babies one fine day. She "hid" them under my car. When I left for w*rk, I left a mess in the driveway which DGF then found. At the time, I could have wished for an "under-the-car" viewing system.

But, in the words of Raylan Givens, "Where would it all end? No place good." Some day we'll have so many laws mandating so many gadgets on our cars that we'll just give up and turn in our licenses. My low tech "avoidance" system was to count noses when I picked up/delivered kids. My car didn't move until the count was right. Fortunately, I never backed over one of them.

YMMV

[TromboneAl]

Ours is 3D, which I don't like because I have to wear the silly glasses even when I'm not backing up.

[easysurfer]

For the majority, the safetly device may not be required. But the one time it pays off can be a godsend. I feel that way about ABS brakes. I had that as an option when I bought my car (a long time ago).

Did I just blow my money on that option? The answer is "Yes" until one day driving in a blizzard and I had to press and keep on pressing (ABS brakes pumping and all) which without it I may not be here typing today.

The push back may be questioning should this be a law or just an option? IMHO, I have no problem having this as a law (like child seats) as I can't even imagine what a parent would go through if they lose a child by accidently backing into them.

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer For the majority, the safetly device may not be required. But the one time it pays off can be a godsend. I feel that way about ABS brakes. I had that as an option when I bought my car (a long time ago). Did I just blow my money on that option? The answer is "Yes" until one day driving in a blizzard and I had to press and keep on pressing (ABS brakes pumping and all) which without it I may not be here typing today. The push back may be questioning should this be a law or just an option? IMHO, I have no problem having this as a law (like child seats) as I can't even imagine what a parent would go through if they lose a child by accidently backing into them.

Not disagreeing with your viewpoint. I just think it comes down to whether we think such decisions are best left to individuals or to our gummint. You sprung for the ABS and I avoided them like the plague until I bought a used car which had ABS (didn't even know it until I saw the ABS emblem one day). I grew up in snow country and knew how to pump the brakes to avoid lock up. Forgetting I had ABS, I pumped and almost crashed. Once you learn ABS, I would admit they are generally a more elegant (well, more mass appeal) than regular brakes. Still, at SOME point, the gummint will take away all our decisions if we allow it - oh, and send us the BILL for their decision. YMMV