Rear view monitor in new cars required by 2014?

[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]

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]

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:

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:

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]

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

 

[Midpack]

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.

That would be awful of course, no one would disagree. But does it warrant all of us spending $2.2B per year, for a solution that would be about 50% effective, and saving lives at a cost of $20M each? And if there are other safety mandates that could save many more lives at less cost, why back overs vs others?

 

[Texas Proud]

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.

I will also agree some of what you say...

I can still remember Honda sales people saying that Honda was not convinced that airbags were good, so that is why they did not offer them... it did not take long for them to change...

What concerns me is that they are mandating a CAMERA, not some back up avoidance system... why specify the solution when there are others that work just as well...

I will like this on my SUV, but am not sure that it will help that much on my cars... and if people only use it to back up we will have a lot more accidents as most of the problems I encounter are cars coming from the side... I will also like it since they are not offered as an option on the cheap model now...

 

[easysurfer]

Shhh! A gov't mandate? Where have we heard those words?

I actually think that if the feature was left as an option, most people would choose the rear view monitor as that'll be the last and greatest feature that most want in a car. Kinda like the the keyless remotes (though, I'm one of the hold overs who don't have a keyless remote).

In comparison to air bags, which were invented many years before becoming law, I think most will not even resist the rearview monitors.

I'm sure the in the arguement for the law, the gov't probably says studies show that having this would save so many lives, and therefore, it's required in all cars (like seat belts, air-bags, child seats).

 

[Bestwifeever]

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. ...

If we had direct lines of sight we wouldn't need the systems--the person I referred to who was run over was bending down near her own car, and no way could the driver have seen her as he backed out of his own space.

I don't really have an opinion on them (and I don't sweat about them being required--required back-up detection systems are on my "don't sweat it" list). If they're required, we'll have them whether we want them or not. I can see the auto mfrs. first making them part of an option package--you want the built-in kiddy video/the extra cup holders/the heated leather seats, you're getting the back up camera too.

I've been in a car with the backup detector that beeps when your car gets close to something behind you and that system seems adequate and less expensive, and doesn't visually distract the driver.

 

[MichaelB]

I dunno. Should this be mandated? Not sure. Does it replace turning around and looking directly at the reverse path? It should not. But many drivers just look in the rear view mirror and back up. Is this an improvement over that and will it make those drivers less dangerous? Yes.

 

[easysurfer]

My friend's van had both an audio beep and visual screen through the rear view mirror. Looking visually, the depth perception seemed difficult to judge. Of course, that could be since I was viewing from the back seat. I'd find the audio beep as really helpful as an aid to always headchecking.

 

[Alan]

I've been in a car with the backup detector that beeps when your car gets close to something behind you and that system seems adequate and less expensive, and doesn't visually distract the driver.

Then you'd love the car we hired for our vacation in Spain and France a few years ago. DD and SIL came with us so we hired a large, station-wagon style car, and the place we stayed and villages round about all had very narrow streets and associated tight parking. The car happened to come with all round proximity detectors and they were brilliant for maneuvering into tight parking spaces.

Along with beeping that became more rapid as you got closer to an object you had a visual display (not a video) showing which parts of the car were close to colliding.

As to whether or not to make it mandatory, I have no view on the matter, but if a proximity detection system is offered for the next car we buy I would pay for it.

 

[Bestwifeever]

You know what I really want in my next car? A detection system for the curb/car stopper thingies in parking lot. I wish I had a nickel for every time we pull too close to them in our low-bumper Honda and hear that crunch of the bottom of the bumper getting acquainted with the concrete. I mean, really, if they can put lighted makeup mirrors in my visor, why can't they....

I'm writing my congresscritter right now!

 

[ERD50]

As to whether or not to make it mandatory, I have no view on the matter, but if a proximity detection system is offered for the next car we buy I would pay for it.

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

 

[easysurfer]

Was watching on the evening news today that the 2014 deadline has been delayed. Reasons for further study and also the automakers don't like the added cost.