Slashdot Mirror
Rearview Car Cameras Likely Mandated By 2014
Hugh Pickens writes "Every year around 17,000 people are injured and over 200 die in backover accidents involving cars, trucks and SUVs. Now the Chicago Tribune reports that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will send Congress a proposal mandating a rearview camera for all passenger vehicles starting in 2014. 'Adoption of this proposal would significantly reduce fatalities and injuries caused by backover crashes involving children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and other pedestrians,' says NHTSA in its proposal. But the technology won't come cheap. In its study, the NHTSA found that adding a backup camera to a vehicle without an existing visual display screen will probably cost $159 to $203 per vehicle, shrinking to between $58 and $88 for vehicles that already use display screens. Toyota of Albany Sales manager Kelvin Walker says he believes making backup cameras standard on cars made after 2014 is a good idea. 'If you want to get a backup camera with a mirror in it now, it may cost you $700 to $800 as an additional dealer option or you have to purchase a navigation which is about $1,500 to $1,600. So $1,600 compared to $200? You do the math.'"
How does that work with winter, mud and all the other junk that will cover the camera? Do I get a ticket if it's obscured? I suspect the problem isn't lack of cameras but lack of people paying attention while driving (to whit I saw someone reading a book while making a left turn. great).
as if life isn't expensive enough as it is. How about we put this one on the ballot, boys?
I see asswipes doing this all the time
News flash, most times I can't see you when using my mirrors. I'll look behind me in parking lots but idiots like to walk in the street in NYC
When it's requires dealerships will have to add that to the direct competition package along with "takes you places" and "blinkers work." The price will drop accordingly.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
hook up a non-functioning camera to the rear of my Jeep. I can see out the back just fine, and unless they make a waterproof screen to mount on my dashboard, it won't last too long anyway.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
And every time I'm on the expressway, I wish I had a camera for my blind spots. When the government mandates cameras they will probably be like $200 to meet the standards. I'm not sure why automakers didn't think to add the cameras as a cool cheap safety feature. And the ones that do are only on when you are in reverse, so they don't help you with blind spots.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Rearview car camera was unable to prevent a minivan from backing into my car.
First I was tempted to make a joke, something connecting rear- view and up-skirt with car analogy. But I won't do that, and instead say that, here in Japan rear view cameras has been fairly standard for a long time. My 11 year old car came with one that recently broke. And it is one of those things you don't miss until you had one and it is gone. We live in a neighborhood with lots of kids running around and playing on the small streets between the houses. And with the rear view camera I could be absolutely sure there were no toddler on a three wheeler behind my car when backing out.
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
Don't people look over their shoulders and use their mirrors when they back up anymore? It's not that hard and has worked fine most of the time for over a century. If some people don't know how to back up properly, then why the hell are they allowed to drive?
Cameras should be an optional luxury feature, not a mandated system. Besides, what if the camera breaks/lens gets dirty?
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
This, as with all car safety laws, isn't a retrofit law. They aren't saying "You have to go buy this and put it on all cars out there." They are saying (or rather considering saying) "All cars made from now on must include this feature."
Same shit as passive safety systems, window mounted stop lights, seatbelts and so on. You needn't retrofit them on something that didn't have them, manufacturers just have to include them on new vehicles.
Again we have to have legislation. If someone doesn't see a car is in reverse, oh well. If someone darts behind the car on a bike or something I don't see how a camera will help.
I do see high cost-of-ownership with all the electronics.
Will it be mandated that it works all the time? What if it breaks and the owner chooses to not repair it? It's not like brakes which are necessary. Well, necessary if one wants to stop.
Will the DOTs be checking this on annual inspections?
How did all of these accidents happen?
Would a camera have prevented it?
Or will we find new and exciting ways to get ourselves run over because we can't be bothered by our surroundings?
We should consider reducing the amount of silly, wasteful and frivolous laws on the books, before we add to the pile.
I think that front cover of this weeks' The Economist sums up my feelings quite well.
Am I the only one who has seen drivers with a rear camera hit something or someone because they looked ONLY at the camera and not at the mirrors or out the windows. I think that when more vehicles come with a standard backup camera, there will be more such incidents, not fewer.
I already know how to back up? Look for people and objects that are behind me and know how to avoid them? Do *I* still havbe to pay extra fora car with a feature I'll never need?
And what about heatproof, waterproof, sun/age embrittlement of the screen and button? Guess what, some of us live in climates with actual temperature extremes and cracked dashboards are a way of life in older cars. Do those cameras and display screen hold up, or do I just replace them regularly (at a nice tidy profit for the dealer and manufacturer) as the environmental wear kicks in?
And then there are the insurance liabilities. If I have a camera and it doesn't work, am I now automatically at fault, even when it was the otherguy that ran behind the car?
Just not loving this as a requirement.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
The problem with a camera is that it will only save a pedestrian if the driver uses it.
I suspect that in most of the accidents due care isn't being taken. A camera won't change that.
The same people who ignore their mirrors, will ignore their rear view cameras as well.
I am so waiting for my HUD visor displaying my rear view video camera output! The ultimate geek bicycle gizmo!
I drive a single cab light pickup. It has almost zero blind spots and backing up is a breeze. Adding a camera to it would be superfluous. Same goes for the last car I own. It had lots of glass so you could actually see out of it all around. Vehicles with big blind spot problems are huge cars with tiny glass for aesthetic purposes and behemoth trucks / SUVs. Believe me, I know, I also drive loud motorcycle. You can tell the people with very poor situational awareness due to blind spots because they freak out when they first hear me near them. I can literally see them squirm around on the road as they are in there going "OMG Where is the motorcycle? Am I about to run it over?"
Dupe: http://www.tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/05/0115234/Rear-View-Cameras-On-Cars-Could-Become-Mandatory-In-the-US
Also, I think this is a good idea. I used a backup camera in a rented Ford once (the screen was in the rear-view mirror.. clever). It was very effective and made what is honestly one of the more nerve-wracking parts of driving far easier.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
In determining how much money should be spent preventing a death, it's useful to attach a dollar amount to a human life. The dollar amount says that after you've spent that much money on one life, you're probably better off spending money saving a different life (probably from a different danger). The usual amount is $1 or $2 million.
Assuming a car lasts 14 years before it's permanently retired, consider a block of 14 years. At 200 lives/year saved, that's 2800 lives saved. At 250 million cars in the US multiplied by $75/car for additional equipment, that's $19 billion. Divided by 2800, that's $6.7 million/life saved. Too much money -- and that's for cars that already have displays.
As just one example of where money would be better spent, and yes it's a pet peeve of mine, is installing a guard rail in the median of the Fairfax County Parkway. There are a handful of deaths from head-on collisions every year, and it would cost only $10 million to install a guardrail.
There is allready a rearview mirror installed in every car and people don't fucking look in those or pay any attention to sideview mirrors. The problem is the drivers not the equipment. If the morons back up without looking in the damn mirror then why do they think the dimwits will look at a screen. Now IF they transmitted the video wirelessly to their smartphone then maybe they might notice the guy walking behind the car. I doubt it though.
According to wardsauto.com, 13M cars and trucks were sold in 2011. At a cost of $200 each, that means it would cost $2.6B per year to add these cameras to every vehicle. Even if this would eliminate all 200 of the backup-related deaths each year (which it obviously wouldn't), that would mean spending $13M per life saved. This is far higher than the figure used in most engineering projects; i.e. this is not a good return per dollar on safety, and there are much more cost-effective ways to spend this money.
All wit my pants down.
Breaking news: The guy who tries to upsell you at the car dealership has a tenuous grip in economics.
Next will come back-up beepers (mandated by OSHA and yet at 97-112 decibels exceeds OSHA's own standard for job-site noise level!).
"But what about deaf people? They won't hear them!"
Next will come blindingly bright, flashing warning lights.
"But what about blind and deaf people?"
Fuck 'em -- they're not a big enough voting block.
Yup, our economy is in the shits and our elitist, establishment politicians are wasting time on yet more nanny legislation.
I agree with all of your points and would like to add that the next thing would be to allow DHS to "tap into" your rear view camera at any time and see what's behind you.
Why don't we prohibit people who are unable to turn their heads from having a driver's licence? There's a good argument to be made that such an accessory could easily increase backup accidents on account of people becoming dependent on a device that provides less information than actually scanning the environment would. The burden is on the advocates of this proposal to prove that it would actually reduce fatalities and injuries.
I would also like to know why the nanny state apologists haven't yet demanded that we all wear helmets all day.
I know people who have backup cameras and don't pay attention to them. My friends wife had the backup sensors AND the backup camera but she didn't wait the 5 seconds it takes to boot and show an image so she backed up into her friends car. You can't fix stupid. All this will do is provide guaranteed income to companies that produce rear view cameras and make cars less affordable. Get off my back government.
But I'm more comfortable with real numbers.
I mean, _clearly_ they would save at least $3000 because they would reduce the manufacturing cost that can be had for usually $4000.
Compare the $1000 savings... much better than paying just $1200 for the dealer option. I mean, that's more than 20% off.
And who doesn't want more than 20% off?
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
As a parent of 3 I would like a backseat camera with DVR. When the yelling starts I can rewind it and see who started it.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
There's no way your numbers are right if you manage to charge $1600 for navigation. It is amazing how much auto builders can get away with charging.
Even if you're looking out the back window, you cannot see everything behind you.
Imagine a small child on a tricycle right behind your back bumper -- it doesn't matter if you're a great driver or a terrible one, you simply won't see the child without a rear camera.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Why the hell can't *I* choose the safety features of *my* own new car? Maybe I'd rather spend that extra money on a car with traction control, or maybe I have a very limited budget, but just want a basic no-frills new car that won't give me any trouble for the next few years. This just smacks of regulators trying to justify their jobs by creating regulations for the sake of regulations. Cars are really, really safe now. Do you really think that Ford would stop putting seatbelts in cars if the government didn't tell them they had to? The car company that kills fewer of it's customers than its rivals can sell more cars based on this fact. The car company that is consistently killing its customers will likely be out of business soon. I'm not saying there's no place for regulation, but this is getting ridiculous. Maybe next they'll say you can't have a black car because they're harder to see at night, after that, they'll say all cars have to be CalTrans Orange because they're safer. Regulators regulate, regardless of the necessity of regulation. A regulator that doesn't regulate is out of a job.
Wouldn't a proximity sensor be a much better solution? I think they're cheaper, and they can yell at you if something/someone is in the way, much harder to ignore than a blob on the screen.
horror vacui
It interferes with my liberties by infringing upon my sacramental right to not look in a camera as well as the devotional requirement to be sure that while I behave like a jackass, everybody else shall pay the price of it.
I guess I'll have to turn my seat around so I can no longer see the camera, and drive everywhere in Reverse.
I understand that people don't like to be told what to do by the government. (esp. us slashdotters). But everyone who is arguing against this honestly just sound like people did back in the day when they mandated seat belts and air bags. ( I don't need it, I am an excellent driver, it is to expensive)
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
38k MVA deaths in 2009.
200 deaths caused by backup accidents is 0.6% of the national total.
12400 deaths caused by alcohol impaired drivers is about 38% of the national total.
Rear view cameras = $800
Breathalyzer key lock = ~$1500
For less than twice the price, you can get 62 times the life saving potential. Just food for thought.
Speaking of cars and 2014, aren't we supposed to all be in flying cars by now according to Back to the Future Part II? Why not regulate that into existence. All new cars have to fly by 2015. Then no one will get run over...EVER!! Finally government working for the people!
The BOM cost for a basic capture sensor, IR illumination and a screen cannot possibly be $150-200.
That's the BOM cost for a top of the line smart phone, which includes front and back sensors (and probably 5+ MP), vibrant touch screen, battery, some Cortex-A8/A9 processor variant, cell phone circuitry, a bunch of DDR3 RAM, a buttload of flash memory, myriad sensors, etc, case fabrication, etc. Half of this crap would be irrelevant with an analog solution anyway, which for a backup camera would be completely feasible.
Maybe the cost is the projected increase in the sticker price of the vehicle (which means BOM costs would be more like $25-50); only explanation I can come up with.
but, how many thousands die at the hands of drunk drivers each year? The breathalyzer mandate would be a tougher sell but save more lives. i guess you can sell cameras as "think of the children". The only thing that scares me on the road is the drunken idiots.
If they make the camera wireless (to save money) then the government can watch us (from the car ahead). Wireless would be much easier than tying this into ONStar.
I think the price is severely overestimated.
The cost of cameras is quite cheap for the low resolution required as is the cost of small LCD displays. The cost of a decent cellphone camera is around $10 and LCD's in the quantity required are probably less than $20 with maybe $5 for the drive electronics. The camera can be lower quality since it doesn't need to handle very high resolution or internal focusing and the lens can be quite cheap as well. Add in the cost for the housing and lens and wiring and you may have $60-$80. The added advantage is that it makes parallel parking easier. My car came with it with the GPS unit and I find it useful since I can see my own bumper, making it easier to squeeze into spots where I otherwise can't see the hood of the car behind me very well. It still doesn't replace a rear-view mirror or turning your head around to see what's behind you since it's impossible to properly judge distance with the fisheye lens on it. In fact, a quick google search shows rear-view camera add-on kits for cars for under $100. If it's built in to the car it can be cheaper since the LCD housing and mounting hardware would be integrated into the dash.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
When you are looking ahead while driving, your eyes are focused at infinity. When you glance at the rear-view, they may remain focused to infinity. But if you look at a screen, you have to refocus, which takes roughly 10 - 100 ms (depending on the person and lighting conditions).
As long as the screens are only for parking and the "kid check" it doesn't matter...
.: Semper Absurda
If this was really such a huge problem, then commercial vehicles would all beep like freight trucks when they back up.
Please, please mute the audio (1) when in reverse and (2) for 2 minutes after engine start.
That's just long enough to hear "DON'T BACK OVER THE BABY!"
Ignoring deaths (which are usually cheap, economically speaking), for 17,000 victims and 5 million cars sold per year, with a $200 premium per car, that's $58,823 per victim.
The missing bits of information are lost lifetime earnings and medical costs per victim. If it's substantially more than $58,823 (because not all 17,000 accidents will be prevented), then it's worth it.
Not saying is this necessarily a bad idea, but if it's about saving lives, according to CDC over 10,000 people die every year from DUI-related accidents. 200 vs 10000... Why not mandate a breathalyzer ignition lock while they're at it ???
Guess people gave up on trying to teach kids. Or I guess parents stopped teaching their kids anything. I remember clearly being told by my parents when I'm young to watch for cars backing up in parking lots. Another case of the 99% having to pay for the 1% of bad drivers. I ain't paying $200 for a camera I would not use.
First it says
>But the technology won't come cheap
Then later:
>In its study, the NHTSA found that adding a backup camera t...will probably cost $159 to $203 per vehicle...
When you're talking about a car, is a $203 addition not cheap? Really? In the US where people buy big cars? It's cheaper than toys like iPods and Playstations, and it's a *hell* of a lot cheaper than hospital bills. In fact, it's dirt cheap compared to those. Would would "cheap" have been to them? $10? $1?
why don't they just mandate a cow catcher on the back, would that be more to-the-point?
I drive a minivan. The backup camera cost $1500 and came with free nav. I can't imagine backing out of the garage or driveway where I live (with 3 kids) on to my street (lots of kids) or on my kid's daycare or school parking lot without one. But when I drive the sedan, the blind spot is much smaller; I'm not so concerned.
As looking at the source of the statistics just as many kids are harmed and killed by frontovers as well as backovers.
http://www.kidsandcars.org/userfiles/dangers/shared/non-fatal-pie-chart.pdf
http://www.kidsandcars.org/userfiles/dangers/shared/fatalities-pie-chart.pdf
Also, they should install a camera inside the car so parents don't forget to leave their kids in the car as 16% of kids are killed from Heat Stroke and over 50% are harmed from being left in the vehicle.
You can get much cheaper cars built overseas and use them all you want. You just have to use them on private roads instead of roads built by the nanny state that insists on making it cheap for you to get to work.
There are no laws that prevent you from doing this. You just have to keep those cars on your own private property instead of on the socialist roads that are provided to you for "the good of the whole".
We could easily solve this by privatizing all roads and making them toll roads and letting businesses decide if they require these safety features to allow you on their roadways.
Yes, I agree, that is your opinion!
I tend to ignore the camera when I back up in a car with one (my mom's, which I've only driven a couple times). Do any of you who have one find yourself relying on it over actually looking over your shoulder? I imagine there are a lot of things happening (especially to the side of your car, like cars driving perpendicular to yours in a parking lot) that wouldn't always get shown, even with a field of view close-ish to 180 degrees.
We live in a neighborhood with lots of kids running around and playing on the small streets between the houses. And with the rear view camera I could be absolutely sure there were no toddler on a three wheeler behind my car when backing out.
One thing to say - Darwin.
If we don't run over the little shits who insist on running/playing/giving me the finger behind cars, how are we going to clean the gene pool of those little fuckers! Huh?!
And the thing is, running those little shits over because I can't see them is a great excuse! Now, I'll be accused of steering for them!
Goddamn technology!
First those Goddamn stop signs on the buses and now this ....
Think of the children! Think of the children! Blah blah blah!
Yeah yeah yeah, there's a Matlock marathon on, the TV room is closed, and they've ran out of banana pudding - I am pissed! No really, I got to change my depends.
it's useful to attach a dollar amount to a human life.
Let me guess: someone in your circle of friends and family works for some company in the automotive business. A major one.
The bumper of my Ram has a row of backup sensors that alert me when I get close to something. Why not mandate them? They work well, and above the back window is a sensor light that shows from what direction your obstacle is approaching. It silences the radio and beeps repeatedly if you get REALLY close.
I imagine the cost of that is minimal (even without a sensor light), and this "camera in the rearview mirror" stuff is just more crap to break and cost $500 to fix outside of the warranty. (You can get a replacement kit for $25 if your backup sensor fails.) More importantly, it isn't obtrusive and adding gobs of cash to the car's already inflated price. And the bonus? The $25 kit includes a sensor light you put in view of the rear-view mirror, or above it in the front. Simple? Yes. Which is why the government is mandating a fucking camera.
But then again, this is the government. They mandated tire pressure monitors. Which makes rotating tires a big hassle.. and judging by the bell-shaped tires on brand new cars driving around these days... it's worked SO fucking well.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
this is stupid. I can see perfectly fine behind me. Maybe you have a huge SUV and can't see shit, that's your problem. You can't protect everyone from everything, trying to do so leads to a colossal waste of money and a nanny state where every single thing you do is scrutinized.
save 10 of thousands of lives each year.
Okay, so we should spend only $200M/yr if we it's going to prevent 200 people/yr from deaths. But that's the easy math. What about the 17,000 injuries?
Let's start with disability: For auto accidents, the disability rate is 5.5x the death rate (not exactly applicable, but close). So we are looking at 1100 people with lifetime medical costs plus taxpayer funded disability payments per year. Now 40+% of these are kids under 5 years old, so let's assume a median age of 30, and an expected lifetime of 70. That's 40 years * 1100 * 20K est = $900M. We won't count the counseling costs or the impact on families of running over your own child / nephew / niece.
For the remaining 16,000, let's assume the "area under the curve" is about the same as the cost of the 200 deaths. So another $200M (or an average of $12.5K in treatment and loss of tax revenue per injured person).
Now the new number for total cost to society = $1.3B/year. Over 14 years, $18.2B, very close to the cost of installing it on every car IF every car had displays AND installing this in every car prevented all such accidents AND the costs did not decrease over time. So in 2014, it will likely cost more than the savings. But by 2019, I expect the costs will be lower than the savings.
The best case scenario here will save 200 lives/yr. This is hardly "significant if compared to auto related deaths as a whole. More to the point Seat-belts are relatively cheap and save 1000s of lives/yr. By contrast, rear-view cameras are expensive and will save 200/yr if they are 100% effective, which they are not. The govt needs to get some damn perspective and quit getting their feel-good-fix by spending our money for us.
See my post above titled "Math Error - Almost Worth It"
I have one and I find it frequently distracting. On my vehicle it occupies a large chunk of my rear view mirror when activated and the brightness can make the remaining 2/3 of the mirror hard to see. It is by no means a complete picture of what's behind you and you definitely have to still look in the mirrors and/or over your shoulder to get the complete picture. Otherwise you will likely hit something/someone. Still, it can be useful to see just how close you are to a lower profile obstruction (low wall or car) when parking. I guess I would just prefer a screen that wasn't part of the rear-view real estate.
Let's just pass a car use tax of $5/day, in your face, like it or take the bus.
That should cut the number of automotive deaths by at least 200/year. Of course, deaths from muggings and pneumonia contracted while waiting for the bus will increase, but, hey, we're saving the planet and paying down the national debt, right?
There are cars that need cameras, and cars that don't. My Miata comes to mind as one that doesn't, if you can't tell what's behind you in a Miata, you have no business driving, backwards or forwards.
... for the company(s) that make the backup cameras did his job properly.
Working...
... this really going to make?
If people don't look behind them now, what makes people think they will look when this new equipment is installed in their cars. Hell, I ride a motorcycle and I got hit by a car going to work this morning and I was directly in front of the person who ran into me at an intersection where I had right of way. No, they didn't pull in front of me, they literally drove right into the side of me because as they said 'I didn't see you' which makes me think that these devices are not going to be the magical silver bullet to fix the backup issues certain people seem to think it will be.
I just re-aimed my rear window washer out behind my truck.
Have gnu, will travel.
I have a car with a rear backup sensor. I feel like this is better than a camera, because rather than having to interpret what I see visually on a small screen, I get a simplified display of objects anywhere around the rear of the car along with an audio alarm as things get closer to the bumper.
So I don't feel like mandating cameras is a good idea, when there are other possible technologies that could work as well or better.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Put strobe lights on all the people who walk behind vehicles.
Only 17,000 injuries? I think we're missing the real epidemic here: toilets. There are approximately 40,000 toilet related injuries that occur each year (supposedly), and much like the example in the summary it's mostly children and the elderly at risk.
When I was growing up, we had this happen to a family on the next street over. A two year old escaped the house unnoticed and thought it would be funny to hide behind daddy's car before daddy went to work. Daddy didn't see his son "hiding" behind the rear passenger side tire, because Daddy was not in the habit of making a complete circle around the vehicle in the driveway to check for debris and/or children prior to rolling out. Daddy was charged with accidental vehicular manslaughter. And his son was dead too. This technology didn't exist at the time, but that's one tragedy that could have been prevented right then and there.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
It isn't the number of people that die that determines whether it is worthwhile, it is the cost/benefit ratio. Fortunately, TFA provides some of the needed information, but it doesn't seem very consistent.
"But regulators say that 95 to 112 deaths and as many as 8,374 injuries could be avoided each year by eliminating the wide blind spot behind a vehicle." (Compared to the 200/17000 numbers, it looks like they believe the cameras will about halve the number of accidents.)
"...regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle." Wikipedia says 5.5 million vehicles sold in USA in 2009. (I presume this is new sales only.) This would imply about $500 per vehicle to reach $2.7 billion.
"For the 2012 model year, 45 percent of vehicles offer a rearview camera as standard equipment." Is that 45% of vehicles sold, or 45% of models? If 45% of vehicles, then only 55% are going to have extra cost if the cameras are required.
Optimistic cost/benefit ratio: 112 deaths prevented per year, 55% of 5.5 million vehicles at $160 per vehicle = 484 million dollars per year = $4.3 million dollars to save one life and 75 injuries. (75=8374/112)
Pessimistic cost/benefit ratio: 95 deaths prevented per year at a cost of $2.7 billion per year = $28 million to save one life and a bunch of injuries.
(Note that the cost is up-front, but the benefit is spread out over the ~10 year lifetime of the vehicle, which makes the investment a little less attractive, but I'm not trying to account for this.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
When they submit legislation they should stand on hot coals... or be doing something else extremely unpleasant simply so they don't waste our time with stupid laws.
We already have too many laws. The problem with the united states is not a lack of laws. Politicians are apparently bored and need something to occupy their time.
Possibly wild bears could be randomly released into the capital building? That would thin out the really old ones that probably should have retired 20 years ago and the stupid ones probably won't last very long either.
In addition we can have lots of non-lethal pranks just to keep them on their toes. Possibly set up some trip wires... just to trip them. And then we can hire some ninjas to randomly switch their office furniture. Ideally the internal layout of the building should be completely changed at least once a year though probably not all at once. All maps of the structure should become obsolete at least once a month.
And while we're at completely remove the climate control system so it's hot in the summer and freezing in the winter.
All told congress should only convene and issue legislation when ACTUALLY required as opposed to "nothings on tv tonight so I'm passing a bill on rear view cameras for cars".
And be honest, if politicians had to operate in this environment you'd respect them a whole lot more then you do now. And think of all the complete wastes of oxygen that simply wouldn't make it through the first year.
Too bad it will never happen. it would be beautiful.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I drive a very low, convertible sports car. my rear-view mirror is about 36 inches off of the ground. so a rearview camera would be incredibly stupid. but fine. I also don't have any place for a screen of any kind -- it's a very small sports car. but fine.
but does this mean that I can get rid of the stupid pedestrian brake light? the one that needed to be added to every car a little while back so that it could be at eye-level for pedestrians to know that I was a car? mine's about 30 inches off of the ground, and is about two inches higher than my actual brake lights. making it just as stupid as the camera. the camera that'll wind up being about 20 inches off the ground -- where my plate is.
or, and here's a thought, since pedestrians can't get hit by moving cars when they aren't behind moving cars, maybe, just maybe, pedestrians can not walk behind moving cars. just a thought.
since I learned to cross the street, I also learned to cross a parking lot. and one of those lessons was "if a car is running, don't walk anywhere near it". wasn't hard to learn. it was an extension of "the pedestrian has the right of away, but the pedestrian gets killed, so the pedestrian never takes the right of way" see how easy that is?
and what, you're going to mandate that shopaholic soccer moms in giant suvs with three children screaming in the back seat first look at the stupid screen?
another fun waste of freedom.
I suggest a luggage rack camera. I have lost ALOT of expensive stuff leaving it on the top of the car and driving off lately.
but 9 out of ten times they just make the driver too fucking lazy to turn their head.
yes there are a minimal amount of times where you back over a toddler cause your too busy fucking off to pay attention to your surroundings while walking that 10 foot to the car, and being so god damned important that how dare you be bothered to make sure the coast is clear before rocketing off like the fucking thing was on autopilot the moment you get booth feet in the car.
But the flip side is that rear view camera is a crutch, all of them have a fairly pathetic FOV and since you have a tv camera in the back of your Yukon why bother looking at all.
mandate it all you want, it wont be installed on my 2 cars (which both sit so low a bicycler looks to be 2 foot above me) until I am reimbursed to, or in another decade or 2 when this fad of "im to fucking lazy to notice my surroundings and watch for that granny in a hoveround as I back out, nevermind my kid playing 10 foot from my bumper" is over
When im backing up, im turning around and looking behind me at where im going (strange idea i know)
So, in that case, what good is it going to be to have such a camera display on the dash -in front of me-???
I'll be looking the other way.
Electronically limit reverse speed. Most of these accidents are probably caused by some moron gunning it backwards out of the driveway. Once they can't do that anymore, the accident rate has got to drop by at least half.
I don't trust those cameras because they make drivers lazy. They think they're getting complete information about what's behind them, but they aren't. Even if the view angle is 180 degrees, which it isn't, there's no way to represent that much information on a little screen in a way that adds to proprioreception.
By limiting reverse speed, we not only eliminate *most* accidents caused by normal reversing, we also stop people from deciding to tear off backwards on a one way street.
Yes some infants will still die. Some infants will always still die. You cannot save all the children all the time.
No law or device will fix stupid when someone is in a hurry and does not care to look carefully behind them while backing up slooowly. Many people are just too lazy to turn around and look what's happening behind their vehicle--they try to use only their mirrors to back up. This is very stupid behavior. People will buzz inches by bicycle riders on the street in excess of the speed limit. People will sit in the car while waiting for the garage door to open and just back out--I have seen this happen many times. Totally stupid behavior. ...a stupid law will not fix stupid people.
I have seen people texting, arguing, putting makeup on, or just plain zombeing out with loud thumping music while backing up--mind you not all at once. I have seen idiots back up very fast because they think it is impressive. Do you think a camera will solve this type of unsafe behavior?
Why oh why should I have to pay for something I do not want? Another auto industry lobbyist obviously scored a hit in Washington. This should do nothing but boost profits for the auto industry and vehicle camera manufacturers.
About the cheapest pile of trash you can find for a new car in the US right now runs ~$12k. I'd say an extra $200 is EXTREMELY cheap. Quoting figures for outfitting existing cars is absolutely ridiculous since the NHTSA has grandfathered in vehicles for every standard they've ever passed besides the most egregious of issues. IE: your car can't spontaneously explode in a rear-end collision like the pre-fix pinto's.
In today's driving extremism, it would be nice to have a 360 view around your car for lane changes and awareness.
Some vehicles already have "blind spot monitors", which check 90-170 deg, relative bearing, and 190-270 deg, likewise. Others have "adaptive cruise control" and "collision moderation", using radar to check relative velocity of the vehicle ahead. These don't always exist in combination. Some are range sensing devices, and some doppler. Here's my wish list:
I'd like a good resolution 360 scan, with dopper capacity, like todays weather radars...
1) See a 360 view: I know limitations exist: "first reach targets" would conceal targets behind. Example: You're left lane, passing a truck in the middle lane, and have a hot-head passing the truck in the right lane. 360 radar won't see this, if the truck echo masks the passing car in the right lane. But it would assist in quick lane changes, in tight quarters, if used intelligently.
2) See the "burner" behind you: This would be the stray motorbike or car driving 150 mi/hr, where you thought the lane was clear. Doppler would highlight that and flag a warning. This should extend a km or so to alert, independent of range setting.
3) See what you are about to hit: Some car nav systems do this already. In a more general sense it should be heading/steering aware with a narrow beam spotting stopped or slow traffic directly ahead. It needs to be smart enough to avoid reflectivity from signs, trees, etc. on the side, based on vehicle velocity and rate of turn.
4) If "2" or "3" exist, hang up the cellphone and yell at you with a prerecorded message from Chef Gordan Ramsay: "Drive, and don't talk, you donkey!"
That would work for me. The nearest developing tech, for marine use, is Simard BR-24 4G, with 2.5 deg scan width in X-Band (9.41 GHz) at just 167mW. (Most marine radars are 4KW, and will burn your glasses off if sitting too close.) FCC requirements has vehicle radar running at a higher band and even lower power. Have to wait and see if someone get's the niche. (Wish I had the resources).
--Robert
But if a person couldn't be bothered to check behind the car before getting in the car, and/or can't be bothered to check the mirrors for a fully grown adult human or other larg objects before backing up,what makes you think that person will look at the camera image?
This mandate won't change anything but how a standard car is configured.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Sight lines are so bad in cities that often times at intersections or pulling out of driveways, we can't see if anyone is coming from the left or right until we move the front of our car into "danger" because we are seated many feet back from the front of the car. If we had cameras mounted on the front of the car facing left and right we could see before pulling out. Other cameras could completely eliminate blind spots, or aid in parking. The prices quoted in this article seem way too high. Real costs are surely in the low hundreds for a monitor and four to six camera views.
They should absolutely mandate backup cameras -- so cheap for what you get -- and they should ALSO add FLIR to every vehicle -- it would save HUGE numbers of lives and tons of crash expenses too. Imagine being able to see a deer or a pedestrian or a pet hundreds of feet ahead of the area illuminated by your headlights. FLIR works in the deep infrared, and doesn't require an illuminator; FLIR makes an image out of the heat given off by living and otherwise warm things. I've had it for a while, but right now, because of low volume, it's expensive. Best thing they could do for driving right now is get after that, drop the price and make us all safer.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The subject says it all... Follow the money - I'm sure you will find that either Obama or a lot of Democrats in the House and Senate have invested in companies that will benefit from this. That's why they all are millionaires after having a salary of $174,000 per year...
They are all a bunch of crooks - Ayn Rand was prophetic in her predictions of the robbery of this great nation at the hands of bureaucrats...
Yes.
This.
If you had included a reference to Darwin and quoted Einstein on the vastness of human stupidity this would be perfect.
Granted, for those situations where you back up in a residential area or parking spot, these don't apply, but people tend to use the screen to replace their mirrors:
Have you tried focusing your eyes on anything 15" away from you and then again 100 foot in front of you 4 times a minute? How long do you think you spend focusing your eyes on average? That's over 10% of the time you are effectively blind, unless you are too young to drive or have eyes that focus faster than the vast majority of drivers. Mirrors don't have this problem, since you're focusing on the object way behind your car, not on the mirror surface. screens are close to your eyes and require a lot of work for the muscles in your eyes to focus.
Camera's, unless full HD and equipped with "retina" monitors offer less detail than a rear view mirror. That means you have to look longer to conclude what you are seeing, or to assess you don't get to see it any clearer and ignore the fact you don't get your data.
In unlit road situations, any light source inside the car will deteriorate your night vision, making it harder for you to see what's happening in front of you. This means you can't use it as a rear view mirror when driving forwards. Regardless, many people leave it on and get horrible night vision, causing accidents. The same applies for personal navigation devices.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
It should be required first for poor-visibility vehicles. Ones where the back is high, or opaque, like SUVs, vans, trucks, and RVs. Ones where the C pillar is unusually large, creating a big blind spot. Ones where there's some other visibility issue, like a big spoiler.
If visibility is reasonable, a close-range obstacle detection system should be provided to cover the remaining low blind spot. Many vehicles already have that for parking assistance, so that's not a big problem.
Most back-over accidents involve either poor-visibility vehicles or very small (1-2 years) children.
In Europe, there are regulations, which get adjusted every few years, that mandate car manufacturers to limit the blind spots for their vehicles to "smaller than regulation" areas around the vehicle. Some countries go beyond that and have stricter demands than EU-wide. This means that a manufacturer can't just fabricate any vehicle, put some "regulation size rear view mirrors" on and have it approved for road use. You have to be able to see outside the vehicle, behind the vehicle and to the side to a certain amount of it before it gets approval. Mandating workarounds like a camera instead of mandating the proper design sounds short sighted (pun intended).
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Stop giving away driving licenses to kids that can't drive.
It might also reduce drunk driving to stop prohibiting alcohol to older teens.
Aah seriously though, this isn't generally a problem unless you're in a big-ass SUV. I have much bigger problems with blind spots toward the front of my car. I've found myself wishing I could see through the supporting frame several times recently. That wouldn't be too hard to do with a camera either. Though it's a little harder to do it and not have it look like ass.
Also the problem will probably go away on its own anyway, as our resources continue to dwindle and no one but the very wealthy will be able to own or operate a personal vehicle anymore. Sorry about raping your planet, future generations, but driving that Hummer sure was fun!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Add a reversing alarm beep like lorries have so people know to get out of the way. 2. Limit the top speed in reverse gear so that people have time to get out of the way. You don't need to reverse at 30 mph down your driveway.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
If you've been wanting one of these anyway, the economy of scale will mean that these cameras will eventually be slightly more than the cost of the seatbelts.
Sorry, the Rear Sensor on my minivan is total junk, and that's on a good day. On bad days it dies and then goes into false alarms. My building has a funny parking layout where I basically have to back "into" my building every morning and cut a hard turn to get out. So not only have I endured 500+ false positives, (and lots of Put Your Seatbelt On beeps), but when it snows that blocks the sensor, which then panics and almost CAUSES an accident because it makes it hard to think straight. I'm already within two feet every morning from logistics. I basically "threaten" to back straight into my house wall. Silence. I make the hard turn to get out. BeeBeeBeeBeeBeeOMFGOMFGBEEEBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!
Nope. Not havin' that.
Meanwhile, did no one notice the "Camera" part of "Rear View Cameras"? Really?! So How long before a "Mandated Rear View Camera" records the *Driver*? Why is EVERY modern problem "solved" by a Camera, (with of course total abuse of Due Process.)
Bonus Tip: Wouldn't every picture in my rearview camera ... wait for it ... be COPYRIGHTED to me?!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I agree that people toe-in there mirrors too much - I have mine set so that I can see a slither of body work. However, it's dangerous to think that you do not have a blind spot - an entire car can fit into it if they are two lanes to the right of you, and slightly behind. Usually you can see the car if you physically turn your head to the right, but with largish central-pillars you can completely miss this.
The way to deal with it is to always ensure you keeping track of cars in your mirrors, so that you can predict when people will go into that blind spot. But sometimes you can lose count, and other times you will be concentrating on something else. For that reason I ALWAYS use my signals on the motorway, and keep an eye out the corner of my eye whenever I move out.
The NHTSA is quoting the cost of parts, the Toyota dealer is quoting the cost of parts, labor, overhead, and profit.
Where is captain obvious when you need him?
What good is a video camera and display in a car if you cant even use a mirror properly?
Trucks of course are another story, in the EU lots of (if not all) trucks have a camera on their trailer end.
I am the first with this post subject, so either i'm missing something or everyone ELSE here is missing something.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Great.. another expense to the vehicle because people can't pay attention to where the hell they're going. Both drivers and pedestrians.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
NHTSA proposed this years ago, simply that turning on the windshield wipers would turn on the headlights, so as to improve being seen while driving in the rain.
This would have cost about a dollar, for the relay required. Never happened.
Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
This is silly, and why I will probably never stop driving my '93 Corolla, there's no passenger's side airbag, no side curtain airbag, no OBD2 sensor, no stability control, none of that crap. You know where Toyota put that money into? A kick-ass engine that is still going after 206k miles. I also had a 2008 Chevy Aveo for a little while with all the modern mandated safety 'features' and the cheap brakes crapped out and the rotors needed to be replaced 3 times, but the passenger airbag was still there! Along with that stupid light on the dash to make sure it doesn't go off if there's a little kid in the seat! Went back to the '93 Corolla immediately after that and haven't looked back.
Actually I suspect that there would be healthy sales of such a vehicle, it's just that the financials work out poorly. There is just a certain minimum cost for the design and manufacture of a vehicle, and the price of such a vehicle gets too close to larger better equipped vehicles. (The TATA Nano has this problem in India--for just a bit more you get a much better car.) In the US the Nissan Versa is the cheapest car but for a bit more you can get a lot more car.
It's a slice of the market that automakers rather just leave alone.
There's also 13,000 injuries to go with, and quite often those carry their own hideous expenses. Factor that in, and I could see the camera thing being cost effective from a dollars saved versus value of life perspective. Are there other ways to spend that money that might be more effective? Probably...
This is my sig.
While this is a nice idea for urban areas, the majority of the US is still rural. There are places where people probably never in their lives have to "back into a parking place." Why are we going to force them to pay for this technology that they do not need and do not want?
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
The touchstone of CS car reviews are their obsession rear visibility. If they reviewed a car with no roof, rear fenders, or trunk lid, they would probably term the rear visibility as 'adequate'. Given this, I am certain either a well-heeled benefactor or senior staffer must of backed over a child. But since even 'free' cell phones come with cameras now and most cars feature a tv set in the dash - oh, sorry: information panel - then yes this should be a standard.
If driving backwards is the real problem, then the natural thing to do: Remove that option from the transmission system. Cars can only go forward.
Ok, that might cause problems with parking lots, but that can be fixed with different parking lot designs.
Anyway, I assume that the camera will not really help not to overrun people. the best would be a system which detects person in danger and stops the car.
we have an Odyssey w/a camera and an ES (Lexus) w/sensors & I'll take the sensors any day of the week! "BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!" has a WAY shorter reaction time than a 4" 2D LCD that's subject to glare, darkness, etc...
Some of those cameras could be junk as well. You'd likely end up with black and white video on a small screen that the "kid squasher" category of drivers won't look at anyway.
You've probably noticed it's a lot easier to ignore a video feed than to ignore a "beep beep beep".
So 260 million cars on the road.. that's .06% that you will be injured or .003% chance of being killing. Seems like a lot of money for me to pay for such a smal return.
So with 15 million annual sales of cars and light 'trucks' and.. being optimistic.. $100 added cost, the nannies are going to burden the entire eekonomy with $1.5 BILLION in additional expense because 17,000 people were not more careful either walking behind a vehicle or backing the car out? Whom ever is proposing this deserves to be backed up and run over. Perhaps if people parents in particular too more care we wouldn't have this 'problem'
To put this "problem" in better light: Estimates are there are a combined 255 MILLION cars and light trucks in the US. there are 17,000 accidents involving backups each year. That means that 99.33% of vehicles are NOT involved in any back up incident.
New slogan: do it for the 0.6%!
obviously this is just another way of putting cameras out there at someone else's expense so that our every move can be watched.
In future news:
* Such and such company has just invented a hat that reads your mind.
* Mind reading hat evicts rapist before the rape.
* New law requires everyone to wear mind reading hats.
* Privacy group attempt to overturn mind reading hat law.
* Police: "We can't do our job without mind reading hats!"
Typically, one is looking over their shoulder behind them while backing up, so they can't be looking at a screen anyways. I can see that for doing things like finely positioning your car during parallel parking or maybe hooking up a trailer to your vehicle it would be useful, but I really don't see how this will generally tend to improve public safety.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I nominate having cameras mounted on the side of the car near the headlights. I own a Honda Fit, and I have a terrible time trying to see oncoming traffic if an SUV is in the way. Having side-viewing cameras would really help me with peering around corners.
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
The ultimate reality of this statute is to effect systematic and nation-wide network of traffic cameras which can be used in lawsuits, courts of law, and by law-enforcement and the NSA.
All in the name of "public safety" and "the children".
Mandating automated collision avoidance technology would make much more sense. You can ignore a video screen just as easily as a rear view mirror or a back window. Make it an intentional override to back over something. This would also solve many front and side collision problems as well.
I always thought those cameras were a frivolous extravagance until I drove a rental car that had one. I was amazed at all the things I wasn't seeing without it. Trace a line of sight from the bottom of your eye level through the bottom edge of the back window. You can't see anything below that even if you turn completely around and face backwards. In most cases that includes animals and small children. The situation is even worse in a tall vehicle such as an SUV or a minivan.
So now people will be blindly reversing their cars, looking forward (not back over the shoulder) at a tiny little viewscreen.
And hitting people/objects just outside this little tunnel vision world. Duh.
Rearward cams are great for parking garages, but little else.
Cars have been around more than 80 years, this has had to have been an ongoing issue. I'd like to know the span of this research and figures from previous years in relation to vehicles on the road then and now. I'd bet it's no more prevalent than it ever has been. So why this now? Unless someones constituency has a hand in the manufacture of these.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Will this be like current emissions on pre-catalytic converter vehicles? Or will they be required to be retro-fitted with them?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Rear view cameras are very handy, not only for safety but for maneuvering! Our '09 Odyssey has one with video in the rear view mirror. I thought it was sorta a gimmick at first but it's come in REALLY handy beyond safety reasons! When you're in a tighter parking lot and backing out of your space, you can use up more room backing up w/o hitting anyone. When backing out of a space between two large vehicles it can give you more info as to cars approaching that you can't easily see, or people about to walk behind your car. I encourage people to be open minded about these, it's not like it's a throttle limiter or something, it adds some good data and functionality!
could be less stupid and not walk behind or in front of, a moving vehicle
I replaced my car audio unit with a navigation unit last year. It has 7 inch display, DVD drive, wireless rearview camera, GPS. Only cost me about $350. Navigation unit from car manufacturer is way too expensive.
They are built into the bumpers, and beep when you approach an obstacle, slowly at first, and faster as you get nearer. They are automatically engaged when engaging reverse.
These are a less expensive alternative to cameras.
motorcycles wouldve been outlawed ages ago.
As much as it pains me to read /. comments these days and wade through the usual girlfriendless know-it-alls who live in their mom's basement who think they're an expert on parenting, and the anti-"nanny state" market fundamentalists who think everything should be left to the whims of the market, I feel the need to get a few things straight:
1 - Kids are unpredictable and are not like pets who can be trained to obey instructions every single time. Get a GF, impregnate her, wait for it to pop out, and then come back to me with your expert opinion. In the meantime, shut it.
2 - There are a million situations that you have not ever conceived where a small child might, for one reason or another, end up behind a vehicle while it's backing out. Just because your limited life experience shields you from the experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
3 - Anyone who posts the "just look where you're going" argument deserves to be modded "overrated" into oblivion because they're not paying attention to the deadly combination of small children and large blind spots, something that has become a much bigger problem because of the design of modern vehicles that have much higher read ends than they did in the 70s. These cameras are designed to eliminate those blind spots.
4 - Those speculating about the lack of visibility from the camera need to STFU and leave it to the people who have actually used them and have indicated that they have fish-eye lenses that have a wide field of vision. You're like the people who condemn films and books without having watched or read them.
5 - It's okay for government to step in and insist on safety measures. The industry has a long history of fighting against them as well as environmental measures. Mandatory seat belts were going to bankrupt Detroit (and besides, shouldn't seat belts be a personal choice issue?*). Air bags were going to put too much expense on the industry. Crash safety standards were going to be an unwarranted government interference in the free market where people should expect to die if they get into a crash; the automakers actually thought that they had no duty to protect the people using their products. But Detroit did not go bankrupt because of mandatory safety measures, which A cost a pittance in the grand scheme of things and B were the same for everybody. Detroit just went bankrupt because they thought it was better to buy a congressman than to fix their business model by producing cars that could be competitive with imports.
6 - The cost of flat panel displays and small cameras has plummeted. Every phone has one FFS. Everybody can well afford this. Fact.
7 - The number of lives lost in this tragic way is not "insignificant". One life lost is one too many. Anybody who says that the preventable death of a small child is "insignificant" should be thoroughly ashamed of himself and modded "troll" for the rest of his sorry life.
* No. It shouldn't be a personal choice issue. If you're too stupid to fasten your seat belt then it's okay for the government to make you do it A for your own good, B for your children's own good, and C to save the government the $10,000 taxpayer expense that goes with every road death.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I'm all for rear-view backup cams. I have one on my car. I would never tell anyone they have to have one by law. That's not the government's business to get involved in. They should keep their damn noses out.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
I can't help but think that proximity sensors (beeps faster when items are closer) would be just as effective at preventing fatalities, and far cheaper. Audible alerts don't even need you to pay attention... they GRAB attention.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Just disconnect reverse gear..
not only would it would be cheaper than fitting cameras,
but it would gradually decrease the number of vehicles on the road.
The authoritarian tone of this wreaks. Sure people aren't as careful as they should be, but the consequence is injury or DEATH. THe consequence for the careless driver is a ticket, fine, or jail time if it is more blatant or intentional. What more is needed?? So here comes the government to TELL us and MAKE us have cameras. Sure USA, the auto industry (specifically new cars) is in the dumps. Let's pile on EVEN MORE regulations to weigh down the market.
No, the money would be MUCH better spent on better driver education (some European countries are MUCH more stringent on their exams) and perhaps more serious penalties for a driver that hits someone (this can apply to backing up, rolling over, etc.) Anyhow, last I checked we ALREADY have a law against killing someone with a car. It's called "vehicular homicide" and it can be intentional or unintentional. It's up to a judge and jury to determine.
All this talk of mandate this, add this gizmo or that gizmo and we're safer is a bunch of hooey. If the premise largely made above is TRUE, and these people as you argue are in fact "stupid" then putting a camera in their face is NOT going to help.
However, local enforcement of existing laws, and re-training where needed is a good thing. The world does not function on mandates. Rather government mandates most often create distortions in the market (more expensive cars) and a FALSE sense of security (everyone has a camera so everyone is safer). THe argument is weak and has no basis in reality. THe fact is that humans are imperfect. The world is not really safe. People die. If ONLY 200 people die from this in a year, YES it is terrible, but a LOT more people die from not washing their hands and being clean. Should we MANDATE hand washing. and if so, WO will ENFORCE that.
ENFORCEMENT is something that many of these people for MANDATING things often overlook. The mandates completely violate the constitution of the Untied States. IF a local state or county sees a drastic increase in "backup-related deaths", then it is their job to take action. However, I HIGHLY doubt this is a critical issue for ANY area. The ONLY logical argument I've seen thus far was the one about elderly to being able to turn around. Valid point. But then again they take the risk driving. People take the risk walking behind cars.
Let's take a look at all the facts and make a rational analysis BEFORE slapping a "MANDATE" label on everything.
I drive a 42' motor home, and tow a Ford Edge. It has a rear view camera,(as does the Edge) and side view cameras (when you turn on your directional, the camera shoots down that side of the MH). I filpped out one time when my rear camera went out, you are literally blind back there, HOWEVER, the side view cameras are dangerous. If you make a left turn, you must look at a screen in the middle of your dash, to your right, completely defeating the purpose of the camera, and safety. You can buy an add on camera for you car now, that is in the license plate frame for 100 - 200 bucks. A good add on, BUT that belays the fact that if you can't drive for shit, it won't matter how many safety items you have on your vehicle, it doesn't make you any less a dope. You can't fix stupid !
So, millions of wirelessly and sattelite connected surveillance cameras on wheels. Cool, eh?
See those little circles on bumpers since about - 2001! They are ultrasonic sensors and work well. Helped me when a butthead darted in back of my caddy. They are less than $100. Even after market is around $100. It's getting very hard to buy just a car. They all come with way too much crap on them. More crap, more to break, and they do break. Even on the "invincible" toyotas.