Slashdot Mirror
Department of Transportation Makes Rear View Cameras Mandatory
An anonymous reader writes "The Department of Transportation issued a new rule (PDF) on Monday requiring car manufacturers to include rearview cameras in all cars manufactured after May 1, 2018. The rule applies to all cars weighing less than 10,000 pounds, including buses and trucks, but does not include motorcycles and trailers. '[The cameras] must give drivers a field of vision measuring at least 10 by 20 feet directly behind the vehicle. The system must also meet other requirements including dashboard image size, lighting conditions and display time.' An estimated 13 to 15 deaths and 1,125 injuries may be prevented with the implementation of this new requirement."
This should be good....
No sig today...
Welcome to "the land of incrementally deprived of their liberty because they don't see the inevitable coming".
even with a perfect surprise attack, not even remotely convincing
might as well post an article alerting us that it's april again
I've got eyes in the back of my head, you insensitive clod!
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Let's just ban cars. And scissors. How many people died from choking last year? Surely there's some way to prevent those.
They can include a dash cam and side view cameras as well along with an interface that allows me to copy filmed material to an SD card or something... That would have saved me twice from getting stuck with being 50 percent at fault (both times the other driver ignored a red light).
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
What society really needs to do is admit that some people are simply unfit to be in control of a vehicle and deny them a license.
Fail the test three times, that's it. No more chances.
PS: I guess this isn't too expensive. By 2018 screens will be standard instead of analog instruments (they're cheaper!) and cameras will cost $0.10.
No sig today...
If it merely transmits the motion capture to a display, I don't see how this can be possibly abused. But I expects acts of vandalism against this to happen, nonetheless.
So about 2 years after this is required most high end autos will be equipped with self driving systems making the rule almost irrelevant. It won't be long before technology will be outpacing this kind of safety law. We really should be putting energy into liability issues around the self driving car.
It all starts at 0
Let's just ban cars. And sharp scissors. How many people died from choking last year? Surely there's something we can do to prevent those deaths.
requiring car manufacturers to include rearview cameras in all cars
What's wrong with cameras mounted at the front? At least one can record the journey properly that way.
It's April 1st. You're not fooling anyone.
soylentnews.org
Sounds great. Because if nothing else fat lazy drunk sweating bastards who don't look behind them are going to stare into a monitor. And it's going to be a device that's also used for navigation and DVD's which states want to ban anyway. 12-15 lives? Woo hoo! Let's give out a Nobel Prize for this one
What cars don't have rear view cameras these days?
Trolling is a art,
Because the auto makers will use this as an excuse to further rape the public.
rear view cameras cost $29.00 RETAIL, this includes the camera and the little display. Yet the car makers will use this as a reason to violently rape the consumer.
Why do I need a camera to see my rear view? They make my ass look big.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
and what do you do about the other 30,000 people killed on US roads each year? (plus many more from the air pollution from vehicles)
1) Cars should make beeping noises in reverse just like trucks
2) Cars should have backup sonar/radar/sensor to detect pedestrians and other cars
My car has a backup camera and I usually use it, but sometimes I'm not looking at it when backing up and instead using mirrors.
The point being, a backup camera doesn't mean you are necessarily looking at the screen --- especially when you don't think there is anything behind you to worry about.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
All because people are too lazy or too fat to turn around in their seat and look behind them or check their side mirrors.
I can't count the number of people I see every week who, when backing up, only look in their rear view mirror to see what's behind them. It is a rare sight indeed to see someone do what they're supposed to and turn around both ways to look behind them.
This is the result. Another piece of useless cruft shoehorned into a car just waiting to implode and cost the owner hundreds of dollars in repairs.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Given the amount of options we have already of not having to drive ourselves to get anywhere, people will not be using the self driving feature for most of the time. That gives the self driving feature on cars a very small market since the price of a vehicle with self driving capability will be much higher than the equivalent vehicle that doesn't have the option. The safety advance we will see in practice from self driving cars will be rather insignificant the first few years the technology is available at least and unless mandated to be switched on permanently, it will take many years before a significant number of drivers will have it on their cars and using it.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Ahead of the curve again.
http://www.plasticmobile.com/w...
they can be tilted slightly up!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Notwithstanding my opinion of whether the government should mandate these, I find my backup camera provides a view that cannot be matched simply by some notion of "driving skill".
I can see exactly what is on the ground behind the rear of my vehicle. This allows me to drive in reverse with more confidence.
I wouldn't necessarily consider this mandatory safety equipment though. By their own estimates this will only result in the prevention of 13 to 15 deaths. There are, what, 330 million people in this country?
15 million light vehicles per year, so over 1 billion dollars, and they say it will save "13 to 15 lives per year and prevent as many as 1,125 injuries annually".
I don't want to get all Tyler Durden, but are there more effective ways of spending all that money? e.g. road improvements or driver education and law enforcement?
I'm all for new safety standards... if they are useful. I mean we've made great strides in reducing car fatalities. They've been dropping in absolute and per captia numbers since the late 60s, and in deaths per million vehicle miles traveled since 1921, when we started keeping statistics. That's a really good thing, that while driving more than ever less people die. The major reason is better safety standards, things like mandatory seatbelts, cars that deform and crumple to absorb the energy of an impact and lessen the acceleration shock to the occupants and so on.
However, costs and benefits have to be kept in proportion. How many deaths will something likely prevent, vs what will it cost? This is not many deaths, particularly compared to the number that occur, and I have to imagine the cost will be a fair bit. Particularly in lower end cars. Not only do you need a camera, but you need a display system for it, which probably means a digital instrument cluster. That's a fair bit more up front, and more expensive to maintain.
Given the enormous amount of people dying from car related accidents, 13 - 15 is a statistically insignificant number of deaths and injuries prevented already. The actual number that it will achieve is probably lower, since people already have plenty of options to check what and who is behind their vehicle before backing up. Having a rear view camera and a screen isn't going to help a lot here, since people will mostly ignore that just as much as their rear view mirrors and their surroundings as they are approaching the car before getting in.
Yearly health and driving capability tests will each give a much better result than mandating a rear view camera. Trying to get that sort of regulation passed in Washington however is not going to happen, since it will interfere with the "freedom" of people and it might get half of the senate's licenses revoked.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
13 to 15 deaths due to inattentive drivers will not be stopped by having a rear view camera. Inattentive drivers are going to be inattentive with or without the technology aid.
Forcing people to spend billions of dollars a year for nothing isn't justifiable.
Anyone care to take a look at the calendar ?
It's that time of year again on Slashdot.
So now everybody buying a car or light truck will be saddled with an additional cost. Is this to "save" the children? All... 14 a year? All 1,100 injuries a year? Or is it about over a $1B bottom line to some industry? Or is it just another excuse to medddle in our lives? More kids probably die eating pop tarts each year.
The safety nannies are out of fucking control and it is high time they all were run over - without helmets of course.
Is it really worth it? USA kills that many people around the world in a single day...
Do they still use these medieval units in a law? Wow...
So, an average of 7 million cars sold each year.
About half already have these cameras.
Using the NHTSB estimates ($43 to upgrade models that already do backup cams to meet the new spec, $143 to put them in models that don't currently do that), we get an approximate cost to implement this mandate of $650 milllion annually.
Which will prevent ~15 deaths per year, and ~1200 serious injuries.
So, $40 million per death, or $$500,000 per injury. Seems to me it costs less than $500,000 to treat someone for an injury, so I'm not sure how this is going to "save money".
And 15 deaths is so trivial as to be ridiculous. Hell, we even have more measles deaths than that (60 on average, in years we don't have a massive outbreak like this year)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Annual road deaths in the USA are around 35000.
Our rearview camera is completely useless about 70% of the time, as the snow and mud almost always have it covered unless you physically get out of the car and clean it off. But good thing for this, lets make cars even more expensive for average joe just trying to get by.
neorush
Here is the problem, backup cameras only work if you aren't distracted or preoccupied and actually look at the screen. Now, if people are currently distracted and preoccupied so they fail to look at the rear view mirror, why would anybody expect the backup camera to be any better? This is just an example of passing regulations that appear to do something but really don't. And it is expensive!
In the US about 15M new cars are sold each year. Assuming the manufactures add a backup camera at cost, which would be $100, that will cost consumers $1.5B. Of course the manufactures won't add it at cost and most likely will be between $500 - $1000 per vehicle, which now raises the annual consumer cost to $7.5B - $15B per year or about $1B for every person killed each year.
The assumption with all of this, for it to work, is that the driver will first check the video screen before backing up. If they aren't checking their side and rear view mirrors, why would anybody expect them to check the screen? Even if they do, it only shows them what is behind them at the moment they are looking, unless the expectation is they are going to keep their eyes focused on the screen during the entire backing up, which of course means, they can't be watching for traffic, it still won't protect against the child/person who steps behind the vehicle once it is moving.
I guess the only good news about all of this is that they didn't mandate an interlock system where the car would not back up if it thought something or someone was in the way. That would have been even more costly, but at least it would have a chance of saving the .01% of the people that might be killed by a new car backing up. But, as long as the safety system relies on the driver to make sure things are clear, it really doesn't make much difference if there is a camera or a mirror and expecting it to, is wishful thinking.
you would think that vehicles over 10,000 pounds would be the priority.
If it is an Aprils Fool its the unfunniest in many a year. But given the way government in all countries and car manufacturers seem to be mandating more and more tech in cars this move doesn't surprise me in the least.
Latest wheeze in the UK - all new models of car MUST be fitted with stability control and it MUST work else the car will fail its annual test and you won't be able to take it on a public road.
I heard an official on the radio state is was 'only' a couple hundred dollars more on the price of a car. F*** you, poor people!
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Keep it simple stupid - an engineering principle that has been tossed out forever.
Another damned piece of electronics that will fail in less than seven years. Another piece of electronic junk with a thousand dollar replacement or repair price tag (dealer cost to you). More damned code that can fail. More maintenance costs. More power consumption. More holes in the shell to let rust in. Tech lust as engineering.
Geeze, let's not use a MIRROR. My side view mirror was just torn off by a speed-crazed yuppie - it cost me 23 bucks to replace it, good as new, from an eBay vendor. Shipping included.
the idea is to make damned sure that no new car will have a lifetime greater than seven to ten years. New cars, new debt without end. Cars as smart phones - unrepairable. Toss 'em out and get a new one will be the only option. The used car market will slowly shrivel and finally die when the last repairable car gets totaled.
"An estimated 13 to 15 deaths and 1,125 injuries may be prevented with the implementation of this new requirement."
Assuming people will actually use their backup cameras. If they can't be bothered with looking behind them or even using their rear view mirrors now, why should we think they will look at their backup cameras in the future?
Proverbs 21:19
Here is the problem from an implementation stand point (which I think others have the "should this be done" covered in previous posts). Right now most vehicles have two radio systems in it. One is the "el cheapo" and the "whole enchilada" which usually costs a grand more with a screen and everything else. What is going to happen is that now cars are going to come mandatory with the screen and thus the "choice" for a cheaper car will be taken away from the drivers, thus making the car another 1000 dollars because they have to implement this with a crappy business model.
I don't know at the end of the day if everyone will implement in this style, but now days there is a race to the bottom for cars in terms of price and options so that they can hit a price point. When government mandates came about the last time (in the 1996-1998 era), requiring anti-lock brakes, traction control, and dual air bags, cars got expensive (like 2-3k more expensive) immediately. I foresee the same thing happening here.
The closer car makers get to having cars reliably driving themselves down, the more they'll lobby to get their features mandated one by one.
We should blame the victims. It's a whole lot cheaper.
Fools, it's only going to make CarGurus' CarSelfie product more powerful! http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/carselfies
Almost 100,000 people die each year because of hospital mistakes. It's the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
This requiement will only save 15 lives a year - but they're requiring ALL cars to have them. I bet most if not all of the fatalities from backing over someone was because the driver was yacking on their cell phone and even they DID have a camera, they wouldn't be looking at it anyway.
I almost got run over the other day when this dingbat gets in her car, starts backing out while dialing.
I wonder how much it cost the Department of Transportation to come to this conclusion? More government waste.
You're forgetting the non-zero cost to the economy of people who would ordinarily be stripped from the gene pool by their own idiocy, by standing behind a car, below the sight line of the driver, while the car is reversing.
So you'd strip toddlers from the gene pool? Yeah, that's the ticket...
There wouldn't be so many deaths if people paid attention to driving instead of yacking.
I have one in my truck and the only use the damn thing has is when I'm hooking up a trailer...
otherwise, I PAY FUCKING ATTENTION TO WHAT I'M DOING!
Is it really that complicated to expect people to be responsible for their actions?
I don't know for sure about the cost. Sure, maybe the screen in front is already there and adding the camera only costs $.10 more. Or does it? You know, that flat screen TV upgrade for the kids in back should cost only $120.00 max. That is more than the cost of a small flat Screen. OK, increase it to $200 in order to include the hinge to swivel it down and the 8' cable. But then why does the flat screen package always cost an additional $1200 or so?
This is a profit making requirement, probably requested by the car companies. By regulating it in in the name of Public Safety, they get their additional profit and they get to cloak it under safety. Works every time. Some of you may not remember the Dole Reminder. That is the third light required in the back of a car by Vice Pres Bob Dole many years ago. It never caused back end collisions to drop, and I'm not saying it was a totally bad idea, but is typical of the way new regulation continuously creeps in and costs the consumer more and more.
How about this, let the buyer and the companies decide. Then the company will only put in things that are really useful and be forced to keep the price down so that the buyer is interested. Keep the government OUT!!!
If they do this at all they should put the screen in the rear window. Then use a fish eye lens for the camera. Cuts the learning curve way down, and your peripheral vision MIGHT just notice the kid on the tricycle ABOUT to cross behind your vehicle before you back over them.
Infrared Night Vision
This is probably one of the least understood features available, and yet, it is one of the most important features. Although a high quality camera (especially a high quality CCD camera) can provide a picture under a wide variety of lighting conditions (including very low light), it can't provide a clear picture in near or total darkness. That's where the infrared night vision illumination LEDs (light emitting diodes) come in.
On a high quality night vision equipped camera, the infrared LEDs turn on automatically whenever the ambient (background) light drops to a level that's too low for the image sensor to produce a high quality picture. The infrared LEDs operate at a light frequency that is well beyond the human eye's ability to see, but the image sensor in the camera is designed to detect this light just like the visible light that we can see.
One big difference between a high quality rear view camera and a lower quality one, is its ability to illuminate the area seen by the camera. Ideally, the infrared illuminators will illuminate the entire field of view produced by the camera, and will illuminate out to a distance of at least 20 feet from the camera. The higher end cameras will typically illuminate out to a distance of 30 to 50 feet from the camera.
Automatic System Switching
Possibly the most important feature to look for when purchasing a rear view camera system, is that system's ability to switch on automatically whenever the vehicle's transmission is placed in reverse. This is accomplished by connecting a single wire to the vehicle's backup light circuit, sending a signal to the rear view camera system, causing it to switch on without any action by the operator.
Wide Angle Field of View
The field of view provided by any camera is determined by a combination of image sensor size and lens focal length. The larger the image sensor, the wider the possible field of view. However, a larger image sensor does not necessarily guarantee a wider field of view. Many rear view camera systems utilize a 1/4" image sensor and provide only a 60 to 90 degree field of view. While a 90 degree field of view may be sufficient for some smaller vehicles, a 120 degree field of view is strongly preferred. You should absolutely avoid any system that produces lower than a 90 degree field of view. Most high quality rear view cameras that utilize a 1/3" image sensor and produce a 120 degree field of view --- that is ideal for most applications.
On the other hand, there are some rear view systems advertised with fields of view as wide as 210 degrees. These super wide field of view cameras are not intended for use on rear view camera systems, and will generally produce a 'fish-eye' image that will be extremely distorted and very dangerous to use.
Mirror Image Capability
A rear view camera system should have the capability to produce a 'mirror' (or 'reverse') image through the camera and/or monitor.
Why do you want a 'mirror' image? In order to see the same type of image that you would see in a rear view mirror, the camera and/or monitor must be capable of reversing the image produced. This capability will provide the same type of image through a rear view camera system that you would see if you were looking into a rear view mirror, and that's exactly what you want for safe operation.
Audio Monitoring
Audio capability can be helpful when the driver needs the assistance of a helper while backing. While you may or may not require audio, it can also be useful when a camera is being used to monitor the interior of a trailer (carrying people or animals).
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT REAR VIEW CAMERAS
For most people, this camera will not be used on the governmentally-funded highways. They'll be used in their driveways. (Oh, I know there are a minority of people who park on the streets -- but those aren't typically federally subsidized.) This seems to be another example of the government meddling with my life and my property.
And I have to wonder: how many accidents will this CAUSE because some fool of a driver can't keep his attention off the rear view while he's driving in traffic watching that tailgater behind him?
If this is such a good idea, why haven't the car manufacturers already put them in?
They also require that the camera be integrated with Facebook.
Why not demand everybody take a padded taxi made of foam rubber while we're playing God?
The story's not that incredible (I wouldn't be surprised if the US government mandated all children be encased in bubble-wrap before leaving home, frankly), but this made me smell an April Fool joke: "... 13 to 15 deaths and 1,125 injuries may be prevented with the implementation of this new requirement...."
If serious, that's ridiculous. More people are killed by plungers every year.
If not serious, then very well played. A joke that's so subtly on the border of credulity that you have to actually figure out you're being pranked is well done.
-Styopa
How many of those 200+ turn out to be drug dealers?
Ever.
If I have all of those cameras, why do I need glass windshields and side windows? If they were made of a stronger material, I wouldn't have to worry about debris hitting my windshield or glass breaking in an accident. I would be cool if the car had the ability to project the picture from the cameras to the corresponding panel to give the illusion of driving with glass windows.
The fundamental problem with the NHTSA's action is that it mandates one specific solution (camera) to the problem. It's not dissimilar from mandating that a minimum tonnage of corn be blended into US gas as a solution to reducing US dependence on foreign oil.
The NHTSA should have instead mandated minimum rear visibility, both width and length, then left it up to manufacturers and consumers to explore their way to the best solution (or several equally good solutions). Instead this is a huge give away to a select set of parts manufacturers in the same way that the rules about minimum corn blending into gas were a give away to the corn farmers. And look at all the horrible consequences we've seen from farmland being converted to grow corn for gas.
Many cars you buy today already have one, so why is it something that needs to be mandated? It's fairly obvious that with or without a government mandate, this is the way manufacturers were going because people actually wanted the things.
Besides, your math is flawed. You're not going to save 300 lives, you're going to save a percentage of those 300 lives based on how many of those could or would have been averted by having a backup camera installed. Next time you're backing up, check and see how far back you move before really looking at what is in the camera (or your mirrors). Many of those accidents were certainly someone who hadn't even begun to look in their mirrors by the time they had hit the individual. I'm sure some of those 300 would have been prevented by looking in all three mirrors before backing up. This is all evidenced by the fact that the article notes the number of lives saved will only be around 12-13 per year.
What we really need to mandate, is that people drive safely. But as shown by our DUI laws, we're not really overly interested in that. As a country we have seemed to deem it a basic right that people be allowed to drive, whether they do it safely or not.
Because when I'm reversing I'm turned round, looking backwards. So I'll need a front-view camera to help me see the rear-view camera's display.
If not, why not?
Geeze, lets not be willfully obtuse. What mirror is going to show you backing up over the neighbors dog, or worse, the neighbors kid?
Only if the wire between the $3 screen and $2 lens gets shorted, because you can replace those parts yourself, like with your ripped-off side mirror.
Of the 34,000+ people that died on the road in automobile-involved collisions (2012), this is a very small population to target. We can do a lot better than that.
Here's a list of technologies that would better to mandate in the name road safety:
** Automatic braking systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_braking)
** Hardware Speed Limiters
** GPS-controlled in-dash speed limit display (shows the speed limit for your road/area in the dash)
** Veering Alerts (use of radar to sense when one is veering out of lane/off the road and sets off an alarm)
** Mandatorily installed, but optionally activated automobile black boxes. If your insurance provider wants to offer an incentive for proof of your safe driving, activate the black box, and provide monthly, quarterly, or yearly updates.
Here's a list of policy changes that would change driver behavior and thus decrease the yearly death/injury toll:
** Revised road funding policy that combines gas tax, vehicle weight, and vehicle miles traveled to better fund the roads.
** Vulnerable Road Users Law that would put the assumption of fault (along with extra penalties) on the automobile driver when a pedestrian, bicyclist, horse rider is injured or killed by an automobile on the road.
Why don't we just skip this and enforce auto-braking when reversing and an object is detected? Many cars do this today while moving forward. Cameras still rely on people to stop. The incompetent drivers that back over people will still do it. The camera won't stop them.
Oblivious to 1st April
I thought all these were pretty good but I'm staggered people are taking this seriouysly
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
In the name of safety they should go back this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, you bought the industry whining that mandating these cameras would add hundreds of dollars to the cost of a vehicle. Maybe on some other planet where cell phones haven't made both screens and lenses insanely cheap.
Did you also moan about how seat belts were going to make cars soooo much more expensive for the "average joe"? If not, why not?
A perfect example of CYA, I'd think?
Add the backup camera to the list of useless safety equipment of marginal value that cars now have to have, like tire inflation sensors because some people died due to defective Firestone tires. Ford and Firestone saw fit to blame underinflation rather than defective design for the Ford Explorer fatalities, so our powers that be decided to save Ford and Firestone's asses by mandating tire inflation sensors. The backup cameras are a result of a drunk wealthy doctor running over his kid, and rather than blaming himself and his carelessness he blames the lack of backup cameras for the death of his son. Apparently he was politically well connected, so now that the cameras are law, he is officially absolved of killing his son.
The average age of a car in America is higher than ever. Its only going get worse as the government makes car companies spend a few hundred there, an extra few thousand there on safety improvements of which have nothing but diminishing returns.
Of course using the camera will mean putting down the phone and let's face it, that isn't going to happen.
Perhaps for an Amber alert and then your rear camera is on and feeding back views and license plate numbers to law enforcement? Will it be tied to a black box chip - the real purpose being to require that manufactures install the hardware that government can use to track and record all vehicle activity ? Will it be required to have the wireless connectivity to other cars as is being tested on 9000 vehicles in Ann Arbor http://www.annarbor.com/busine...
I Google the number of licensed drivers in the US (http://www.ask.com/question/how-many-people-in-the-us-have-a-drivers-license).
There are approximately 196,165,666 licensed drivers in the US.
This does not include those people driving around with no license, revoked, or suspended licenses
Of the196,165,666 licensed drivers in good standing we have (we'll round up) 15 deaths and 1,125 injuries
15 / 196165666 = 7.646598054523976e-8
1125 / 196165666 = 5.734948540892982e-6
Geezsus people, an average man could fart and injure / kill more people than that percentage.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
This is just a thinly veiled attempt, by mass media, to get the Miley Cyrus twerking videos on to everybody's video displays.
Should be a lot cheaper, and does not require a viewscreen and is much more reliable with mud, snow, etc. My car has this feature, and it's great. My only complaint is that it has some false positives in some cases (like when inside a garage) because of the tune and aim of the sensors.
This is slashdot, you should not assume the summary is anywhere close to accurate ... the actual study puts it 2 orders of magnitude higher, which means it is EXTREMELY cost effective at $6million per death, ignoring the thousands of injuries.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
NHTSA estimates the cost of around $500Million USD. With that much money, I think I could easily save more than 13 people a year.
I find this oddly misguided when the adoption of DRLs is mirky at best, and the use of amber turn signals still remains optional. The DOT should act on the items previously recognized as serious safety issues — rather than targeting diminishing returns from less serious issues.
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Just having sensors that issue a warning if something is wam and moving back there would accomplish the same thing, but place the burden of efficacy on the manufacturer. This way the lawyers can still blame the human.
Realize that the safest driver on the planet isn't going to see what these backup cameras can. No amount of driver training is going to let you see a kid or a dog standing behind your rear bumper.
I can't say I'm opposed to this.
The circumstances that led to me getting a bit squished at 15 months old aren't exactly uncommon, bad parenting, or negligence. I obviously have no recollection of the events, but, to make a long story short, my father was driving and was certain - had, in fact, visually confirmed less than 60 seconds earlier - that I was in the backyard playing with my siblings and other neighborhood kids under my mother's supervision and far away from the driveway.
Well, apparently, I was a sneaky little bugger back then. I got away and managed to get away and end up right behind the car. He hopped in the car, turned it on, and was pulling out to go to the store. I was obviously too short to be seen from the driver's seat, regardless of whether he checked over his shoulder or in the mirror (he states, of course, that he did, and he would've had to to get out of the driveway). He didn't hear a "thunk" as he knocked me over, but quickly realized he'd run over something and hopped out of the car to see his 15 month old son screaming in an awful lot of pain.
A lighting fast ride to the hospital later, it was discovered that my injuries were serious, but not life-threatening. The accident had broken my hip in two places. Thanks to being only 15 months old, I quickly recovered and was back to walking in a few months. I suffer no ill effects whatsoever now, and x-rays from two years after the accident couldn't find any damage.
Granted, all of the above happened back in the 80's, when cars were quite different. However, my injuries could have easily been far, far worse. A few inches would be the difference between having a funny story to tell people and being in a wheelchair the rest of my life - or dead. I imagine most of these injuries and deaths involve small children, who either die before they hit elementary school or often have to live with some rather severe injuries the rest of their lives.
As you can imagine, I'm pretty careful now about backing out of my own driveway, especially now that I've got a family of my own. A camera would at least let me quickly and easily see things that I just can't see from the driver's seat. It'll be a while before I buy a car new enough to have one, of course, but it's good to know these are coming down in price.
I tend to lean toward the libertarian side on a great many things... but I'm OK with this.
that the testers are majorly racist
making up the law as they go along.
You bastards.
Let's say a dead person costs $6 million.
Maybe it's population explosion, but humans seem to be getting cheaper. Back in the 1970s, $6million only got you two legs, an arm and an eye.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
How many people will be injured or killed because drivers assumed all hazards behind the vehicle would be visible in the backup camera, and hits someone?
Part of me wonders if: (num_of_display_related_injuries/yr) > (num_of_injuries_related_to_not_having_a_backup_cam/yr)
Because if the above statement is true, here's another instance of our Gov't doing what it does best!
Yup. Watch where these are installed. They're going to be put someplace that's going to be INSANELY expensive (and probably require additional part replacements) to remove and replace when (not if, WHEN) they break.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
100% of people eventually die. If every person's death costs society $6M (on average) then society is doomed to bankruptcy unless people generate at least that much GBP per capita per lifetime. Wikipedia shows average income as about $32k per year so everyone needs to work for about 187 years before the die. And that's to break even.
They don't work that long.
If we say everyone should have to work about 50 years, then society breaks when a life is worth about $1.6M. Keep in mind, breaking even means utter desolate poverty; each person generated enough wealth and pays 100% income tax, to reimburse society for their later costly death. At that break-even point, no person can afford to eat a single meal in their life time, no person ever lives under a roof, etc. We probably want to do more than break even (life should be worth living), so even $1.6M is probably an extreme overestimate of the cost of death.
Of course, this is all based upon certain assumptions. ;-)
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
So I'm putting tape over my rear view camera. Thank you.
Now, at last, backing over someone will be just like the video game!
Up here in Alberta, distracted driving laws say I'm not allowed to watch video while driving. So I'm not sure what good a video feed that I can't legally watch is.
Barring that, judging from how few licence plates I can read once the snow falls, I imagine that video camera is gonna show a lovely white screen. Wonder if that sets off the alarms?
I have a rear view camera on a Nav screen. It is essentially useless, especially at night.
The only reason this government mandate came about is because of other government mandates, namely safety mandates on newer vehicles that eliminate rear visibility. I drive 80s trucks and 60s cars. Excellent visibility all around. Aside from a few fastback body styles which limit blind spot visibility, but even that is much better than most new cars I've been in.
New cars have very high door panels, and thick/wide A/B/C pillars making windows much smaller. There are also front seat head restraints, and in the past few years rear seat head restraints as well. Good luck seeing anything out the tiny windows past that maze of DOT/government mandated view blocking devices. Now check out those tiny side view mirrors they use these days, virtually useless. To make matters worse the glass is curved to magnify the image, give a narrower field of view in an already tiny mirror! I feel claustrophobic and blind in the rare event I drive my girlfriend's fairly new car. Believe it or not she doesn't bother turning her head when changing lanes, and I kind of understand why... You can't see a damn thing looking over your shoulder anyhow. None of my fastbacks were ever that bad and they didn't even have mirrors on the passenger side, and not once did it ever occur to me to desire one on that side as it simply wasn't necessary in a vehicle you can see out of.
The problem is government induced. Government mandates safety "features" that people don't want (if they were cars would be offered with those features and sell well), those safety features result in limited visibility in all directions. With limited visibility in all directions, especially behind, pedestrian strikes increase. Government mandates more things people don't necessarily want.
This reminds me of the government interference in the 70s. Government mandates safety features, which tremendously increase the weight of cars reducing MPG. Then they mandate emissions requirements, which greatly reduced MPG. Then they mandate MPG requirements... etc... In 1960 economy cars were getting 32+ MPG and selling well. What was the problem? People had a choice of whether to buy the small car that gets good MPG, looks nice, has decent power, and so forth, or big a bigger less efficient car which had great power, looked good, etc. The problem was choice, so government outlawed choice and the free market and the result was small cars that got low MPG and were hideous.
But wait, why then do 12 - 15 people die from 15 year old ignition failures? By this logic, we should sue the DoT every time a point of failure occurs to minimize deaths. No need to let GM make anymore decisions, they can just spearhead the advertising.
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.
A large community of ignorant fuckwits spouting off numbers and statistics they pull out of their ass to make every opinion by every other person on the planet they disagree with seem less plausible to the other ignorant fuckwits who don't know any better. Why don't you guys make yourselves useful and go suck a bowl of dicks. This endless epeen waving is nauseating.
If you want to treat this as an engineering tradeoff, then you have to not only measure deaths but property damage.
Myself I've never reversed into a human being, but I have reversed the car into 1) dozens of other bumpers in tight parallel-parking spots, 2) a fence 3) several curbs 4) the side of a car, 5) a stone wall, and just two months ago 6) a trailer hitch. All those dings and dents cost money, and are much easier to assess than the actuarial dollar-value of 15 deaths.
The real scandal in this news, though, is that the NHTSA has delayed crafting this simple rule for so long. The law was passed in 2008 with a deadline of early 2011. The Obama administration delayed the rulemaking for so long presumably because most auto makers make money selling cameras as optional equipment. The NHTSA gave the excuse that they needed time to do a 'required cost-benefit analysis' of the 15/deaths per year against the $150 cost of the camera. What the heck takes so long? Congress already passed the law requiring the cameras. All NHTSA had to do is take out a piece of letterhead, write down "10 million cars/year * $150/car / 15 lives/year equals $100 million/life", sign it, and file it away.
If its about saving lives, why not make take the zero cost option and make the "wearing" of seat belts compulsory like the rest of the developed world.
Zontar's "touched in the head": schizophrenic multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... now go take those meds, you whacko!
Zontar's "touched in the head": schizophrenic multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p... now go take those meds, you whacko!
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.
Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!
---
You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...
---
Why, Lastly?
You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):
"The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!
(Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)
... apkmultiple personality disorder
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.
Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!
---
You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...
---
Why, Lastly?
You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):
"The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!
(Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)
... apk