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."
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
Huh? http://www.usa.gov/ isn't known for it's prankish of humor....
No sig today...
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,
Welcome to "the land of incrementally deprived of their liberty because they don't see the inevitable coming".
But at least with the rear-view camera they should be able to see the flattened wreck they have just run over
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.
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.
Do they still use these medieval units in a law? Wow...
i imagine they have to run the camera to the dash and wire it into the transmission so that every time you go into R it automatically switches to the display. and test the whole thing
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"
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.
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.
Is it cost effective?
Average lifetime earnings = $1.5m, x15 deaths = $22.5m
Average injury cost = $5 x 1,125 = $5.6m
Cost per sensor and # new vehicles = $140 x 15m = $2.1b
So you're spending $2 BILLION dollars to save $30 MILLION dollars. Nope, not cost effective. You can nitpick the numbers above all you want but this is a 100 to 1 difference. 2 orders of magnitude. Also the reason why a van in the USA costs $30k but the same one (minus rules) in China costs $6k.
"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
Maybe because vehicles over 10,000 lbs are commercial vehicles, and probably already have some requirements, (like the beeping in reverse thing)
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.
Yeah, they probably monitor your turn signals too, so they can do turn by turn spying on you. Sheesh
Having had a backup camera on my RV for the last several years, I can state they are an inexpensive godsend.
Because it isn't all about safety. It's about seeing where stuff is, and to avoid it when I'm backing up Keeps the RV dent free.
But the safety aspect is important also.It keeps me from backing over people in campgrounds. I do personally know two people that have run over and killed one of their children while backing up. Lest someone spout off with the "Won't someone think of the Children!" nonsense - It isn't about them. Those kids could care less now because they are dead. . It's about the Parent who is now tortured with knowing they killed their child.
I detest safety culture. But a backup camera makes as much sense as having a fire extinguisher in the garage or kitchen, or car. A backup camera makes as much sense as turn signals, or brake lights, or tempered glass rear windows and laminated safety glass for windshields. Just makes sense.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Nah, the joke is the number. TFS says "estimated 13 to 15 deaths and 1,125 injuries may be prevented"
The PDF says "save 58 to 69 lives each year (not including injuries prevented)"
Ha, ha, ha. These editors really crack me up with their subtle April Fool's pranks. Ha, ha, oohhhh.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
There's already wires that can tell the camera to turn on in the event the car is placed in reverse. They're called reverse lights, and they light up. This is commonly how aftermarket cameras are wired for power; no reason to feed power when the car is out of reverse.
Karnal
You have the right idea, but your injury costs, deaths, and sensor costs are both wrong and based on the summary. If you RTFA it's 200+ deaths a year and 15 thousand injuries (not 1100), so we're talking almost $550M right there based on your back of a napkin numbers.
Even the government may be stereotyped as stupid but they are surely able to do this kind of cost/benefit analysis better than a random anon post.
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...
How about costing millions a year for 12-15 theoretical deaths? That's assuming people USE the backup camera. After all, don't we already have THREE MIRRORS? There are few investments with such a poor return.
How about all the deaths caused by people driving old, worn-out cars without proven safety features like air bags because they can't afford expensive new cars with mandatory cameras?
How about wanting a simple, well-organized instrument cluster, but instead you have a big LCD screen in the middle that's useless except for the .1% of the time you're backing up? Because it's not like the auto makers are going to throw in touch-screen climate controls and entertainment systems for free. Instead, your conventional controls are going to be squeezed into an inconvenient area with tiny controls you can't reach, so when you try to shut off the radio you rear-end someone.
Do I like safety gadgets? YES! Do I like mandating dubious, expensive ones that can CAUSE injuries? No.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
This mandate will force them to be installed in the vehicles that need them the LEAST. Your RV won't have one. A rig won't have one. Delivery trucks won't have one.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Welcome to "the land of incrementally deprived of their liberty because they don't see the inevitable coming".
I am as opposed as anyone to "mommy government" designed to protect people from themselves (such as motorcycle helmet laws). But that is NOT what this is. People back up over OTHER PEOPLE. So, at least in principle, this seems like a legitimate area for government regulation. But is it sensible? According to TFA, installing a camera costs about $135/car. There are about 15 million cars sold every year. So that is about $2 billion per year. On the benefit side of the ledger, rear view cameras may save 13 lives per year. But RVCs will also prevent hundreds of non-fatal injuries, and a lot of property damage (run over bikes, dented fenders, etc.). RVCs will also relieve traffic congestion in parking lots and city streets by making getting in and out of parking spaces faster.
Is all of this worth the cost? I dunno. But I bought a new car last summer with a RVC, and I would never consider buying a car without one again. It gives me a far better view of what is behind me, and my wife is now able to parallel park.
1. The mirrors have blindspots. That's why this proposal exists. Kids being backed over by cars is a common problem.
2. The "expensive new cars" are likely to be, like, $10 more expensive. How much do you think an LCD, wire, and cheap 1990s-cameraphone camera costs right now? You're seriously fucking telling me there are people out there who WILL buy a $25,000 car, but not a $25,010 car? SERIOUSLY?
Technology improves and gets cheaper over time. Sometimes it's a good thing to take advantage of it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Of course, this is ignoring the INCREASE in accidents this will cause by people looking forward, staring at a screen rather than backwards while backing up, missing little details like traffic to the left and right, etc. I'd be much happier if they mandated a minimum visibility spec out the back than cameras, we're now mandating distracted backing up... blech.
(Side note, I won't be riding a motorcycle on the street ever again, too many idiots not paying attention at the wheel now, this isn't going to help.)
Your data on the mig is inaccurate. http://www.nsc.org/news_resour... There are some more accurate figures for you, coward.
Your costs are vastly underestimated, at least based on current pricing.
A backup alarm/sensor will run about $200 at a post-manufacturer upfitter.
A backup camera will run you around $500-600 at a post-manufacturer upfitter.
You're going to likely get both from the manufacturer and while it won't cost $700-800 for the pair from them it's still going to be a good $400-500 and people will be hesitant at that.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Backup sensors run about $125-150 on a new vehicle. However this regulation requires backup cameras which are a separate system. A backup camera from the manufacturer is probably a $300-$400 option. You're also going to likely get the backup sensor included so that's a total cost increase of $400-500 easily.
So the cost of this regulation is closer to $450 x 15m = $6.75b.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Only if they drive forward after doing so.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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.
I would love to know where they got their pricing from. $135 is about the price we see for backup sensors that are installed. Cameras run drastically higher.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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?
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 about costing millions a year for 12-15 theoretical deaths?
That's assuming people USE the backup camera. After all, don't we already have THREE MIRRORS?
Are you seriously going to use that excuse? Seriously? Now I want you to tell me that with those three mirrors, you have a view of everything behind you.
There are few investments with such a poor return.
Nothing on a car is an investment, You use that word. I don't think you know what it means.
How about all the deaths caused by people driving old, worn-out cars without proven safety features like air bags
So people driving cars without airbags are killing people? By the way, airbags occasionally kill people. That's a lot of violence going on when one of them actuates. Lots of broken noses, burns, and broken arms are not all that unusual. A backup camera is pretty benign by comparison. Even so, Airbags save more people than they kill or hurt.
because they can't afford expensive new cars with mandatory cameras?
Starting to have a little trouble parsing you. Seems like you are arguing against your point.
How about wanting a simple, well-organized instrument cluster, but instead you have a big LCD screen in the middle that's useless except for the .1% of the time you're backing up?
To attempt to answer what I think you are trying to say, Who on earth would put a monitor in the middle of an instrument cluster? My backup camera is in the middle of the top of the dashboard. It only comes on when I am in reverse. At that point I am stopped, or nearly so. The rearward cam takes no more than a glance, just like I do with the mirrors. Doesn't interfere with anything. And its not on when I'm moving forward.
Because it's not like the auto makers are going to throw in touch-screen climate controls and entertainment systems for free.
I truly am not following this line of reasoning.
Instead, your conventional controls are going to be squeezed into an inconvenient area with tiny controls you can't reach, so when you try to shut off the radio you rear-end someone.
As noted before, it isn't that way. I have no idea how a little screen in an area away from the instrument cluster, and is only on when I am in reverse is going to cause me to rear end someone. Seriously, your hatred of these devices, and the objections you raise that have no basis in fact, are showing that you might be advised to look into them before you condemn them.
Otherwise it would not be incorrect to say you are just pulling shit out of your hat.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Side note, I won't be riding a motorcycle on the street ever again
Thank you! Please spread the word.
I've had it with motorcyclists who invent their own rules and take unnecessary risks (like passing me on the right while we're both executing a right-hand turn) putting everyone in danger.
Required reading for internet skeptics
The cameras are not supposed to be active while you're driving around.
Unless you routinely come across people driving backwards down roadways, I don't think this will affect normal traffic at all - just watch out in parking lots etc.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
That's the silly part of the whole argument. Backup cams are so cheap, and everyone I know - myself included, just love the things once they have tried them. Just knowing what is below and behind you when you are backing up is wonderful. Arguing against them is like arguing in favor of ignorance. I liken it to the difference between gauges and idiot lights. The Gauges tell me when something is starting to go wrong, and when I can do something about it - just like the backup camera shows me there is something there that I don't want to hit. The idiot lights on the other hand only tell you when you are already in trouble, just like that disconcerting thump when you run over something while backing up.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
On most residential streets, such as mine, I back out onto it every day. If I'm paying too much attention to the backing camera I won't know if there's a car already on the street...
I don't read AC A human right
But that is NOT what this is. People back up over OTHER PEOPLE. So, at least in principle, this seems like a legitimate area for government regulation.
Since almost everything we do involves other people, there are very few protective regulations that would be illegitimate by that principle. But a nanny-state isn't just when regulations transgress into illegitimate areas, it's when they're "overprotective" (which is subjective).
A regulation affecting 15 million people per year to save 13 people per year is overprotective to me. Though I wonder where that number came from... is it 13 people in the first year (and accelerating as more cars are sold), or 13 people per year assuming all cars have been replaced? The latter seems like a real low-ball estimate considering there are 210 deaths per year currently.
You're also going to likely get the backup sensor included so that's a total cost increase of $400-500 easily.
FTA: The government estimates that a rearview system will cost between $132 and $142 per vehicle. For vehicles that already have a dashboard display screen, upgrading it to comply with the rule will cost less, about $43 each.
When it's no longer an option, but a mandatory feature it becomes a lot cheaper per unit.
I don't read AC A human right
If you RTFA it's 200+ deaths a year
Indeed, I hate it when they post numbers like this without specifying a duration - per year, per month, per decade, what? National budget numbers are notorious for this.
I don't read AC A human right
Do you find yourself to be similarly distracted by rear view mirrors?
I don't know about you, but I find that rear view mirrors are a useful tool to look what's behind me. But I'm aware of what areas they don't cover, and physically look round to cover some of those areas. And I'm aware of those areas that aren't covered by either.
Why do you think rear view cameras are fundamentally different and negative when mirrors are incredibly useful and save lives?
A backup camera will run you around $500-600 at a post-manufacturer upfitter.
Most of those costs is labour. Fitting an accessory to a car after manufacture takes lots of work. Fitting it during manufacture as a standard part takes little work.
Bastards eh! Look how much harm the mandatory fitting of seat-belts and air bags has already done to you and your children. Will the government's viciousness never stop.
I can think of a great many times driving larger vehicles: Vans, F-150, Box trucks, or even the Ranger heavily loaded where I would have loved to have had a backup camera and not just depend on the extended mirrors and circular mirrors I had installed. You have enough going on driving a larger vehicle, and people to asinine things like stand and work in front of the loading dock as you are backing in or end up so distracted from their cell phones that they stand in the path of large vehicles trying to back up. Its not just kids, but kids are probably going to be the main beneficiaries of this policy.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
When reversing I use my mirrors almost exclusively. Turning your head only gives you a nice view of the roof pillars. For some idiotic reason they teach you that in drivers ed. When I first took drivers ed in high school they make you stick your right arm behind the passenger seat headrest and turn your head to the right. That may work in some vehicles but with increased rollover protection in the form of thick roof pillars and the current trend of chopped roof look you have an obstructed rear view. Nevermind you can't see to your left and in front of you.
When I first learned to drive I started out in large vans and trucks (also pulling trailers) where rear view mirrors were non existent; all you had were your side mirrors. It also helped that my teacher was a retired truck driver with 25+ years behind the wheel of just about any kind of large on-road vehicle you can imagine. First rule: USE YOUR MIRRORS! Don't stop looking and always assume something or someone is in your way. Second rule: take it slow, there is no reason to rush. Third rule: always know your surroundings. Are there kids around? Are there any poles or obstacles along side you that you might forget? Anything behind you that you might forget? Is there a lot of foot traffic where you are parking? All of those things must be taken into account when driving anything, be it a smart car or a semi pulling a 20 meter long 100 ton lowboy.
I have no trouble backing up and I take my time. The number one issue when reversing are people who aren't paying attention and blindly walk or drive behind you. But you have to expect that when reversing. Simply go slow and use your mirrors. Another thing I like are convex "fish eye" mirrors. On trucks they are a must but I find they are a good addition to cars as well to help eliminate blind spots.
Even after taking everything into account there you can't avoid everything. I was hit when reversing out of a parking spot and the guy tried to blame me. Turns out he was fighting with his girlfriend when driving and didn't see me. He tried to blame it on me and intimidate me to pay cash on the spot. I told him either the cops are called or we part ways, no cash. He jumped in his car and sped off like a maniac. Assholes like those are always out there and you cant avoid them all.
I would love to know where they got their pricing from.
Optional add-on items tend to be way overpriced, because people shop based on the sticker price, and only consider add-on items after the decision is made. If they are mandatory, then they have to be included in the sticker price, so the incremental cost will drop to near the manufacturer's cost. The same thing happened with airbags. They were a costly add-on until they became mandatory.
So why would you do that? You car is already fitted with rear view mirrors. Do you neglect to look to either side when backing out because your focus is fixed on them?
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.
Car manufacturer's compete on the base price of vehicles, then cash in by overpricing options. By making rear-view cameras a standard fitting it ensures you will be getting it at a competitive price.
My wife's car has one, it gets a glance at while she's turning around to look out the back window.
Of course, she's been driving for 20 years without a backup camera, so theres some habits formed, and the camera is actually an additional tool that helps.
Otherwise I agree with you 100%, people will be even more careless now.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Except that I just stuck one on my truck, built out of component parts found on Amazon for ~$25. One off prices. This stuff is cheap these days.
It really won't raise vehicle prices by much.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
Not really. You can source these things from Amazon for $100 fully built or $25 for component parts. I really don't think it's going to cost folks that much. This is really low tech stuff.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
When it's no longer an option, but a mandatory feature it becomes a lot cheaper per unit.
When the estimates come from the same State that mandates their use, the cost per unit can become amizingly low.
When reversing I use my mirrors almost exclusively. Turning your head only gives you a nice view of the roof pillars. For some idiotic reason they teach you that in drivers ed.
You are the idiotic reason they have to teach people to turn the fuck around.
Your mirrors cover a tiny portion of the view, when you turn around, you can move your head an inch to the left and see everything that was previously behind that roof pillar.
Panel trucks generally have mirrors 4 to 5 times that of even a standard large pickup or car.
Theres nothing you can fucking do with your mirror that makes the blind spots go away, and the fact that you don't know that is reason enough to take your fucking license away.
Ignorant fucks like you are why we have so many accidents. God you need your ass kicked and skull beat in for your ignorance and arrogance, you're going to kill someone with your stupidity.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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/...
Hah, no what you're looking at is how much the dealer charges you for a 'upgraded feature', not what it actually costs.
The shitty satnav you paid $2000 for doesn't actually cost $2000 any more than the rear view system costs $300. For $300 I can put in a capacitive touch 7" monitor with a HD camera with both color and infrared for night time ... and thats retail prices as a hobby, not when I'm being half a million a year of them on contract for the next 50 years.
When they have to put it on your car, they'll make sure the price is extremely low, I'd bet the entire system ends up two orders of magnitude cheaper than you claim, and yes, I'm being serious. If it costs them $20, I'd be blown away.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Have you actually seen a newish 18 wheeler, RV or UPS truck without them? They make so much sense to professionals (and well heeled but insane RV drivers) that this has pretty much already happened.
Personally, I can't imagine driving a pickup truck sized vehicle without one. It's been game changer 4 wheeling - you know exactly where that cliff is....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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?
I have a bridge over an ocean (yes, its ocean front too) in Arizona that I would love to sell you.
You should be pretty used to getting ripped off on a daily bases from the prices you're quoting.
Your costs are window sticker prices, not reality. Your costs are if you go to the dealer and bend over, drop your drawers and say 'please sir, use long dong silver with no lube'.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
That's assuming people USE the backup camera. After all, don't we already have THREE MIRRORS?
Backup cameras allow you to see the ground directly behind your vehicle below where your mirrors can see because of the trunk/bed/rear-end of your vehicle.
You can easily put 3,4 or 5 people on the ground behind a car and you can't see them in any mirror. This is in a best case scenario like a pickup with the tailgate removed. It only gets worse from there.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Yes it's quite clear. It has set a precedent in the minds of people like you that this sort of invasion into the private lives of citizens and corporations is the government's mandate. Where it ends? Only time will tell.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Did you know lane splitting is illegal almost everywhere? Most motorcyclists apparently don't, or don't care, because they do it anyway.
Love it when motorcyclists complain about how boneheaded cagers are while they themselves don't follow the rules of the road.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Exactly.
Think of the rear monitor as just another mirror. You're supposed to check all the mirrors. Well, the rear monitor is just one more to check. Big deal.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
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.
Yes, it was much better in the nineteenth century when government was less invasive in people's lives, and heroic private sector food manufacturers used to pad out food with poisons and excrement.
http://www.victorianweb.org/sc...
Lane splitting is legal in California.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You know we already have mirrors providing the same rear view. There are also multi-camera systems that warp the imagery to provide a complete map of what surrounds your vehicle, dramatically reducing blind spots compared to mirrors. Distracted drivers are messing with their smartphones, not gazing into the bland camera feed from the back of their car.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
(such as motorcycle helmet laws)
I'm sorry. My uncle runs a center for people with severe head injuries. The very week the helmet law went in place, his new referrals dropped 90%. Do you know who is STILL paying for all those people who became drooling near-vegetables when there weren't helmet laws in place? That's right, you and me are STILL paying for them.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Technically, it is neither legal nor illegal in California. It's just tolerated and there is no relevant law.
In other states it is explicitly illegal.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
This is just a thinly veiled attempt, by mass media, to get the Miley Cyrus twerking videos on to everybody's video displays.
No it was sarcasm. Which is all the dickish "it's the nanny state gone mad" people deserve.
Health and safety rules are there because of history. Ignore history and you become an idiot.
And the Insurance companies love it (they are astill lobbying to get lane-splitting approved in other states, as it does decrease accident rates; most common being rear-ended by cars)
And the California Highway Patrol also released their "guideline" about lane splitting; with which they decide whether or not it's considered "unsafe driving" or not.
> Technically, it is neither legal nor illegal in California.
BY DEFINITION is something is NOT illegal, then it is LEGAL.
What part of the 10th amendment do you not understand??
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
Perhaps, by the pricing that I'm looking at is our sell price to install backup sensors (just proximity sensors) for bulk customers. Now our bulk customers are nowhere near the bulk that the government might use, which I could see them maybe pushing a backup camera down to $135 for them to purchase. That's why I find the figure questionable. You're basically telling me that in four years the unit costs will decrease so much as to bring a backup camera in line with a backup sensor.
The other things to consider it that the kits you can get off the shelf of a hobby shop are not the same kits that the OEM would use or the kits a company like mine would use. Installing it yourself doesn't eliminate the labor costs either, it just shifts it to you so unless you value your time at $0 there's an additional cost. There's also probably stricter QC controls on the products we're using as well as warranties provided for the prodcuts in addition to any warranty provided by the OEM or a company like mine. These are all additional costs which people have been ignoring. While the labor cost would probably be brought down a bit by doing it at the OEM level the unit costs are going to be a bit tougher to bring down. So instead of a $70 landed cost for a backup sensor you might instead see a $50 landed cost by reducing labor. The unit cost can be brought down by decreasing warranty coverage or reducing the cost of production.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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.
"1. The mirrors have blindspots. That's why this proposal exists. Kids being backed over by cars is a common problem." - Sure the mirrors have blind spots. That's why you're supposed to turn around when you back up. So you can see - with your own eyes - where the blind spots are and act accordingly.
"2. The "expensive new cars" are likely to be, like, $10 more expensive. How much do you think an LCD, wire, and cheap 1990s-cameraphone camera costs right now?" - Yeah - assuming you can buy only the camera and not have to buy a "technology package" with a bunch of other things in there that you may or may not need.
Hey, I'm all for additional safety features and I happen to think that backup cameras are a good idea. But the problem is that these features make people lazy and overly reliant on technology. It gives people a false sense of confidence and encourages speeding and tailgating.
At the end of the day we still have the human element to deal with and no matter how many safety features we put in cars it all begins and ends with the idiot behind the wheel.
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.
Your numbers are way off.
I just got one from Amazon for under $100 US. Installed it my self in less than an hour. A local shop would probably install it for less than $100. Now the car dealers do charge $400-$500 to install aftermarket cameras but everyone knows that they charge too much.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
And I'm sure they love how motorcyclists screw up and get killed as well. I'm still mad at the lane splitter who hit my mirror while I was stopped in traffic and just kept going. Also, insurance companies love it because in California it is only legal if safe to do so, so almost invariably the motorcyclist is almost always considered at fault since if the motorcyclist got into an accident lane splitting then obviously it was not safe to do so.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I agree with you. Both my current and previous cars had backup cameras. A good friend of mine is a doctor who was at the scene where a parent backed over their kid who died from their injuries. Besides, it makes it easier when parallel parking since I can see my own bumper and know exactly where the front of the car behind me is.
Cameras are cheap now. Years ago cell phone cameras cost around $10 for a halfway decent one. I imagine the price has only gone down, especially when there's no autofocus, just a fixed fisheye lens. LCDs are also dirt cheap. Probably the most expensive part is the wiring going between the camera and the display. Since more and more cars are adding LCD screens anyway it just makes it all the cheaper to add.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Unless you're Superman, there are massive blind spots with mirrors no matter how you aim them. You can't see down low directly behind most vehicles where a young child might be. Please tell me how you can see that three year old sitting down directly behind your car? Hell, the only way I can see my dog behind my car is via the rear-view camera.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I can tell you that there are far more than 12-15 theoretical deaths, try well over a hundred a year. A doctor friend of mine was on the scene when a parent backed over and killed their young child. And no mirror can cover the massive blind spot in back of most vehicles below the rear window. As for LCD screens, on my car the entire instrument cluster is an LCD screen with all of the guages and information displayed clearly.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
The cameras have a fisheye lens. I can see my own bumper and license plate and EVERYTHING behind me unless it is actually under my bumper.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
We ought to install shark sensors on surf boards, water and fork sensors on toasters. They cause more injuries per year than this will solve.
moox. for a new generation.
Unfortunately not a joke... Saw it on the 10:00 PM News Yesterday.
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.
I had this discussion with someone the other day. He was asking if there was a helmet law in Ohio, and I said that I didn't care, because I never get on a motorcycle without one. My head is worth more than the $400 I spent on a comfortable, safety rated helmet.
The law is completely irrelevant to me.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
This mandate will force them to be installed in the vehicles that need them the LEAST. Your RV won't have one. A rig won't have one. Delivery trucks won't have one.
Irrelevant. Even so, most people who have RV's that don't already come with a camera are installing them.
As for truck, read this and get your "Thiy're takin away muf Feedom!" panties in a knot.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rule...
Anyways, I prefer to have as much indormation as possible in order to make an informed decision about important things like backing up in my vehicles so that I don't kill anyone, or damage anything. That backup camera provides that. Cheaply
May I be the first to offer my congratulations on your embracing the Low information lifestyle. Giving people more information so that they can make informed and intelligent decisions is the first step on the road to socialism! Igonrance is strength. and if you want to back over your children, then that's your right, and no government entity should keep you from it.
Now go rip out your rear view and side mirrors. Plus your turn signals Teh guvment mandated them , and they ar interfering with your freedumz as well as adding to the purchase price of your cars. It was in a simpler time, when people trusted teh Guvmint, so it's time to make a stand, bro'.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
1. The mirrors have blindspots. That's why this proposal exists. Kids being backed over by cars is a common problem.
Depends on your definition of "common". I don't think 10 deaths and 1000 injuries a year is common at all, that sounds quite rare.
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!
I just happened to see some surveliance units in the store I was browsing in over lunch. $200 for 2 cameras wireless cameras and a wireless viewer with LiIon battery.
Eliminating one of the cameras, removing the wireless and recording capabilities, I can easly see ~$150 for the system in a car. Integrating it into the car we'll call a wash against the need for more advanced functions and additional housings.
I don't read AC A human right
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!
Nope, but that's the ops argument. I was simply saying that backing cameras will affect normal driving outside of parking lots.
Personally, I love the idea of a backing camera. Done right it'd replace the need for a rear-view mirror and do so from a better angle. The blind spot when I back up my truck is way too large.
I don't read AC A human right
this camera thing won't help. i promise you this. It won't make bad drivers into good drivers. No amount of technology can accomplish that.
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
I'd rather have less to check thanks. Doesn't the rear monitor cover the back AND sides?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
this camera thing won't help. i promise you this. It won't make bad drivers into good drivers. No amount of technology can accomplish that.
This may be partially true but I don't believe that "bad driver" is the only variable in this argument. It also has to do with the cars design. In my car (2014 BMW 428i) the rear window is tiny and does not afford much if any better view than the center rear view mirror does. The seats also don't permit turning around and looking out the rear window, it can be done but boy is it awkward.
The combination of the rear view camera, a front and rear ultrasonic parking distance control (with object detection) coupled with the use of the rear view mirrors make backing up quite safe and easy for this car .
All of the cars I've had prior to this one had none of this equipment. Now that I have used it I'd never buy a car without it. Kinda like heated front seats!
As to other arguments I've read (not in your post but others) about the increasing of technology in cars... Well that battle is long lost my friends. And it's not really about compensating for a lack of driving skill but rather more like life insurance, those system can and do save lives. But, as the owners manual states, no system can compensate of a lack of good judgement on the drivers part. These systems can however help you get maximum performance (like breaking and maneuvering) out your vehicle as long as you operate it within the laws of physics.
A bit of advise, if you can afford it, consider a extended warranty.
Cheers!
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!!!
Of course, this is ignoring the INCREASE in accidents this will cause by people looking forward, staring at a screen rather than backwards while backing up, missing little details like traffic to the left and right, etc. I'd be much happier if they mandated a minimum visibility spec out the back than cameras, we're now mandating distracted backing up... blech.
This, this x 1000.
A 120 degree view leaves a huge blindspot for reversing. You really need 240-270 degree views which means looking over your shoulders (yes, hazards come from beside your car, not just directly behind it). RV cameras whilst useful for cars that cant have a good centre rear view mirror are not a replacement for other mirrors or head checks, however people with reversing cameras in their never-been-offroad SUV keep their eyes glued to the screen... even as I lean on the horn.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Self-driving cars will achieve this. Can't wait.
Technically, it is neither legal nor illegal in California. It's just tolerated and there is no relevant law.
In other states it is explicitly illegal.
Like some of the other posters have stated, no law means LEGAL. California goes so far as to mention it in their motorcycle handbook:
:P
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl...
"Lane splitting should not be performed by inexperienced riders. When choosing to lane split, skilled motorcycle riders..."
I have lane split once (I live in Arizona and it is illegal here). They had closed/diverted I-10 (2 lanes each direction) due to an accident and it was 5mph traffic into Phoenix for about 10 miles, I have an aircooled 1970's bike which does not like idling in arizona's heat for that long (neither do I). I sat in that traffic for about 45min before another bike passed by lane splitting. I carefully followed and cut about an hour out of my trip. What pisses me off are the cars that use the shoulder to do the same thing
There's no excuse for checking less when reversing. All rearward views have blind spots. And you shouldn't be in a hurry about it.
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
No they won't, because it'll be part of the stock price. They'll either be in the market for a new car or they won't. If they aren't in the market for a new car, then taking the camera out of it won't change their mind.
On top of that, getting a camera on a new car from factory NOW is only around $100 additional, after market is the 500-600, because they have to dismantle portions to put it in.
Minivans and SUV's will have them, and they back over more children than RV's and semi's do by far. I'm more concerned with the idiot driving the SUV than the guy driving the Semi, at least the guy in the semi has trained to drive a large vehicle. They let any idiot drive an SUV, see every hummer driver ever.
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.
Who's arguing against them? The argument is over the nanny state legislation. If people want them, they can install them, or not.
I see straw...
IMO you're better off backing into your drive/park and then driving out forward. Better visibility.
Well, you would end up with a situation like the early 90's when the NHTSA mandated a passive safety system, but didn't specify what it needed to be. Some manufacturers put in airbags, some had those motorized seatbelts, whereas others (mostly GM) had the seatbelt in the door so that you could, in theory, leave the seatbelt always buckled and slip in and out of the seat when the door was opened. In 1996 they mandated airbags and those other solutions went away.
Of course, the real problem is that the rear visibility of many modern cars is so terrible. With the high beltlines, thick pillars, excessive rear rake, and small rear windows you really do need a back-up camera to back up a lot of new cars safely.
Who's arguing against them?
Huh? Have you not read the preceding posts, or are you just trying to move the goalposts? One guy tried a long screed about how awful these things are, and how they were going to cause wrecks
The argument is over the nanny state legislation. If people want them, they can install them, or not.
Since we are in the questioning mode - when did any requirement at all become symptomatic of the presumptive "nanny state"?
If someone wants to control what I see on the internet, because seeing a naked lady might harm me somehow. That's acting like a nanny state.
If someone wants to take salt off the table at restaurants because some people use too much, that's nanny statism.
For a no brainer cure for a persistant problem with automobiles - elimination of a dangerous blind spot, well, not so much,
Let's try the little test I give people when they get their nickers in a not about the nanny state:
Are turn signals a sign of the nanny state?
rear view mirrors
Brake lights.
Seat belts
Any and all safety devices.
Speed limits
Any law of the road
Fuel standardization
All are requirements, and all make sense.
I think some people use their inherent grumpiness as the driver in their hatred of anything new. Then they use silly pseudo-Libertarian nonsense such as "nanny state" as a cover for their crankiness.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Flamebait?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
Who's arguing against them?
Huh? Have you not read the preceding posts, or are you just trying to move the goalposts? One guy tried a long screed about how awful these things are, and how they were going to cause wrecks
I read some of them. Who has time to read them all? The majority of the arguments against seem to be against the legislation itself. If their use was truly dangerous, don't you think there'd be legislation that banned them instead?
The argument is over the nanny state legislation. If people want them, they can install them, or not.
Since we are in the questioning mode - when did any requirement at all become symptomatic of the presumptive "nanny state"?
If someone wants to control what I see on the internet, because seeing a naked lady might harm me somehow. That's acting like a nanny state.
If someone wants to take salt off the table at restaurants because some people use too much, that's nanny statism.
For a no brainer cure for a persistant problem with automobiles - elimination of a dangerous blind spot, well, not so much,
Let's try the little test I give people when they get their nickers in a not about the nanny state:
Are turn signals a sign of the nanny state?
rear view mirrors
Brake lights.
Seat belts
Any and all safety devices.
Speed limits
Any law of the road
Most of the micromanaging road rules are. When people support this sort of thing, my rule of thumb is "Apply common sense. Now, do we really need this rule/law/legislation? Or should people just take some kind of responsibility and do these things?"
Fuel standardization
Haven't seen that much standardisation. A range of different octane ratings, that vary with brand.
All are requirements, and all make sense.
Some do. But where to stop? Would you force standardisation on Apple power sockets ? (which I kind of prefer to the microUSB) It can be a bit of a slippery slope type argument.
I think some people use their inherent grumpiness as the driver in their hatred of anything new. Then they use silly pseudo-Libertarian nonsense such as "nanny state" as a cover for their crankiness.
True. But our legal system (and yours, I guess) is complex beyond the ability of most of us to decipher. And this is an unnecessary addition to it. I'd rather our politicians remove laws from the books than go looking for new ones to add.
Ideally, yes.
But if you live on a particularly busy road, once you stop you may not be able to reverse because there's traffic immediately behind you.
Of course it will also be difficult to reverse out onto such a road. But at least then you can pick a gap, and it's more clear to any other traffic what manoeuvre you are doing.
Not at all. The OP had decided not to discuss rear view cameras, and open the debate out to the entirety of government health and safety legislation - denigrated as "the nanny state". It's thus not at all off topic to show why government took on such powers in the first place, and show evidence that private industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own.
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.