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...
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
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
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?
they can be tilted slightly up!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
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.
It's that time of year again on Slashdot.
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.
I've driven a car with a backup camera. It made me distinctly uneasy so I stopped using it.
The problem I discovered is the backup camera can tell you what's behind you... It can't tell you what's _about_ to be behind you. That's information you get only by looking around and through the windows.
If I'm already looking through the windows to see what's in proximity, I don't need another place to look.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.)
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
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
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.
The Audi 'sudden acceleration' problem killed far fewer people than this. But it only took one mother who refused to accept that she had just stomped on the wrong pedal and killed her own kid to go to Congress, start a shitstorm and get new regulations.
Do not underestimate the power of one person who can't accept responsibility for their actions.
Have gnu, will travel.
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...
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?
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, 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?
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.
> 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??
Unfortunately not a joke... Saw it on the 10:00 PM News Yesterday.
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.
IMO you're better off backing into your drive/park and then driving out forward. Better visibility.