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."

23 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. I don't need this by amalcolm · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've got eyes in the back of my head, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  2. 13 deaths? by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's just ban cars. And scissors. How many people died from choking last year? Surely there's some way to prevent those.

    1. Re:13 deaths? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      30 people died from choking on scissors last year.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:13 deaths? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These busy bodies are just thinking too small.

      A lot of the world's problems could be solved by banning busybodies. ;-)

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:13 deaths? by plover · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Umm... this law is a direct result of that testing process you referred to in the phrase "time-tested". Time has shown that there are about 300 deaths per year due to backing over people. Time has also shown backup cameras to be highly effective at preventing these deaths. Backup cameras fix the "bug" (the blind spot behind and below the trunk of the car.)

      If you think this makes a car too expensive, what price do you put on accidentally running over a human being? Let's say a dead person costs $6 million. (That was the price a few years ago from my state, who figured out the amount they'd spend on an unsafe road to fix the problem after a fatality.) If you were to spread the price of 300 dead people (6*300 = 1.8 billion dollars) and divide by the number of cars sold in the US per year (estimating 20 million) that works out to $90 per car sold. Multiply that by an average 10 year lifetime of a car and it works out to $900 per car. If a camera costs less than that, it's cheaper for society to require them to fix the problem.

      Mathematically, it's cheaper to require the cameras than to live with the deaths they could prevent.

      --
      John
    4. Re:13 deaths? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Older car behaviors were fairly obvious

      Yep. Driving on ice without traction control was totally intuitive.

      Braking without ABS was the same under all conditions and road surfaces, required no driver skill in choosing the correct force to apply to the pedal.

      --
      No sig today...
  3. Good.... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. What society really needs to do by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
    1. Re:What society really needs to do by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Eventually it will come to the conclusion that all people are unfit to be in control of vehicles, and let the vehicles drive themselves.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:What society really needs to do by jareth-0205 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the whites who live in Garretts Green will take their test in the exact same place as the ethnic majority who live there.

      And largely higher wealth levels for whites give far more opportunity to learn, own cars, have longer / better driving instructors, etc. But you're hellbent on backing up your racism, so go nuts.

  5. Self driving car by zerosomething · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  6. The nanny state continues by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  7. In Massachusetts... by srussia · · Score: 4, Funny

    they can be tilted slightly up!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  8. this is supposed to save money? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  9. Useless Most of the Time by neorush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:Grabs popcorn by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We must take our freedom back! ERMGHERD! Teh NSHA is snooping on mine backup camera!

    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.
  11. One strike and you're out! by Two99Point80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  12. Re:Grabs popcorn by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:Grabs popcorn by Predius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

  14. Re:Grabs popcorn by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  15. Re:Grabs popcorn by narcc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Grabs popcorn by gorzek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Grabs popcorn by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > 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??

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.