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
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...
30 people died from choking on scissors last year.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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"
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
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...
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.)