Please support this rule change

Given the controversy grown out of this posting, I thought I should offer some comment directly on the issue.

I actually think it is just inevitable. What rate it will appear? Who knows? But given that I think back-up camera's are actually an inexpensive product to produce...basicly a cheap web-cam like camera...and given that I think we are only a generation or two away from having touch screen based systems in almost every car. The days of knobs and dials are passing...

My guess is automakers will learn pretty quickly that back-up camera's can be added pretty inexpensively. Most advancements start that way...in higher end, luxury or technology embracing cars...such as The Prius, if the technology works and is embraced...you always see a trickling down affect...

Would I vote for legislation making it mandatory? No, I don't think I would. Of course I hate to hear about tragedies. But since I think technology moves forward regardless...and I think we don't NEED the government telling us what we MUST have...I probably wouldn't bother.

Even with back-up camera's, tragedy is still possible. Automobiles are huge, rolling momentum machines...Unless someday they are all running on tracks...I don't think any tool will remove the risk of operation.

I don't even like TPMS...even though outside of PITA to deal with when it comes to tire or rim changes it's hard to argue against.

My guess is over the next 10 years more and more automobiles automatically have back-up camera's regardless of legislation. Whether you like it or not, it's impressive to most people...and I think relatively cheap to add to an automobile.

We've driven for decades...from automobiles with Fins, to automobiles with back-up camera's and blind spot sensors. I'm not for halting progress, which I couldn't do if I tried. But I just can't quite get onboard with legislation REQUIRING back-up cameras. Despite the inevitable rare percentage of tragedy that may or maynot of been avoided if the technology was applied.

 

Yes. I can't help thinking that the incident cited in the OP had to do with a father who could not accept responsibility for accidentally killing his child and instead wanted to cast blame on the SUV.

This highly unfortunate incident would potentially result in a "tax" on all new car buyers of ~$180 or so, regardless of whether or not the buyers feel they could benefit from the system. With new vehicle sales of 17 million per year, the total financial impact is quite high, while the life-saving benefit seems small (unless your life happens to be one of the few saved by the presence of the system.)

 

Bob,
I installed a backup camera for exactly this reason. This summer before I backed my car I checked behind the car for kids and all was fine. However, in the time it took to get into the car one the the little ones had ridden and crashed his Razor Skooter directly behind me. Had the other kids not yelled loud enough to get beyond my closed windows and radio I would have been in the same boat.
I ordered a camera and a mirror with a display the same day and had it installed the following week. I understand the reason for the split rear window but it still makes for terrible rear vision.
By the way, the only save since, involved not backing up in a parking lot when a Corolla streeked into reverse.
Keep us informed, I'll sign too, for sure.
I believe this may the the link: http://www.nhtsa.gov/PR/NHTSA-17-10
Whew!

 

Would you say the same about seat belts, airbags, ABS, crumple zones, side mirrors, signal lights... the list goes on. If everyone in the world was a perfect driver we wouldn't need any of those things, but we aren't. Inattention will happen and even with perfect attention accidents can still happen. There's things you just can't see with mirrors alone.
While I'm a bit on the fence about legislating them, I certainly think both cameras and proximity alerts in all cars would save both lives and HUGE amounts in repair costs.

- D

 

probably because the shifter is so small and reverse and drive are backwards.

 

Re: Camera? Why not go back there and look with your eyes?

what happens when you're being chased by thugs and need to get in the car and out of the scene as soon as possible?

or you could just check around the car before you drive....unless you are being chased by thugs.

 

Re: Camera? Why not go back there and look with your eyes?

Yo! Rokeby!
What be wrong wi-chou?
You be makin' a suggestion, like what?
You be thinkin' it gonna help?
Hey man, do like da home-boys be doin'.
Chill and take pop shots at da suckas.
You settin' up for a drive-by or what?
And who talkin' about thugs?
Why not the sky fallin' down?
Why not lil green men causin' trouble?

<-- Lil Green Man

 

Yes. And most (pedestrians involved in vehicle-pedestrian accidents) are able-bodied adults with full mobility. Are you saying that more noise will help children... or adults... or... what ARE you saying? My point is that "loud" cars run over people. People who know how to get out of the way. That the car makes the proper "vroom, vroom" noises doesn't prevent people from being run over.

Lost me on this one too. Are you implying that we have relevant driver education in the USA? Last time I was "educated" or even tested was... uh... 30 years ago. For my Mom it is 61 years ago. I have paid for private driver and rider education (defensive and performance), but nothing has ever been required of me since passing that test in High School.

I'm all for technical aids - but not without the driver education to back it up. How many people really know how to use anti-lock brakes correctly? Not the people who were educated to avoid locking up the brakes several generations ago.

So if I understand your position, it is that we shouldn't educate drivers any more that what we already do, and we *should* rely exclusively on technology to save us? What about the cheaper cars that won't self-park or stop before hitting something? What about the older cars? I think I'll stick with more education.

 

It's a difficult and unpleasant thing to assign a monetary value to saving a life, but it has to be done. I agree with you, there are much better potential returns on the investment.

 

Does that include the monitor required to display the backup image to the driver?

I'd personally never go without the camera, especially for my kids. We recently bought a minivan and horror stories like the ones described by the OP make a backup camera a must-have feature to me. Besides, I like the on-screen controls and navigation that usually come with it.

I worry, however, that the cost won't be so trivial with everything involved. I'd hesitate to mandate a $1000 add-in to every car sold (though maybe it's more of a problem for expensive SUVs).

I have parking sensors on my new Odyssey and think that those might be cheaper, though. They use sonar to tell when you're getting close to an object and beep at you if you get too close.

 

Actually, if it's only a couple of hundred dollar, as claimed, it may be worth it (at least on larger vehicles)!

Even assuming that only 292 lives a year are saved, the calculations don't account for non-fatal injuries and accidents. The wide angle backup camera on my minivan helps me see about 180° behind, and I'm sure it would save a lot of fender benders and broken bones.

 

Until we know for sure that the cameras will reduce accidents, and by how much, it's all really just speculation. I think the burden of proof is on the folks who are for this to provide substantive proof and hard numbers. "I think" isn't really enough to go on.

 

Someone else already mentioned it. The backup camera, while somewhat useful, sometimes, never seems to show a clear pix when I need it....dark, bad weather, etc.

I learned long ago (working on a Forest Service fire engine) to ALWAYS walk around a vehicle first (although I don't get down on my hands and knees and look under it -- at least not often) and if I am unsure when I am ready to back to enlist help and/or to get out and look again --and again -- and again -- if need be.

It has saved me many times from getting stuck, backing into stumps, etc.

Technology does not compensate for good common sense, caution and hands-on involvement.

 

When I worked for Pacific Telephone in the 1960s, anytime you a parked a company vehicle off company property you had to put a safety cone by the front and rear bumpers. Than when you drove away, the requirement was that you pick up each cone and observe what was immediately in front of and behind your vehicle before you put the cones in your vehicle and drove away.

Better yet, in some jurisdictions in the late 19th century, horseless carriage operators were required to have a person carrying a red lantern walk in front of them.

 

Re: Camera? Why not go back there and look with your eyes?

Many of the children hit in backing-up scenarios were not in harm's way at the particular moment the driver did, or should have, checked behind the vehicle.

 

I thought that's what you were trying to say. I believe that due to the maturity level of the typical victims, vehicle noise is less relevant to child back-over incidents in driveways than to common pedestrian incidents on the street. For the kids who are just crawling, not walking, the warning of vehicle noise is totally irrelevant.

This was a leadup to potential discussion of safety and quality control systems in various industries. Systems that rely exclusively on human education produce lousy results.

[bite tongue to hold back reply in same mocking tone.]
No, you don't understand.

 

Back up Camera and sensor both should be a standard safety feature of a vehicle.

 

That is an impossible task. It is like trying to determine how many children have been prevented from drowning because of the mandatory pool fence.

And, as a 2G owner of two Prius, one with a backup camera and one without, I think Patrick got it completely right. In fact, because you couldn't get a backup camera without Toyota charging thousands of dollars in extras that we didn't want, that stopped us from trading up to a 2010 when we were looking.

While I reluctantly suppose it shouldn't be mandatory on every car, it should be an individual option.

 

i think we really need to take a step back on the cost analysis here.

you tell me what your child is worth first and then examine the validity of the idea

 

I do not believe that a camera is a panacea - I was taught in drivers ed to turn around and look when backing up, but so often I see people using a mirror or not checking at all - who is to say that they would look at the monitor. I think of one of the sonar/beeping systems would be better since it is idiot proof, and I do mean idiot.

I think a better addition to cars would be a cell phone jammer - distracted driving is a far bigger issue in my opinion. Drivers have proved time after time that they can not be trusted to focus on the read and not talk or text.