Congratulations Bob Wilson!! you have won

removed

 

oo backup cameras
i was expecting the EV sound that nobody wanted....

 

Bob was an advocate for car safety and a great contributor to the forum before he left. He is a great guy.

 

I think it's a fantastic idea. How dreadful to reverse over your own kid, despite thinking you've taken precautions. The article quotes an additional $200 per vehicle but this is way over the top - cameras are $5 and lcd displays are already there and if not, they're $30 top.

Great idea, useful and also great from a safety point of view too. Hope we get the same requirement introduced here.

 

I miss Bob

 

On one hand I'm perfectly fine with a regulation like this - with aerodynamics getting more and more important the view out the back will just get worse over time. Even without the regulation it seems that most cars would have a suitable screen as part of the car stereo and adding the wiring and camera should be easy and cheep enough. Toss in the streamlining that will happen during manufacturing as all cars will be wired it seems like the actual cost to the car companies will be quite a bit less than the article stated. I though it funny that it stated that some of the cost would be borne by consumers - of course all of it will!

The only issue that I have with this is that it will not solve the root problem in many of these incidents - stupid and careless drivers. A couple of years back I pulled into a parking lot as the middle car in a 3 car string. In front of me was a guy in a work pickup - he slowed and slammed the car into reverse and then clobbered me as he was trying to back into a parking spot. He did not check behind him at all and there was no blind spot as I could see all 3 of his mirrors. His response was that I should have honked - mine to him was that I did not think anyone could be so stupid as to do what he did. Thankfully there was no one harmed and his insurance fully paid for the $2k in damage that he did.

So, backup cameras are just fine, but only a band-aid. Honestly I think the sensors that beep when there is something in the way would be a better option - they are idiot proof where a backup camera is not.

 

Solutions that prevent idiots from driving will leave a LOT of pedestrians, including those who would have to make such a law. So that will never pass.

 

I have to admit I'm surprised by these numbers " Two children die and about 50 are injured every week.". I wouldn't of thought the numbers would be that high.

I have nothing against this happening. Since it's becoming more and more basic that almost all entertainment systems come with a touch screen, I'm thinking the eventual addition of a back-up camera won't really be that costly of an upgrade.

How many cell phones have camera's...the technology of small sized camera's is common and relatively inexpensive.

I generally always side with if it can save lives it's good.

I agree also though that back-up sensors in conjunction might actually be a better idea. If someone is in a hurry? Angry or in general not paying attention? They can ignore a back-up camera, and the sad reality might become the Back-Up camera just gives them a belated view of what they just hit.

But overall....I salute this victory for Bob Wilson.

 

I agree...but why not both?

And given we now throw small camera's on everything. I'm guessing if the entire auto industry acccepted back-up camera's as a standard, the cost would be minimal.

I don't think we are that far from almost every car having some type of screen...all you have to do is tie in the camera.

The estimate might be upwards of $200 dollars a vehicle, but I'd bet that would fall, as vendors competed for contracts with major automakers.

 

My CTh has a little screen embedded in the rear view mirror that displays the rear camera. It works great, and even retail costs a lot less than $200.

 

I threw the $200 dollar amount out based on this passage in the article.

"However, in a preliminary version circulated for public comment, regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle. At least some of the cost is expected to be passed on to consumers through higher prices."

But I totally agree. The technology already exists, and I think those numbers are high.

 

One thing, I find it hard to trust what I see with our back up camera: the field-of-view is extremely wide. If you're parallel parking for example, a car that looks to be 6~10 feet back is more likely about 2 feet back.

 

It's a option, that should have really been made a standard!
Bob, is a wizzard, and I miss his posts. I now have to travel to other exotic websites to survey his writings!!!

 

Oh come now, talk about exaggeration! It will "cost the auto industry" NOTHING! They will make money hand over fist on it. EVERYTHING they put in a car the buyer pays for and the manufacturer makes more than 10% off it. As long as every car sold has to have it there is NO IMPACT on the industry!

And yes, I miss Bob. Even if I had trouble understanding his graphs.