In general I'm not in the "government is too invasive" camp but this one did have me scratching my head. Isn't the market working just fine? Backup cameras first appear on top of the line models. Slowly make their way into mid priced cars and now some of the "low end" new cars have them. I'm sure by 2018 they'll be in 90% of new cars so why add a regulation? Oh well.
U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
21–30 of 65 posts
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#22This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to back up, I've never felt like a camera was necessary. I've driven cars with backup cameras before but typically just use the rear view mirror or turn my head. Maybe others don't feel this way, thoughts?
How do you "make sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle?"
Why did this get downvoted? I think it's a valid question -- obviously all of the current mechanisms in place fail to implement this, as can be observed on the roads every day.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#23This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to back up, I've never felt like a camera was necessary. I've driven cars with backup cameras before but typically just use the rear view mirror or turn my head. Maybe others don't feel this way, thoughts?
It's not alarming, it just seems pointless. This isn't going to save lives, because rear view cameras are used when reversing, which happens at low speed. The best thing this will do is cut down on kids getting run into while a car is backing up. But I never hear of that happening on the news, I don't know anyone who's tragically lost someone in a low speed reversing accident. I do know several people who've died in…
In New Zealand there have been 30 deaths since 2000 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...), a country of 4 million where like the US most people have a driveway (as opposed to Europe where most people do not). The article claims this move might save 59-69 deaths per year, which would indicate that at least that many die each year (although I struggle to believe cameras will save that many).
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#24So, all new cars will be potential surveillance points. Gotcha. Thanks, soccer moms.
Easy to just put black tape over it. Or smash the lens...
Don't know why this was downvoted. I was taught to fully turn my head and body around when backing up and I intend to continue that. I will be physically disabling that camera.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#25A lot of cars with cameras don't seem to have rear object detection systems (that beep inside the car when something is behind you and you are in reverse). I doubt most people use a reversing camera to get out of there drive way, so this move wouldn't seem likely to stop people running over kids - beepers that go off when something is behind you would seem much more effective (certainly in my experience). I don't kno…
At least in a Prius, the backup camera goes on automatically when you reverse.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#26I'm glad. My automotive industry friends, especially those that are parents have really really wanted this.
I don't understand the response "to make sure people are responsibly operating their vehicle." Have you met people?
Newer cars are kind of a pain in the butt to see out of the back. Why? Because of the roof strength requirements. The columns supporting the roof are bigger, limiting visibility.
Maybe we should make sure that people are responsibly operating their vehicle and not flip over their cars. Except that the whole point of safety is to prepare for the unexpected, to engineer to make sure people can walk away from a crash. Just last week someone rolled over right in front of me, it wasn't her fault, someone turned in front of her and hit the front of her car funny and she swerved flipping over.
She got out of the car scared, but not hurt. Because of those pillars. Those pillars make it harder to see kids running around behind your car. The camera addresses that issue, which wasn't as much of a problem in the past when that woman would likely be a pancake because her car rolled.
People are crazy, especially the guy turning out into oncoming traffic and you can't fix that as easily as you can installing a camera into a car.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#27I was taught to never back a vehicle up without physically turning around to look out the back window, as rear and side-view mirrors don't give a 100% view of what's behind you. When I see someone using just mirrors to back up, I perceive it as lazy or irresponsible driving behavior. Driving a box truck with no rear visibility makes me uncomfortable and I'll use a spotter to reverse. If you can't (or won't) look and…
Looking out the window also doesn't give you a 100% view. There's a massive blind spot below your eye level behind the car.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#28This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to back up, I've never felt like a camera was necessary. I've driven cars with backup cameras before but typically just use the rear view mirror or turn my head. Maybe others don't feel this way, thoughts?
It isn't about responsbility of drivers. It's about decreasing the probability of a motor accident, at least, within reasonable cost. No matter how responsible and safe you are, you are only human.
so let's ditch the human.
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#29I'm happy to see that the article (briefly) mentions the current regulations requiring side mirrors instead of side cameras. Side mirrors are the bane of aesthetic and aerodynamic design. They even cause excess cabin noise, especially in electric cars. But current NHSTA regulations require side mirrors, and don't accept side cameras as a substitute. For example, the Nissan Leaf (like many other cars) has funny-shaped…
Side mirrors are required and will be required for a long time because when side cameras fails its all or nothing. A physical mirror can be partially damaged and still be used.
Almost every car I have owned some electrical device was broken or failed. The time to get it fixed and the cost usually meant I didn't bother. Same would happen with the side cameras and many people would just live without it even though it may be illegal.
A physically broken mirror can be seen and the Police can write you a safety violation so you have to get it fixed.
I don't think mirros are such a bane on aerodynamics, even F1 cars still use fairly large mirrors. http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72607000/jpg/_72607984...
Re: U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras
#30So, all new cars will be potential surveillance points. Gotcha. Thanks, soccer moms.
Easy to just put black tape over it. Or smash the lens...
If you were to get in an accident while driving in reverse after 2018 this would significantly increase your odds of being found at fault... I'd imagine.