U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/autos/rear-facing-cameras/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

by socalnate1 • 12 years ago

26 62 12 years ago

money.cnn.com

angersock3• 12 years ago

So, all new cars will be potential surveillance points. Gotcha.

Thanks, soccer moms.

Glyptodon• 12 years ago

Yeah, I was just thinking "first they require a camera, then they require that it retain 8 hours of video for 'crash investigations'" ...

cjensen• 12 years ago

Stereotyping stay-at-home parents, paranoia, and and blaming women? Please give your comments more effort so they won't be taken badly.

angersock3• 12 years ago

Alright. From the article:

"While the administration delayed the rule, more children died in backover accidents"

Literally a "Think of the children!" argument--which makes sense, because most of those deaths are caused by parents hitting their own kids.

"Soccer mom" is a common phrase used in the US to identify a particular blob of demographic. I'm sure that whatever magical progressive part of the country you're in has stay-at-home dads and everyone uses public transportation, but out in the rest of the US (especially in suburbs) this phrase fits.

It's also a demographic that is well-known for its political advocacy or at least perceived clout: consider all of the terrorist fear-mongering by politicians, and at whom that is directed.

As for paranoia, well, you must not be keeping up with the news. Insurance companies already offer GPS and other trackers for your car to lower premiums, and any number of alphabet soup agencies mine compromised systems for data regularly (as has been made quite obvious).

ewang1• 12 years ago

Easy to just put black tape over it. Or smash the lens...

smtddr• 12 years ago

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.

jdavis703• 12 years ago

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.

diminoten• 12 years ago

"But if I signal my turns, then someone who's tailing me will be able to figure out which direction I'm about to go!"

angersock3• 12 years ago

You've never driven in Dallas, have you?

LukeWalsh2• 12 years ago

This 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?

cloudwalking• 12 years ago

How do you "make sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle?"

trafficlight• 12 years ago

Drivers Education and driving tests are two ideas that come to mind.

kleiba• 12 years ago

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.

prawks• 12 years ago

At this point, I think most people would lean towards taking people out of the equation as much as possible.

LukeWalsh2• 12 years ago

I think a real test for drivers education would be a start. I took my test in Kansas and it involved turning left, turning right, changing a lane, and stopping at a stoplight. The entire test took less than 3 minutes.

kiba• 12 years ago

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.

harywilke• 12 years ago

so let's ditch the human.

m52go2• 12 years ago

I totally agree.

This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient. It's the reason a modern Insight is less efficient than a CRX from 20 years ago.

Are you any less likely to get into an accident with that CRX than a new Insight? Probably not. As long as humans are behind the wheel, they're the ones that need to be trained better, not the cars.

It's useless.

brohoolio2• 12 years ago

It's a camera that helps you avoid running over kids. How much does a camera weigh?

Is using technology to prevent kids deaths pointless?

JWLong• 12 years ago

http://www.amazon.com/Rear-Vehicle-Backup-Camera-Waterproof/...

Amazon puts the _shipping_ weight of a camera at one pound.

A soccer mom will make her car more inefficient every time she orders McDonalds for the whole family.

rtkwe• 12 years ago

This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient.

Adding a backup camera, wiring, and video screen is going to add a small amount of weight, I'd guess around 15 lbs and that's including any additional mounting material for the camera. It's going to have an insignificant effect there.

One trend that's making this less pointless is the increasingly tiny back glass on modern cars. In order to give larger trunks and a more streamlined shape the back window is shrinking making it harder to see out of. (In a lot of cars I see)

aaaaaababdd• 12 years ago

The reason modern cars are usually heavier then old cars is because they are safer -- for example, larger crumple zones, ABS, VSC, HSC, airbags, better windshields, safety cells, anti-intrusion bars, other barriers.

Are you less likely to survive an accident in a modern car? Yes, you are. Depending on who you ask airbags by themselves save 5,000-20,000 people per year.

benihana• 12 years ago

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 car accidents between 20-60 mph. I mean, I love the tech of back up cameras, but this just seems like a pointless regulation that will increase the cost of cars for us, the consumer.

DirtyAndy2• 12 years ago

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).

dippyskoodlez• 12 years ago

I agree. This line just confirms this:

Many vehicles, including luxury models, already carry rear-facing cameras, and an auto industry group applauded the move.

syntern2• 12 years ago

I disagree about being pointless. I am using my rear view camera, and it prevented some minor accidents. If you haven't seen such so far, you are probably lucky, others are not.

vilhelm_s• 12 years ago

We don't have to estimate this from news reports, according to the article they have already done the math and expect it to save "between 59 and 69 deaths per year".

I agree that's not a lot compared to the total number (34,080 deaths in 2012). It would be interesting to see the cost per life, how much does the camera increase the car price?

tzs• 12 years ago

See the third photo in this article for a dramatic illustration of how much cannot be seen from the driver's position with mirrors or by turning to look through the rear window on some common vehicles: http://www.drivearabia.com/news/2009/03/04/product-review-pa...

Drivers tend to massively overestimate how much they can see behind them.

JoeAltmaier2• 12 years ago

My car has one; useless. Its covered by road grime or slush or a raindrop all the time. I can see out of it for 10 minutes after leaving the car wash and that's it.

encoderer• 12 years ago

Really?

Mine (A MB GLK) works very well. It's never been too dirty to see, and it has a great overlay showing range to objects and current trajectory.

JoeAltmaier2• 12 years ago

My car is cheap; a Subaru Forester. Tiny plastic bubble lens. Live on a gravel road; drive in all weather in town.

Maybe this summer it will be better, but its been crap all fall, winter and now spring (in Iowa).

syntern2• 12 years ago

My Ford Focus has one, and I hadn't any problems with it. That and the proximity sensors are great features, I'm glad that they will become part of every car eventually.

zippergz• 12 years ago

I have two cars with backup cameras, the first I got in 2007. I have never experienced this to be the case.

dbloom• 12 years ago

I'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 headlights to prevent excess cabin noise and drag from the side mirrors: http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/vehicle-images/2013...

Tesla's early promotional materials for the Model X show side cameras instead of mirrors (http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx ). But apparently they have given up on the regulations changing, because their newer design prototypes have side mirrors (http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/14/tesla-model-x-makes-aut... )

sschueller• 12 years ago

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...

Crito• 12 years ago

Side cameras are massively inferior to side mirrors. Side cameras give you no parallax or 3d, and don't let you adjust where you are looking by adjusting your head position.

Turn on the front-facing camera on your smartphone and place it face up on your desk. Note that no matter where you move your head, you always see the same patch of ceiling (or your face, if you are over it). Mirrors don't work that way.

Aesthetics, aerodynamics, and cabin noise are poor reasons to do away with mirrors.

harrystone• 12 years ago

Several safety advocacy groups sued the government and asked a federal judge to require backup rules be adopted.

I would be interested to know if these advocacy groups received donations from any camera manufacturers.

DirtyAndy2• 12 years ago

A 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 know about the US, but here in New Zealand these deaths are more prevalent in lower socio-economic areas, that presumably don't buy as many new cars - these changes will takes years to filter through to the people that they might benefit most.

skybrian• 12 years ago

At least in a Prius, the backup camera goes on automatically when you reverse.

tlrobinson• 12 years ago

Does the Prius automatically focus your eyes on the screen too?

ndespres• 12 years ago

I 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 see behind you, you should NOT be driving in that direction. Will cameras fix this problem?

The article states that "There are nearly 210 backover deaths each year." I wonder how the overall safety of a vehicle and its driver will be impacted by the addition of a possibly distracting LCD in the front seat. Maybe fewer collisions while reversing, but how many additional distracted driving cases while driving forward and playing with the car computer?

EliRivers• 12 years ago

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.

chadillac• 12 years ago

Let's not forget these systems typically have a distance sensor setup with audible tone. Having some more accurate gauge of obstacles and their relative distances and the improved visibility is a no brainer. When I read this headline the first thing I thought was "good, finally."

adventured2• 12 years ago

Children moving around the back side of cars in parking lots for example. I find myself always being extra careful when backing up in eg Target or Walmart parking lots for this reason. Seems like an ideal use case for cameras.

CWuestefeld• 12 years ago

I wonder if anyone has investigated the effect that back-up cameras have on mirror usage.

It may be that by having drivers take their eyes off the mirrors when backing up (because they're now looking at the camera display on the dash), they won't be alert to vehicles approaching from the sides. It seems to me that this could increase the likelihood of pulling out in front of someone, and increasing that kind of crash.

As with red-light cameras, it seems like there might be unintended consequences that someone should look at.

jusben13692• 12 years ago

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.

unethical_ban• 12 years ago

It's the "do something" mentality of people who value the strength of government over the people.

This way, the government can pat itself on the back, knowing it wouldn't get resistance from the auto industry since, as you said, they're already trickling the tech down.

Why would an auto-industry group applaud the move? They're the bastards who have the power to install rear cameras on 100% of new vehicles. It's all a show.

---

As an aside: I own a vehicle with a rear camera, and it's an amazing feature. About a month ago, I told a friend "If I were one to support arbitrary government power, I would say we need a law requiring these!". I guess that's the world we live in. The only vehicles that have comparable visibility were old Broncos and large trucks. New cars, with their low-visibility rear windows and high backends, seem to be designed with the intention of getting more people into accidents.

adventured2• 12 years ago

I assume for the same reason they require brakes, seat belts, mirrors and airbags. Guaranteed minimum spec.

jusben13692• 12 years ago

Fair point. Hadn't realized it was for airbags.

brohoolio2• 12 years ago

I'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.

dingaling• 12 years ago

Newer cars are kind of a pain in the butt to see out of the back. Why? Because of the roof strength requirements.

Partly, but mainly because of what the designers like to call 'high waistline' which gives the shape 'energy and aggression'. There is no reason a Ford Focus should have a tiny rear window mounted high at 40 degrees inclination other than style.

Plus adhesive attachment of windows cuts a further ~10% of the glass area.

I saw a 1990s Volvo 740 yesterday: absolutely enormous slab windows gasket-mounted into the frame.

0003• 12 years ago

This lowers the barrier to entry for front-seat display entertainment in the car -- what could go wrong?

ugk• 12 years ago

Mandatory backup cameras, presidential kill lists, uncontrolled spying, & mandatory corporate welfare. Glad we have our priorities straight America.

scrumper2• 12 years ago

Ignoring the regulation for a moment, current camera systems are a bit lacking. Those of us who had good driver training will always look over our shoulder when reversing, occasionally checking the near-side mirror if needed. Facing forward to use a screen feels weird. And it's worse than that:

Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center console, which is bad for three reasons:

1. It's low down, so you lose part of your peripheral vision which ends up just picking up the car's interior.

2. When you're reversing on a road, but facing forwards to look at the screen, you can't see out the side windows to check for approaching cars heading towards your rear.

3. Your peripheral vision is further affected by your focus on a narrow, highly detailed area - that 9" screen showing a wide-angle view. Your brain concentrates just on that 'important' area. It's entirely different to looking out the back window when everything is at the same scale, peripheral and central. You end up being forced to trust the screen completely, which just isn't sensible.

Having tried a few on rental cars, I'm very uncomfortable with the constant attention swapping you end up doing between the screen and the rear window.

These cameras can only be beneficial to people backing out of driveways (which is the point of the law), but they're not a panacea and I'm not convinced they're a substitute for an alert driver using mirrors and windows. A useful additional tool, for sure, but will they be used that way? An audible proximity alarm feels like a more reasonable thing to mandate to me.

stronglikedan2• 12 years ago

Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center console

The newer Acura MDXs have a dedicated screen built into the rear-view mirror hanging from the windshield. It looks like a normal mirror until you put it in reverse, and then you can see the output from the backup camera in the left side of the mirror. It's better than most, but still doesn't solve #2 and #3 from your points.

Basically, be smart and only use it if/when necessary. Use it only as a tool and not the tool.

scrumper2• 12 years ago

Basically, be smart and only use it if/when necessary. Use it only as a tool and not the tool.

Absolutely. I was trying to get that across. I worry a bit that the regulation will make people think of cameras as all they need to look at.

awda• 12 years ago

Back-up deaths constitute 210 deaths per year, of 34k auto deaths anually (2012)?

And this technology is only estimated to prevent 33% of them (60-70)?

I guess every little 0.2% safety improvement is good if it's free... but I'm not sure this is the most cost effective way to increase car safety.

(Roll cages; higher standards for airbags and various types of collision for occupants; crumple zones for pedestrians; self-driving cars (if you're going to go full-sensor anyway, why involve a human at all).)

sssbc• 12 years ago

So each year ~5M new cars hit the streets, at an extra $140 each, so the cost is ~$700M/yr.

There are 210 deaths/yr by backing over, assume these prevent all 210 (they won't, certainly not until most of the old cars are off the road), this means each life is worth $3.3M, minimum.

Cool.

But is there a way to invest $700M/yr that will save more than 210 lives/year?

U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras

Related Stories