Rear View Cameras - Mandatory!

[nissangirl74]

i agree with all of this except for "No written exam. " I think you should have to prove that you can read, write, and understand the language before you are given a driver's license. You have to be able to read road signs in order to be safe on the road.

But what about the Spanish-speaking community! How are they supposed to know what the signs say! We must make Spanish signs to remedy this!

[C-Kwik]

To me, it is senseless for the NHTSA to go to all the trouble and expense of mandating this. Even if you make it a rule, you can't make people obey that rule.

I think it would only apply to new vehicles so it wouldn't be that hard to enforce. I would expect there would be some additional expense to ensure new cars have them and are being implemented properly but it would probably be relatively minor.

I understand the role of how beneficial this could be to families with small children. There have been at least two cases that I know of in our area where toddlers have been killed in this manner. As a parent, I can't imagine the grief those parents go through.

I also think it would be beneficial to drivers who might otherwise be involved in such an accident (assuming a notable decrease in such accidents) as well. The financial aspect of liability for a fatality is likely more than most people are insured for. In the big picture, its likely a drop in the bucket, but IF there is a side effect of reducing backing collisions in general, we may see some offset in our premiums (although I'd suspect it to be quite minor). I would also add that most people would have a hard time coping with having killed anyone in a car. Even if its not their fault. Witnesses to a fatality can have a hard enough time coping...

As a realist though, I know that these devices aren't a guarantee to prevent this from happening. Drivers need to be aware of their surroundings at all times. AND If you can't correctly back up a vehicle without using a back-up camera, you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place. I don't argue with the technology, I think it is a fantastic tool. I also think it should be an option. Don't make it stupid expensive, make it affordable so those who want it can get it. But the rule makers need to stay the hell away from this. We don't need more rules, unless you are deciding to make the driving test harder to keep the dipshits who don't know how to drive off the roads.

There is just a limit to how aware we can be. One could be doing everything they were taught to do by the book and by the best common sense, but accidents like this can still happen. Since we can realistically only look in one direction at a time, if I happen to check my right mirror, then my left, then a walks behind my car from the right, I will never see him. My tailgate sits damned high. Hell I wouldn't be able to see my nephew out of the back of my mom's Corolla. While, I am pretty aware if my nephew is around when I am leaving, it could be some neighborhood kid. Understand that while there are definitely plenty of boneheads out on the road, most people get into accidents because they make a simple mistake. Even the best of drivers. Most drivers are reasonably safe most of the time. The purpose of a camera would be so that a driver can see what they otherwise could not. Of course, that's no guarantee they will use it properly either.

I don't think its going to be a huge cost. Economies of scale should make the hardware cheaper than we see at retail for these systems. And the costs of add-on systems have dropped significantly since I put mine in back in 2006(Mine came as part of a package for a video to nav screen device, but I also shopped around for a stand-alone system for my dad at about the same time). Of course, I don't know how much it will end up being in the end, but if it were to be maybe add an extra $100-$200, it probably wouldn't be worth arguing against. But that's just me.

i agree with all of this except for "No written exam. " I think you should have to prove that you can read, write, and understand the language before you are given a driver's license. You have to be able to read road signs in order to be safe on the road.

I disagree with the language part. My parent's don't read or write much English. But they are pretty good drivers. My dad was an instructor back in Korea. They have written tests in all kinds of different languages here in CA. The idea being that they need to show competency in ability to understand how to be a safe driver and, to a reasonable extent, what the law says. And most important road signs are symbolic (usually adhering to an international standard) for this reason. Most signs that use words, from my observations, aren't totally critical for safety. There are plenty of no right turn on red signs around here. If someone couldn't read it and made the turn anyways, they would be fine (in terms of safety), if they looked for all the potential hazards before making the turn.

Driving test should be a 200 mile drive cycle through all manner of environments. Snow, rain, city, highway, rural. No written exam.

Impractical. 200 miles of driving would be impossible to test with and be terribly expensive. Not to mention it would be hard to ensure rain and snow both occur. Good luck finding snow in SoCal in the middle of summer as well. Rain is hard enough. I'd also say such a long driving test would be largely irrelevant. You're generally going to know if one has a minimum level of competency for controlling a car within a few miles. And most people will be on "good behavior" so they won't be doing things like rolling stops or talking on the phone, etc. Most accidents occur because people aren't paying attention to things they should. In a test environment, a person is going to take extra time to check both ways before entering an intersection or as they change lanes, etc. I would agree more in-depth required training would be beneficial. I'd bring back driver's ed as a mandatory class in high school if I could.

[Jesda]

[MinisterofDOOM]

But that if they make it so you face forward to see what's on the screen, it will make it less likely that people will actually turn and look over their shoulder. From investigations I've done, most accidents involving backing occurs because people don't look over their shoulder.

Agreed. Rearview cameras provide a fixed field of view. Looking over your shoulder, checking your mirrors, etc. provides a wider, variable field of view. This is a really bad band-aid. It's just like lane departure prevention in that it's going to support bad habits.

[tm1218]

WHAT IS THAT FAT GUY DOING LOOKING UP THAT FAT WOMAN'S SKIRT?

[DJButton]

The NHTSA needs to step-off. Fvcking mandates are not laws. My thoughts on the subject are f*** YOU federal control freaks, let us mind our own business, if people can't back up without a camera they can take a bus.

[C-Kwik]

Agreed. Rearview cameras provide a fixed field of view. Looking over your shoulder, checking your mirrors, etc. provides a wider, variable field of view. This is a really bad band-aid. It's just like lane departure prevention in that it's going to support bad habits.

I don't think it will necessarily make driver's worse. Bad drivers are just bad drivers. The overall intent of such a system appears to be so that a driver can see what they otherwise could not. From that viewpoint, I don't have a big problem with it. What I might potentially have a problem with would be implementation that might lead to poor driving habits for which I provided specific concerns I have about it already. Of course, I wouldn't support a huge increase in cost to an auto, but I'm not convinced that will be the case.

[themadscientist]

WHAT IS THAT FAT GUY DOING LOOKING UP THAT FAT WOMAN'S SKIRT?

looking for a fat muffin.

[Encryptshun]

So nowhere in the linked article does it validate if limited field of view was the actual cause of the death/injury. I'm sure that the response "S/he must have been in my blind spot, officer! I didn't see her until it was too late! *sob*" sounds MUCH better than "Well, officer, see I was in a hurry, and turning on my stereo, and checking my Blackberry, and who expects someone to be standing right behind them anyway. I never look backward. It detracts from the now."

In short -- cameras will only add incremental benefit in those situations where they are actually useful and USED.

[jdansmith]

[Encryptshun]

Was your reply aimed at the original topic or my post?

[Watermelonwarrior]

I find it pretty useful in my moms 2010 TL. Could I drive without it? Ya of course. My Cayman doesn't have it but I wish it did. It makes pulling out of busy parking lots a lot easier.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Agreed. Rearview cameras provide a fixed field of view. Looking over your shoulder, checking your mirrors, etc. provides a wider, variable field of view. This is a really bad band-aid. It's just like lane departure prevention in that it's going to support bad habits.

I don't think it will necessarily make driver's worse. Bad drivers are just bad drivers. The overall intent of such a system appears to be so that a driver can see what they otherwise could not. From that viewpoint, I don't have a big problem with it. What I might potentially have a problem with would be implementation that might lead to poor driving habits for which I provided specific concerns I have about it already. Of course, I wouldn't support a huge increase in cost to an auto, but I'm not convinced that will be the case.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I don't think it'll create bad drivers, it will simply support bad driving habits in some types of drivers. People who don't even bother to use their mirrors probably won't bother with a rear view camera either.

I do wonder if the "gadget factor" will have an affect on how much use the camera gets. Auto-dimming mirrors are pretty common and not exactly brag-worthy. But shiny color screens and cameras? That's worth showing off. And showing it off requires using it.

[Jesda]

We've already dived into the issue of whether they'd add safety. I could not care less.

How about the more pressing issue of it being acceptable to allow a governing authority to force us to buy something, yet again?

[C-Kwik]

How about the more pressing issue of it being acceptable to allow a governing authority to force us to buy something, yet again?

One could argue that there is no requirement for you to have to buy a new car...

I understand and appreciate the point you make, but I think that whether or not such a requirement is acceptable is going to end up dependent on if the powers that be believe such cameras will have enough of a positive impact to force such technology on us. So the issue of whether or not it adds safety becomes quite relevant and part of a necessary discussion.

I do wonder if the "gadget factor" will have an affect on how much use the camera gets. Auto-dimming mirrors are pretty common and not exactly brag-worthy. But shiny color screens and cameras? That's worth showing off. And showing it off requires using it.

If it helps, I seldom use mine. But I also have the rear sonar so I rely on that along with looking over my shoulder. I use the camera most often when the sonar goes off when I don't expect it to so I can see what its beeping at. Secondarily, I use it as a rear view when the bed is loaded up so I can't see out of my rear view. It can also help me to keep my eye on certain cargo when I pull a trailer. But the latter 2 purposes have no bearing on backing up for the most part.

So nowhere in the linked article does it validate if limited field of view was the actual cause of the death/injury. I'm sure that the response "S/he must have been in my blind spot, officer! I didn't see her until it was too late! *sob*" sounds MUCH better than "Well, officer, see I was in a hurry, and turning on my stereo, and checking my Blackberry, and who expects someone to be standing right behind them anyway. I never look backward. It detracts from the now."

It could have been my line of questioning when investigating cases of people backing up but most responses that weren't quite credible were something to the effect of, "I never saw him prior to the impact so he must have been speeding."

In short -- cameras will only add incremental benefit in those situations where they are actually useful and USED.

I can buy that. But the question is how big is that increment? There is no perceivable incremental step between an injury and a death as one would usually pick the former over the latter. The increment then IS between injury and death or no impact and death. One argument could be an big appeal to emotion in saying, is the life of even one child worth this? While I would expect answers on both sides, it will be really hard for the opposition to get people supporting it on this argument to let go of that one.

As an aside, implementation of a back-up camera will make it much harder for people to come up with good excuses for backing into something/someone (not that its terribly easy as it is).

[Oatmealman]

I don't see the need for these camera's.i've driven crew cab dually's and can still parallel park in downtown denver easily.We need to make the driving test harder and longer,not just around the block and you're done.

[Far East Beast Feast]

Not to intrude and I know it's late in the game but I wanted to comment on this issue.
A man here in NC was backing his truck up to his trailer when he back over and Killed
his 18 month old daughter. Now they're campaigning to to make R.V.C mandatory and
the NHTSA has heard there cries and wants the system in all new vehicles as of 2014.
I think if it helps save lives it should be consider, remember, initially there no seat belts in cars.
Let all think about the people(children mostly)that are dying in these accidents they wanted to live.
People come on now, lets choose our battles more carefully or we could miss the big picture.
And that's all I have to say about that.

[Solar_Runner]

Sorry Dude, but mom and dad, or some other adult should have had more control of that little 18 month old girl. The word negligent comes to mind. Sorry it happened, no one deserves that kind of pain, but they should have paid attention (a very hands-on father of 4 here).

Not so sure a harder driving test is in order, but perhaps more training. Take a look at what Germans have to do to get a DL.

Yet again, wise words from Jesda, That: V

How about the more pressing issue of it being acceptable to allow a governing authority to force us to buy something, yet again?

It should be offered on some cars, but not mandated to me to buy.

[Far East Beast Feast]

Sorry Dude, but mom and dad, or some other adult should have had more control of that little 18 month old girl. The word negligent comes to mind. Sorry it happened, no one deserves that kind of pain, but they should have paid attention (a very hands-on father of 4 here).

Not so sure a harder driving test is in order, but perhaps more training. Take a look at what Germans have to do to get a DL.

Whatever, it should be offered on some cars, but not mandated to me to buy.

I'm angry it happen and you're correct someone should have had that child in a safe place ,not behind a truck .
Negligent, lapse in judgment, or even stupidity !
A person's chance to live was taken and maybe just maybe had the vehicle had a
R.V.C and or R.O.D.W .(rear, obstacle, detection, warning)system(s)
She would have seen Her second birthday ("The only promise that can never be broken is Death")
We all know that Tech takes the place of Commonsense in this Era .
So with that said, don't tell me you still believe lives can't be save if this tech mandatory in new car starting 2014 (proposed) ?

[Encryptshun]

I think we've already stated multiple times that rear-view cameras will only save lives if people bother to use them.

[C-Kwik]

Sorry Dude, but mom and dad, or some other adult should have had more control of that little 18 month old girl. The word negligent comes to mind. Sorry it happened, no one deserves that kind of pain, but they should have paid attention (a very hands-on father of 4 here).

There is no doubt about that, but the reality of life is that people make mistakes. And this is irregardless of if a person is a driver, pedestrian, bicyclist, child or parent. The potential benefits of this shouldn't be evaluated as a matter of responsibility but a matter of effectiveness. We don't evaluate the effectiveness of seatbelts and airbags on the premise that someone else is responsible. They are helpful regardless of fault/responsibility.

[AppleBonker]

irregardless

[Far East Beast Feast]

I think we've already stated multiple times that rear-view cameras will only save lives if people bother to use them.

Then You're saying that people are going to die because a technology that can save lives, if used properly is not assimilated into a ever changing safety goal that no one need die from unnatural causes in and or around a motor vehicle no matter how
stupid the operator is ? "Okay agreed"
Now your statement refers to a active system and I agree people would have to "bother" to use it .
But in a passive system were the operator doesn't have to engage the system for it to work.
A Rear Obstacle Detection system (that has been in usage for year now) incorporated with rear View Camera Warning System
and a Passive Brake Control System(since the brakes on most new vehicles are computer controlled) to apply brakes to avoid collision if operator failed to so
would take the "bother" out of the equation.
Vehicle Operators involved tragedies would no longer be neglectful ,But criminally responsible !

[Dattebayo]

Vehicle Operators involved tragedies would no longer be neglectful ,But criminally responsible !

That's already the job of the lawyer. Stop trying to take jobs and replace them with technology, you bastard!

[AppleBonker]

I like driving my car. Rather than my car driving me...

[Dattebayo]

Also, gee... nothing better then making everyone criminally responsible for everything. Sounds like DC.

[Encryptshun]

I generally believe that we are overdependant on technology and anything that "thinks" for us makes us lazy. I used to remember phone numbers like a champ -- my entire phone book was in my head. Then I got a cell phone and now I couldn't tell you most numbers I have on file (becuase the phone remembers them for me). I used to know all the song titles on every album I owned. Then CDs came out and I stopped knowing song titles and started remembering track numbers (because the CD showed the track number for me). I used to be a whiz at trivia, but now I have Google and can't remember squat (because Google search is quick and on-demand). People used to all know how to drive a stick shift if you knew how to drive a car -- now most people who drive couldn't drive a manual (because the automatic transmission shifts for you).

When we have cars that tell us when and how far to back up, when we are leaving our lanes, if our tire pressure is low, when we need to fill up our washer fluid, when we need an oil change, cars that parallel park for us, automatically slow down when we're getting too close to another car, take avoidance actions if we fall asleep at the wheel, pump our brakes so we don't have to, redistribute traction to other wheels when necessary so we don't have to, we will see the general consumer public gradually lose the fundamental mechanics of safe and prudent automobile operation. Mark my words.

[downedzephyr]

^ THIS.

[Solar_Runner]

Mom, dad, auntie, uncle or a family friend holding onto that child would have saved her life. 100% of the time.

Having a screen in the dash of your truck may have. If it had been used. If the field of view was wide enough, or could view past the end of the trailer.

As with so many other things (think about kids in school, et al) the ultimate responsibilty is with the parents.

I can not dumb it down any more than this.

[C-Kwik]

When we have cars that tell us when and how far to back up, when we are leaving our lanes, if our tire pressure is low, when we need to fill up our washer fluid, when we need an oil change, cars that parallel park for us, automatically slow down when we're getting too close to another car, take avoidance actions if we fall asleep at the wheel, pump our brakes so we don't have to, redistribute traction to other wheels when necessary so we don't have to, we will see the general consumer public gradually lose the fundamental mechanics of safe and prudent automobile operation. Mark my words.

Problems with people being unable to back up properly have always been a problem. As has leaving the lanes unintentionally, people neglecting to keep their tires inflated, people rear ending others and falling asleep at the wheel. Pumping the brakes is also an issue of panic stopping, which to most everyday people is something they don't come across everyday. Redistribution of torque (acceleration and deceleration) is not something drivers have had any capability of doing on the fly in real time so thats not something we can attribute towards any sort of prudent automobile operation. Either way, each of the systems you describe are attempts to remedy the already existing problems. The reality is humans are flawed. The best drivers can easily cause an accident for letting their guard down for only a moment at the wrong place and time. I can say pretty confidently that anyone who drives for most of their lives will probably have run a red light on accident at least once. The difference between whether or not that person is in an accident while doing so is dependent on if another car happens to be crossing the intersection at the same time. Can technology solve all of these problems? Probably not. But we should consider the possibility that it can make the roads safer. And then decide if it makes sense to implement it on such a widespread basis or not.

To be clear, I'm not saying this in support of rear view cameras but as a retort to a general argument that technology is a bad thing. In some cases, it can most certainly be. But argue it on the merits of each piece of technology. Generalizations carry little weight in any argument.

Mom, dad, auntie, uncle or a family friend holding onto that child would have saved her life. 100% of the time.

Having a screen in the dash of your truck may have. If it had been used. If the field of view was wide enough, or could view past the end of the trailer.

As with so many other things (think about kids in school, et al) the ultimate responsibilty is with the parents.

I can not dumb it down any more than this.

While I agree 100% with you on who is ultimately responsible, my point here is that in the end, for the life of the child, it doesn't matter. But do consider, I've had accidents come across my desk in which a parent was carrying their child or holding their hand when they were hit. This is not about who is responsible. This is about whether or not the technology might make such an accident more preventable (of course it can in theory but will it in practice?). I have this kind of discussion all the time that tell me pedestrians have the right of way. And my response is, is that going to be the last thought you have as you get hit by a car? Laws have their place, but the reality is laws are only as good as the end result. And in the case of a dead pedestrian, the law can't bring them back. The idea here is that the law itself becomes irrelevant if an accident never occurs (hopefully)...