To All Those Complaining About the Cost of Rear-View Cameras...

"BrtStlnd" (BrtStlnd) 03/31/2014 at 14:47 • Filed to: Internet Driving Gods

7

75

The NHTSA estimates that it will cost $132-$142 per vehicle for a full system, $43-$45 if the vehicle already has an LCD display. On average, 210 people are killed in backover accidents and another 15,000 are injured. 31% of the injuries were to children under the age of 5.

Someone mentioned this in the article comments but I think it got lost in a sea of people boasting how they don't need one because they aren't stupid.

http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/…

http://www.autonews.com/article/201403…

Party-vi > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 14:51

4

People complained about the cost of a back-up cam? Are they the same people that spend a few grand on wheels and tires even though they didn't need them?

philipilihp > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 14:52

3

But does a rearview camera save those 210 lives? Invest more in beeping proximity sensors, automatic braking systems, etc. instead of these cameras, inexpensive as they may be. This is not solving anything. If anything, it limits the vision, and WILL become a crutch, with people blindly focussed on a tiny monitor with limited field of vision, instead of turned around and being aware of the surroundings.

BrtStlnd > Party-vi 03/31/2014 at 14:53

6

Yeah but those are Jalopbucks. Spending money on increased safety is always just THE MAN and his nanny state slowing me down in the left lane of life.

Soloburrito > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 14:55

0

I'm all for making road cars safer, but this system is designed to avoid accidents before cars are typically on the road.

If you really want to do more to prevent accidents, why not mandate some of those collision avoidance systems with radar and cameras like you see in luxury cars? That would have much, much more of an impact.

Or better yet, why not fund car-to-car communication or driverless car technology to take human error out of the equation.

getchapopcorn > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 14:56

0

Note how the NHTSA neglects, most likely purposely so, to list the amount of such numbers that are the result of a purposeful action.

BrtStlnd > philipilihp 03/31/2014 at 14:57

1

It will save some of those lives, and lead to fewer injuries. The point of the camera is that you can see objects that aren't going to be visible when looking over your shoulder.

If you think that a camera will actually limit the field of vision, you're not looking at this with reasonable eyes.

jariten1781 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 14:57

1

They'll be added to state inspections. When it fails (most likely after warranty) the car will no longer be able to pass inspection. Labor and parts will be more than 250$s to replace. Bet on it.

It's a nice feature if you want it, should not be a requirement.

Gamecat235 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 14:57

4

How is this still a topic?

I say let's get rid of mandatory:

Seat belts

Air bags

Windows

Bumpers

Doors

Any other system which has ever been implemented in a vehicle which has ever saved lives and is now required.

Clearly the internet experts are all about less regulation and more freedom.

BrtStlnd > Soloburrito 03/31/2014 at 14:58

0

I think that will probably be mandated at some point in the future, but right now is most likely cost prohibitive for most models.

BrtStlnd > Gamecat235 03/31/2014 at 15:01

0

Remember the initial outrage about airbags "killing" people with the explosion? Oh wait, I've got to be wearing my seat belt to protect me from the airbag?? That's straight up Communism right there, Hoss.

BrtStlnd > jariten1781 03/31/2014 at 15:02

1

That's a really squiggly line you're drawing to circumvent a safety regulation that will lead to fewer accidents and injuries...

tromoly > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:03

3

The number-1 rule of operating ANYTHING is do not do anything unless the operator feels safe and is comfortable with the surroundings. If there is need, get a spotter. Operating a vehicle is no different. But, the camera is not acting as a spotter, it's taking taking the process of the driver looking everywhere to make sure everything is clear, to focusing on one specific area inside the vehicle which is focused on one small area behind the vehicle, which makes anything coming at the side of the vehicle (doors of other cars, for example) a greater problem due to the driver not focusing on such threats. So really, the bigger problem is drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing and backing up in a dangerous manner (too quickly, not looking first, not paying sufficient attention to their surroundings) and causing issues.

BrtStlnd > tromoly 03/31/2014 at 15:06

0

I agree that inattentive driving is the root cause of many of these accidents. This is a safety measure designed to help with that inattentiveness. You can spout on and on about how people need to pay more attention but this is actually addressing the problem AS IS instead of just making a hollow speech about how bad other drivers are.

ihm96 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:07

0

How many of those backover accidents are from people relying too much on their backup camera??

BrtStlnd > ihm96 03/31/2014 at 15:08

1

That literally makes no sense.

tromoly > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:10

0

Sorry, I really didn't mean for it to be a rant. I just get ticked at people trying to solve solutions at the end (in-vehicle) instead of at the beginning (driver training, regular checks). A bit of OSHA is rubbing off on me, I suppose......

pauljones > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:12

1

Just when I read the FP article and think there is no hope left for humanity, you arrive to save the day. Thank you for this.

BrtStlnd > tromoly 03/31/2014 at 15:13

1

But mitigating many risks associated with driving by addressing them with in-vehicle solutions has been very effective in bringing down road fatalities... so why is that a bad fix?

STREPITUS > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:14

1

I don't like rear view cameras not because of cost, but because people start relying on them too much. Just like blind spot monitoring systems, parking sensors, and lane hold assist, people start forgetting to use their eyes and brains when driving. What happens if one of the systems glitches or you think you turned it on but you didn't? Or if theres a condition that causes the system to not work as intended? I've seen several cars equipped with BLIS fail to pick up my Miata, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of those drivers would take the lack of orange LED as a definitive go ahead to change lanes without looking. I've also driven a car where the parking sensors stopped working while I was parallel parking, again, something an inattentive driver might not realize and back up into the car behind them due to lack of beeps.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against technology and innovation, but I just don't want people to rely solely on the gadgets.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:16

0

That stereo has a LOUD button, wtf is that for?

tromoly > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:17

0

As a guy who operates heavy equipment .... you know what, nevermind.

BrtStlnd > STREPITUS 03/31/2014 at 15:18

0

I just don't get the logic of "we shouldn't do this because it makes a task easier and therefore its use will make people lazier."

Yes or no: Do you think that this mandate will lead to fewer backover/backup accidents?

BrtStlnd > pauljones 03/31/2014 at 15:20

0

Grumble grumble "my iRacing avatar doesn't have a backup camera" something something...

ihm96 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:21

2

Why not? The backup cameras show a very distorted view, making things seem further away when really they're very close. People often stop using their mirrors or looking around when they have a backup camera and I actually know two people who only ever hit things while backing up after getting a car with a backup camera. A better solution would be to make manufacturers improve rear visibility, mandate backup sensors that beep, and not give drivers another distraction.

ihm96 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:22

0

Oh and I don't believe you know what the word literally means, or maybe you should just actually think before you respond to stuff.

BrtStlnd > ihm96 03/31/2014 at 15:23

0

Many backup cameras have lines drawn that show how close objects are...

Happy Panda > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:29

0

For me the main point would be that I do not believe the manufacturers will only add $150 to the cost of the vehicle, since now the option very often costs multiples of that. Time will tell, since the cost of ABS has also not raised the price of cheap vehicles.

BrtStlnd > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 03/31/2014 at 15:30

0

No clue... I think the link I got it from said it was a Lincoln.

jariten1781 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:31

1

A car can be safely backed out without a camera therefor it shouldn't be required full stop. I'm doubting many of the deaths from backovers would have been stopped anyway had there been a camera. These people who weren't paying attention behind them and wouldn't be paying attention to a camera anyway.

I can think of many things that would save many more lives that would cost less but people don't, and shouldn't, advocate for them. Banning motorcycles costs nothing and would save 5000 US deaths per year. Governing all cars to 50 mph costs little (software tweak) and would save thousands. The list goes on. If we're just tallying numbers, and not actually making things overall better, there are more effective changes that could be required.

ihm96 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:33

0

Doesn't mean that they can't cause an overreliance on the camera, that also possibly may cause accidents

BrtStlnd > jariten1781 03/31/2014 at 15:38

1

A car can also be safely stopped without ABS.

An accident can be survived without airbags, seat belts or crumple zones.

Kids can survive accidents without being in car seats.

Occupant's heads might not go through a windshield that isn't laminated.

You can see a car's brake lights without having a third one higher than the other two.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Gamecat235 03/31/2014 at 15:40

2

I guess the question is where does it end? As long as there is a fallible human behind the wheel, there will be accidents and deaths. At what point does our government mandate that humans can not be trusted to drive cars?

thebigbossyboss > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:42

0

It might save some lives. It might not.

Cell phone laws don't save lives.

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate you use a cell phone while driving, because it will increase the risk of crashing, however, passing a law against using cell phones seems to have had a negligible effect.

As state legislators across the United States enact laws that ban phoning and/or texting while driving, a new Highway Loss Data Institute study finds no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans take effect. Comparing insurance claims for crash damage in 4 U.S. jurisdictions before and after such bans, the researchers find steady claim rates compared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans. The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) is an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desk…

BrtStlnd > thebigbossyboss 03/31/2014 at 15:45

3

"It may or may not help, but all I know is that we shouldn't actually find out because this OTHER law hasn't worked yet"

thebigbossyboss > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:48

0

Exactly. All about conditional probability my friend.

McLarry > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:51

0

Those cost estimates are way less than I was expecting so I'm happy with that, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about cameras being made mandatory on all new cars... According to some of the comments you're garnering here, I either love the cameras like a good little citizen or hate seat-belts and airbags (even doors!) like a pompous miscreant, but oddly enough I think you'll find most people don't fit in either category. Personally I'm glad we have things like ABS and Traction Control to kick in and help when something goes wrong, and that we have seatbelts and airbags for when those things aren't enough. But back-up cameras? Really? People have so much trouble with the reverse gear that now everybody needs a live feed from their bumper just to get out of the driveway? This is what I like to call the 'lowest-common-denominator mentality'... 'Bob' can't manage to go more than 35mph without running off the road, so that's the fastest anybody can go. Oh, and 'George' here can't figure out how to drive backwards, so everybody's going to have to use a camera from now on. And is this even helpful? You get a narrow field of view from the back bumper, which the lazy drivers will now fixate on to the complete neglect of their mirrors (if they ever learned to use them in the first place). Am I mad backup cameras are required now? I suppose, a little...if they solve the problem of backover incidents then they're worth it, but I doubt this will be the case. Mostly I'm just mad that people don't bother to learn because it's easier to just throw on more tech to do it for you... like kids who would rather just be dependent and stay in diapers rather than learn to crap in the can.

BrtStlnd > thebigbossyboss 03/31/2014 at 15:52

4

BrtStlnd > McLarry 03/31/2014 at 15:54

0

You're making a whole truckload of baseless assumptions about the effect that backup cameras will have on the drivers that use them.

Raphael Orlove > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:55

0

Wait, we're going to be spending over forty bucks a car, across over fifteen million cars (last year's US sales were 15.6 mil, I believe) to help prevent just over 200 deaths a year? That sounds like a lot, I gotta say.

Gamecat235 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 03/31/2014 at 15:57

0

If the issue was mirrors, would you have the same reaction? Or the opacity of windows?

This is hardly different, other than it is a more high tech solution.

Maybe my feelings of this subject are clouded as the parent of a small child in a world of huge SUVs and luxury cars with terrible visibility for folks who are lower than the windows. But as a parent, I think that more tech, not less, is needed for this.

In addition, I wouldn't be opposed to much stronger training requirements for obtaining a driver license and for equally strong laws or losing the privilege when a person shows that they don't plan to follow the laws that go with the privilege.

McLarry > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 15:59

0

Am I? I know some folks who have backup cameras in their cars; one backed into another car in a parking lot because his tailgate was down, but everything looked just dandy in the rear-view camera... Baseless assumptions? This is already happening.

jariten1781 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 16:03

0

ABS is not required in the US yet is found on nearly every vehicle because it is useful and cost effective.

Had safety windows not been required they still would have taken over in the same way.

There's still tons of debate on car seats/boosters/rear vs front facing age limits and effectiveness. Many folks believe that the regulators have been overzealous in their requirements.

High mount brake light is about uniformity and comes at a near zero price. Multi-stage panic lights are not required but are making in roads today and will be more common in the future because they're becoming cost effective and useful. No requirement necessary.

Backup cameras were making serious in-roads without a requirement. There would have been a natural changeover point like there was with ABS without regulators mucking around and forcing it. There is no reason for a requirement.

BrtStlnd > Raphael Orlove 03/31/2014 at 16:04

0

How many of the 15,000 non-lethal injuries will be prevented? 4,000? 6,000? 8,000? Who knows, but those add to insurance premiums with medical and repair costs.

I realize that there's a cost/benefit analysis with every safety measure, like one guy previously mentioned... we could prevent a shitload of accidents if we lowered speed limits to 45 mph on the interstate. Obviously that has too high a social cost to be deemed beneficial. Overall I don't think this will end up being an unreasonable tradeoff, but that's yet to be seen.

OtherBarry > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 16:05

0

That's great and all, but a friend has clipped a number of objects while turning and staring at the back up cam and not looking at the mirrors.

Raphael Orlove > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 16:19

0

I just fear that this is an overreaction to a statistically small, but emotionally charged issue. For instance, every so often people advocate for putting seatbelts in school buses. It happens after there's some newsworthy crash that kills some kids and there's a big push to get belts mandated. After a little while, people eventually realize that the cost to outfit the buses with belts is way higher than the very few annual school bus fatalities. The thing is, the deaths are few, but very high profile and they really touch a nerve.

It wonder if we're getting stuck in the same rut with backup cameras. Maybe the annual deaths and injuries are enough to justify the increased technical outlay, but with such a charged issue like parents running over their own kids, I don't expect people to act rationally about these things.

On the other hand, this is a push to increase visibility in today's cars (not a bad thing) and I don't have kids so of course I'm going to go against a issue that will make my next new car more expensive and more complicated. Either way, it's important to see that this issue very well could be stirring up a more emotional response than is statistically justified.

BrtStlnd > Raphael Orlove 03/31/2014 at 16:39

0

This is American legal discourse on the internet, we'd have nothing to talk about if we didn't overreact to statistically small, emotionally charged issues.

I guess I feel like backup cameras are on the path to being ubiquitous anyway, this just makes it happen by 2018. We all know analog visibility is getting worse with every model year, and this is a proposal to try and counteract that. As a driving collective, you've got to admit we're not a very attentive bunch... we can try to address that through further education (not happening) or we can make it easier for people to be more attentive through technology. Like I said to Sam on the FP, I feel like I can paraphrase the argument against like this:

"Drivers need to be more aware of their surroundings"

"Ok, here's a safety mandate that will make people more situationally aware"

"NO! Those are for idiots!"

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Gamecat235 03/31/2014 at 16:44

1

I don't know; probably not.

I'm with you on making it much more difficult in the U.S. to get a license, and easier to lose it.

I have a 7, 5, and 14-month-old, so I have the same fears for them. But I also fear that they'll grow up in a world without some of the freedoms I experienced as a kid, and experience now as an adult, all in the pursuit of keeping them safe.

I'm not exactly sure how it relates, but I feel like sharing it:

My little guy has been walking a couple months now, and last night we were out, watching my wife's soccer game. At one point, he crawled up on a little walkway over a muddy patch. Very shortly, he started coming to the edge of the step, hanging his toes over that edge, testing this new obstacle he'd found. I showed him how to turn around and crawl down, and he got back up, and I showed him again. He crawled up again and went to the edge, and since it was just a step up over dirt and grass, I let him make his own choice. He tried to step off and tumbled, rolling over onto his back, no worse for wear. I put him back on his feet and again, he's up on the walkway, with his toes on the edge. He looks, thinks a second, and then steps off again, and doesn't land as gracefully. He gets a little scrape on his head, and a few tears are shed, but soon enough he's perfectly fine and toddling around again.

I let him fail. I let him get hurt. I'd like to believe he won't be so quick to step off that ledge the next time he walks up to it. Is that good parenting? I hope so, but I'm sure some people would disagree.

Safety devices and technology are great, but if our ultimate measure of success is that no deaths or injuries are acceptable in modern life, I fear that we're all going to be walking around in airbag suits with proximity sensors blaring every time we nearly walk into a wall because we're too busy staring at our smart watches.

Gamecat235 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 03/31/2014 at 16:55

1

I am completely with you as far as parenting goes and letting them make and learn from their own decisions. But there are some new factors in play, there are now cars which make literally no sound whatsoever at low (backing out, or neighborhood cruising) speeds, and this scares me quite a bit because I recall many a time when it was only the sound of a car which saved me as a kid. (I'm nearly forty, I grew up when it was normal for me to spend entire summer days roaming the neighborhood and beyond with a friend or two and would check in only when I got to a friends house and I was staying there, or if it was getting dark (or if I got hurt)).

The world displayed in Wall-E scares the ever living crap out of me. Because I see it happening bit by bit, and your position has quite a bit of merit, but I don't see this specific topic (back up cameras) as being that big a deal. Now if there were speed governors which existed based on GPS positioning, or something else which truly took freedom away, rather than giving people one more "aid" in their day to day activities. I'll be right there with you.

You can't engineer danger out of the equation with vehicles or many other daily "necessities" of life. But we can make them a bit safer, and if we can for very little cost, then we aren't out much.

spanfucker retire bitch > tromoly 03/31/2014 at 17:00

0

It's not a "small" area. Did you even read the regs? The camera has to have a wide enough FoV to encompass something like a 15x20 foot area.

spanfucker retire bitch > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 17:02

1

The logic is completely bullshit and there's no sound argument behind it. It's like saying we shouldn't be using calculators because "it makes things too easy." And what the hell is with computers? Why would I want a machine that can do millions of operations a second when I could do them by hand instead!?

tromoly > spanfucker retire bitch 03/31/2014 at 17:10

0

Yes, I did read everything. No, I'm not going to get baited by this. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Raphael Orlove > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 17:23

0

Yeah pretty much. The way this is being framed (big bucks to prevent few, tragic, already-avoidable deaths) certainly isn't helping the issue.

Geneticus > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 17:33

0

So we all need to spend more money because parents can't be bothered to do parental things anymore and look after their kids?

BrtStlnd > Geneticus 03/31/2014 at 17:35

0

Thanks for wasting your time commenting!

Geneticus > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 17:40

0

First off, this isn't in operation "on the road." Second, the overwhelming majority of safety features on current vehicles is for the occupants of the vehicle, not other drivers or pedestrians. This is for people who shouldn't be standing behind cars in the first place.

Geneticus > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 17:42

0

If you are staring at the camera feed when backing out, you aren't going to see the truck that is about to hit you from the side.

BrtStlnd > Geneticus 03/31/2014 at 17:44

1

Right, fuck those stupid 3 year olds, they should know better.

Geneticus > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 17:59

0

Question. Comments end without interrogation.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Gamecat235 03/31/2014 at 18:04

1

I'm 36, and have very similar experiences, and I can't wait until I'm confident enough to let my oldest start "roaming". We're in the neighborhood that we're in very much for this purpose (backs up to soccer fields, and then it's a big creek, and then it's the Arkansas River).

It is bit by bit. I'd argue that taking away responsibility from the driver (blind spot monitoring, lane departure warning, "smart" cruise that can halt the car if necessary, etc.) is all just the automakers slowly preparing us to relinquish full control over to the computers. And once the majority of people are comfortable doing so, the government will be next, stating that it's too dangerous to allow humans to pilot a car and mandating that all cars be autonomous. It all seems a bit far-fetched when I say it right now, but is it?

I think the real frustration with the rear-view cameras comes from people who see it as unnecessary, especially when it's a blanket edict on all cars. Plenty of cars with high beltlines and poor rearward visibility will be made considerably safer by adding this feature. It could be argued that, in the cars Jalops and Opponauts love the most, like Miatas and other small, light, simple cars, it will not, and will just make them more complex, heavier and more costly.

Geneticus > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 18:05

0

It's on you to raise your own spawn. I can feel bad for the what a child goes through with crappy parents but it isn't my responsibility to take over for them.

eye-surgeon > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 18:24

0

Raising the cost of new cars keeps people in older cars longer. Older cars are less safe. There is a reasonable statistical probability that mandatory rear cameras will actually cost more lives than it saves, at least in the near term.

Gamecat235 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 03/31/2014 at 18:45

1

My oldest is 15, and I've been letting him roam free since the end of 5th grade (with more restrictions than I had, but I know what I got away with... =), and he's survived thus far. He's still dependent on us for some things, and I would expect that to be normal, but I want him to fail on his own. I want him to know what it feels like.

Autopiloting cars are very likely the ultimate future. Eventually, piloting your vehicle may only be allowed on private property. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Re: weight and costly, I see this taking a rather cheap and light approach and expect many smaller cars without standard nav as an option will have this integrated into rear view mirrors and at most it will add a few ounces to a lb. And cost for these systems is dropping, while reliability numbers are climbing (relatively speaking). This isn't something like the amazing FLIR system in modern BMWs. Though that would be awesome. Maybe we can petition to get that added to all new vehicles. =P

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 20:08

0

Time to be the asshole.

If they are going to start putting in electronics to make driving safer why back p cameras? How many innocent people (children, pedestrians etc) are killed or injured each year in drunk driving accidents? With over 10k total fatalities, with tens of thousands of accidents why not make breathalyzers mandatory? The return on lives saved would be much better. Why? Oh yeah I'm sure the liquor industry would have some objection to stopping the party after 1 drink.

Manuél Ferrari > Party-vi 03/31/2014 at 20:43

0

COTD

un-hipster > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 21:12

0

From the dot.gov article: ...58 to 69 lives are expected to be saved each year once the entire on-road vehicle fleet is equipped with rear visibility technology meeting the requirements of today's final rule.

How far off into the future will this be? Decades? So far into the future that the actual automobile has been obsoleted by some un-dreamt of new technology?

You are one of those people who can very successfully hypnotize yourself into believing whatever weird lets-all-save-the-world idea grabs you. You have very carefully prepared all of your monolithic responses and pre-emptive putdowns, which are de riguer for internet sword fights.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

thebigbossyboss > Gamecat235 03/31/2014 at 21:33

1

I am all for getting rid of doors.

thebigbossyboss > jariten1781 03/31/2014 at 21:35

0

ABS is not mandatory in Canada either. FTW! My car doesn't have ABS. In fact I've never owned a car WITH ABS.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Gamecat235 03/31/2014 at 22:06

0

Night vision is a feature I could use...

It will be interesting to see how the automakers all react to the requirement. I hope the option of the mirror-integrated system is there on "purist" cars where the big center screen may be unwanted.

I had a newer BMW as a loaner a while back (X6 - ugh...) that had the surround, "birds"-eye view cameras. It's very cool tech, even though I'd probably never pay for the option.

Philbert/Phartnagle > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 23:11

0

Plus the camera will let you see small children who may have fallen down and would not be in range of proximity sensors. They will also be great for people like me with limited mobility of their neck and spine. I think they are a great idea and plan to add them to our car and truck.

jgk3 > BrtStlnd 03/31/2014 at 23:17

0

I really hope some safety professionals looked at this rather than just politicians and upset parents. I'm not at all sure this will improve the situation. It becomes very easy to focus on the backup screen instead of keeping your head up and looking around. That TV commercial (I think it's Subaru) where the car stops itself due to rear side sensors detecting a kid on a big wheel is a perfect example, the guy looking at the rear view camera didn't see something coming from the side and would not have had time to stop when the kid entered the camera's field of view.

jgk3 > spanfucker retire bitch 04/01/2014 at 11:31

0

Actually it's not. If you've ever studied control theory you find that there is a point where, by making something easier, your results begin to get worse. It has to do with the nature of human attention to both the objective and other related activities. If you make only the objective very easy, the other things the person was paying attention to get ignored. In this case, the camera makes seeing directly behind the car very easy — you need only swivel your eyes, not your whole head. However, when you swiveled your head to look in the side mirrors, you also got a view of everything approaching from both sides. Combine this with a generation used to video games where all the information they need comes from the screen and I'm not at all certain the cameras will make things any safer.

LongTravel > BrtStlnd 04/01/2014 at 11:35

0

That was me! And honestly the $43-45 figure seems high. I mean crap the components for an iphone camera are ~$10 and lets be honest the image quality and capability is way higher there.

If you look at actual manufacturer part costs a Honda backup cam costs about $200 and using the little known 7X rule of thumb you get an actual component cost (for the factory) of ~$28.50

HillStaffer > BrtStlnd 04/01/2014 at 12:17

0

I think it is going to be a while before the economics of scale brings the price down to the estimate provided by the NHTSA.

DougNuts > philipilihp 04/01/2014 at 12:58

0

No, a report last year on NPR quoted the group lobbying heavily for this law as saying they "think" cameras would cut the number in half.

I, like other people with common sense, realize that certain accidents will likely *increase* due to reliance on the cameras.

M54B30 > BrtStlnd 04/09/2014 at 17:34

0

$150 extra maybe, but companies will add $2,500 to the cost to cover it.