Nannytastic: All vehicles required to have rearview cameras by 2018

posted at 8:41 pm on April 1, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

Four years from now, it will be illegal to manufacture a car without a rearview camera. The new regulation is to meant to prevent back-over accidents from hurting small children and seniors, so who could be against that? Apparently not one person, because the New York Times story on this regulation features not one dissenting voice. No one who could say, “Gee, this will definitely add to the cost of new vehicles, making them less affordable and attainable for middle-class families.” No one who could say, “This sounds like a nice idea, but must it be mandated by government?” Not even anyone to point out, “Hey, 85 PERCENT OF NEW CARS ALREADY HAVE THIS SO WHY ARE YOU WRITING A LAW?”

Rear cameras already are standard or optional equipment on 85 percent of model year 2014 vehicles, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. That compares with only 5 percent of vehicles available with rear cameras in 2005.

Ahem:

Backup cameras have become more common since then, as consumers have started to demand the technology and more vehicles have been sold with big navigation screens that can easily display the video feed from a backup camera.

Some automakers have raced to adopt the feature. Honda says that with the launch of the 2015 Honda Fit, its entire U.S. lineup will come standard with backup cameras.

A rearview camera would have become routinely standard within in a couple years, but the American people can’t be trusted with things that are “optional.”

Why allow the market to speak when you can force people to comply with your will?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued new regulations today requiring all vehicles weighing under 10,000 pounds to be equipped with rear visibility cameras by May 2018. The new rule is designed to protect pedestrians from vehicles backing up into them, though it has up until now faced numerous delays.

Though carmakers like Honda and Toyota have already begun to outfit their cars with backup cameras, the regulations will apply to all cars, buses, and trucks for the 2019 model year.

I used a quick Google search of the sort the New York Times is incapable to turn up a Mercatus writer addressing the unintended consequences of such a regulation when it was delayed in 2013. It’s a rule made for the rich, he says:

Not surprisingly, low income families spend less on private risk mitigation than high income families do. Similarly, those who live in lower income areas tend to face higher mortality risks from a whole host of factors (e.g. accidents, homicide, cancer), when compared to those who live in wealthier neighborhoods. People with higher incomes tend to demand more risk reduction, just as they demand more of other goods or services. Therefore, spending money to reduce very low probability risks, like the risk of being backed over by a car in reverse, is more in line with preferences of the wealthy, since the wealthy will demand more risk reduction of this sort than the poor will.

Such a rule may also result in unintended consequences. Just as using seat belts has been shown to lead to people driving faster, relying on a rearview camera when driving in reverse may lead to people being less careful about backing up. For example, someone could be running outside of the camera’s view, and only come into view just as he or she is hit by the car. Relying on cameras entirely may increase the risk of some people getting hit.

The rule, which originally would have gone into effect this year, was delayed four times partly because of administration concerns about the price problem. Of course, now that they’ve imposed it, it is henceforth evil to wonder whether it is wise. Why do you hate children and old people?

Front page photo credit to Leah Jones on Flickr.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I only buy used cars…

OmahaConservative on April 1, 2014 at 8:44 PM

All vehicles required to have rearview cameras by 2018

Anthony Weiner smiles….

But as you look into your rear view monitor….

You won’t see his face…

Electrongod on April 1, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Do people’s necks no longer work?

CurtZHP on April 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Don’t worry, hindsight is only $2020.

Flange on April 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I just bought a car that has one. It’s pretty cool. Though I wonder why my car’s manufacturer put one in when the government wasn’t forcing them to?

Grammar Nazi on April 1, 2014 at 8:46 PM

I have a rear-view camera in my car. I never use it. Wonder how long until the government mandates surveillance cameras pointed at the driver so I no longer have that option.

JSchuler on April 1, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Another department of the NSA….

Rear View Mirror Archive..

Electrongod on April 1, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Don’t worry, hindsight is only $2020.

Flange on April 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM

I like..

but it is worth $20.20

Electrongod on April 1, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I only buy used cars…

OmahaConservative on April 1, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I would, but, with the current state of the used car market and financing deals, it was cheaper to buy a new van than a used one.

Count to 10 on April 1, 2014 at 8:48 PM

By 2017, this country is going to be so in the shitter that sustenance and a snack will have to come from whatever my gas guzzling SUV runs over as I back out of my driveway. If I still gave a house!

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Those things are really neat but isn’t that what rear view mirrors are for?

crankyoldlady on April 1, 2014 at 8:49 PM

So does this increase potential liability for drivers? What was once an accident might now be considered negligence if there is a camera and you still back over somebody.

Mark1971 on April 1, 2014 at 8:49 PM

I just bought a car that has one. It’s pretty cool. Though I wonder why my car’s manufacturer put one in when the government wasn’t forcing them to?

Grammar Nazi on April 1, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Because We Didn’t Build It…..the government did.

as written in the history books years to come..

Electrongod on April 1, 2014 at 8:50 PM

All vehicles required to have rearview cameras by 2018

My old van had a camera. I bought a new car and decided to save the money and not get the rearview camera. It was another $5000 bump up to another model. I miss it a little, but not $5000 worth.
So now all new cars will be more expensive and now that ObamaCare is here to stay that means the US will be a nation of part-time workers. So who is going to buy these expensive new cars with the required rear-view cameras?

That is what I thought…..

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Force this…

Force that…

It’s almost like the government has absolute control over your lives.

Right “not in my bedroom” types?

Murphy9 on April 1, 2014 at 8:51 PM

What should really be required is a 360 degree camera mounted on top of the camera that records a constant stream of video that can used in court cases and product liability cases.

Barack Obama

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Do people’s necks no longer work?

CurtZHP on April 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM

Rear view cameras are actually a really nice feature, particularly in larger vehicles with poor visibility, and, at this point, probably don’t really cost much. That said, congress has no business legislating this kind of thing.

Count to 10 on April 1, 2014 at 8:52 PM

I have one and I like it.
I get to see what kind of jerks walk behind a moving vehicle when it’s halfway out of the parking space!

Jomama on April 1, 2014 at 8:53 PM

What should really be required is a 360 degree camera mounted on top of the camera that records a constant stream of video that can used in court cases and product liability cases.

Barack Obama

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 8:52 PM

I think you’d see a lot of Reggie Love in that rearview mirror.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Government coercion forces car prices higher. By 2018 who is going to be able to afford to buy a new car?

But I would not be shocked if this was the result of some cronyist rent-seeking rule making process where the industry not only supported the new regulations but suggested them in the first place so they’d have an excuse to jack up prices. Just sayin’ it kind of fits the profile of modern day corporate welfare…

Texas Zombie on April 1, 2014 at 8:55 PM

So what happens if the fuse blows on a rear-view CAMERA and the car doesn’t have a rear-view MIRROR? Or if the car gets rear-ended and the camera is smashed in? How are people supposed to see what’s behind them?

A clear violation of the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle…

Steve Z on April 1, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Some socialist crony probably makes them.

crankyoldlady on April 1, 2014 at 8:58 PM

I only buy used cars…

OmahaConservative on April 1, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I would, but, with the current state of the used car market and financing deals, it was cheaper to buy a new van than a used one.

Count to 10 on April 1, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I buy them from foolish relatives who throw away perfectly good cars…

OmahaConservative on April 1, 2014 at 9:00 PM

8.1 earthquake off the coast of Chile… Time for the tards in Los Angeles to quit crying like little girls over their tiny little 5.1

oscarwilde on April 1, 2014 at 9:01 PM

When are they going to mandate a front view camera so I don’t have to hassle with cleaning my windshield?

Mark1971 on April 1, 2014 at 9:01 PM

But I would not be shocked if this was the result of some cronyist rent-seeking rule making process where the industry not only supported the new regulations but suggested them in the first place so they’d have an excuse to jack up prices. Just sayin’ it kind of fits the profile of modern day corporate welfare…

Texas Zombie on April 1, 2014 at 8:55 PM

The question is, “Which industry?”

Count to 10 on April 1, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Home> International
8.0 Magnitude Earthquake Hits Off Chile; Tsunami Strikes Coast

OmahaConservative on April 1, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Slow poke… <— Insert maniacal laughter here…

oscarwilde on April 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM

The new rule is designed to protect pedestrians from vehicles backing up into them,

What?? People don’t turn when they’re backing up? I think side cameras also need to be mandated so that drivers don’t turn into these hapless pedestrians who just happen to be walking in roads and parking lots totally unaware that there are cars there. In fact, I think it should be mandated taxed that all cars must have 27 different exterior cameras and 15 different view screens so that the drivers can see anything and everything around them.

And all cars with blind spots need to be immediately taken off the road. I mean, who would let a car with a blind spot ever be produced? That’s like crazy!!

Better yet, just ban all cars. They’re too dangerous for people.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2014 at 9:03 PM

There’s going to be a big black market out there for some enterprising entrepreneurs who make and sell counterfeit car tags, insurance forms and inspection stickers so people buying their VW Beetles from Mexico – on mid 70s designs – can get their cars grandfathered in.

Ruckus_Tom on April 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM

So what happens if the fuse blows on a rear-view CAMERA and the car doesn’t have a rear-view MIRROR? Or if the car gets rear-ended and the camera is smashed in? How are people supposed to see what’s behind them?

A clear violation of the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle…

Steve Z on April 1, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Well, it would be, if it was replacing a rear-view mirror on any car.
I haven’t seen that on any car, though. Have you?

Count to 10 on April 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM

When are they going to mandate a front view camera so I don’t have to hassle with cleaning my windshield?

Mark1971 on April 1, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Don’t think you’re joking. There is a blind spot in front of the hood where old people can crawl and be run over by you. There has to be a camera there … maybe two or three.

And you’ll need cameras in all of your wheel wells, just in case some senior snuck down there and would be run over. 8 more cameras – two for each wheel well, front and back.

What about possibly swinging your door open and smacking some poor old person who happened to be sitting on the ground next to your car? Can’t have that. One more camera for each door …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 1, 2014 at 9:06 PM

The real problem with this regulation is it probably specifies technical requirements, not just a “rear View camera”, but the screen must be at least 120 mm x 120 mm, cover 180 degrees, be mounted where the lift gate door is, and must replace all the screen content with the rear view image when the car is in reverse, but can’t operate any other time.

Innovation goes into the tank.

Jay Galt on April 1, 2014 at 9:07 PM

By 2017, this country is going to be so in the shitter that sustenance and a snack will have to come from whatever my gas guzzling SUV runs over as I back out of my driveway. If I still gave a house!

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I am LMAO.

bazil9 on April 1, 2014 at 9:07 PM

There’s going to be a big black market out there for some enterprising entrepreneurs who make and sell counterfeit car tags, insurance forms and inspection stickers so people buying their VW Beetles from Mexico – on mid 70s designs – can get their cars grandfathered in.

Ruckus_Tom on April 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Whoa dude, the Enviro-Nazi’s are going to be like totally pissed off, just imagine all the damage to the virgin forests that an infestation of Mexican Beatles will do…

oscarwilde on April 1, 2014 at 9:08 PM

….rear sensors on a car…are good enough!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2014 at 9:10 PM

There’s going to be a big black market out there for some enterprising entrepreneurs who make and sell counterfeit car tags, insurance forms and inspection stickers so people buying their VW Beetles from Mexico – on mid 70s designs – can get their cars grandfathered in.

Ruckus_Tom on April 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Aw, dang! You figured out my retirement plan!!!!

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 9:11 PM

requiring all vehicles weighing under 10,000 pounds to be equipped with rear visibility cameras by May 2018. The new rule is designed to protect pedestrians from vehicles backing up into them, though it has up until now faced numerous delays.

So, not the largest, heaviest (read, most expensive) vehicles. Just the lightest ones (the ones lowest to the ground, having the lowest sight lines, less likely to back over something.

Good job statists – impose your fascist will, but miss the optimum target at the same time!

massrighty on April 1, 2014 at 9:11 PM

NSA is already in our homes and bedrooms…finally they break ground into our cars.

trs on April 1, 2014 at 9:13 PM

8.0 Magnitude Earthquake Hits Off Chile; Tsunami Strikes Coast

OmahaConservative on April 1, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Heh, I hope everyone on the Kalifornia coast can swim…..I think the west part of the state is ready to slide into the ocean…..soon I hope.

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 9:13 PM

It’s neat to realize one of the reasons our fuel economy is almost the same as it was in the ’80s even though materials and engine technology has come unbelievably far since then is that our government, which dictates fuel standards to us, also keeps forcing us to add the weight of these devices to our cars.

rogerb on April 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Count to 10 on April 1, 2014 at 9:01 PM

Either the rearview camera industry or the car manufacturer industry. Happens all the time….just like the way the health insurance industry supported Obamacare and wrote the bill.

Texas Zombie on April 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM

So, not the largest, heaviest (read, most expensive) vehicles. Just the lightest ones (the ones lowest to the ground, having the lowest sight lines, less likely to back over something.

Good job statists – impose your fascist will, but miss the optimum target at the same time!

massrighty on April 1, 2014 at 9:11 PM

All the motor homes I see have rearview full time cameras and 90% of the new ones also have side view cameras. I am sure that is coming next for cars…….

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM

All the motor homes I see have rearview full time cameras and 90% of the new ones also have side view cameras. I am sure that is coming next for cars…….

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Yes, but the current legislation is only written for vehicles under 10K lbs. What’s the point of willfully excluding the higher, heavier vehicles?

massrighty on April 1, 2014 at 9:18 PM

What’s the point of willfully excluding the higher, heavier vehicles?

massrighty on April 1, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Umm, shut up, that’s why…

oscarwilde on April 1, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Would the gov’t PLEASE stop helping me?

307wolverine on April 1, 2014 at 9:21 PM

So, not the largest, heaviest (read, most expensive) vehicles. Just the lightest ones (the ones lowest to the ground, having the lowest sight lines, less likely to back over something.

Good job statists – impose your fascist will, but miss the optimum target at the same time!

massrighty on April 1, 2014 at 9:11 PM

Unless the requirement already existed separately for the heavier vehicles.
Still, they can’t even use the excuse that these need to be required for the Interstate Highway system. It’s as bad a congressional overreach as the CAFE standards.

Count to 10 on April 1, 2014 at 9:21 PM

How about getting some “exercise”? TURN AROUND AND LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER!

How much does that “cost”?

GarandFan on April 1, 2014 at 9:21 PM

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued new regulations today requiring all vehicles weighing under 10,000 pounds to be equipped with rear visibility cameras by May 2018.

 
BTW:
 

Unfortunately, pedestrians were one of the few groups of road users to experience an increase in fatalities in the United States in 2011, totaling 4,432 deaths
 
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Pedestrians

 
4,432 deaths nationwide. Tragic for those involved, but here’s a serious question:
 
Who here thinks the total nationwide vote fraud that we’re continually told we don’t need any measures to address was lower than 4,432 instances?

rogerb on April 1, 2014 at 9:23 PM

I back over Democrats for fun.

Adjoran on April 1, 2014 at 9:23 PM

Yes, but the current legislation is only written for vehicles under 10K lbs. What’s the point of willfully excluding the higher, heavier vehicles?

massrighty on April 1, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Just like ObamaCare – the government does not think it’s way through any of this regulation with logic.

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 9:25 PM

I back over Democrats for fun.

Adjoran on April 1, 2014 at 9:23 PM

They make the best sausage.

Cheese Wheel on April 1, 2014 at 9:25 PM

They’re REALLY useful. I would imagine they’d eventually be standard equipment just because of customer demand. Why not just let the market decide?

The Rogue Tomato on April 1, 2014 at 9:26 PM

I hope that the regulation specifies the height visibility requirement or the midgets are going to die like flies. What about a wide angle option? I don’t want the morbidly obese to suffer from too narrow a camera aperture.

But serious question, where can I find the rear camera exchange website?

Rambotito on April 1, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Free cars for everyone by 2020.

Paid for with Obama’s leftover stash.

fogw on April 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM

4,432 deaths nationwide. Tragic for those involved, but here’s a serious question:

Who here thinks the total nationwide vote fraud that we’re continually told we don’t need any measures to address was lower than 4,432 instances?

rogerb on April 1, 2014 at 9:23 PM

This is from Russia but could easily apply to the streets of America:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUxIZB-Nz74FlUj0ccTDnmjw&v=iEfibYOfVNE

redguy on April 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM

rogerb on April 1, 2014 at 9:23 PM

 
This is from Russia but could easily apply to the streets of America:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUxIZB-Nz74FlUj0ccTDnmjw&v=iEfibYOfVNE
 
redguy on April 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM

 
But how do we get idiots who can’t figure out how to cross the street (notice which direction she faces until impact) to not talk on the phone while they’re trying to cross that same street?

rogerb on April 1, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Will there be a braille version for the blind?

I think the Americans with Disabilities Act requires it. If not, then some new regulations will no doubt be issued from the NTHSA before next year, to be sure this important factor is not overlooked.

s1im on April 1, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Just like turning over ICANN (internet control) to the commies/tranzis, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

The same 4k pedestrians will die 30 years from now when all cars on the road have these gadgets.

Think of the maintenance status of the average vehicle. These federal idiots (but I repeat myself) think everyone trades for a new car every 4-6 years. Average on the road today is over ten. Are these screens and cameras going to last that long?

They’re just making it up as they go along because they can, and THEY ARE POWER JUNKIES.

Who is John Galt on April 1, 2014 at 9:41 PM

How about getting some “exercise”? TURN AROUND AND LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER!

How much does that “cost”?

GarandFan on April 1, 2014 at 9:21 PM

How else are they going to make cars so expensive that the greedy unions’ mass transit schemes finally catch on?

slickwillie2001 on April 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM

They’re just making it up as they go along because they can, and THEY ARE POWER JUNKIES.

Who is John Galt on April 1, 2014 at 9:41 PM

AND they think it possible to design a pain free world.

Cleombrotus on April 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM

The USA has gone insane.

farsighted on April 1, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Free cars for everyone by 2020.

Paid for with Obama’s leftover stash.

fogw on April 1, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Yeah, boxcars.

Murphy9 on April 1, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Look, it’s a terrible tragedy when somebody is killed by a car backing up, particularly since many of the victims are young children. Within the last couple of days there was another story of a father backing up over his own child with fatal results.

Still, there are approximately 300 deaths per year.

Yes, as a grandparent I believe even one death is one too many but this is simply one more example of the fact that the U.S. has turned long since into a bureaucratic dictatorship in which we are all serfs controlled by those who write the regulations.

Drained Brain on April 1, 2014 at 10:16 PM

How about getting some “exercise”? TURN AROUND AND LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER!

How much does that “cost”?

GarandFan on April 1, 2014 at 9:21 PM

How else are they going to make cars so expensive that the greedy unions’ mass transit schemes finally catch on?

slickwillie2001 on April 1, 2014 at 10:00 PM

Mock me at will! Chuckle.

We have lots of kids and I am OCD when it comes to kids and cars…or so I thought. Could not imagine running over anybody, much less a child of my own. I love cars that go fast and trucks, but wife bought me one of those fancy cars that seat seven and could haul more kids back in 2010.

In 2011 the kids were loading their junk in the car with one of their friends, and for some reason I was in a hurry. I heard the trunk/back lid close…..it closes with a push of the button on the outside and makes a bit of noise and then all the doors closed with a thud that only kids can do.

My kids know the drill and I got lazy. I went to back up and saw a kid behind the car wondering how the trunk closed from the outside with a push of a button. Without the camera I might have run over the kid as I was in reverse.

Not saying the government should mandate anything…..that is a good healthy debate, but when you typed “look over your shoulder”. …..not much to see in a 5,280 pound SUV with six kids in the car and one that is not mine outside. Without the camera I most likely would have hit the kid.

I ain’t perfect and was glad I had the dumb camera…..that I used to make fun of. Just being honest with a personal experience. I got lucky that time.

HonestLib on April 1, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Gubmint: Everything about cars is either illegal or mandatory.

Galtian on April 1, 2014 at 10:44 PM

Drained Brain on April 1, 2014 at 10:16 PM

I agree completely. And the evidence suggests that these things will NOT eliminate the problem. Only reduce it by about 50%.

The feds are saying this will increase the price of a vehicle by $80-$210. Lets call it $150 ($1 per life saves a year). That is so cheap!

NOT! How many cars are sold in the US each year. I found numbers suggesting about 15 Million. So we are paying $15M dollars per life saved. I can think of a LOT of ways to get much better ROI.

And since cars will be more expensive, expect people to hold onto their old car (with probably higher emission rate) longer.

And the cameras themselves contain toxic materials.

And require more expensive repairs in the event of accidents.

I really despair over our logic skills sometimes.

Having groused, I will say that there MAY be value in require cameras on SOME vehicles. Vans and Light trucks DO have larger blind spots in the back. For that limited class of vehicle, you MIGHT be able to show that the costs are justified by greater than average risk reduction. But I would want DATA not just hopes to make a a decision.

OBQuiet on April 1, 2014 at 10:50 PM

Meanwhile, lighters and ashtrays are long gone…verboten!

Also, it would be nice to not have to pay hundreds of dollars for those digital gizmos in the engine when they go out. Guess they’re necessary for those polar bear-saving “emission controls”.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 1, 2014 at 11:05 PM

I love the rear-view camera on the motor home; makes life so much easier. When the picture in the view screen recently flipped upside down, I was devastated (until I read the manual and figured out the little onscreen menu thingie.)

I’m sure I’d like it on my cars too.

However, will a back-up camera help the silly soccer moms who drive the 8000 lb behemoth SUVs that they can’t park in a single parking space and can’t make right turns in because they have no freaking idea where their fenders and bumpers are?

If it will, I vote that we make them get a camera. But just them. Not me and you.

Pless1foEngrish on April 1, 2014 at 11:10 PM

While the rear-view camera’s a nice perk, if you want it, it still doesn’t free you from doing the standard head turn in both directions when backing out into a street or parking area, and the owner’s manuals will tell you that, because even with a wide-angle view, it still doesn’t prevent a batouttahell driver coming in from out of camera view from nailing your vehicle.

My question is — Will laws be rewritten in the future so that drivers are ticketed for having broken backup camera, in the same way they can be ticketed for broken brake or tail lights? (Or even worse: Given all the road dirt that can hit the camera lens’ could you face a fine just for having a dirty lens to the point rear images are obscured?)

jon1979 on April 1, 2014 at 11:43 PM

While the rear-view camera’s a nice perk, if you want it, it still doesn’t free you from doing the standard head turn in both directions when backing out into a street or parking area, and the owner’s manuals will tell you that, because even with a wide-angle view, it still doesn’t prevent a batouttahell driver coming in from out of camera view from nailing your vehicle.

My question is — Will laws be rewritten in the future so that drivers are ticketed for having broken backup camera, in the same way they can be ticketed for broken brake or tail lights? (Or even worse: Given all the road dirt that can hit the camera lens’ could you face a fine just for having a dirty lens to the point rear images are obscured?)

jon1979 on April 1, 2014 at 11:43 PM

Not at all, it’s more likely that the typical fat lazy driver will end up relying entirely on the camera and never look back. They might not run over little Buffy but they will be T-boned by a garbage truck.

slickwillie2001 on April 2, 2014 at 12:00 AM

I have to say that it would be a nice feature on my Ford F-150 crew cab. Between the rear passenger area and the tailgate there is no way I could see a child or an animal back there. It’s not a matter of being lazy. I just can’t see through metal.

I actually looked into having Ford install one, but they wanted a ridiculous amount of money, especially when you consider that cameras are dirt cheap and I already have a little video screen in the dashboard. Every time I turn on the ignition I have to watch the idiotic little video sequence.

trigon on April 2, 2014 at 2:11 AM

During manufacture, it’s really adding a $30 screen, $5 of wiring and a $20 camera and lens assembly, with about 30 minutes of labor. So the price is around $100… On top of the hundreds and thousands of dollars of other crap they mandate, and fuel laws, and and and…

Enough already!

Trigon, you can wire one up yourself for damn near nothing. Google the diy on it.

Asurea on April 2, 2014 at 3:20 AM

I’m against over-regulation as much as the next guy, but Ham stretched that simple argument into a lame over-reach by adding an emotional “save the middle-class” appeal. The poor middle class can’t afford cars with backup cameras, she says. Yet then she mentions that 85% of all new cars already have backup cameras, because customers are demanding them. So if most cars already have them, there is no additional cost. And if customers are demanding the cameras, they obviously can afford them.

And that’s not the only problem with this logic-free article.

Splashman on April 2, 2014 at 4:10 AM

this is more a payoff to the car makers. These cameras are relatively cheap (around $200 for parts) and yet they charge around $5000 to install them. More corny capitalism at work.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on April 2, 2014 at 4:59 AM

You IDIOTS voted for this nonsense by electing democrats.

TX-96 on April 2, 2014 at 6:21 AM

Reminds me of something congress passed back in mid to late 90′s. Can’t remember exactly what it was.. had something to do with email and eliminating spam. You saw all these politicians on TV crying about spam and then like a year later.. they passed some kind of law that had already become a dinosaur.

I wish I could remember the details of that.. but all I do clearly remember is by the time they passed their law.. it was already a common feature on email.

JellyToast on April 2, 2014 at 7:09 AM

You can put a back-up camera on my car, but you can’t make me use it.

sadatoni on April 2, 2014 at 7:33 AM

This is to protect all those people glued to their cellphones as they walk because they can’t be bothered to pay attention to their surroundings. I mean they already have to put padding on lamp posts and trees….

This is yet another thing to go wrong on a vehicle.

Its starting to look like used car restoration or a hot rod shop is in my future.

ajacksonian on April 2, 2014 at 8:00 AM

How dare they mandate airbags and seatbelts!!?!?

Nannystate!!!

everdiso on April 2, 2014 at 8:55 AM

I remember all the same bitching when seat belts were made mandatory. You guys can’t start your day without a cup of coffee and a dose of outrage.

tlynch001 on April 2, 2014 at 9:17 AM

There’s a reason roughly 28% of vehicles do not have backup cameras: because it is damned easy to see out the back if one just turns their head.

William Teach on April 2, 2014 at 9:19 AM

True story. A doctor’s wife backed up at the exit to an Office Depot and hit the front of my small roadster she explained that her SUV was a loaner without backup warning. And backup camera is stupid in a small roadster .

tmitsss on April 2, 2014 at 9:33 AM

Maybe if the backup,camera automatically displayed to the driver’s smartphone

tmitsss on April 2, 2014 at 9:35 AM

I remember all the same bitching when seat belts were made mandatory. You guys can’t start your day without a cup of coffee and a dose of outrage.

tlynch001 on April 2, 2014 at 9:17 AM

In this case at least, that’s true.

Irritable Pundit on April 2, 2014 at 9:36 AM

spending money to reduce very low probability risks, like the risk of being backed over by a car in reverse

Ummm … yeah … “very low probability” indeed

corona79 on April 2, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Oh, well, better to see the Fed goons following us.

vnvet on April 2, 2014 at 9:50 AM

My husbands truck has a backup camera. I can’t use it. It makes me sick to watch it. I can see where they could be nice when backing up to a trailer though. The govt needs to stay out of it….one more reason I will drive the wheels off my 2005 Honda. No aux input, bluetooth, gps, or cameras….. very little electronics to have problems with! I am far from anti-technology I’ve been a computer programmer for 15 years. The cost of vehicles are out of sight now. 20 years ago you could buy a brand new truck for 10K base model…..what is it now…. 25K?

And yes I am still pissed off that the govt will fine me for not wearing my seat belt. My car .. my life… my business…. probably my death… but my choice! Amazing how they aren’t pro-choice about seat belts!

maables on April 2, 2014 at 9:58 AM

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued new regulations today requiring all vehicles weighing under 10,000 pounds to be equipped with rear visibility cameras by May 2018.

Tell me again what jurisdiction they have for telling me what I have to have on my car to operate it in my driveway or a parking lot? Or is this going to impact highway driving in some fashion?

Once again, they have no business setting these sorts of standards. Period. They can set standards on placement of external lights and minimal crash standards. That should be it. (And I’m not even sure we couldn’t handle the crash standards with private companies and state regulation.) Oh, and they can set some minimal standards for interstate truck operation. Maybe.

GWB on April 2, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I remember all the same bitching when seat belts were made mandatory. You guys can’t start your day without a cup of coffee and a dose of outrage.

tlynch001 on April 2, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Screw you and your nanny-state fascism. I don’t think seat belts should be mandatory, either. And none of it is the national government’s business. Period.

(If you’re not a nanny-state fascist, my apologies. But you sure sound like you approve of this crap.)

GWB on April 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM

The same 4k pedestrians will die 30 years from now when all cars on the road have these gadgets.

Who is John Galt on April 1, 2014 at 9:41 PM

Zombie pedestrians?!? For 30 years? Dayum.

On a slightly more serious note. This will reduce those pedestrian fatalities – from 4,432 to 4,400. Woohoo. Win. Or something. (It will go down, then it will go back up as a new generation learns to never look out the rear window or at the side mirrors as they back up.)

GWB on April 2, 2014 at 10:20 AM

yay.
in states like mine (Maine) if the camera doesn’t work vehicle will not be legal to operate.
as an option (as it is now) it could be broken and vehicle legal, with it mandated it will come under safety equipment.

dmacleo on April 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM

this is more a payoff to the car makers. These cameras are relatively cheap (around $200 for parts) and yet they charge around $5000 to install them. More corny capitalism at work.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on April 2, 2014 at 4:59 AM

That’s a pretty high estimate on the ‘installed’ price. In the new BMW M4 I’m ordering, the rear-view camera is part of a larger package of ‘executive’ addons, but the side+top view cameras option is a mere $750 — and this on on a brand new, high-performance BMW model. I would imagine they will be much cheaper on a Honda, or similar.

nullrouted on April 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM

not much to see in a 5,280 pound SUV with six kids in the car and one that is not mine outside. Without the camera I most likely would have hit the kid.

HonestLib on April 1, 2014 at 10:24 PM

Not to disparage you, but two questions:
1) Was the kid too stupid to move when the vehicle started moving backward? (And, if he was standing close enough to the bumper on one side, it’s possible a camera would never see him.)
2) Who was responsible for getting the kid in the vehicle? Sounds like a parent failed to do their duty there.

GWB on April 2, 2014 at 10:27 AM

in states like mine (Maine) if the camera doesn’t work vehicle will not be legal to operate.

dmacleo on April 2, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Oh yay. So this will be like the fog lights on my one vehicle. One was broken. But I’ve driven cars for decades without fog lights. (And I don’t need them to see, like – apparently – the 75% of people I see driving with them on all the time.) They are an optional bit of equipment. But, once they are installed, by golly, it won’t pass inspection if one of them is broken! One of the stupidest bits of repair money I ever had to spend. (Oh! And taking out the bulbs altogether was not a legal option, either!)

GWB on April 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM

So if you want to back over children, you just have to buy a vehicle that weighs OVER 10,000 lbs.

It just makes sense.

Herod on April 2, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Blame it on the expanded definition of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause. OTOH, do we really want to go back to the pre-seatbelt-and-airbag killing floor?

tkmcp on April 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Does anyone else see suspicious timing here? Announcing this reg when the NTSA is under fire for the GM ignition-switch debacle?

tkmcp on April 2, 2014 at 10:48 AM

OTOH, do we really want to go back to the pre-seatbelt-and-airbag killing floor?

tkmcp on April 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Yes.

GWB on April 2, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Government is like a person who gets in front a parade and pretends to lead it. Review-view cameras will become standard, like AC and power windows, without any help. Because progress demands it.

antisense on April 2, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2