5 ms·

This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to back up,

This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to back up, I've never felt like a camera was necessary. I've driven cars with backup cameras before but typically just use the rear view mirror or turn my head. Maybe others don't feel this way, thoughts?

cloudwalking 13y ago
How do you "make sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle?"
- trafficlight 13y ago
  Drivers Education and driving tests are two ideas that come to mind.
- kleiba 13y ago
  Why did this get downvoted? I think it's a valid question -- obviously all of the current mechanisms in place fail to implement this, as can be observed on the roads every day.
- prawks 13y ago
  At this point, I think most people would lean towards taking people out of the equation as much as possible.
- LukeWalsh 13y ago
  I think a real test for drivers education would be a start. I took my test in Kansas and it involved turning left, turning right, changing a lane, and stopping at a stoplight. The entire test took less than 3 minutes.
kiba 13y ago
It isn't about responsbility of drivers. It's about decreasing the probability of a motor accident, at least, within reasonable cost. No matter how responsible and safe you are, you are only human.
- harywilke 13y ago
  so let's ditch the human.
m52go 13y ago
I totally agree. This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient. It's the reason a modern Insight is less efficient than a CRX from 20 years ago. Are you any less likely to get into an accident with that CRX than a new Insight? Probably not. As long as humans are behind the wheel, they're the ones that need to be trained better, not the cars. It's useless.
- brohoolio 13y ago
  It's a camera that helps you avoid running over kids. How much does a camera weigh? Is using technology to prevent kids deaths pointless?
- JWLong 13y ago
  http://www.amazon.com/Rear-Vehicle-Backup-Camera-Waterproof/dp/B005CTKYB4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1396296911&sr=8-2&keywords=rear+backup+camera http://www.amazon.com/Rear-Vehicle-Backup-Camera-Waterproof/... Amazon puts the _shipping_ weight of a camera at one pound. A soccer mom will make her car more inefficient every time she orders McDonalds for the whole family.
- rtkwe 13y ago
  > This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient. Adding a backup camera, wiring, and video screen is going to add a small amount of weight, I'd guess around 15 lbs and that's including any additional mounting material for the camera. It's going to have an insignificant effect there. One trend that's making this less pointless is the increasingly tiny back glass on modern cars. In order to give larger trunks and a more streamlined shape the back window is shrinking making it harder to see out of. (In a lot of cars I see)
  - m52go 13y ago
    In the 1980s and 1990s, it wasn't uncommon for cars to weigh under 2000 pounds. Now, with regulations like this, closer to 3000 pounds is the norm. Every pound adds up. All the safety regulations that have led to this increased weight aren't pointless, but one wonders if it's really worth MANDATING everyone to tote around an additional ONE THOUSAND POUNDS.
benihana 13y ago
It's not alarming, it just seems pointless. This isn't going to save lives, because rear view cameras are used when reversing, which happens at low speed. The best thing this will do is cut down on kids getting run into while a car is backing up. But I never hear of that happening on the news, I don't know anyone who's tragically lost someone in a low speed reversing accident. I do know several people who've died in car accidents between 20-60 mph. I mean, I love the tech of back up cameras, but this just seems like a pointless regulation that will increase the cost of cars for us, the consumer.
- DirtyAndy 13y ago
  In New Zealand there have been 30 deaths since 2000 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11219228 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...), a country of 4 million where like the US most people have a driveway (as opposed to Europe where most people do not). The article claims this move might save 59-69 deaths per year, which would indicate that at least that many die each year (although I struggle to believe cameras will save that many).
- dippyskoodlez 13y ago
  I agree. This line just confirms this: >Many vehicles, including luxury models, already carry rear-facing cameras, and an auto industry group applauded the move.
- syntern 13y ago
  I disagree about being pointless. I am using my rear view camera, and it prevented some minor accidents. If you haven't seen such so far, you are probably lucky, others are not.
- vilhelm_s 13y ago
  We don't have to estimate this from news reports, according to the article they have already done the math and expect it to save "between 59 and 69 deaths per year". I agree that's not a lot compared to the total number (34,080 deaths in 2012). It would be interesting to see the cost per life, how much does the camera increase the car price?
tzs 13y ago
See the third photo in this article for a dramatic illustration of how much cannot be seen from the driver's position with mirrors or by turning to look through the rear window on some common vehicles: http://www.drivearabia.com/news/2009/03/04/product-review-parking-sensors-by-veba/ http://www.drivearabia.com/news/2009/03/04/product-review-pa... Drivers tend to massively overestimate how much they can see behind them.

cloudwalking 13y ago

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

trafficlight 13y ago
Drivers Education and driving tests are two ideas that come to mind.
kleiba 13y ago
Why did this get downvoted? I think it's a valid question -- obviously all of the current mechanisms in place fail to implement this, as can be observed on the roads every day.
prawks 13y ago
At this point, I think most people would lean towards taking people out of the equation as much as possible.
LukeWalsh 13y ago
I think a real test for drivers education would be a start. I took my test in Kansas and it involved turning left, turning right, changing a lane, and stopping at a stoplight. The entire test took less than 3 minutes.

kiba 13y ago

It isn't about responsbility of drivers. It's about decreasing the probability of a motor accident, at least, within reasonable cost. No matter how responsible and safe you are, you are only human.

harywilke 13y ago
so let's ditch the human.

m52go 13y ago

I totally agree. This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient. It's the reason a modern Insight is less efficient than a CRX from 20 years ago. Are you any less likely to get into an accident with that CRX than a new Insight? Probably not. As long as humans are behind the wheel, they're the ones that need to be trained better, not the cars. It's useless.

brohoolio 13y ago
It's a camera that helps you avoid running over kids. How much does a camera weigh? Is using technology to prevent kids deaths pointless?
JWLong 13y ago
http://www.amazon.com/Rear-Vehicle-Backup-Camera-Waterproof/dp/B005CTKYB4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1396296911&sr=8-2&keywords=rear+backup+camera http://www.amazon.com/Rear-Vehicle-Backup-Camera-Waterproof/... Amazon puts the _shipping_ weight of a camera at one pound. A soccer mom will make her car more inefficient every time she orders McDonalds for the whole family.
rtkwe 13y ago
> This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient. Adding a backup camera, wiring, and video screen is going to add a small amount of weight, I'd guess around 15 lbs and that's including any additional mounting material for the camera. It's going to have an insignificant effect there. One trend that's making this less pointless is the increasingly tiny back glass on modern cars. In order to give larger trunks and a more streamlined shape the back window is shrinking making it harder to see out of. (In a lot of cars I see)
- m52go 13y ago
  In the 1980s and 1990s, it wasn't uncommon for cars to weigh under 2000 pounds. Now, with regulations like this, closer to 3000 pounds is the norm. Every pound adds up. All the safety regulations that have led to this increased weight aren't pointless, but one wonders if it's really worth MANDATING everyone to tote around an additional ONE THOUSAND POUNDS.

benihana 13y ago

It's not alarming, it just seems pointless. This isn't going to save lives, because rear view cameras are used when reversing, which happens at low speed. The best thing this will do is cut down on kids getting run into while a car is backing up. But I never hear of that happening on the news, I don't know anyone who's tragically lost someone in a low speed reversing accident. I do know several people who've died in car accidents between 20-60 mph. I mean, I love the tech of back up cameras, but this just seems like a pointless regulation that will increase the cost of cars for us, the consumer.

DirtyAndy 13y ago
In New Zealand there have been 30 deaths since 2000 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11219228 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...), a country of 4 million where like the US most people have a driveway (as opposed to Europe where most people do not). The article claims this move might save 59-69 deaths per year, which would indicate that at least that many die each year (although I struggle to believe cameras will save that many).
dippyskoodlez 13y ago
I agree. This line just confirms this: >Many vehicles, including luxury models, already carry rear-facing cameras, and an auto industry group applauded the move.
syntern 13y ago
I disagree about being pointless. I am using my rear view camera, and it prevented some minor accidents. If you haven't seen such so far, you are probably lucky, others are not.
vilhelm_s 13y ago
We don't have to estimate this from news reports, according to the article they have already done the math and expect it to save "between 59 and 69 deaths per year". I agree that's not a lot compared to the total number (34,080 deaths in 2012). It would be interesting to see the cost per life, how much does the camera increase the car price?

tzs 13y ago

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