Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proposed Rear-view Camera Mandate Would Cost $57.2 Million Per Life Saved
Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 10/8/2012 | Tom Gantert

Posted on 10/11/2012 10:10:54 AM PDT by MichCapCon

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it hopes to complete a rule that would require rear view cameras in the back of vehicles, which could cost as much as $57.2 million per life saved.

Equipping all vehicles with the rearview camera with interior mirror display would cost between $1.1 billion to $2.57 billion and is estimated to result in 26 to 69 "total fatalities avoided," according to NHTSA documents.

"On a costs-benefits analysis, this makes no sense whatsoever," said Shirley Ybarra, a senior transportation policy analyst for the Reason Foundation. "I'm sorry when people back over their children. In terms of costs, however, this is just ridiculous. This is just another example of the Obama nanny-state."

Magna Electronics Technology Inc. in Grand Blanc Township is getting local and state tax incentives to produce the rear view camera technology. The company received a five-year, $2.1 million deal in 2011 with the Michigan Economic Development Corp.

Magna Electronics plans to invest $64.8 million over the next five years in Michigan to expand the plant in Grand Blanc Township. Magna is the largest manufacturer of rear view camera technology in the country.

In addition to the issue about tax dollars being spent, many have questioned how far federal authority will reach when mandating laws if the threshold is to save a few dozen lives.

For example, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that about 20 children per year drown in buckets. Other groups estimate the annual deaths of people in buckets at 30. But should the federal government outlaw buckets?

Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, said mandating motorists wear helmets in vehicles would save many more lives than a rear view camera.

"It's not about saving lives," Drolet said. "The cost is going to encourage some people to drive a less safe automobile. People will drive less safe cars for longer because they can't afford the 'regulation-mobile.' If it were about saving lives, you'd have to be able to measure how many lives are lost by people driving older cars. You are feeding the political process and lobbying process that created this regulation. They are the clear winners. There are tragedies that happen all the time. They are terrible. But tragedies make bad laws."


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: mandates; regulation

1 posted on 10/11/2012 10:10:59 AM PDT by MichCapCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Springman; Sioux-san; 70th Division; JPG; PGalt; DuncanWaring; taildragger; epluribus_2; tatown; ...
Crap like this just makes me want to scream.

If anyone wants to be added to the Michigan Cap Con ping list, let me know.
2 posted on 10/11/2012 10:15:05 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
A few hundred thousand in campaign contributions, in exchange for hundred million dollar mandates for the product you manufacture.

Thrown in some union kickbacks and other assorted bribes and you're good to go.

It's like printing money! Except that they don't print it, they take it out of our paychecks.

3 posted on 10/11/2012 10:18:58 AM PDT by dead (It ain't over until the phone lady sings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
I really like the rear-view cameras. I don't have one on my car, but I've driven loaners and rentals with one.

It's really nice to be able to see how far you are from that other car when backing out of a parking place, or parallel parking. And, if there are lines superimposed on the image, it makes it a snap to back into a tight spot.

But, it's ludicrous to make it required. Like all the other mandates, it will make the lowest and moderately priced cars more expensive, and out of reach for more people.

4 posted on 10/11/2012 10:19:17 AM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

If Romney doesn’t take action to dial back the Regulatory State seriously, we are still screwed.


5 posted on 10/11/2012 10:29:19 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

I think we should be all required to buy my special solution spray that repels both sharks (In Lake Michigan only) and space aliens! It works REAL well, and only costs $100 dollars an ounce, and it will reduce insurance costs because these menaces will no longer be a significant issue!!! Call your congressional representation and ask for this safety legislation!!!


6 posted on 10/11/2012 10:30:17 AM PDT by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

I bet anti-lock brakes have produced MORE accidents than with the old brakes and the common sense stopping method.


7 posted on 10/11/2012 10:32:30 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead

Its a wonder any of us survived without a federal automotive reversal agent backing the cars up for our fathers.


8 posted on 10/11/2012 10:34:10 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I agree. Cars are so overloaded with safety equipment that drivers have become unsafe themselves.


9 posted on 10/11/2012 10:38:02 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

This would benefit ONLY the shark-lawyers who would be filing lawsuits against the manufacturers 1 week after the first camera is installed. Suing because some driver killed someone and blames the death on the camera. “I looked at the screen and I didn’t see anyone! The camera is at fault. Not me.”


10 posted on 10/11/2012 10:40:33 AM PDT by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I’m getting a helmet cam (2 actually, foreward and back) that record to an SD card. Last time I was rear ended
on my bike, the idiot denied all, and I had no proof.

Could be the driver for this initiative is to provide documentation for insurance claims.


11 posted on 10/11/2012 10:41:43 AM PDT by RitchieAprile (Gentle but bold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

Yet, elderly people will soon be denied lifesaving medicines that cost FAR less that 57,000,000, and will be told to take the pain pill.

Obama is a pure SOB.


12 posted on 10/11/2012 10:42:20 AM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

This article is BS. Here are real numbers...

The New York Times reports that NHTSA plans to announce this week that rearview cameras will be mandatory on all vehicles by 2014. The compulsory cameras and interface for viewing what the camera sees is estimated to set new car buyers back an additional $160 to $200, but the government feels the cost is worth it if it prevents some of the 17,000 Americans that are harmed in backup accidents every year.

source.

 

Equipping all vehicles with the rearview camera with interior mirror display would cost between $1.1 billion to $2.57 billion and is estimated to result in 26 to 69 "total fatalities avoided," according to NHTSA documents.

Billion? Try million.

With that understanding in mind, consider NHTSA’s argument. By NHTSA’s calculation, the rear-view camera rule would cost at least $11.8 million per life saved, but according to the agency people are willing to pay only $6.1 million per life saved. To “make up” for the difference here, the benefits the agency treats as nonmonetizable would have to justify an additional expenditure of $5.7 million per life saved. But the value of the nonmonetizable benefits—when expressed in dollars—is $0. This lack of monetary benefit cannot justify the additional expenditure.
 
source.

13 posted on 10/11/2012 10:43:30 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
Could be the driver for this initiative is to provide documentation for insurance claims.

No, these cameras do not record. And if they did, I can promise you that the backlash would be huge.

This is a feature provided in many upscale vehicles that have a navigation system, or a big flat panel display in the dashboard. It switches on the camera automatically when you shift into reverse.

There are a few vehicles that put a tiny screen in the rear-view mirror. I don't find those as useful.

14 posted on 10/11/2012 10:53:28 AM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it hopes to complete a rule that would require rear view cameras in the back of vehicles, which could cost as much as $57.2 million per life saved.

This is absurd. Not only is the money a waste, more importantly, it will "train" drivers to look at their rear-view camera monitor instead of actually looking behind them when they are backing car.

More stupidity from the land of stupidity - Wash., D.C.!!

15 posted on 10/11/2012 11:11:23 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

I just recently bought a 2008 Hummer H3. It is an excellent off-road vehicle, the gas mileage is much better than I expected, and handling and comfort is quite good, with the added bonus of pissing off the environmentalists. It does have poor visibility out of the rear window, so I went to AutoZone and purchased a 3.5” backup camera for $79.00 on sale, manufactured by Peak. (The coolant guys) it only took me about 35 minutes to install, and I took a couple of breaks while doing so.

I installed it because I thought it was a good idea to do so, not because some bureaucrat wished to impose new regulations upon me. These fools will be the death of commerce and liberty if we let them have their way.


16 posted on 10/11/2012 11:14:58 AM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
This is a feature provided in many upscale vehicles that have a navigation system, or a big flat panel display in the dashboard.

Having one, I would never drive a car without it again. It's a huge plus.

That said, mandating such systems won't help - you can't fix stupid.

17 posted on 10/11/2012 11:18:20 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

more crony state-subsidized capitalism masquerading as a public good

we need to end the legal tyranny of the NHTSA and reduce EVERYTHING they propose to nothing more than a no-strings-attached recommendation, for the auto industry and it’s cusomers to follow/desire as they see fit

it’s fine that research into safety improvementts be done, but it should be led by the insurance industry and proposals from the research should wind up earning something like a “good housekeeping seal of approval” from the insurance industry and that is the only incentive - a market incentive - the proposals should obtain

if following a proposal will make an auto more expensive, automakers and dealers can decide, or not, to offer what the proposal recommends, and if willing to pay for it customers can ask for it - end of the only legitimate work of the proposal


18 posted on 10/11/2012 11:36:11 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

Dear Wildbill22:

Please contact me at my K Street office in Washington, D.C. I’d like to hear more about your ideas. Bring CASH, lots of CASH. I’m sure we can work something out if you do.

Oh, and hold your nose and check your morals and ethics at the Potomac. You won’t need those in Washington.

Sincerely (not really),
Your friend (not really) on K Street


19 posted on 10/11/2012 11:40:28 AM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

Well, if all it does is provide more distractions,
where is the value add? I could see having one on a
large truck/van/rec vehicle, but only if I wanted it,
not because the ever helpful busy bodies decide I needed one.

Options with Ford SYNC for example include “Driver Assist”
parking. One of the interesting problems is internationalizing the feature for markets where parallel parking happens to the left (UK, Japan, India, Pakistan).


20 posted on 10/11/2012 11:55:35 AM PDT by RitchieAprile (Gentle but bold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I long for a mechanical window that NEVER fails to roll down and that little vent window that doesn't mess my hair.

I'm thinking about putting those guides on my tire wells. The new granite curbs cut your tires to hell.

21 posted on 10/11/2012 12:01:50 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

If you are getting your car’s tires cut up by the curb while parking, you are doing it wrong.


22 posted on 10/11/2012 1:24:29 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Oh yeh.....:-)


23 posted on 10/11/2012 1:34:34 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

The cost will be far less than the article suggests as you found out... especially as I forsee most cars in the near future coming with a built in screen for satnav or vehicle operation ,,, a simple camera that engages anytime the car is in reverse will be standard soon.


24 posted on 10/11/2012 3:20:43 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

I like them too, but they shouldn’t be mandatory.

Here in Canada, the government mandated daytime running lights to save lives, supposedly. So now you get morons driving at night with no taillights on because they see the road ahead illuminated and it never occurs to them to turn on their lights.

The law of unintended consequences in action.

Cheers,
Jim


25 posted on 10/11/2012 4:06:41 PM PDT by gymbeau (Freed Tibet yet, hippie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

I’m not sure why it adds so much cost, or why any company needs government subsidies to “study” how to make these.

You can already buy cars with backup cameras. Most cars that have center dash displays now have options for backup cameras.

I bought a web cam for under 20 bucks, so it’s not like camera technology is a big cost driver.

Not that it should be required anyway, since as the article clearly points out, it isn’t cost-effective. You could find a lot cheaper ways to save children’s lives.

For example, if the state and local government spent the money they were wasting on subsidizing this technology, they could probably improve the safety of at least one major intersection enough to avoid one kid getting run over by a car.

Liberal stupid idea — we could buy every kid a hat with a bright orange flag on it, and require they wear it whenever they walk outside. Then you could see them through your rear-view mirror.


26 posted on 10/11/2012 4:17:41 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson