Skip to comments.Feds to require rearview cameras in new vehicles
Posted on 04/01/2014 6:07:22 AM PDT by mykroar
WASHINGTON Years late, the Transportation Department issued a rule Monday that will require rearview technology in many new vehicles -- an effort to reduce deaths and serious injuries caused by backup accidents.
The final rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will require new vehicles under 10,000 pounds and built beginning May 1, 2018, to meet the new rear-visibility standards. The rule includes buses and trucks; motorcycles and trailers are exempt.
The rearview cameras must give drivers a field of vision measuring at least 10 by 20 feet directly behind the vehicle. The system must also meet other requirements including dashboard image size, lighting conditions and display time.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I believe this one is real and real stupid.
Under what authority?
Don’t these Feds want inside view cameras as well? They could regulate there be a mandated camera fixed upon each seat. Let me suggest they have an infrared camera in the trunk space as well... no telling what some subject wants to put in there.
More rules and regulations by unelected bureaucrats. But of course it’s central planning for our own good.
> Dont these Feds want inside view cameras as well? They could regulate there be a mandated camera fixed upon each seat. Let me suggest they have an infrared camera in the trunk space as well... no telling what some subject wants to put in there.
The interior cameras will be real handy for fining you when you eat chocolate, fatty foods, or 16 + oz. sodas when you’re over 20 % of your ideal Obamacare weight. How will they know. Well by the scale buil into the seat that you’re sitting on silly. You won’t have to even worry about going down to the courthouse to pay the fine because there will only be one plea you can enter or a food offense and it will automatically be deducted from your bank account online while you’re driving..../s
Looks like another big win for the camera manufacturers and importers.
Bonus time for the lobbyists.....
I said to my wife this morning, for years I was concerned the Ruskies would blow us up. I think they figured out long ago they could just sit back and watch the lawyers, lobbyists, greedy politicians, bureaucrats and their ilk do the same with no cost to them. Frankly if the Ruskies took out DC with a 25 mile wide radius, we would be better off as a nation and people IMO.
Agree 100%. heard it on the news this morning. About 200 deaths annually attributed to backup accidents. The cost of the camera systems is estimated to be $140 (yeah right) more like $500 out of the consumers' pockets - when does any auto manufacturer sell you anthing at cost?
So 15.6 million passenger vehicles sold last year times $500 = $7.8 billion. So going with my realistic cost to consumers that is $39,000,000 per death, BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE. Nothing gurarntees that anyone having these will use them, so generously estimating that half of teh deaths will be prevented by this technology, that's $79,000,000 per death prevented. Total waste of money.
Even going at the dishones and incorrect cost of $140 that's still $10,920,000 per death and realistically twice that per prevention.
That would be under which enumerated power?
“I’ve” had two accidents in my Mustang convertible.
Both of the other drivers were women...both had vehicles with rear view cameras...both were backing up...both hit me while my car was parked...and I wasn’t even in the car.
(One was my lovely bride.)
I’m a firm believer that if it saves just one life, its still not worth it.
While it sucks if that one life is your loved one, its not worth the cost to everyone else.
“”Under what authority?””
Maybe Elizabeth Dole has returned to the Department of Transportation. I still recall the heat about the car rear window brake lights she advocated....
This is a relatively minor regulation that is arguably within the Commerce Clause enumeration as a general safety regulation for goods that are actually intended to be both sold and then used in interstate commerce.
Frankly I wish all my vehicles had one of these installed. I recently backed into a new Volvo SUV and took out his tailight. My insurance went up over $3000 over the next 3 years. This device will not only save someone’s life, but could save millions of people a lot of money on their car insurance.
We have bigger fish to fry. Most new cars already come with these as standard equipment anyway. I won’t buy a new car that doesn’t have one and if I were to buy a used car, I would want to make sure it had one.
And the next time you back over your dog or child or grandchild, you may wish you had one.
Fine, you want one, then find a car with one, don’t force everyone else to have to buy one.
My wife’s last two cars have had the rear view camera, but the lens quickly gets dirty obscuring the view especially during the sloppy winter and spring weather or even during rain or snow. Perhaps the government will soon mandate a lens cleaning system.
Well, this is interesting! (not my blog)
They think it will save about 55 lives a year...
That’s about 0.000018% of the population - and an approximate 0.16% drop in the number of automobile fatalities.
At a cost of, say, $1,000 per vehicle?
So, total cost to consumers nationwide would be about $15.6 billion per year, or about $284 million per life saved.
That is considerably higher than the life-time maximum pay-out limits on most of the health insurance plans...
For years how have the great majority of people avoided running over or running into anything? I guess looking and being cautious aren’t enough for those who love government interference in their lives.
If been driving for some 35 years without backing into anything. When I learned to drive, awareness was hammered into me and I won’t move till I know exactly what’s going on all around me.
In my opinion all this so called safety equipment is just making worse drivers.