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 ...
It’s the same here in Massachusetts.
When this vehicle is a few years old & the camera is inoperative & out of warranty,do you think the average owner is going to pony up to fix something like that? Chances are the manufacturer has obsoleted the parts anyway. On a used car that’s for sale,it’s to the point where you can have enough non-operative,gov’t. mandated devices that the repair cost exceeds the value of the vehicle. I think we’re there already,in some cases.
So you consider a potential $7.8 billion a year is unimportant.
Frankly I wish all my vehicles had one of these installed.
That is your option. You can buy them and have them retrofitted Put your money where your mouth is. Making everyone pay is a total waste of money.
And the next time you back over your dog or child or grandchild, you may wish you had one.
My first response to your obnoxious and stupid comment I won't print. However, you apparently didn't understand the math and frankly I don't think I can make it any more simple for those who are hard of understanding.
Right, and I'll bet having a rear-view camera will do NOTHING to prevent additional deaths. Rear-view camera's look STRAIGHT BACK, covering about 20 feet behind the vehicle, primarily onto the pavement.
How does that stop someone from backing up and getting T-Boned from either side?
Answer: it doesn't.
Looks like the automaker's lobbyists won on this one, consumers lose and new cars become even less affordable.
My point exactly.
So because you're a lousy driver who backs up into other people's cars, you think forcing everyone to pay for rear-view camera's is a good idea?
I have a better idea: I'll take up a collection for you to take driving lessons so you learn to look before you backup instead. As for you, keep your damn' hands out of my wallet.
I missed that. OK $7.8bill/15 = $520 million per life saved.
If you cannot walk in a parking lot or drive without hitting something, that is your problem. I’m 55, and I’ve never had the problems you complain of, even backing my pickup full of hay. But then, I know what MIRRORS are, and how to use them.
Yeah, just because it has one doesn’t mean that you’re supposed to ignore your mirrors - but that’s what tends to happen. The main use-case is to check to see if there’s a kid immediately behind the vehicle, not to replace mirrors.
I`ve always thought backing up is dangerous.
Only two wrecks I ever had was backing..just
denting wrecks.Thank God not people back there.
Got one on the Ford truck..great for hooking
up to the bass boat.No more dented license plate.
I work in insurance claims and I've had several people comlain because the person "wasn't there because my sensor didn't go off."
And next will be issuing tickets to people watching their review view cameras instead of the road.
I was in my bank parking lot yesterday-—NOT a particularly busy place, since I live in N Nevada.
I was backing into a space, since I drive a station wagon & it is easier for me to get out again.
A new Honda boxy version of something (???) was backing up & while, there was no contact, that driver didn’t see me at all.
Why?????
BECAUSE ALL OF THE WINDOWS except the front 2 were very dark!!!
How about banning such dark windows???
I would have been plenty pissed if that car had hit me.
Where I live, gravel/dirt roads are common. How do we keep the camera lens clean???
Because looking at the screen means you aren’t looking to the left and the right.
Typical Democrat reaction:
A few people cannot dive well & safely, so we all have to have thousands of dollars added to the price of a new car because of their incompetence.
There is a SMALL problem-—but we will throw a BIG solution at it.
If you don't want a backup mirror don't buy a new car. They are already standard equipment on 90% of the new cars sold. This regulation is not really going to have that much of an economic effect except on possibly some junk cars that would come out of China.
There are legitimate reasons for some federal regulations. Safety is a legitimate ground for regulation of interstate commerce.
The Commerce Clause is often abused with unconstitutional burdensome regulations, but the safety of vehicles sold and used in interstate commerce is a legitimate concern of the federal government.
Our founders did put the commerce clause in the constitution. The federal government does have a legitimate role in the regulation of interstate commerce and vehicle safety is a legitimate purpose for which that clause can be used. If you don't like it, then change the Constitution.
There is a current TV ad for a car ‘that parks itself’ which gives me chills.
A young man- probably about 22, states that ‘he cannot parallel park’, so he needs this new car to do it for him!!!!!
I don’t want this creep to live anywhere near me.
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.