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 ...
Not correct. That may be "60% of 2014 models" ... models does not necessarily translate directly to 60% of vehicles on the road.
Mirrors work. Markets work. Government does not.
Exactly right. Remember when the Government mandated catalytic converters, EGR's and other "pollution controls" on cars? Magically the MPG of every car with a catalytic converter, EGR's, etc.. DROPPED.
Every time the Government mandates something in cars, they cause the price to go UP and MPG to go DOWN.
I had an old Dodge Duster with a 318, 2bbl carb and a three-speed tranny that easily got 21mpg driving around town and 25+ on the highway.
Why is it my 2003 GMC Envoy Denali with a six cylinder gets 14mpg in the city and 22 on the highway? All the pollution control b.s.
My old Dodge Duster got better gas mileage than my wife's 2008 Honda mini-van with a V6 and 4 speed tranny.
PROOF that the Government just makes everything worse.
And from this day forward even before these regulations go into effect I would suspect that every vehicle built will have a backup camera as a standard safety feature. A car manufacturer that does not include the camera could end up with a Pinto lawsuit with hundreds of millions of dollars in punitive damages if some two year old gets run over by a neighbor driving a new car that didn't have one.
It has been established that a back up camera is a necessary safety feature. Any manufacturer that does not include it risks bankruptcy if a fatal injury occurs because they wanted to save some money by not putting one in.
Unless you are on a motorcycle, there is a blind spot behind your car that could contain a two year old on a big wheel. With the back up camera you can see the kid and avoid killing him and ruining your own life as well as the lives of the family of the kid.
Congress ordered the transportation department to promulgate rules to prevent this kind of accident. It is within Congress' enumerated powers to do so. This regulation is the kind of regulation that is a legitimate use by Congress of its limited powers.
It will save lives. And the benefit to the consumer of being able to parallel park without taking out your tail light is worth the extra cost IMHO. '
You might want to check the sources of that story. Most of the links go to an “April Fools” page, and the last paper called the “New York Tribune” stopped publishing over 20 years ago.
When will they add the 12-speaker Sony sound system, too, as a requirement? Maybe also voice commands so the driver isn't distracted by fiddling with knobs and buttons?
Besides, I thought we were moving towards driverless cars? Who needs a rear view camera and dashboard screen if the car is going to drive itself?
-PJ
It appears you want to empower government as the sole arbiter of what constitutes safe practices. In other words, government is charged to provide a risk free environment. I have a more economical and sensible solution.
I think your drivers license should have been suspended for one-year as a result of your accident. That would have more impact on safety than requiring everyone else buy a camera. You could rely on public transportation, which would make many of us feel safer. That puts the hardship on you where it belongs, not on people that are better and more conscientious drivers.
And it appears that you are incapable of engaging in rational discourse. My only point is that vehicle safety is a legitimate legislative prerogative of the federal government's enumerated constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause that was drafted by our founders. Vehicles which are intended not only for sale but also for use in interstate commerce are a legitimate target for regulation by the congress.
Congress made a specific legislative request signed by President Bush to create regulations that would help to prevent accidents in which small children are killed by vehicles backing up. Although these are rare accidents, there was documentation that as many as 200 children are killed every year in these accidents and the installation of a back up camera will prevent most, if not all of these tragedies.
I could argue that you have no problem with toddlers being squished by SUV's but that would be engaging in the kind nonsensical arguments that have been directed towards me.
You may disagree with the solution that the transportation department came up with, but the fact remains that the congress authorized this and this is one example of a legitimate use of regulatory power under the commerce clause of the constitution.
As far as I can determine this bill was passed by both houses on unanimous consent. Nobody is on record as opposing this.
Gotcha. I found that out after I posted. LOL! He got me!
Ding ding! Winner winner, chicken dinner!
the installation of a back up camera will prevent most, if not all few, if any of these tragedies. There, fixed it for you statist.
What issue?
You apparently have no idea ho to safely operate a motor vehicle, and no amount of government “safety” mandates are going to instill that ability in you.
I think you should have someone drive you to the DMV office nearest to your home so that you can surrender your license due to lack of driving ability.
It is amazing how many Freepers can’t argue their side of an issue without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
When you do that, as you and everyone else on this thread that has decided to express their displeasure with my opinion, you have lost the argument.
FWIW, if there are a lot if drivers that are as bad as you think I am on the road, then that is a very sound reason for requiring this and many other safety devices in new cars.
It is curious how you invited an examination of your own behavior to promote a regulation and then complain when your behavior comes under scrutiny. A parallel would be a drunk driver complaining that if his car only had a breathalyzer he would not have had an accident. You back your car into another vehicle and not once do you take responsibility that you caused an accident that could have avoided WITHOUT a rearview camera.
Unfortunately, there is no safety device that will make people like you a safe driver. It is your attitude that is the problem, not the lack of devices at your disposal. If you could accept that and the responsibility for the accident you caused, I think most people here would agree it is possible you could become a safe driver. Otherwise, if you are going to use yourself as a poster child for nanny state regulations, don't whine when people examine you. You invited it.
Actually, if there are a lot if drivers that are as bad as I think you are on the road, then that is a very sound reason to make it harder for people to get driver’s licenses.
By the way, it is your own words that draw people to the conclusion that you are not a good driver. Virtually every argument you made for REQUIRING EVERYONE to have back-up cameras involved making it safer/easier for YOU to not hit things when you are backing up. For that reason, my suggestion that you turn in your driver’s license does not qualify as an ad hominem attack. Bad drivers voluntarily relinquishing their licenses would certainly save more lives than the over-reaching and intrusive legislation we are discussing. And you DO claim to be committed to improving safety on our highways...
I, and many others, do not share your admitted problems with backing our vehicles. Some of us are even capable of safely backing large trucks (with trailers) through relatively small spaces - without hitting Volvos or crushing grandchildren.
Actually your arguments do not support your position. If you recognize that there are licensed drivers on the road who are not as capable as you are in backing up and avoiding running over children buried in the blind spot behind the license plate of your vehicle, then there would be a compelling need to make back up cameras mandatory as safety equipment on all vehicles sold or used in interstate commerce.
This requirement may not be necessary for such a professional driver as yourself, as you probably always walk around your vehicle before backing up to make sure that your children or the neighbors' children are not riding or hiding behind you.
But your argument that you don't need the Back up camera because you are a professional driver who would never back up a vehicle without first checking for children doesn't help your position at all because you recognize that there are people who would neglect to walk completely around their car before backing up and that these people, who probably are in the majority, would represent a danger to the safety of both your children and theirs.
So in essence you have made the strongest argument for why these cameras should be installed in every new vehicle.
Even without this regulation, car manufacturers would be compelled to include these as standard equipment because to fail to do so in the future could set them up for a billion dollar lawsuit if, in the future, some kid got run over because the camera was not available because the manufacturer was too cheap to put them in. Juries don't like manufacturers that cut corners that involve safety. They are prone to issue huge punitive damage awards, especially when the death involves a toddler.
BS
I covered your latest so-called counter-argument in the FIRST sentence of my last post.
You just can’t give it up and admit that people might legitimately disagree with you, can you?
PS - I am not a professional driver - just a logical, rational one, who practices situational awareness.
Unfortunately most people are not like you. Hence the need for mandatory safety equipment in new vehicles.
Can you give me an argument as to why congress would not have the power and authority to mandate these cameras in new vehicles? Or can you admit that this is a legitimate exercise of their regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause? Other than that you think it's a stupid idea.
I don’t mind an audible proximity sensor...but I’ve driven enough rentals with those cameras...they light up the entire interior in the dark..and if there’s bright sun, I have a hard time seeing the screen. I don’t want one.
Someone gave me one of those extended length rearview mirrors as a present and it works great (for the right side.) The headrests get in the way on the left. But I can see everything coming up on me much better. Particularly if I’m on 5-6 lane highways when everyone is jockeying through the lanes at high speed.
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.