Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feds to require rearview cameras in new vehicles
FoxBusiness.com ^ | 4/1/2014 | AP

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: auto; camera; nhtsa; rear
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
Another site that was unpostable had the automakers wanting to get rid of side-view mirrors if the cameras serve the same function. (I'm assuming it wasn't an April Fools joke - that article was from yesterday). Just more expensive regs.
1 posted on 04/01/2014 6:07:22 AM PDT by mykroar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mykroar

I believe this one is real and real stupid.


2 posted on 04/01/2014 6:12:11 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

Under what authority?


3 posted on 04/01/2014 6:13:55 AM PDT by Crazieman (Are you naive enough to think VOTING will fix this entrenched system?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

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.


4 posted on 04/01/2014 6:14:21 AM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

More rules and regulations by unelected bureaucrats. But of course it’s central planning for our own good.


5 posted on 04/01/2014 6:14:31 AM PDT by MulberryDraw (Repeal it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

> 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.

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


6 posted on 04/01/2014 6:26:10 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

Looks like another big win for the camera manufacturers and importers.

Bonus time for the lobbyists.....


7 posted on 04/01/2014 6:29:28 AM PDT by Iron Munro (The future ain't what it use to be -- Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

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.


8 posted on 04/01/2014 6:40:01 AM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I believe this one is real and real stupid.

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.

9 posted on 04/01/2014 6:40:11 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

That would be under which enumerated power?


10 posted on 04/01/2014 6:41:07 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

“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.)


11 posted on 04/01/2014 6:45:53 AM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

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.


12 posted on 04/01/2014 6:50:51 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman

“”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....


13 posted on 04/01/2014 6:51:25 AM PDT by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

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.


14 posted on 04/01/2014 6:53:00 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Fine, you want one, then find a car with one, don’t force everyone else to have to buy one.


15 posted on 04/01/2014 6:55:24 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

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.


16 posted on 04/01/2014 6:55:51 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

Well, this is interesting! (not my blog)

http://theattackmachine.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/new-transportation-regulations-enrich-obamas-family/


17 posted on 04/01/2014 6:56:27 AM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Great vid by ShorelineMike! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZjJk6nbD4&feature=plcp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mykroar

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...


18 posted on 04/01/2014 6:58:20 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th (and 17th))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

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.


19 posted on 04/01/2014 6:58:46 AM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

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.


20 posted on 04/01/2014 7:02:44 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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