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.
Looks like another big win for the camera manufacturers and importers.
Bonus time for the lobbyists.....
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.)
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...
It’s silly to argue against his, there’s been a long history of government mandates to improve vehicle safety and they have saved thousands of lives, and avoided debilitating injuries and economic loss. Seat belts, anti-lock brakes, airbags, occupant weighing systems to control airbag deployment when a child is in the seat, tire pressure monitoring systems, and now back-up cameras have been mandated when the technology has proven effective and affordable. Cameras have become cheap thanks to having one embedded in every cellphone, and increasingly cars have video display screens for other purposes that back-up images can be displayed on.
Is it another example of nanny state-ism? Of course. But the fedederal gummint owns/maintains the highway system and they figure this give them the right to regulate commerce in regard to how they are used. There is some logic to that, and we’ve got much bigger problems to spend time worrying about. Buy stock in companies that make automotive systems and enjoy the benefits of one segment of US manufacturing that is experiencing some growth and profitability due to these mandated safety features.
Sure. The feds can demand it. Someone else is paying for it.
I think they should mandate turn signals on cars. Oh wait, they do, it’s just here in Kentucky they NEVER use them.
automakers wanting to get rid of side-view mirrors if the cameras serve the same function.
***********
There are some articles that state that so probably is correct. Many cars have
side view indicators now but I think they are taking about another device incorporated
with the rear view device.
Have two vehicles, one with rear view camera, one without. Although I will make sure any future car we buy has the rear camera, do not agree that it must be required, should be a choice.
I don’t agree with making it law, but I personally will never buy another vehicle without a rear back up camera.
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