Skip to comments.Nannytastic: All vehicles required to have rearview cameras by 2018
Posted on 04/01/2014 7:14:25 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Four years from now, it will be illegal to manufacture a car without a rearview camera. The new regulation is to meant to prevent back-over accidents from hurting small children and seniors, so who could be against that? Apparently not one person, because the New York Times story on this regulation features not one dissenting voice. No one who could say, “Gee, this will definitely add to the cost of new vehicles, making them less affordable and attainable for middle-class families.” No one who could say, “This sounds like a nice idea, but must it be mandated by government?” Not even anyone to point out, “Hey, 85 PERCENT OF NEW CARS ALREADY HAVE THIS SO WHY ARE YOU WRITING A LAW?”
Rear cameras already are standard or optional equipment on 85 percent of model year 2014 vehicles, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. That compares with only 5 percent of vehicles available with rear cameras in 2005.
Backup cameras have become more common since then, as consumers have started to demand the technology and more vehicles have been sold with big navigation screens that can easily display the video feed from a backup camera.
Some automakers have raced to adopt the feature. Honda says that with the launch of the 2015 Honda Fit, its entire U.S. lineup will come standard with backup cameras.
A rearview camera would have become routinely standard within in a couple years, but the American people can’t be trusted with things that are “optional.”
Why allow the market to speak when you can force people to comply with your will?
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued new regulations today requiring all vehicles weighing under 10,000 pounds to be equipped with rear visibility cameras by May 2018. The new rule is designed to protect pedestrians from vehicles backing up into them, though it has up until now faced numerous delays.
Though carmakers like Honda and Toyota have already begun to outfit their cars with backup cameras, the regulations will apply to all cars, buses, and trucks for the 2019 model year.
I used a quick Google search of the sort the New York Times is incapable to turn up a Mercatus writer addressing the unintended consequences of such a regulation when it was delayed in 2013. It’s a rule made for the rich, he says:
Not surprisingly, low income families spend less on private risk mitigation than high income families do. Similarly, those who live in lower income areas tend to face higher mortality risks from a whole host of factors (e.g. accidents, homicide, cancer), when compared to those who live in wealthier neighborhoods. People with higher incomes tend to demand more risk reduction, just as they demand more of other goods or services. Therefore, spending money to reduce very low probability risks, like the risk of being backed over by a car in reverse, is more in line with preferences of the wealthy, since the wealthy will demand more risk reduction of this sort than the poor will.
Such a rule may also result in unintended consequences. Just as using seat belts has been shown to lead to people driving faster, relying on a rearview camera when driving in reverse may lead to people being less careful about backing up. For example, someone could be running outside of the cameras view, and only come into view just as he or she is hit by the car. Relying on cameras entirely may increase the risk of some people getting hit.
The rule, which originally would have gone into effect this year, was delayed four times partly because of administration concerns about the price problem. Of course, now that they’ve imposed it, it is henceforth evil to wonder whether it is wise. Why do you hate children and old people?
So I can’t have a TV where I can see it but I can have a TV where I can see it.
I have to wonder when these backup cameras will be mandated for vehicles not originally outfitted with them.
Somehow a 71 honda with a “backup camera” seems an odd idea.
That should add a pretty good increase to the price of a car. People who need a camera to see what is behind them before they back up have no business operating a motor vehicle. Isn’t any dumbass camera going to help them either. IMHO.
This issue doesn’t bother me too much. The technology isn’t all that cost prohibitive, and the benefits in terms of safety and convenience are decent. It does bother me, however, to have the State prescribe it. Just because the tool is there doesn’t mean people will use it as intended.
What would be more useful than a camera would be a system that senses when something is too close to the back of the vehicle and sends a warning to stop.
A camera isn’t any good, if it doesn’t really alert anybody that somebody might be behind them.
The coming government hypocrisy is going to be laws against recording video with law enforcement from cameras inside your vehicle. Bet on that.
I've always wondered what happens when Nanny State collides head-on with Police State. Guess we'll get to find out.
When it gets right down to it, this will add over a thousand dollars to the price of cars, cars that are becoming more and more unaffordable. And I guarantee, no one is going to pay any attention to the display after the novelty wears off.
All because a few hundred injuries out of a total population of almost 400 million.
Will they have a memory feature where you can save the plate number of a tailgater and send it to the Highway Cops?
I have a dash cam that has recorded quite a few “creative driving incidents”.
Raising the prices on starter vehicles that the poor might otherwise afford and also raising the prices of non-compliant used cars, which will be more sought after by those who cannot afford a 3 cylinder car with new mandated technology.
Honda Makes Backup Cameras Standard on Most Models
Starting with the 2013 model year, a backup camera will be standard on the redesigned Honda Accord along with the Crosstour, Odyssey, Pilot, Ridgeline and CR-Z. That means Honda’s 12-model lineup goes from having just two models with a standard backup camera the FCX Clarity hydrogen vehicle and the CR-V crossover to nine models. A backup camera was already standard on the 2012 Honda CR-V and remains that way for the 2013 model year. The 2013 Honda Fit EV also has a standard backup camera.
That’s a drastic change for Honda; previously, backup cameras were an option that had to be coupled with an expensive navigation system. In fact, the update means Honda offers a backup camera on more of its lineup than any other mainstream automaker other strong contenders include Kia and Hyundai.
Why the change? The possibility that backup cameras will be mandated for all passenger vehicles by 2014 (though it looks like that rule may be delayed) was probably a motivating factor. “We’ve definitely known about the possibility of legislation down the pike, but we didn’t have to start this early,” Honda spokesman Chris Martin said. Honda’s more immediate considerations for the cameras were financial and design oriented, Martin says.
Why do they want a picture of my rearview?
I rented a Corolla a few months ago that had one. Given the low seats and high trunk on most modern cars, I found it really helpful in backing an unfamiliar vehicle. I’m considering retrofitting my old car. I’ve seen stand alone units at the auto parts store, and I’ve seen add-ons for GPS. Certainly more useful than airbags.
The camera only works when your car is in reverse.
I have a camera and its great. You can see things through it that you cannot see through the mirrors or windows.
I don’t think the govt should be mandating them.
I have one and use it far more than my mirrors. Far far more. Its a great tool.
The govt will having us in robot cars before long.
Hmmm, good response. Mayhap I am wrong in my assumption.
Only for folks stupid enough to pay list price.
Or add a camera to a compatible GPS unit for under $150.00
Anything more than $100 is going to be pure profit to the car company and dealer.
I thought it was a toy until I bought a car with one. Now I hate driving a car without one. I find myself backing up while staring a dashboard with no video. Doesn’t work too well.
LOL! Until I own one, I guess I should just STHU. And I will.
I’m not sure where you get the idea this has to add over $1K to the price of the vehicle. You can get a complete system for under $60.
Just from what I know about government forced add-ons. From all the feedback I’m getting, I guess I’m wrong ...
Not that I have ever been wrong before ... LOL!
One of my strongest reasons for being on FR is the education I receive, all for free!
Find out which senators, cabinet members or Obama cronies have a wife, husband, sister or brother involved in the manufaturing, importation and distribution of the cameras.
Right on, driftdriver.
The backup cam on my 2008 Pathfinder has so far saved: 2 puppies; 3 pedestrians on their cell phones; and an older Fairlane that had been parked in my blind spot.
But like you, I’d rather see them marketed than mandated.
You can already stream HD video from your smartphone to your LCD-equipped stereo receiver unit in you car, the same one that displays videos from your cameras.
Also you can control your smartphone and stereo unit via Bluetooth and voice commands or from steering wheel buttons. Make calls, change the station, get nav maps, or GPS in Google Earth or Gaia GPS all with touch or voice commands.
Aftermarket retrofit buy-in price for all this stuff is about $100 from Walmart and it’s a name-brand label: Pioneer. Add Bluetooth cameras powered by your backup light wiring for about $60.
Look, cars are just going to have all this stuff anyway even if government didn’t make a law to mandate it. It’s cheap, works great, and you can even add it to an older car as easy as adding any old new stereo.
$160 to have all this if you have a smartphone already. Maybe $450 if you don’t have a smartphone. It’s just going to get cheaper.
Considering that I don’t own a smart phone of any kind (I have a basic cell phone) and at my age, I doubt I will ever own anything else. Your explanation and example sounds great, just not something that matches my lifestyle or age.
You are WAY overestimating the cost of a backup camera. They are standard equipment on $18k Honda civics. You can buy the entire setup on eBay for $54.99 shipped. Most cars have LCD screens for the audio/temp control, and adding the backup camera to display on that screen will cost them less that $50.
I just wait for the bump!
Hello...sidewalks? Whoever said that is right - by the time the camera picks up a pedestrian or a bicyclist right behind your vehicle, it's probably too late!
Plus, it's one more "electronic" to go wrong.
Plus, that's also why they make "spotting mirrors".
Plus, most newer vehicles (our '06 F150, for example) already have a "beeper" that goes off when you get within 10 feet of anything with your back bumper...it can actually be annoying, if there's a little shrub behind the parking space you're backing into!!
Of course, that's US...we don't drive cars we can't handle, and we use all due care, which is more considerable with the truck's sightlines/mirrors than with my petite '98 Explorer Sport.
We've never run over anything or anyone in any of our cars, with the exception of backing over a bicycle one time ("sans" a person...it was one of our bikes, that we forgot to load) and running over a Crockpot that I set down in the middle of the driveway to open the gate...LOL
SO, I guess the question really is, how much mandated "automating and idiot-proofing" of our vehicles should we have to accept, so incompetent and careless people are permitted to drive?
Or, "kinder, gentler"...if it's a great "option", and affordable, can it just be an "option" (for a small extra price)?!
Why manufacture vehicles where you can't see out the side and rear windows? Or conversely, why BUY a vehicle that you can't see out of? Is that the problem?
Do they have this in France and Germany? (the "Autobahn", you know - HA!)
I was thinking about getting one anyway, for my car. It seems like a very good idea.
There is one on my new car and as the priest I work for says “now I can see who to pick out to back up over” :). I agreed and added I can also see the expression on their face when I do it!
Yeah I don’t know how I ever parked without one. I have an Infiniti and the sight lines are fantastic and it has saved me in crowded parking lots. They are great.
But as you said the government shouldn’t be mandating them. But they have always mandated things on cars so this is nothing new. I won’t lose any sleep over this.
My 2006 Jag S Type has that. Not a camera but a beeper if something is close to the bumper. You definitely notice it cause it is obnoxious. lol
“Let’s make a law mandating a certain standard, buy the company that supplies said mandate, then retire from Congress millionaires!”
You nailed it.
True, but I think we need to let the market decide and personally I don’t need all that stuff in a car. I’d like to see a basic car on the market that is more affordable, just the basics. It could have things like A/C, auto transmission and an AM/FM radio but you have manual adjustable seats, crank windows and so on. What we had in 1970/1975 era cars would be OK with me, heck I miss 8-Track. B-) I’m basically “half-arsed Amish” anyways, I’m the guy who still watches a 1982 Zenith TV. B-)
They only option light trucks like this anymore. Bare necessities like window cranks and non-powered bench seats, etc., but they do exist.
Those are hard to find nowadays, although maybe you could factory-order, but somehow I doubt it except on a really small-size truck (i.e., Ford Ranger)...
I'm anticipating that such a light truck with window cranks and no radio with A/C is going to come in one of two colors: White, or Safety Orange.
Bench seats, I love them too.