Rearview cameras required in all new cars by 2014.

[Doug3]

http://www.investorplace.com/2012/02...-cars-by-2014/

[phins2rt]

Time to buy some stock!

[Marioshi]

I love this, punish everyone because idiot SUV drivers cant back out without killing people.

[Xiaoschi]

Originally Posted by phins2rt

Time to buy some stock!

Which one???

[RMurphy]

I don't think it's quite as terrible as all that. If the overall increase in cost to the end buyer is less than what some of us spend on a nice dinner a couple of times a year, I think it's not a terribly horrific addition. I could see it improving people's parallel parking a fair amount too.

Specifically in the S, I can't see a damn thing if I try to turn my head and look over my shoulder when backing up. I rely *completely* on my mirrors. I have no choice. I'm too short to see over the back of the car. If I had a backup camera, I'd use it as yet another tool at my disposal.

I look at it this way... it's just another tool available to me. I recall a time (during my driving lifetime too!) when car manufacturers didn't include right side mirrors as a matter of course. Now, I wouldn't buy a car without one unless it was a vintage car. You know, power brakes, power steering, air conditioning...all the things we take for granted are now standard and most of us wouldn't even consider a modern car without those things.

[jsenclosures]

it will cost the auto industry $160-200 a vehicle...it will most likely cost the consumer $1000 per vehicle

i have 2 of them on my truck (oem on the tailgate, alpine on the rear bumper), i think they're great. But i think it's bs that they are trying to make them required, let the consumer make that choice.

[RMurphy]

Jsen, why $1000? Just curious who calculated that figure.

[Marioshi]

Roseanne,

I think this is a safety feature that should be included on vehicles with poor rearward visabilty not all cars. The s2000 is a small car, even with the top up visability is better than in some of these SUVs. Most of these accidents are SUV owners backing over their own children, often times infants in car seats.

Lets hold drivers to a higher standard. Why are we making it easier and easier to be a lazy driver?

[Silverstone_Ryan]

I like the cameras in SUV's for sure. I have a slopped driveway and kids, both in my house and in the neighborhood. From a level parked position in the garage you literally can't see the driveway while you are backing up until the car gets completely out of the garage and angled downward. By that time you've moved at least a car length from your starting location. With all the kids running around I really like the back-up camera in my wife's Highlander. It's just a little added security so that kids don't become speedbumps.

[jsenclosures]

Originally Posted by RMurphy

Jsen, why $1000? Just curious who calculated that figure.

Because that's what the dealer will most likely charge you. They charge you ~1700-2500 for a navigation unit when you can buy a better aftermarket one yourself for 1/4 the price. So why wouldn't they mark up back up cameras, they're already doing it now if you get it equipt as a factory option

[Switchblade]

Originally Posted by Marioshi

Lets hold drivers to a higher standard. Why are we making it easier and easier to be a lazy driver?

This!

[RMurphy]

Originally Posted by Marioshi

Lets hold drivers to a higher standard. Why are we making it easier and easier to be a lazy driver?

I don't think including this additional tool means the industry is making it easier to be a lazy driver. I think it is a matter of recognizing two things: 1) that you just can't see what is behind you and 2) the known fact that people make mistakes and if it's plausible to add additional safety features which will substantially reduce the likelihood of mistakes we should consider the ROI for it. We can't eliminate mistakes, but we can provide additional reasonable items (third brake light, air bags out in places one never thought they could be stuffed, etc) which will minimize the impact of those mistakes.

Originally Posted by jsenclosures

Because that's what the dealer will most likely charge you. ...

Okay, so that number is just based on what you think. Not saying you are wrong. Just identifying the source as your conjecture based on your buying experiences which may be extensive.

[Marioshi]

This is the disturbing part of the problem " In the US, fifty children are involved in backover incident each week and in over 70% of these incidents a parent or close relative is behind the wheel."

If you cant account for your own children while backing the car out, I dont think having a camera will help you. This is a parenting problem not a driving problem. I can see behind my vehicles just fine. I think we are making up excuses for the lazy people that I see not LOOKING behind them.

[RMurphy]

Oh boy. Well, I would say it's a human problem, not a parenting one.

I'm not a parent, but I have a lot of nieces and nephews. The little buggers get all into places you never expect and they do it in a heartbeat. My Dad once backed over a tricycle in our driveway. Luckily, no one was on it. Shook him up pretty badly.

For myself, I would figure the rearview camera to be mighty handy avoiding other people's children in parking lots and avoiding short stationary objects as well as fitting into tight parallel parking spaces.

[Vanishing Point]

With the fact we have warning labels on five gallon buckets, this mandate really doesn't surprise me at all. I have a camera on one vehicle I own (non S) and I do not use it at all, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if a fairly large group of drivers avoid using them.

I guess they will have to change the drivers handbook to require you also check your rear camera before backing.

[Marioshi]

I just dont see this really saving lives. The types of people that are leaving their children in carseats on the ground behind their vehicles will still exist. The people who dont look behind them while backing up will still exist and they probably wont look at their rearview camera monitor either. Its been said before, you can't fix stupid.

will it prevent a few freak accidents? Sure, but not enough to make it worth mandating.

/end rant

[RMurphy]

Originally Posted by Vanishing Point

I guess they will have to change the drivers handbook to require you also check your rear camera before backing.

If a driver has one of these cameras, doesn't use it, and hits something while driving in reverse, then that driver is negligient. That, as Marioshi said, is something we can't fix: being stupid.

[Jim21680]

It seems fairly clear that adding a mandated rear-view camera will also, by default, add a "mandated" navigation system. It's just makes it too easy....

Really, what else are they going to do with that screen for the other 99.999% of the time the car is not in reverse??

This might actually cause more accidents, in that people will become completely reliant on the camera, and not turn their damn head at all!

[Vanishing Point]

Originally Posted by RMurphy

If a driver has one of these cameras, doesn't use it, and hits something while driving in reverse, then that driver is negligient. That, as Marioshi said, is something we can't fix: being stupid.

What I was referring to was DMV would have to make an addendum to the drivers handbook covering the use of the camera in addition to looking over one's shoulder before backing. I.E. more legalese to cover unsafe backing.

[RMurphy]

Originally Posted by Vanishing Point

What I was referring to was DMV would have to make an addendum to the drivers handbook ...

Not an addendum. They would just print up a new book. Actually, since they have to include info about new/changed laws, they have to create a new one each year anyway.

Originally Posted by Jim21680

It seems fairly clear that adding a mandated rear-view camera will also, by default, add a "mandated" navigation system. It's just makes it too easy....

Well, actually, no because not all rear view cameras display via a nav screen on the dash. The ones I have seen in person myself have all been built into the rearview mirror.

Originally Posted by Jim21680

in that people will become completely reliant on the camera, and not turn their damn head at all!

You mean kind of like the people who rely completely on their mirrors right now because they see *better* out of the mirrors than by trying to look over their shoulders?

[RMurphy]

Oh here's a shocker (not).

There was at least one factual mistake in that article in the link above.

The article states:
"In a preliminary version of the mandate circulated for public comment, regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle."

That's actually a completely incorrect quote. Because I'm weird this way, I went to the original report (which was released in 2010 -- the industry has been phasing in the standards since then).

The original report actually says:
"When installed in a vehicle without any existing adequate display screen, rearview camera systems are estimated to cost consumers between $159 and $203 per vehicle. For a vehicle that already has an adequate display, such as one found in navigation units, their incremental cost is estimated at $58."

So the cost to the *consumer* would peak at $203. Reviewers of the report also indicated they felt some of the estimated costs may have been high. These numbers were based on technology available in 2007. Technology costs decrease as the technology improves (I know what I paid for my most recently purchased PC, and my first PC cost... well, let's just not GO there).

I drop $160 on a nice dinner for two a few times a year -- and that's *without* a bottle of wine. Add the vino and all bets are off.

[kgf3076]

Originally Posted by jsenclosures

Because that's what the dealer will most likely charge you. They charge you ~1700-2500 for a navigation unit when you can buy a better aftermarket one yourself for 1/4 the price. So why wouldn't they mark up back up cameras, they're already doing it now if you get it equipt as a factory option

You overlook the fact that normally that back up camera comes as part of some package that generally has an upgraded sound system, GPS, a sub-woofer, self-dimming mirror, etc. The back-up camera is a nominal part of that cost.

[Glenn1]

more weight!!...more weight!!....I hope some types (sports) of cars are exempt from this.

[RMurphy]

Originally Posted by Glenn1

more weight!!...more weight!!....I hope some types (sports) of cars are exempt from this.

So does that mean your S doesn't have air conditioning? And lord knows that cruise control stuff weighs a ton and...

I think if I'm looking to shave weight off my car, the first place I can start is that lump of movable ballast occupying the driver's seat. I'm working on removing about 8-10 pounds right now in time for summer.

[Glenn1]

Y'kno, Murph, I'm thinking of ditching the spare tire. I never fill more than half the tank and if I personally lose more weight, I may become the invisible man.

[chazdawg35]

Murphy LOSE weight! Jays not going to like that, LOL!

[philiam]

Originally Posted by RMurphy

So does that mean your S doesn't have air conditioning? And lord knows that cruise control stuff weighs a ton and...

I think if I'm looking to shave weight off my car, the first place I can start is that lump of movable ballast occupying the driver's seat. I'm working on removing about 8-10 pounds right now in time for summer.

Murphy, lose 8-10 lbs. and you'll need to wear ballast on a windy day.

[jsenclosures]

Originally Posted by RMurphy

Okay, so that number is just based on what you think. Not saying you are wrong. Just identifying the source as your conjecture based on your buying experiences which may be extensive.

Let's take a look at the tpms now required on cars. I can buy a complete setup (all 4 sensors and a viewing screen for 150-200 aftermarket). For my Toyota the dealer charges 120 per sensor, 160 to program a sensor and however much the control box inside the truck costs.

[Cupkake.Luver]

Originally Posted by Marioshi

This is the disturbing part of the problem " In the US, fifty children are involved in backover incident each week and in over 70% of these incidents a parent or close relative is behind the wheel."

If you cant account for your own children while backing the car out, I dont think having a camera will help you. This is a parenting problem not a driving problem. I can see behind my vehicles just fine. I think we are making up excuses for the lazy people that I see not LOOKING behind them.

+1

[AP1S2000]

Is there anything the government doesn't try to get involved in these days?

[Switchblade]

Originally Posted by AP1S2000

Is there anything the government doesn't try to get involved in these days?

Don't think so.....

[S2000 Bob]

Hey guys-

The problem is bigger than you think. I had a heart stopping experience in the local shopping mall parking lot. I have an SUV with the spare tire mounted on the rear tailgate (not the best design, I agree!). I was just getting ready to back out of my space and being the cautious type, I waited a couple of seconds only to see a little old lady walk past my truck. She was so small and close to my truck that I couldn't have seen her, especially since I don't have a backup camera and her head didn't even clear the spare tire! I just said a little prayer to thank God I didn't run over her. But I see this kind of thing going on in parking lots all the time. I agree that backup cameras are not necessary on all cars (especially most sport cars), but for any vehicle with large blind spots, it should be required!!

S2000 Bob

[jsenclosures]

Originally Posted by S2000 Bob

Hey guys-

The problem is bigger than you think. I had a heart stopping experience in the local shopping mall parking lot. I have an SUV with the spare tire mounted on the rear tailgate (not the best design, I agree!). I was just getting ready to back out of my space and being the cautious type, I waited a couple of seconds only to see a little old lady walk past my truck. She was so small and close to my truck that I couldn't have seen her, especially since I don't have a backup camera and her head didn't even clear the spare tire! I just said a little prayer to thank God I didn't run over her. But I see this kind of thing going on in parking lots all the time. I agree that backup cameras are not necessary on all cars (especially most sport cars), but for any vehicle with large blind spots, it should be required!!

S2000 Bob

Truth be told, you used some driving skills, some PATIENCE, took the time to look and didn't hit end up hitting anyone. This is what every driver should be doing regardless!

[RMurphy]

Originally Posted by AP1S2000

Is there anything the government doesn't try to get involved in these days?

If they don't get involved and enact safety laws, we bitch about it and demand to know what's being done by our government with tax payer's money. If they do get involved and enact safety laws, we bitch about it and demand to know why they are being invasive and wasting tax payer's money.

Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask is if there is anything we won't bitch about.

[RMurphy]

Originally Posted by S2000 Bob

I agree that backup cameras are not necessary on all cars (especially most sport cars), but for any vehicle with large blind spots, it should be required!!

S2000 Bob

The 2010 study actually looked into that option and the reasons why they recommended all cars (in the phased in approach which has been being implemented already) instead of just large vehicles was interesting.

It's a good read, if anyone wants to know what the actual recommendations are and what went into the research which lead to them. It's not all legal-ese and it's not boring if you have even the slightest interest in cars at all.

[RMurphy]

Originally Posted by philiam

Murphy, lose 8-10 lbs. and you'll need to wear ballast on a windy day.

It's been a few months since you last saw me. I base the need to lose weight on how my clothes fit. At present they range about 5-10 pounds too snug. At least it isn't like I was about 2 years ago when I was at a stress induced all time weight low which was not good and even my "skinny" clothes were too loose.

[Xiaoschi]

When they adding a rear view camera, you gonna need to add a LCD screen with it also. both of them is way over $300-500(on customers bills). I don't believe this is going to happen.

[Doug3]

Don't forget that brave servicemen have died in numerous wars so that Americans would have the freedom to run over their own kids in the driveway if they choose.

[fm_sd]

Originally Posted by S2000 Bob

<cut> But I see this kind of thing going on in parking lots all the time. I agree that backup cameras are not necessary on all cars (especially most sport cars), but for any vehicle with large blind spots, it should be required!!

S2000 Bob

I noticed that someone at work has an older 4runner, and it has curved mirrors on the inside C pillars. You can actually see to the sides of the back as you back out. Don't recall how much down you can see, but some of these designs could be just as suitable. I always thought the sonic sensors in the bumper were a good idea.

[RMurphy]

Originally Posted by fm_sd

I noticed that someone at work has an older 4runner, and it has curved mirrors on the inside C pillars. You can actually see to the sides of the back as you back out. Don't recall how much down you can see, but some of these designs could be just as suitable. I always thought the sonic sensors in the bumper were a good idea.

The study looked into the idea of mirrors as well.

They also addressed the sensors in the bumper. They *are* a good idea except they found that people would hear the sensors go off, stop and wait a couple of seconds, and then continue on assuming it was a false alarm when it didn't stop alarming while they waited. However, when faced with an *image* of a person, animal, or other object in a camera view, people actually paid attention to it and didn't continue driving.