ALL cars made on May 1, 2018 to be sold in the US will have back up cameras...

Once more, NHSTA makes the MANY pay for the stupidity of the FEW...an 'automotive-economy' version of the 'Frog in the Frying Pan' syndrome.

 

Indeed!

source: NHTSA text for Federal Register

I'm kinda looking forward to seeing 'who' files a petition. Recently, some of the automotive press 'reporters' (aka., disguised boosters) have tried to poo-poo backup cameras. I'm looking forward to posting on their comment forum,"Well <insert name> you could file your petition at Administrator, . . . "

When I was working against "Bell the Hybrid," I stumbled across this effort, "Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007" and the contrast was startling. The Safety Act had and continues today to literally have 'dead bodies' written on it. About 200 kids and the elderly die each year and usually 7-10 times as many are injured requiring medical attention. That was well before consideration of incidental property damage. Yet this little bon mot showed up March 27, 2014:

Source: AD #1343 &#8211; Honda&#8217;s Packaging Magic, New Autonomous Test Track, Peugeot Teams w/ IBM &#8211; Autoline Daily

There are no dead bodies behind "Bell the Hybrid" but compared to the Cameron Gulbransen Act, it reveals a rot in an NHTSA that at one time appeared to be 'captured' by those with another agenda than auto safety. Heck, even if every car had an automated elephant bell, it would still be damning because empirical data was abused. It suggests there are bigger piles of dead bodies 'hidden in plain sight' in the FARS data.

I have and still complain about IIS 'moving the goal posts' but I've never objected to the actual 1/4 offset impact test. The reason this test is valid are memories of my dead kin and friends who died in just such accidents. The empirical data says it is a valid test, long over-due. It was the 25% offset being 'sprung' on the manufactures and used to beat them up that I object to. It reminds me of the importance of "defensive engineering."

Defensive engineering means pre-emptive analysis and design. Such engineering is not done blindly but has to be based upon analysis of existing facts and data . . . looking beyond the immediate requirements. Well now I'm starting my old man ranting, again.

Bob Wilson

 

In my best (?) De Niro voice imitation, "...You talking to me? "

 

I want to know why it has to be a camera. Couldn't the back up sensors be just as effective, and it is cheaper when to cost of a video screen is considered. The driver still needs to turn around and look back with both systems.

 

I have a backup camera on my Prius, and it's practically useless when it rains, due to distortion from being wet.

Even on dry days, I barely glance at it. I might take a look if I know I'm close to something that I want to avoid bumping into.

I prefer to turn around and actually look out the back with my own two eyes - just like I have for the past 35 years.

 

Who his talking mechanical/analog?

There is a 4 sensor back up kit on Amazon for under $20. The cheapest back up camera kit with screen is $48. Yes, screens are becoming common place in cars, but that doesn't guarantee they still won't charge a premium for them. Most car manufacturers are still charging a premium for a nav system.

A TV sized screen can cost less than smaller ones due to production volumes. Small TVs can cost almost as much as mid-size ones in the product line up with the larger getting pricier.

Cost is only part of the objection. Is there any evidence that the camera will be a more effective solution than the sensors? If not, why have the regulations dictate one over the other then?

And just looking at the small screen means you are caught off guard when an object moves into the camera's field of view. The driver should never rely on just a camera or sensor system when backing up.

 

Normally, I share your sentiment against over-regulation. But not in this particular case. The difference is that right now we are paying for the stupidity of a few with the lives of small children. I would rather pay the fifty bucks.

 

I've found the BUP camera to be most useful on my Prius, using it and the mirrors makes reversing a cinch!! Turning and looking over your shoulder isn't allowed if you're taking your CDL.

DROID4 ?

 

How many CDL requiring vehicles have a rear window? School and some other buses are the only exceptions that come to mind. Even if they did, their size would mean much greater blind spots compared to personal passenger vehicles. they tend to have more, and larger mirrors to make up for that.

 

Many larger JDM vehicles have a mirror attached to the rear allowing you to see what's behind you.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201401251294950/sort/default/usedcars/postcode/hg12aa/radius/1501/quicksearch/true/page/1/onesearchad/used%2Cnearlynew%2Cnew/model/elgrand/make/nissan?logcode=p

Much easier than a camera and screen, though probably just because it's high up. Thinking about it, it's probably cheaper to make a camera.

So I'm for reversing cameras IF they're in the right place and work properly. I find many are too low down to judge depth and thus useless.

 

Very true, but I would argue that the cost of a rear-view camera plus screen is still cheaper than the angled-mirrors I've seen on some of the school buses and PO vehicles I've seen (on this side of The Pond).

DROID4 ?

 

Plus, a camera is more aerodynamic.

A back up camera maybe the best choice due to cost. I'd rather the suppliers of cameras and sensors fight it out than the government choose one through regulation.

 

So, does anyone have an answer about the camera lens when it rains? Has anyone else noticed the same?

My backup camera is absolutely useless, unless of course I remember to pull out a hanky and wipe it off prior to getting into my car. Of course, if it's an absolute downpour, then that will be pointless.

 

Some of the kit camera do have night vision.

 

My first car was a 1979 Peugeot 305.

It had this shiny thing attached to the top of the middle of the windscreen, and two other shiny things attached to the doors. If you looked in them, you could - get this - see what was behind you. Stuff was backwards; I believe they called it a "reflection".

Also, at the back, it had a big clear bit, between the roof and the boot. If you looked over your shoulder, you could see through it to check what was behind you.

I believe there was some interaction between the shiny thing attached to the top of the windscreen and the clear bit between the roof and the boot; I think the shiny thing only worked if you also had the clear bit.

But all of this was in the olden days, and these things came as standard.

 

I have a friend that ran over his cat because it wasn't visible in the mirrors. Those who believe they can see everything behind their vehicle in the mirrors should get a friend or child to get back there so they can find the limits of the blind spot.

MSRP never decreases. Will the camera be the scapegoat for the price increase? Maybe. As more car buyers expect connectivity they will expect a touchscreen.