SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:27AM
from the so-drivers-will-look-at-a-screen-and-not-where-they-are-going dept.
from the so-drivers-will-look-at-a-screen-and-not-where-they-are-going dept.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed rule Monday requiring all new light vehicles including cars, SUVs, trucks and vans - to have "rear-view visibility systems," in effect, requiring reversing or backup cameras.
The rule which would be final in 60 days would start phasing in on May 1, 2016 models and be at 100% May 1, 2018.
NCommander adds: Fixed the headline to show that this is a proposed rule, and not that its mandated (yet).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
NHTSA Proposal Requires All Vehicles Have Rear-View Cameras
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 58 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fishybell on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:58AM
When I was a kid a UPS truck backed up over a kid in our neighborhood, killing him. The UPS driver could never have seen a the three year old at the end of the cul-de-sac for the entire time he was backing up; the blind spot behind the vehicle is just too big. The same kind of accident happens all the time to people across the world, and I for one, would much rather have every vehicle include the roughly $200 safety item to save the hundreds of lives each year that are lost and prevent the thousands of injuries.
The other side of the coin is this will mean I take less time in parking lots waiting for people to back out of stalls. If the answer to people not knowing how to drive is to help them, I'm all for it. By no means are you being required to look at the camera. Feel free to put a piece of tape over it if you are truly paranoid, but I'll take the slight convenience for me and major safety upgrade for most SUVs and trucks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:07AM
and I for one, would much rather have every vehicle include the roughly $200 safety item to save the hundreds of lives each year that are lost and prevent the thousands of injuries.
So would you rather that was done in a cost effective way? Or is doing it for the kids worth squandering the wealth of society? There are many decisions like this where lots of our wealth is burned because it'll save the lives of a handful of people. The more we waste on poor risk management decisions the less wealth we have for everything else.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:18AM
Squandering the wealth of society!
Wow. Just wow. What else would you spend this 200 dollars on?
Backup cams are useful for more than just not running over kids and cats.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by starcraftsicko on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:10AM
-
Just for discussion, what uses? Kids seem to be the justification for so much of our stupidity, and I don't have the cat (or dog) disease, so I'd really like to know.
-
Squandering of wealth for nothing is a valid concern. Maybe $200 is nothing to you, but there will be real people who are unable to obtain vehicles and to hold jobs over that $200 added onto the cost of a ~ $14000 entry level car (used car blah, but the added cost is passed along one way or another). I'm guessing you drive something... bigger, but with the smugness, maybe it's a nice Prius. Nice that you can afford that, eh?
-
If the damn things are so useful, lets put them on motorcycles and skate boards and rascals and sneakers. And live feed it all to the PD and NSA because terrorists. Hyperbole maybe... but there are "cars" on which these cameras are equally absurd.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1) by iNaya on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:37AM
It has cost me much more than $200 reversing into things that I didn't know were there.
Maybe that's just me.
Maybe we shouldn't have police forces either. We spend a lot more than $200 each on them.
While we're at it, lets stop paying for an army as well. I'm sure no-one will ever want to take advantage of that.
And also, let's get rid of the EPA. I'm sure the free market will keep all the cities nice, clean, and pollution free. It's magical after all!
---
The cost will end up being a lot less than $200 per vehicle anyway. Economies of scale and all that.
And it's certainly not "squandering wealth for nothing". My car would be less likely to get reversed into, the stuff along my driveway would be less likely to get backed into.
There are advantages to them being on cars - it's really hard to see what is low and behind you. There would be no advantage having them on skate boards or sneakers - so that doesn't make for a very good slippery slope argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @11:28AM
> It has cost me much more than $200 reversing into things that I didn't know were there.
30 years of driving. I have never once, ever, reversed (backed) up into anything.
Why? Hmm... Maybe because I:
1) pay attention
2) look first, backup second
I'd say it is just you.
(Score: 1) by velex on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:28PM
This!
Use GOAL. Get Out And Look.
The toddler killed by the UPS driver above was a victim of failure to use GOAL.
That being said, if I ever drive a big truck again, I will likely be looking into getting a camera for the trailer, since that would help turn a backing maneuver that would be 15 to 20 minutes of GOAL into 5 minutes of looking at the rear camera. However, it doesn't obviate the need to GOAL at least once in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @03:43PM
Children move, dude. The ups driver can get out and look every time he backs up (100 times a day 6 days a week 52 weeks a year for years... That's quite worthwhile to save a one time $200 cost) and that won't stop a toddler from tricycling out from behind something else and into his path after he's walked back to his driver's seat.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:33PM
"It has cost me much more than $200 reversing into things that I didn't know were there.
Maybe that's just me."
No, it's not just you, there are plenty of idiots like you in the world.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:54PM
Then buy rear-view camera systems for your vehicles. Don't impose costs on the rest of us due to your poor driving behavior. It's worth noting that I've never had to pay damages for backing into objects. But then I both use a car with good visibility and maneuverability, and I look when I back up.
(Score: 1) by GmanTerry on Thursday April 03 2014, @07:18AM
Backing is one of the more dangerous things done in low visibility vehicles. I drove 4WD high clearance trucks when I worked maintaining electronic/microwave equipment on mountain tops. I worked for a large public utility and for the Dept. of Energy. I was a member of the Safety Committee. We had the policy to park in a spot where you can drive through and not have to back out if possible. My car came with a camera but I still drive through when I park so I do not have to back up. It has become second nature.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 02 2014, @02:49PM
What else would you spend this 200 dollars on?
Seriously, you can't answer this question yourself? It's not like the only thing we spend money on is safety improvements.
Food. Shelter. Safety improvements that have a far better ROI.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 02 2014, @05:12PM
I have seen systems where proximity sensors apply the brake for you. That might be better than the camera.
(Score: 1) by PlasticCogLiquid on Wednesday April 02 2014, @04:32AM
I could have ran over a couple of kids on bikes riding along with their mother, I want to call her stupid as hell letting them ride past the cars at the gas station I was leaving but I guess it's not something you'd think about as you're riding along.
I'm a very careful driver, and I looked behind me, then double checked before I back up and two little kids on tiny bicycles went past on my side mirrors, I did not see them on my rear view because my cars rear end was taller than them. She probably has no idea that her two children almost got killed that day.
If I'd had a reverse cam I would have seen them. So I support this fully, no doubt in my mind. That was a scary moment for me the more I thought about it. Then, this is Florida too and people are totally fucking stupid when driving/riding any kind of vessel here. If I was a native Floridian then they'd be dead.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by starcraftsicko on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:42AM
This is why I don't like this particular (proposed, but nearly certain to be adopted) regulation:
-
Backup cameras are GREAT for some tight parking situations and if you are driving a vehicle with a huge blind spot. Vans. Large pick-ups. Anything to help. But.
-
In anything with a decent rear window, even some of the vehicles I just mentioned, a backup camera isn't the best place to look when backing a car (except in some special case parking situations). The best option is to turn your f_____g head around and look. Unless you have a fairly substantial disability, your vision + peripheral vision is going to give you more information and more context than any of your mirrors or a backup camera. Staring at the camera display is probably the least-safe thing you can do.
-
This is a one-size-fits-all solution that adds an unnecessary expense for those that opt out of a SUV for really no safety benefit.
-
Blah blah for the children blah blah.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 1) by Hombre on Wednesday April 02 2014, @07:34AM
I would rather that we teach people that they need to be aware of their surroundings, realize that the world does not revolve around them, take the initiative and start accepting responsibility for their actions, and not walk behind the damn car.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday April 02 2014, @08:24AM
Most of the victims are pets & kids far too young for their brains to be capable of what you're expecting, regardless of how hard adults try to train them. It only takes one mistake or moment of inattentiveness from the person watching them for one to escape and wander into danger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02 2014, @09:23AM
Wow, you were going great 'til the final 6 words. How about replacing them with "not drive a deadly vehicle into a space that you aren't 100% sure is free for you to do so"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lhsi on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:19PM
I would rather that we teach people that they need to be aware of their surroundings, realize that the world does not revolve around them, take the initiative and start accepting responsibility for their actions, and learn how to use the tonne of metal they are sat in properly so they don't kill anyone.
As mentioned, not all kids are going to have the brain capacity yet to be able to do all that. I would like to think that drivers do.