
U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras - socalnate1
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/autos/rear-facing-cameras/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
======
ndespres
I was taught to never back a vehicle up without physically turning around to
look out the back window, as rear and side-view mirrors don't give a 100% view
of what's behind you. When I see someone using just mirrors to back up, I
perceive it as lazy or irresponsible driving behavior.

Driving a box truck with no rear visibility makes me uncomfortable and I'll
use a spotter to reverse. If you can't (or won't) look and see behind you, you
should NOT be driving in that direction. Will cameras fix this problem?

The article states that "There are nearly 210 backover deaths each year." I
wonder how the overall safety of a vehicle and its driver will be impacted by
the addition of a possibly distracting LCD in the front seat. Maybe fewer
collisions while reversing, but how many additional distracted driving cases
while driving forward and playing with the car computer?

~~~
EliRivers
Looking out the window also doesn't give you a 100% view. There's a massive
blind spot below your eye level behind the car.

~~~
chadillac
Let's not forget these systems typically have a distance sensor setup with
audible tone. Having some more accurate gauge of obstacles and their relative
distances and the improved visibility is a no brainer. When I read this
headline the first thing I thought was "good, finally."

~~~
drcube
So why weren't those sensors and alarms mandated, as opposed to a redundant
and distracting in-car CCTV system?

------
brohoolio
I'm glad. My automotive industry friends, especially those that are parents
have really really wanted this.

I don't understand the response "to make sure people are responsibly operating
their vehicle." Have you met people?

Newer cars are kind of a pain in the butt to see out of the back. Why? Because
of the roof strength requirements. The columns supporting the roof are bigger,
limiting visibility.

Maybe we should make sure that people are responsibly operating their vehicle
and not flip over their cars. Except that the whole point of safety is to
prepare for the unexpected, to engineer to make sure people can walk away from
a crash. Just last week someone rolled over right in front of me, it wasn't
her fault, someone turned in front of her and hit the front of her car funny
and she swerved flipping over.

She got out of the car scared, but not hurt. Because of those pillars. Those
pillars make it harder to see kids running around behind your car. The camera
addresses that issue, which wasn't as much of a problem in the past when that
woman would likely be a pancake because her car rolled.

People are crazy, especially the guy turning out into oncoming traffic and you
can't fix that as easily as you can installing a camera into a car.

~~~
dingaling
>Newer cars are kind of a pain in the butt to see out of the back. Why?
Because of the roof strength requirements.

Partly, but mainly because of what the designers like to call 'high waistline'
which gives the shape 'energy and aggression'. There is no reason a Ford Focus
should have a tiny rear window mounted high at 40 degrees inclination other
than style.

Plus adhesive attachment of windows cuts a further ~10% of the glass area.

I saw a 1990s Volvo 740 yesterday: absolutely enormous slab windows gasket-
mounted into the frame.

------
scrumper
Ignoring the regulation for a moment, current camera systems are a bit
lacking. Those of us who had good driver training will _always_ look over our
shoulder when reversing, occasionally checking the near-side mirror if needed.
Facing forward to use a screen feels weird. And it's worse than that:

Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center
console, which is bad for three reasons:

1\. It's low down, so you lose part of your peripheral vision which ends up
just picking up the car's interior.

2\. When you're reversing on a road, but facing forwards to look at the
screen, you can't see out the side windows to check for approaching cars
heading towards your rear.

3\. Your peripheral vision is further affected by your focus on a narrow,
highly detailed area - that 9" screen showing a wide-angle view. Your brain
concentrates just on that 'important' area. It's entirely different to looking
out the back window when everything is at the same scale, peripheral and
central. You end up being forced to trust the screen completely, which just
isn't sensible.

Having tried a few on rental cars, I'm very uncomfortable with the constant
attention swapping you end up doing between the screen and the rear window.

These cameras can only be beneficial to people backing out of driveways (which
is the point of the law), but they're not a panacea and I'm not convinced
they're a substitute for an alert driver using mirrors and windows. A useful
additional tool, for sure, but will they be used that way? An audible
proximity alarm feels like a more reasonable thing to mandate to me.

~~~
stronglikedan
> Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center
> console

The newer Acura MDXs have a dedicated screen built into the rear-view mirror
hanging from the windshield. It looks like a normal mirror until you put it in
reverse, and then you can see the output from the backup camera in the left
side of the mirror. It's better than most, but still doesn't solve #2 and #3
from your points.

Basically, be smart and only use it if/when necessary. Use it only as _a_ tool
and not _the_ tool.

~~~
scrumper
> Basically, be smart and only use it if/when necessary. Use it only as a tool
> and not the tool.

Absolutely. I was trying to get that across. I worry a bit that the regulation
will make people think of cameras as all they need to look at.

~~~
stronglikedan
I hope not. I think it will be like rear/side mirrors. You _can_ use only
mirrors to back up, but eventually, they will not be enough, and you will
impact something. I think that the same people that don't look now are the
same people that won't look then.

------
jusben1369
In general I'm not in the "government is too invasive" camp but this one did
have me scratching my head. Isn't the market working just fine? Backup cameras
first appear on top of the line models. Slowly make their way into mid priced
cars and now some of the "low end" new cars have them. I'm sure by 2018
they'll be in 90% of new cars so why add a regulation? Oh well.

~~~
adventured
I assume for the same reason they require brakes, seat belts, mirrors and
airbags. Guaranteed minimum spec.

~~~
jusben1369
Fair point. Hadn't realized it was for airbags.

------
LukeWalsh
This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to
responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to
back up, I've never felt like a camera was necessary. I've driven cars with
backup cameras before but typically just use the rear view mirror or turn my
head.

Maybe others don't feel this way, thoughts?

~~~
cloudwalking
How do you "make sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle?"

~~~
trafficlight
Drivers Education and driving tests are two ideas that come to mind.

------
harrystone
>Several safety advocacy groups sued the government and asked a federal judge
to require backup rules be adopted.

I would be interested to know if these advocacy groups received donations from
any camera manufacturers.

------
JoeAltmaier
My car has one; useless. Its covered by road grime or slush or a raindrop all
the time. I can see out of it for 10 minutes after leaving the car wash and
that's it.

~~~
encoderer
Really?

Mine (A MB GLK) works very well. It's never been too dirty to see, and it has
a great overlay showing range to objects and current trajectory.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
My car is cheap; a Subaru Forester. Tiny plastic bubble lens. Live on a gravel
road; drive in all weather in town.

Maybe this summer it will be better, but its been crap all fall, winter and
now spring (in Iowa).

------
DirtyAndy
A lot of cars with cameras don't seem to have rear object detection systems
(that beep inside the car when something is behind you and you are in
reverse). I doubt most people use a reversing camera to get out of there drive
way, so this move wouldn't seem likely to stop people running over kids -
beepers that go off when something is behind you would seem much more
effective (certainly in my experience).

I don't know about the US, but here in New Zealand these deaths are more
prevalent in lower socio-economic areas, that presumably don't buy as many new
cars - these changes will takes years to filter through to the people that
they might benefit most.

~~~
skybrian
At least in a Prius, the backup camera goes on automatically when you reverse.

~~~
tlrobinson
Does the Prius automatically focus your eyes on the screen too?

------
dbloom
I'm happy to see that the article (briefly) mentions the current regulations
requiring side mirrors instead of side cameras. Side mirrors are the bane of
aesthetic and aerodynamic design. They even cause excess cabin noise,
especially in electric cars. But current NHSTA regulations require side
mirrors, and don't accept side cameras as a substitute.

For example, the Nissan Leaf (like many other cars) has funny-shaped
headlights to prevent excess cabin noise and drag from the side mirrors:
[http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/vehicle-
images/2013...](http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/vehicle-
images/2013/LEF/XGC30NIC161C0/a30ad739fefc5519680bfee9fd1e8323/LEAF/SL/Aerodynamic-
LED-headlights/Exterior)

Tesla's early promotional materials for the Model X show side cameras instead
of mirrors
([http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx](http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx) ). But
apparently they have given up on the regulations changing, because their newer
design prototypes have side mirrors
([http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/14/tesla-model-x-makes-
aut...](http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/14/tesla-model-x-makes-auto-show-
debut-in-detroit/) )

~~~
sschueller
Side mirrors are required and will be required for a long time because when
side cameras fails its all or nothing. A physical mirror can be partially
damaged and still be used.

Almost every car I have owned some electrical device was broken or failed. The
time to get it fixed and the cost usually meant I didn't bother. Same would
happen with the side cameras and many people would just live without it even
though it may be illegal.

A physically broken mirror can be seen and the Police can write you a safety
violation so you have to get it fixed.

I don't think mirros are such a bane on aerodynamics, even F1 cars still use
fairly large mirrors.
[http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72607000/jpg/_72607984...](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72607000/jpg/_72607984_mclaren2_getty.jpg)

------
sssbc
So each year ~5M new cars hit the streets, at an extra $140 each, so the cost
is ~$700M/yr.

There are 210 deaths/yr by backing over, assume these prevent all 210 (they
won't, certainly not until most of the old cars are off the road), this means
each life is worth $3.3M, minimum.

Cool.

But is there a way to invest $700M/yr that will save more than 210 lives/year?

------
0003
This lowers the barrier to entry for front-seat display entertainment in the
car -- what could go wrong?

------
awda
Back-up deaths constitute 210 deaths per year, of 34k auto deaths anually
(2012)?

And this technology is only estimated to prevent 33% of them (60-70)?

I guess every little 0.2% safety improvement is good if it's free... but I'm
not sure this is the most cost effective way to increase car safety.

(Roll cages; higher standards for airbags and various types of collision for
occupants; crumple zones for pedestrians; self-driving cars (if you're going
to go full-sensor anyway, why involve a human at all).)

------
ugk
Mandatory backup cameras, presidential kill lists, uncontrolled spying, &
mandatory corporate welfare. Glad we have our priorities straight America.

------
angersock
So, all new cars will be potential surveillance points. Gotcha.

Thanks, soccer moms.

~~~
ewang1
Easy to just put black tape over it. Or smash the lens...

~~~
jdavis703
If you were to get in an accident while driving in reverse after 2018 this
would significantly increase your odds of being found at fault... I'd imagine.

