
NHTSA to require backup cameras on all vehicles - mikestew
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/31/nhtsa-rear-view-cameras/7114531/
======
prbuckley
According to Wikipedia there are approximately 254 million passenger vehicles
in the USA.
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Uni...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_Stats)

Also there are approximately 15 million new cars sold per year.

[http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1567645#bmb=1](http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1567645#bmb=1)

At a cost of ~$100 per vehicle for these cameras that means to get the entire
passenger fleet compliment with this law will cost 25.4 billion dollars and
1.5 billion per year in additional costs. The article states that they
estimate 58-69 lives per year to be saved, round that up to 70. 70/1.5 billion
and we are spending over $21.4 million per life saved. That seems absolute
crazy to me. How many lives could be saved with that amount of money spent in
a more efficent way?

~~~
GauntletWizard
The actual cost is lower; Some percentage, probably even a significant one, of
existing car sales already have these cameras equipped. If the price drops and
the feature is compelling anyway, I can see it being a tenth that in actual
cost, which brings it into line with real life-saving programs. Preventing
deaths is expensive.

My instinct was along your lines, though, and I'm not entirely certain that
the whole idea isn't just a gift to automakers for yet another reason to jack
up prices. What used to be a costly extra is now 'required'.

~~~
prbuckley
I think you are likely correct on the cost. I would honestly like to know what
the most cost effective way is to save a life. My guess would be vaccines in
3rd world.

There is something that still bothers me about laws like these. A very vocal
minority drives the cost up for everyone, while the effectiveness of the law
is questionable. It is of course a tragedy when a young person is killed in an
accident but is this really a good use of the government and law? People need
to be careful when they are operating a car. Also who is going to argue
against saving a toddlers life? That is probably a poor political move. This
just seems like another sign of how weak willed our political system is at
standing up for what is in the interest of the general public and not a vocal
minority.

------
bonkabonka
I really wish that, in addition to the camera, they'd include a sort of
proximity cone (radar, sonic, something) too. Case in point:

Coworker of mine gets himself a Leaf - loves it to death. So, to partake of
his joy, we all take a ride with him to Chipotle to grab lunch. Right next
door to the restaurant in the strip mall is one of those UPS Pack-n-Ship
places. We didn't pay it a lot of attention when we pulled in but right behind
us, backed up to the front of the UPS store, is one of their short-length
semi-trailers. Not an issue until we're backing out - dude came withing
centimeters of smashing out his back window because he was relying on the
camera which only showed the legs of the trailer and not the deck.

This isn't to say that the cameras aren't good, but they do have limitations
and can lend a sense of false security.

~~~
a3n
I think I would use the camera to check clear for what it covers, but look
over my shoulder for actual backing up. The camera isn't going to show cars
and pedestrians coming from either side. I'd probably have trouble steering
backward through a camera anyway.

Actually it'd be cool if you could see the display while you were twisted
around looking backward.

------
hyperion2010
Back over 'accidents' don't happen because you can't see what is behind you.
They happen because you are oblivious to your surroundings. People can't
handle their own guilt so they try to pawn it off on society. Well guess what,
99+ percent of all vehicles never back over a child. It has nothing to do with
the "visibility systems."

~~~
mikeash
Why should we believe you over the NHTSA on this question?

~~~
Perdition
Because his statement was not loaded with emotion like the one from the NHTSA.

>""We are committed to protecting the most vulnerable victims of back-over
accidents — our children and seniors," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx
said in a statement."

This rule doesn't pass the "sniff" test. There is absolutely nothing backing
this except an estimate that several dozen lives might be saved. No cost
effectiveness analysis, no comparison to other changes.

~~~
mikeash
Actually, his statement was just as loaded with emotion. It was just a
different emotion. Instead of "think of the children", it was the typical nerd
emotional appeal of "the problem is that people are idiots and if they would
just stop being idiots then we wouldn't have to deal with people being
idiots."

Regarding your "absolutely nothing backing this" statement, did you read
through their documentation before saying this, or did you just assume? It's
pretty extensive.

[http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS-111_Re...](http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS-111_Rear_Visibility_Final_Rule.pdf)

~~~
Perdition
I was talking about their statements, not information buried in a report the
public won't read. You think people would approve of this rule if the NHTSA
had of worked, "Based on the aforementioned revised estimates for costs and
benefits, the net cost per equivalent life saved for rear visibility systems
meeting the requirements of today’s final rule ranges from $15.9 to $26.3
million.", into their public statement?

If you actually read the report it is clear this has nothing to do with rear-
vision camera systems being cost effective and is just about the NHTSA doing
what they are told by congress.

>"Throughout this rulemaking process, the agency has been sensitive to the
costs of today’s rule and has sought to ensure that the requirements adopted
impose the least amount of regulatory burden on the economy while still
achieving Congress’ goal of reducing fatalities and injuries resulting from
backover crashes."

And hyperion2010 was right, having a rear-vision system doesn't mean you will
use it (where I live it is illegal to use them when actually reversing). The
solution to these accidents is education.

Technology is often the answer to human stupidity, but not at $15.9 to $26.3
million per life saved.

~~~
mikeash
Sorry, the telepathy lobe of my brain was damaged when I was young, so when I
read "There is absolutely nothing backing this" I took that as meaning what it
said.

~~~
Perdition
Even if you took it that way there is still nothing backing this. Finding the
best way to implement a dumb policy does not mean the overall policy is backed
by a good argument.

Even if this was the most cost-effective life saving measure the NHTSA could
implement, it still doesn't mean it is the most cost-effective life saving
measure that government could take.

~~~
mikeash
The argument was that these accidents don't happen because of an inability to
see, but due to being "oblivious". Cost effectiveness doesn't enter into it.
The question _at hand_ is simply whether back up cameras save lives. NHTSA
says they do. hyperion2010 says they don't.

I asked hyperion2010 why I should believe him over the NHTSA. You then replied
with two completely nonsensical arguments:

1\. That the NHTSA was wrong because their statement was loaded with emotion.
This is silly, because emotion doesn't make a statement _wrong_ any more than
it makes a statement right. So let's move on to the meat:

2\. That the NHTSA has no evidence for their claim.

And this is just plain wrong. The link I provided shows a reasonably thorough
study which illustrates that having a camera _does_ substantially reduce these
types of accidents. It is not perfect, because some people really are
oblivious. But neither is it useless, because some accidents are not due to
simple obliviousness.

Your response to this was that it somehow doesn't count if it's not spelled
out in their press release, which is just plain stupid.

If you want to discuss the cost/benefit tradeoff of this decision and whether
the money would be better spent elsewhere, go for it. But that was not what we
were discussing in this thread, so don't act like statements about cost
effectiveness are somehow relevant.

------
mcovey
I've driven several cars with a backup camera and never used it, instead I
used my eyes. Maybe I'm just not used to them since my main vehicle doesn't
have one, but I feel like the one time I need it to work it will have some
sort of lag/delay or a blind spot and cause me an accident if I trust it.

~~~
stretchwithme
I guess the assumption is that people will be more aware if they can see
what's behind them on TV. But is this true? Has this been studied? Or do
people back up more safely when rely on their vision and who aren't glued to
the TV?

------
russell
Good idea. While they're at it get rid of those passenger side convex mirrors,
"objects are closer than they appear." One of the functions of a rear view
mirror is to tell you where objects are behind you when you are changing lanes
in heavy traffic. You can cover your blind spot by proper adjustment of your
side mirror.

~~~
bencpeters
Don't forget that in some areas of the country, we get snow pretty regularly -
in my experience back-up camera lenses get completely covered by road grit in
snowy zones pretty quickly - makes it hard to rely on for something critical
like highway visibility for a few months a year.

~~~
RealGeek
It is not an issue at all. It happened 3 times with me during the whole
winter, and I quickly wiped and cleaned the lens. The windows and mirrors get
dirty too, we often clean them.

~~~
dfc
When you say "it happened three times" this whole winter do you mean "it
snowed three times"? I live in Syracuse, NY. We get 100+ inches every year, so
I have some experience with the slushy salt+sand mixture that covers
everything near a road in the winter. You can clean your car all you want but
as soon as you spend 2 minutes driving a lot of the salt+sand+slush is back.
How do you clean the lens while driving?

~~~
RealGeek
I live in NY as well, and it snowed every week most of the winter. My camera
lens got dirty or blocked by ice on only three occasions. Mostly, the camera
is clear even when windows are dirty.

Is cleaning camera lens for a total of 3 times in a year a big deal? We clean
our cars a lot more than that.

~~~
dfc
You are correct 3 times in one winter is not a lot. I am saying that 3 times
in one winter is not an accurate estimate of how often I would have to clean
the camera. How much snow did you receive in your area of NY? Did you get half
the snow Syracuse did?

    
    
      City       2013-14     Avg.
      ----------------------------
      Syracuse    131.6      123.8
      Buffalo     128.7       94.7
      Rochester   112.3       99.5
      Binghamton   84.4       83.4
      Albany       71.1       59.1
    

from: [http://goldensnowball.com/](http://goldensnowball.com/)

------
zwily
I actually get really nervous driving a car without a backup camera now. This
is good news.

~~~
JshWright
Your average passenger car has darn near 360 degrees of visibility, with very
good mirror coverage.

I can see how a camera would be useful (though I find them difficult to use,
as I'm never sure if the image is reversed or not), but it should never be
necessary (at least until the point where the driver is no longer necessary).

~~~
mikeash
360 degrees around what axis?

Backup cameras allow you to see low objects directly behind you, which no
mirror system does on any passenger car I've ever seen.

------
cpr
Sadly, it won't help in the most tragic cases where a toddler is already under
the car. (We had friends who had to suffer through such an incident some years
back.)

------
TheLoneWolfling
Cynical side of me says "hey look! More cameras for TLAs to use!"

Also, unsure about cost/benefit here.

------
alayne
Sounds like a huge cost for little gain. Why doesn't the NHTSA require daytime
running lights?

------
nradov
link to the final rule:

[http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS-111_Re...](http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS-111_Rear_Visibility_Final_Rule.pdf)

------
salimmadjd
Can anyone comment on value of patent and potential licensing revenues.

I found one patent holder [1] but I assume they are several others that can
claim and request licensing fees.

[1]
[http://www.google.com/patents/US20060103727](http://www.google.com/patents/US20060103727)

------
lutorm
If auto makers didn't design huge vehicles from which the drivers can't see
the ground behind them for hundreds of feet, this wouldn't be much of an
issue.

~~~
whyenot
Kind of difficult to design a truck that does not have this problem. The Ford
F-series truck is the #1 selling automobile in the US (Chevy Silverado and
Dodge Ram, also trucks, are #2 and #3).

~~~
peeters
Or a trunk, for that matter.

It's not at 100 feet behind you that the trouble lies; mirrors are sufficient
for that. It's the 1-5 feet behind you that you're completely blind to with
mirrors (assuming you don't have transparent rear seats and hatch).

