Industry News: NHTSA Sends Revised Backup Camera Rules To White House, Misses Two Other Deadlines

[William Maley]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has submitted revised rule to the White House and missed two self imposed deadlines.

We'll start with the revised rule. On December 25th, NHTSA submitted a revised rule which could cause automakers to make backup cameras standard on vehicles. The regulation would set new rear visibility standards for light vehicles sold in the United States. Details on the regulation were not given. This is aimed at reducing the number of kids being run over and killed when a vehicle is put into reverse.

Automotive News says that automakers might install backup cameras on their whole line dependent on how strict the regulations are.

NHTSA hopes to have a rule finalized by next January.

As for the two missed self imposed deadlines, The Detroit News reports that NHTSA missed deadlines on automatic braking and requiring vehicle to vehicle communication in the next-generation of vehicles.

Last January, then NHTSA Administrator David Strickland said he planned to make a decision by December 31 on whether or not the agency would make automakers to install devices to allow vehicles to communicate with each other as a way to avoid collisions. The added benefit of this tech is the improvement in traffic flow.

“The Department of Transportation and NHTSA have made significant progress in determining the best course of action for proceeding with additional vehicle-to-vehicle communication activities and expect to announce a decision in the coming weeks,” said NHTSA.

NHTSA and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor conducted a 3,000 car study looking at this tech.

Then in May, Strickland said a decision would be made at the end of year as to whether or not new vehicles should be required to have automatic braking systems to prevent forward collisions. This technology has been shown to reduce the number of injuries and deaths on the roads. At this time, no decision has been made on this.

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), The Detroit News

William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at [email protected] or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

View full article

[David]

NO AND HELL NO!

They want to get more people to drive and sell auto's then stop loading them up on electronic stuff that is not needed.

Add one device to block all cell phone use and force people to actually pay attention to the road or if they want, they can purchase a self driving car for those that cannot be responsible.

It is sad when a child gets hurt or killed, but this is the lack of responsibility for adults who just go out, get in their auto and drive away without looking.

Teach your kids to pick up after themselves and put things away, teach them to not play behind a auto in the drive way, teach kids to be responsible for their actions the same way adults are held accountable for their actions. We do not need additional electronics that can break and increase cost on autos.

This has gotten to a stage of stupidity that your auto has to tell you to check your surrounding areas for kids and toys before driving off. Kids must be taught to also watch out for auto's and proper places to play and leave things.

[dwightlooi]

It is not the government's business to decide what feature(s) a car should have or which consumers should pay for, just like it shouldn't be their business to decide what is covered in your health plan. Think about it for a second, mandated or not a camera and the requisite LCD display to convey the video stream is not free. This means that it may displace other technologies which the consumer may prefer. Let's say it costs $200 to have a backup camera. At the same MSRP for the car it may mean that the manufacturer is forced to drop the common (ultrasonic) proximity sensors. So what if the consumer prefer that over a camera? He no longer have that choice.

Similarly, just because something makes driving safer doesn't mean it is the government's job to mandate it. How about mandating that Convertible drivers wear a helmet? Or, that all Motorcycles be sold with a helmet? How about a Halon fire suppression system in every engine bay or self-sealing fuel tanks?

Government should stick to national defense, basic infrastructure and law enforcement; stop trying to be a nanny!

[balthazar]

If vehicles are going to have car-to-car communications, why not bypass the mandatory cameras and instead mandate 'chipping' all minors. This way the car can 'recognize' a nearby kid, plus kidnapping will be "eliminated'.

Every new 'nanny tech' idea-of-the-month' floated keeps increasing my desire to again have a '60s car as a DD.

[dwightlooi]

No, every minor should be implanted with a GPS transponder. This allows all vehicles to detect and plot on a screen all minors within 50 ft. It also allows parents to track them on their iPhone and makes Amber Alerts obsolete.

Speaking of nanny tech, why don't cars have speed limiters which prevent acceleration past the posted speed limit on any stretch of road? Or, have a system that automatically reports to the DMV the date, time, location and duration at speed anytime a car exceeds 75 mph? Unless the location happens to be a race track you get a ticket in the mail. Tempering with the reporting system or disconnecting it will automatically cause the police to show up at your door and take you to a re-education camp for a live in safety ideology program. You can decline of course, but you'll have to give up your license, give up your right to vote and pay an additional 25% of your income in taxes.

The safest society is one where everyone is on probation from cradle to grave!

[Z-06]

There is a balance between safety, freedom and common sense. Unfortunately paranoia overrules those features for a pseudo equilibrium modern society seeks.

[SoCalCTS]

Queue the wing nuts.

"The regulation would set new rear visibility standards for light vehicles sold in the United States"

This is pure speculation that cameras would be mandatory. It clearly states that manufacturers might react by making cameras standard.

Some people just love to complain.

[balthazar]

^ How is that not the same exact thing; that all LD vehicles would have cameras? Who cares who mandates it?

[Drew Dowdell]

Larger rear glass areas.

NO rear vision camera needed here!

[David]

We should just go to a society like

THX 1138