Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Backup Camera Rule Pushed Back To 2015

    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    June 24, 2013

    The federal mandate for new vehicles to come equipped with backup cameras has been delayed, once again. According to Automotive News, the mandate has been pushed back to 2015 due to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration examining the cost of implementing this mandate.

    U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, said in a letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., that more analysis on how much this rule will cost automakers is necessary. Previously, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the cost of implementing the rule would be around $2.7 billion.

    Automakers aren't fully happy with this regulation due to the cost and that the regulation should apply to large vehicles, not all of them.

    "Automakers are providing cameras in cars today for greater vision and for new driver assists, and consumers should decide how best to spend their safety dollars on these technologies. This is a decision for consumers," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

    Regulators are considering giving out incentives in their safety ratings to vehicles that have a backup camera. Currently, regulators give out incentives to those that have electronic stability control.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    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.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I totally agree that this rule should NOT be a rule. At least it was pushed back but still this is going to move more and more people from having their own freedom machine to mass transit which is being cut due to the lack of tax dollars and the excessive social programs. States are going bankrupt and they do not see that they are to blame for this total attitude of we have to protect everyone from themselves.

    This needs to be killed along with all of the other electronic nanny devices.

    It is not the Governments responsibility to dictate what is and is not sold in a free market economy. Just as I believe it is NOT the states right to tell you, you have to wear a seat belt. Common sense tells me it is safer, but then where are the seat belts on the public buses and school buses.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    some folks need back up cameras on themselves to use the rest room........

    i think these cameras should be encouraged maybe not mandated.

    they really aren't totally useful. at least you can see if you are going to back up over your kid on his bike.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Maybe because it's a new fangled item that I find useful, but I really like the backup camera feature. I'm glad to see GMC is putting it standard on many of it's vehicles, as I'd option this feature anyway.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Backup Camera is useful for SUV's and Trucks pulling a trailer as it does help ease the connection but otherwise making this a rule of must have is just stupid. If parents cannot manage their kids and teach them to not play behind a vehicle and the parent cannot check the vehicle to make sure no one is behind them when they back up then they have no one to blame but themselves.

    The GOV should not be having to think for you and protect yourself from your own lack of common sense and accountability.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is another example of why Government should take less and do less. I don't need the government forcing backup cameras down my throat or forcing me to pay for one. In fact, getting fixated on a backup camera instead of looking around when backing up is a bad idea. Also, there are other technologies (eg. sky view or sonar sensors) which if backup cameras are mandatory may be displaced -- for cost reasons or because the infotainment screen would have been occupied by back up camera imagery.

    Market demand and consumer preference should set equipment standards for automotive frills, not the opinion of some government appointee. From a purely libertarian standpoint, even mandating seat belts and airbags is an over reach -- individuals should have the right to self-endanger by driving without seat belts or buying a car without airbags, as much as they have a right to choose to ride a motorcycle, go surfing or go sky diving (all of which are arguably more dangerous that driving without a seat belt / airbag). But, this backup camera nonsense is getting to the point where government is mandating frills.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The GOV should not be having to think for you and protect yourself from your own lack of common sense and accountability.

    Actually, it's not that government should not have to do so. It is that government should not have the right to do so.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The other day I watched as a woman was trying to back her Lexus SUV into a tight parking garage parking spot while I was backing out. She was clearly using her sensors and camera... as she pulled forward towards me I was thinking, "Lady, my rear parking sensor is chrome and weighs over 150 lbs, which of us is going to win here?"

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Yeah...Rolex too.  *sigh* I am not enraged by this kind of business model, though. I understand the reasons as to why some brands go for this.  If the marketing and the sales tactic itself is done correctly, it ensures that the brand is viewed as prestigious and in turn desirable and the limited object that is sold is  therefore rare and exclusive.  Which in turn makes more money than brain folk think they have an object that nobody can have and makes those that do not have it wish that they did have it which in turn creates a must obtain it before the other guy obtains it.   Ferrari has perfected this formula.  No matter what limited car they come out with next, anybody with some money and clout and obviously more money than brains will always feel like they need to own the next big thing Ferrari.  Ferrari has been doing this since forever.  Porsche and Rolex only figured this out recently.  They have some bugs to work out with their marketing though. Ferrari's marketing is unbelievably excellent in preserving the prestige it has created for itself.  The question of the the sales tactic itself?    Well... its a private club that the company wants to create for itself.  And that is all that it is.  The company wants to control who is to own their product. The company protects their image this way. At least in theory. It also protects the current club members ensuring that if they want to depart with their older classics, they will get top dollar for their purchase to buy the latest new desired product, instead of the top dollar money going to scalpers of you will...  This also prevents depreciation of the older product, increases desirability for the older product AND the newer product. It ensures that the older club members continuously buy newer more expensive product  ensuring the company have future sales of future newer products.   Creating desirability and creating new members to join that so called exclusive club.     Does this create brand loyalty? That is the hope. But it does create, if done correctly, brand desirability and prestige. 
    • Hyunfias and Toyotas are $50k now.  The price of these cars is nuts.  I am surprised the Chevy Trax isn’t the #1 selling car.
    • This sounds EXACTLY like what Rolex does with their watches. I hate it so much.  Neither one is very good looking, IMO. However, they do look surprisingly similar.  As for the Cayenne EV: I think the overall package really couldn't be much better with the available technology right now(for mass production vehicles). It's efficient. It's EXTREMELY quick. It has great range. It charges faster than any chargers can deliver right now. It really is a near-perfect package as of today. 
    • This better sell for Porsche because it will be lights out in Stuttgart.  US tariffs are messing up with their sales in the US.  EV sales have also stalled in China.   On top of that, some buyers of their real cars, the sports cars like the 911,  are frustrated with Porsche's exclusive sales tactics of their dealership network that force would be buyers of limited edition 911s to buy their CUVs and SUVs before being awarded to own a limited edition 911.     I guess I was wrong.  I said that nobody complains about Porsche's sales tactics that emulate Ferrari's tactics like they bitch about  Ferrari. Well...only auto journalists, youtubers and a handful of internet posers bitch about Ferrari.  These guys do not bitch about Porsche.  However, Ferrari owners comply with Ferrari's demands. It looks like Porsche would be owners are talking with their wallets.   Ferrari does not produce Ferraris by the boatload and THAT is why that tactic works. Porsche builds all the 911s they can sell making a 911 not that rare to begin with.  Ferraris are rare even though Ferrari sells more vehicles today than they EVER had.  Ferraris are more or less exclusive.  But I wonder, what will the US automobile market will look like when average americans wont be able to buy bread let alone 50 000 usd Porsches and Genesis vehicles?    
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search