Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Backup Camera Rule Pushed Back To 2015

    Sign in to follow this  

    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 william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    Sign in to follow this  


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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?"

    Share this comment


    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.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Guangzhou Automobile Group Co. (GAC) made a big splash at the Detroit Auto Show this year with a number of models destined for the U.S. The plan at the time was to begin talking with dealers at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in March, with sales to follow early next year. But GAC has postponed plans of coming to the U.S. due to the trade war.
      In a statement issued to Bloomberg, GAC said “the escalation of China-U.S. trade frictions” and distribution “uncertainties” had made them decide to put their plans on hold. It's unclear how long this postponement will last, but it will likely be some months - maybe years.
      Many Chinese automakers have made pronouncements to sell vehicles in the U.S. for over a decade, with none coming to shore. As Automotive News notes, Chinese Automaker Zotye as recently as this month was still recruiting dealers and planning to begin sales in the U.S. late next year. Bloomberg reached out to other Chinese automakers,
      Great Wall: No immediate comment on whether or not it plans on adjusting its plans to coming to the U.S. Lynk & Co. (under the Geely umbrella): Spokesperson said they are "evaluating" plans for North America Source: Bloomberg, Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Guangzhou Automobile Group Co. (GAC) made a big splash at the Detroit Auto Show this year with a number of models destined for the U.S. The plan at the time was to begin talking with dealers at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in March, with sales to follow early next year. But GAC has postponed plans of coming to the U.S. due to the trade war.
      In a statement issued to Bloomberg, GAC said “the escalation of China-U.S. trade frictions” and distribution “uncertainties” had made them decide to put their plans on hold. It's unclear how long this postponement will last, but it will likely be some months - maybe years.
      Many Chinese automakers have made pronouncements to sell vehicles in the U.S. for over a decade, with none coming to shore. As Automotive News notes, Chinese Automaker Zotye as recently as this month was still recruiting dealers and planning to begin sales in the U.S. late next year. Bloomberg reached out to other Chinese automakers,
      Great Wall: No immediate comment on whether or not it plans on adjusting its plans to coming to the U.S. Lynk & Co. (under the Geely umbrella): Spokesperson said they are "evaluating" plans for North America Source: Bloomberg, Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Back in 2017, the NHTSA released a report on the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system after the fatal crash of a Tesla owner in 2016. That report claimed that the use of Autopilot, or more precisely the lane-keeping function called Autosteer, reduced crash rates by 40%. 
      In that original crash, the owner repeatedly ignored warnings to resume manual control of the vehicle.  Critics questioned whether Autopilot was encouraging drivers to pay less attention to the road.  The NHTSA report appeared to put those concerns to rest.
      Later, when a second driver died in an Autopilot related accident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed to the NHTSA study and the 40% increase in safety claim. Now, 2 years after the original report. According to a report by Arstechnica, a third party has analyzed the data and found the 40% claim to be bogus.
      Originally the NHTSA data on Autopilot crashes was not publically available when Quality Control Systems, a research and consulting firm, requested it under a Freedom of Information Act request. The NHTSA claimed the data from Tesla was confidential and would cause the company harm if released.  QCS sued the NHTSA and in September of last year, a federal judge granted the FOI request.
      What QCS found was that missing data and poor math caused the NHTSA report to be grossly inaccurate.  The period in question covered vehicle both before and after Autopilot was installed, however, a significant number of the vehicles in the data set provided by Telsa have large gaps between the last recorded mileage before Autopilot was installed and the first recorded mileage after installation.  The result is a gray area where it is unknown if Autopilot was active or not.  In spite of this deficiency, the NHTSA used the data anyway.
      In the data provided only 5,714 vehicles have no gap between the pre and post Autopilot mileage readings.  When QCS ran calculations again, they found that crashes per mile actually increased 59% after Autopilot was installed.
      Does that mean that a Tesla using Autopilot makes a crash 59% more likely?  The answer to that is no for a number of reasons.  First is that the sample size QCS had to work with is a very small percentage of Tesla’s total sales.  Secondly, the data is only representative of vehicles with version 1 of Tesla’s Autopilot, a version that Tesla hasn’t sold since 2016.
      Tesla stopped quoting the NHTSA report around May of 2018, possibly realizing something was fishy with the data. They have since taken to their own report stating that cars with Autopilot engaged have fewer accidents per mile than cars without it engaged.  This has some statistical fishiness to it as well.  Autopilot is only meant to be engaged on the highway and due to the higher rate of speed all vehicles have a lower rate of accidents per mile.
      We may just have to wait until more data is available to find out if Tesla Autopilot and systems similar to it make crashed that much less likely.

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Back in 2017, the NHTSA released a report on the safety of Tesla's Autopilot system after the fatal crash of a Tesla owner in 2016. That report claimed that the use of Autopilot, or more precisely the lane-keeping function called Autosteer, reduced crash rates by 40%. 
      In that original crash, the owner repeatedly ignored warnings to resume manual control of the vehicle.  Critics questioned whether Autopilot was encouraging drivers to pay less attention to the road.  The NHTSA report appeared to put those concerns to rest.
      Later, when a second driver died in an Autopilot related accident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk pointed to the NHTSA study and the 40% increase in safety claim. Now, 2 years after the original report. According to a report by Arstechnica, a third party has analyzed the data and found the 40% claim to be bogus.
      Originally the NHTSA data on Autopilot crashes was not publically available when Quality Control Systems, a research and consulting firm, requested it under a Freedom of Information Act request. The NHTSA claimed the data from Tesla was confidential and would cause the company harm if released.  QCS sued the NHTSA and in September of last year, a federal judge granted the FOI request.
      What QCS found was that missing data and poor math caused the NHTSA report to be grossly inaccurate.  The period in question covered vehicle both before and after Autopilot was installed, however, a significant number of the vehicles in the data set provided by Telsa have large gaps between the last recorded mileage before Autopilot was installed and the first recorded mileage after installation.  The result is a gray area where it is unknown if Autopilot was active or not.  In spite of this deficiency, the NHTSA used the data anyway.
      In the data provided only 5,714 vehicles have no gap between the pre and post Autopilot mileage readings.  When QCS ran calculations again, they found that crashes per mile actually increased 59% after Autopilot was installed.
      Does that mean that a Tesla using Autopilot makes a crash 59% more likely?  The answer to that is no for a number of reasons.  First is that the sample size QCS had to work with is a very small percentage of Tesla’s total sales.  Secondly, the data is only representative of vehicles with version 1 of Tesla’s Autopilot, a version that Tesla hasn’t sold since 2016.
      Tesla stopped quoting the NHTSA report around May of 2018, possibly realizing something was fishy with the data. They have since taken to their own report stating that cars with Autopilot engaged have fewer accidents per mile than cars without it engaged.  This has some statistical fishiness to it as well.  Autopilot is only meant to be engaged on the highway and due to the higher rate of speed all vehicles have a lower rate of accidents per mile.
      We may just have to wait until more data is available to find out if Tesla Autopilot and systems similar to it make crashed that much less likely.
    • By William Maley
      We noticed there was something missing in the press release of the 2019 Ram 2500 and 3500 HD trucks, a launch date. Sitting on the media room on Monday, both Drew and I found it a bit odd there was no mention of a launch window. Most automakers give a possible idea of when their upcoming vehicle will launch, but nothing from Ram Trucks. We may have the answer as to why.
      Bloomberg is reporting that the Ram 3500 HD is awaiting emissions certification from the EPA to be approved before it can go on sale. One problem; the U.S. government is currently shut down and leaves the 3500 HD certification, along with other vehicles in limbo.
      “I am concerned, very concerned, because if it continues, it will have an impact on the launch. The earlier that it can be resolved, clearly the better, and obviously I’m not the only person saying that,” said FCA CEO Mike Manley.
      Ram has been riding an impressive sales momentum throughout 2018 and outsold the Chevrolet Silverado in fourth quarter sales to place behind the Ford F-Series. This pain inflicted by the shutdown could hurt Ram in terms of 2019 sales. 
      Source: Bloomberg
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. flrider
      flrider
      (75 years old)
    2. the_yellow_dart
      the_yellow_dart
      (36 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...