• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

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

    0


      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    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.

    0

    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.

    0

    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.

    0

    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.

    0

    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.

    0

    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.

    0

    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?"

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

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

    Loading...



  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Raybob9289
      Raybob9289
      (50 years old)
    2. Z06C6Vette
      Z06C6Vette
      (28 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Since the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal came to light, more scrutiny has been put on automakers and emissions standards. Recent real-world tests of European market diesel vehicles have revealed a number were 10 times over the legal limit for emissions. With stricter regulations coming into effect next year, automakers are reconsidering their investment in diesel.
      Case in point is Renault. Reuters has learned from sources at the company that it believes diesel engines will disappear from their lineup due to stricter regulations. This comes from an internal meeting before a summer break where Renault went over the costs of meeting these stricter regulations. According to two people who were at the meeting, Renault's Chief Competitiveness Officer Thierry Bollore said the investment in diesel had dimmed significantly due to upcoming regulations.
      "He said we were now wondering whether diesel would survive, and that he wouldn't have voiced such doubts even at the start of this year," said one of the people.
      "Tougher standards and testing methods will increase technology costs to the point where diesel is forced out of the market."
      Next year will see Europe adopting emission standards similar to the ones in the U.S. known as Euro 6b. This will become more stringent as time goes on. Two years after Euro 6b comes into affect, European regulators will begin doing real-world testing of fuel economy and emissions. The combination of these two things means automakers will need to spend more money to make their vehicles meet these standards.
      "Everybody is backtracking on diesel because after 2017-18 it becomes more and more expensive," said Pavan Potluri, a powertrain analyst with consulting firm IHS Automotive.
      Already, diesel engines have been disappearing from city cars. Sources say Renault predicts that diesel will disappear from all B-Segment and some C-Segment models by 2020.
      Source: Reuters

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Since the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal came to light, more scrutiny has been put on automakers and emissions standards. Recent real-world tests of European market diesel vehicles have revealed a number were 10 times over the legal limit for emissions. With stricter regulations coming into effect next year, automakers are reconsidering their investment in diesel.
      Case in point is Renault. Reuters has learned from sources at the company that it believes diesel engines will disappear from their lineup due to stricter regulations. This comes from an internal meeting before a summer break where Renault went over the costs of meeting these stricter regulations. According to two people who were at the meeting, Renault's Chief Competitiveness Officer Thierry Bollore said the investment in diesel had dimmed significantly due to upcoming regulations.
      "He said we were now wondering whether diesel would survive, and that he wouldn't have voiced such doubts even at the start of this year," said one of the people.
      "Tougher standards and testing methods will increase technology costs to the point where diesel is forced out of the market."
      Next year will see Europe adopting emission standards similar to the ones in the U.S. known as Euro 6b. This will become more stringent as time goes on. Two years after Euro 6b comes into affect, European regulators will begin doing real-world testing of fuel economy and emissions. The combination of these two things means automakers will need to spend more money to make their vehicles meet these standards.
      "Everybody is backtracking on diesel because after 2017-18 it becomes more and more expensive," said Pavan Potluri, a powertrain analyst with consulting firm IHS Automotive.
      Already, diesel engines have been disappearing from city cars. Sources say Renault predicts that diesel will disappear from all B-Segment and some C-Segment models by 2020.
      Source: Reuters
    • By William Maley
      In light of the fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S and Autopilot back in May, automakers are reconsidering their plans for rolling out their autonomous technologies. General Motors was planning to introduce Super Cruise on the Cadillac CT6 sometime next year. But in light of Tesla crash, GM is rethinking their plans.
       
      “We aren’t putting a specific date on it,” said GM CEO Mary Barra at a cybersecurity conference.
       
      Officials told The Detroit Bureau later on that the feature would still appear next year. This would be corroborated by a Cadillac spokesman to Motor Trend.
       
      “Right now, the plan continues to be that we will introduce [super Cruise] in the Cadillac CT6 in calendar year 2017,” said Cadillac spokesman Donny Nordlicht.
       
      “We want to make sure it is safe for our customers to use and we’ll launch it when we’re confident in the technology,” Nordlicht said. “Our engineers have been testing and validating the technology for the past several years to make sure all of our systems are focused on providing the customer among the most intuitive and safe solutions. We’re not driven by a deadline, we’re driven to make the system customer-friendly and safe so the exact month of introduction cannot be announced at this time.”
       
      Insiders at GM believe that Super Cruise should be able to avoid some of the problems that plague Tesla's Autopilot. Like Autopilot, Super Cruise blends information from radar and cameras. But Super Cruise will also use a high-definition map that provides more details than what you can get on a current navigation system. This map will help the system determine where the vehicle is and whether it is safe to engage the system. There is also a retina detection system that monitors the driver and will switch off Super Cruise if it detects if the driver isn't paying attention.
       
      Source: The Detroit Bureau, Motor Trend
    • By William Maley
      Volkswagen and U.S. regulators have finally agreed to a plan on the diesel emission scandal and possible dates have been set up for fixing the various the vehicles involved. Despite this, some of the diesel vehicles will not be fully compliant with clean air laws.
       
      According to Bloomberg, the oldest 2.0L TDI engines found in the last-generation Jetta and Golf, and 2009 Beetle will emit more emissions even with a possible fix. According to the California Air Resources Board, the possible fix will cut the emissions down by 80 to 90 percent. But even with the cut, the vehicles could emit as much as 40 times the permitted amount of NOx. This has some environmental advocates angry at the U.S. Government.
       
      “For reasons they didn’t state, they’re allowing fixed vehicles to not be fixed, but to allow vehicles to emit twice as much pollution as they otherwise would allow,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign.
       
      Part of the reason Volkswagen might not be able to fully fix some of the diesel vehicles comes down to cost. There was talk about adding a urea-tank system on older models, but it was deemed to be too expensive. Instead, Volkswagen and regulators came up with alternate ways of cleaning up the air such as buy backs.
       
      We got our first indication of this back in March when a CARB official said that some of the affected TDI vehicles will only get a partial fix.
       
      At the current moment, a fix for any of the 2.0L TDI vehicles hasn't been approved by the government. Bloomberg says Volkswagen will send a proposal for the so-called third-generation 2.0L TDI vehicles as soon as July 29th and could be approved by October. Here is the remainder of Volkswagen's schedule,
      First-Generation 2.0L TDI: Proposal by November 11th, could be approved in January 2017 Second-Generation 2.0L TDI: Proposal by December 16th, could be approved by March 2017

      Source: Bloomberg
    • By William Maley
      Bentley is considering whether or not they should offer an electric powertrain for their flagship sedan, the Mulsanne. Hans Holzgartner, product and marketing manager for the Mulsanne told Autocar part of the reason for this comes down to Chinese lawmakers possibly passing legislation banning all vehicles except EVs in certain cities.
       
      “At the moment, the indication is that full electric will be the only way that you’ll get into some of the cities in China. I wouldn’t say we’re discounting [hybrid engines] completely, but it looks like if you don’t have a full electric drive, even some of the hybrid drives just won’t get into some cities in China,” said Holzgartner.
       
      Similar legislation is being considered in other European countries, causing Bentley to put the idea of electric powertrains as a possible high priority item.
       
      But why the Mulsanne? Why not one of their small and 'lighter' models? Holzgartner explained that adding an electric powertrain into the Mulsanne would improve some of the key traits such providing a quiet ride.
       
      “With a Mulsanne-sized car, it’s all about torque anyway,” he added. “The delivery characteristics of electric drive — loads of bottom-end torque, almost silent delivery, very smooth — they all fit," said Holzhartner.
       
      “Our challenge is to make something that’s as interesting to drive as a current Bentley, because while a Mulsanne will be driven in almost silent mode even with a petrol engine, if you’ve got a Mulsanne Speed you’ll want to let rip every so often. That’s going to be the challenge: creating something that can be fun as well.”
       
      Source: Autocar


      Click here to view the article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)