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

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

      NHTSA Goes One For Three On Safety Regulation Deadlines.

    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.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    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.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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!

    • Disagree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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'. :rolleyes:

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

    • Agree 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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!

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    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

    • The point is that going forward, Ford EVs: 1. This is a new way of assembling vehicles. The new production line is now a production tree with three branches that converge into one. 2. Ford has cut a lot of weight out of the platform. 4,000 fewer feet of wiring harness, 25% less fastener. Lower weight will mean more range with less battery. 3. LFP cells that are built in the US without cobalt or nickle. 4. Faster production, while overall production time will drop 15%, the assembly process will drop 40%. Ford will use some of that savings to in-source some component production. 5. 52,000 sq/ft expansion of Louisville facility. 6. Ford claims lower total cost to own than buying a 3-year old Model-Y. (I'd like to read the fine print on this one) 7. The way the components are assembled is now significantly more ergonomic, less twisting and bending for assembly workers. There was an audible gasp from someone in the crowd of assembly workers at the press event when the presenter said "You will never need to put a dash cluster through a door opening ever again". 8. The platform will allow many kinds of body styles including crossovers, sedans, and sport cars. The debut vehicle will arrive in 2027 as a mid-size truck.   Something that Tesla did with #1, #2 , and  #4 on that list a decade ago.  Something that GM is doing with #8 on that list with the Ultium platform as it was once called.   Something that Ford should have done from the very beginning when they came out with the Mach-E.  Tesla and SandY Monroe were tooting that for the Model 3.  I guess FoMoCo had to get the Mach-E out as fast as possible then though.   Dont get me wrong, I fully agree with your post 100%.  I was about to say better late than never, but I think with this Presidential administration, Ford will probably not survive Trump's presidency.  Nor Stellantis in the US.  And Im very iffy if GM survives too if the current tariff situation on Canadian steel and aluminium stays on.  Sad to say.         
    • They didn't even show a vehicle though, just said that in 2 years we'll have a pickup around $30,000.  Which probably means $30,990 plus a $1995 destination charge and you are at $33k before any options which will quickly push it to $40k.  They already have the Maverick in this same space. I don't see this as a "Model T" moment.  It would have to be $5k cheaper than the Maverick to get people to really start buying EV's en masse.  And where do they go with this, the Chinese already make midsize EV pickups for $25,000, so you can't see it overseas because the Chinese will win on price.   The Model T had years where it sold over a million units.  If Ford wants their new age Model T, then the vehicle has to be so good at such a price that you can't pass it up for a Rav4 or CRV.  This will be like the Equinox EV that was going to be $30k, but ended up more like $35k base and $40k for most of the ones at dealers and when the tax credit goes away sales will dry up.
    • Yup. The Canadian Premiers and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (just before his resignation and our elections) decided to retaliate and target Red states because of tariffs and most importantly, the 51st state rhetoric. So...whiskey production and headquarters are mostly at Red States.  So off came the American booze from our Province owned and run liquor stores.   Jack Daniels CEO laughed at that as he said Ontario and Canadian liquor sales is but a mere 1 or 2 percent of Jack Daniels sales. Then he realized that his product is OFF the phoquing shelves and then he complained foul game play... But its definitely fine when his President declares annexation towards Canada...   Its OK for tariffs...  Maybe Jack Daniels might not be suffering too much, but the smaller Kentucky distilleries are in danger. Some are filing for bankruptcy. 9 billion dollar industry and one man has destroyed it.   Not too forget the tourism industry.   New York, Maine, Florida, Nevada and even California is feeling the pinch when Canadians decided to give Americans the middle finger.   Red States or even Blue...  When Trump STILL threatens annexation and most Americans are oblivious of that fact, never you mind empathy towards us Canadians...the middle finger and avoidance of anything American is a proper response from us Canadians. What is even sadder, American rights and freedoms are being stripped and yet not push back from American citizens.  THAT is just UNACCEPTABLE.   Fight for your rights people. Soon you wont have any.        Big Three CEOs and accountants keep begging Trump to ditch the tariffs. He wont ditch them.  He wants to control the Canadian steel and aluminium industry.  He cant and wont be able to.  For many reasons.  But he will destroy the American automotive industry waaaaaay before the US gets a smidgen of Canada's industry which will be a moot point at that juncture.  And Im afraid the damage is already done world wide.  Who in the phoque will buy GM, Ford or even Tesla EVs when the WORLD is hatin' on the US???!!! When the Chinese EV industry is already engulfing the planet with really affordable EVs...
    • @oldshurst442 You are so right about the auto industry. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/whitmer-told-trump-in-private-that-michigan-auto-jobs-depend-on-a-tariff-change-of-course/ar-AA1Kd8Y9?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=5ad67b9cbe604a80b8b7a0853d63f085&ei=75 Since Trump returned to the White House, Michigan has lost 7,500 manufacturing jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In this story, you have this, but it is only a matter of time: Detroit Axle, a family-run auto parts distributor, has been one of the more vocal companies in Michigan about the impact of the tariffs. The company initially announced it might have to shut down a warehouse and lay off more than 100 workers, but later said it would be able to keep the facility open, at least for now. The fact is Idiot47 seems to think he can issue a statement and the next day all those jobs will appear and all work just fine. Fact is even with saying manufacturing must be done here, it will take years to build the factories, line up supplies and start building the products. Nothing can just happen overnight, but Idiot47 does not understand that.
    • Guess in this case my news feed was right as I have not read the story yet, but saw about the proclamation to remove all U.S. booze and return it. Taking away a market from the U.S. companies, one would hope would get these idiot CEOs to wake up and stop supporting Idiot47.
  • 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