Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

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

    Sign in to follow this  

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

    Sign in to follow this  


    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.

    Share this comment


    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!

    • Downvote 1

    Share this comment


    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.

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    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!

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

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

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    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.

    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 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
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg
    • By William Maley
      A new audit released by the U.S. Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General rips the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over its handling of the Takata airbag recall.
      In the report, the Inspector General says NHTSA's recall monitoring process "does not ensure that remedies are reported completely and in a timely manner," nor does it "verify recall completion rates, although it has the authority to do so." Other issues the audit found included the long time it took the agency to determine the scope of the Takata recall and missing documents due to limited monitoring and inadequate procedures.
      "In June 2014, RMD [NHTSA's Recall Management Division] received a recall notification for Takata airbag inflators in over 140,000 vehicles. The notification stated that the manufacturer planned to tell owners to take their vehicles to dealerships for repairs in February 2015. However, as of February 2018, RMD had not received the manufacturer's remedy documents, and [the Office of Defects Investigation's] recall recordkeeping system does not indicate that RMD staff requested those documents," the report said.
      The Inspector General makes six recommendations including better training for staff, creating a system to handle missing documents and communications, and documenting various lessons from the Takata recall.
      NHTSA in a letter said it "did not endorse all of the report’s findings," but did agree to some of the recommendations.
      The agency has come under fire for a number of years due to its poor handling of various auto safety issues, including Toyota's unattended acceleration crisis and GM's ignition switch mess. This latest audit is fourth since 2011 by the inspector general. The last audit done in 2015 said NTHSA failed to investigate safety issues carefully, hold automakers accountable, and adequately train their staff which resulted in “significant safety concerns being overlooked.”
      Source: Reuters
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. cadillacescaladefans
      cadillacescaladefans
      (38 years old)
    2. Phalcon
      Phalcon
      (57 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...