Back-up cameras will be required on all new vehicles by 2018

[Shawn Knight]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on Monday announced a new law that will require nearly every vehicle sold in the US to be outfitted with a rear back-up camera by 2018. Back-up cameras aren’t exactly new as they’ve been a feature on some vehicles for years but they are typically reserved for luxury models.

The regulation will affect all light vehicles – those with a gross weight under 10,000 pounds – which includes cars, trucks, SUVs and vans.

The ruling will require said cameras to display a field of view of at least 10 feet wide and 20 feet back. A number of advocates recommended the use of 180 degree cameras but automakers felt 130 degree cameras combined with side mirrors would suffice.

Elsewhere, the NHTSA mandates that images should remain on the screen for at least four seconds but no more than eight seconds after a driver shifts out of reverse. Linger time, as it’s called, was decided upon based on certain situations where a driver shifts in and out of reverse multiple times – such as when parallel parking.

Some aspects, like screen size, are being left up to automakers to decide and will be based on where the display is mounted on the console / dashboard.

The ruling has been a long time in the making as Congress commissioned the Department of Transportation to come up with a set of guidelines way back in 2008. No word yet on how much extra cost the cameras will add to the price of each new vehicle or if the added expense will be passed on to the consumer.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/56204-back-up-cameras-will-be-required-on-all-new-vehicles-by-2018.html

 

[Jad Chaar]

I think this is great, especially since the rear windows of cars over the years have shrunk a ton.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Why so long before they are required? And why only the rear? Front and rear cameras on all car can settle collision disputes, because video footage doesn't lie. It doesn't even have to be high quality. A 480P 10 frame per second video clip could make a world of difference.

 

[fdart17]

Stupid, making our cars more expensive with features we don't need.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

It makes absolutely no difference how many hi-tech safety bolts are added to a vehicle, it all boils down to the nut behind the wheel. Self driving autonomous vehicles is the only way to go but I don't think I'll see them become mainstream in my life.

 

[Mister_K]

Instead make dashboard cams compulsory. It would help evaluate many accidents with more detail. Just like in 'Mother Russia'

 

[TheBigFatClown]

I think this is great, especially since the rear windows of cars over the years have shrunk a ton.

I think it's a terrible idea. Adds unnecessary cost to the production of cars. While the rear windows may be shrinking in smaller cars I doubt your field of view would be less than what a camera could offer. Even if the field of view is the same your perception of the distance between objects through a camera could be skewed and everything will look smaller than the real view unless they are gonna require 19" monitors. Unless all the cameras are infrared cameras there will be problems using at night. In heavy sunlight conditions there will be problems in the day. So....I have to give this a big fat two thumbs down.

It makes absolutely no difference how many hi-tech safety bolts are added to a vehicle, it all boils down to the nut behind the wheel. Self driving autonomous vehicles is the only way to go but I don't think I'll see them become mainstream in my life.

*TheBigFatClown slaps his head in disbelief*
I think you have watched too many sci-fi movies. I don't want to live in a SkyNet world. Even trains which are considered by many people to be a very safe form of transportation jump tracks and have collisions. I will control my car and I will control my desktop. Thanks, but no thanks.

Stupid, making our cars more expensive with features we don't need.

Agreed!!!!!

Another decision made by filthy rich people in Washington at the expense of everybody else. I am guessing every car will require a GPS by the same time period also so big brother you can track you everywhere you go.

https://www.techspot.com/community/...bile-phones-to-be-gps-capable-by-2018.171723/

It will be played up to the masses as a public safety issue or even a national security issue to combat terrorism.

 

[davislane1]

Feels good to be protected from ourselves...Or not.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

Feels good to be protected from ourselves...Or not.

Yes, can I interest you in this nice white jacket with long sleeves? Its for your own good.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I think it's a terrible idea. Adds unnecessary cost to the production of cars. While the rear windows may be shrinking in smaller cars I doubt your field of view would be less than what a camera could offer.

Another decision made by filthy rich people in Washington at the expense of everybody else.

Well... that's because our politicians need to justify their existence every now and then by passing some laws to protect us. And as much as I don't like govt sticking their nose in our lives and increasing the costs I'm not going to get worked up about this one.

I have two cars with backup cameras, on my SUV the screen is built into the rear-view mirror and it's basically needed to backup the car because of how high and small the back window is. On my smaller 4-door car, it's not needed at all and really doesn't do much. It's actually an annoyance because it takes over my dash screen with is also how I control the radio. So I can't change the radio while backing up, which sounds like no big deal, but the two things I do first in the car is put it in reverse and change the channel to what I want.

Anyway... regarding the cost; cameras are cheap, we know this. We're not talking about a nice 8MP iPhone 5s camera module. just a cheap $20 piece will do. The screen also won't be much more. The rear view mirrors with screens aren't really expensive and tech gets cheaper all the time. It won't increase the cost of cars because the BASE costs of cars don't go up by adding technology. The costs only go up based on the option packages they overcharge like criminals for.
If this is required by law, I don't think cars will cost any more. The car makers will eat the cost to stay competitive and/or just raise the cost on option packages to make it up. Basically, it won't hurt much.

And then there's the whole argument about our entire population getting older and elderly drivers currently don't need to retake a drivers test... regardless of whether they can turn their heads around or not. Sure won't bother me any if they can now see perfectly behind their car so they won't back into my car in a parking lot or worse.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

I think it's a terrible idea. Adds unnecessary cost to the production of cars. While the rear windows may be shrinking in smaller cars I doubt your field of view would be less than what a camera could offer. Even if the field of view is the same your perception of the distance between objects through a camera could be skewed and everything will look smaller than the real view unless they are gonna require 19" monitors. Unless all the cameras are infrared cameras there will be problems using at night. In heavy sunlight conditions there will be problems in the day. So....I have to give this a big fat two thumbs down.



*TheBigFatClown slaps his head in disbelief*
I think you have watched too many sci-fi movies. I don't want to live in a SkyNet world. Even trains which are considered by many people to be a very safe form of transportation jump tracks and have collisions. I will control my car and I will control my desktop. Thanks, but no thanks.

Agreed!!!!!

Another decision made by filthy rich people in Washington at the expense of everybody else. I am guessing every car will require a GPS by the same time period also so big brother you can track your fat @$$ everywhere you go.

https://www.techspot.com/community/...bile-phones-to-be-gps-capable-by-2018.171723/

It will be played up to the masses as a public safety issue or even a national security issue to combat terrorism.

What you must remember is the percentage of people injured or killed in air and rail accidents per year as opposed to vehicle injuries and fatalities and self driving vehicles (although still far in the future) will reduce the number besides I like the idea of self driving vehicles, I detest driving nowadays.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

Well... that's because our politicians need to justify their existence every now and then by passing some laws to protect us. And as much as I don't like govt sticking their nose in our lives and increasing the costs I'm not going to get worked up about this one.

I have two cars with backup cameras, on my SUV the screen is built into the rear-view mirror and it's basically needed to backup the car because of how high and small the back window is. On my smaller 4-door car, it's not needed at all and really doesn't do much. It's actually an annoyance because it takes over my dash screen with is also how I control the radio. So I can't change the radio while backing up, which sounds like no big deal, but the two things I do first in the car is put it in reverse and change the channel to what I want.

Anyway... regarding the cost; cameras are cheap, we know this. We're not talking about a nice 8MP iPhone 5s camera module. just a cheap $20 piece will do. The screen also won't be much more. The rear view mirrors with screens aren't really expensive and tech gets cheaper all the time. It won't increase the cost of cars because the BASE costs of cars don't go up by adding technology. The costs only go up based on the option packages they overcharge like criminals for.
If this is required by law, I don't think cars will cost any more. The car makers will eat the cost to stay competitive and/or just raise the cost on option packages to make it up. Basically, it won't hurt much.

And then there's the whole argument about our entire population getting older and elderly drivers currently don't need to retake a drivers test... regardless of whether they can turn their heads around or not. Sure won't bother me any if they can now see perfectly behind their car so they won't back into my car in a parking lot or worse.

It's not at the top of my list of concerns either. But then again, most people don't worry about things that don't effect them personally or immediately. I would rather have GMO labeling on all foods than give this issue more than a few moments of my time. I do draw the line at controlling what I put in my body. I will decide that and I alone. And I don't like to be deceived in the process. If GMO foods are so damn safe 'JustLabelIt'. Simple. Maybe that will 'increase' sales of GMO foods for those consumers who DO want them. It's a win-win for everybody.

Good point about the cost. I may be wrong on that issue. Even if there is an increased cost it won't be much 'relative' to the overall cost of the vehicle. But it's still an added cost however small. Whether that costs is forced onto the car dealers, car manufacturers or consumers. Cameras don't grow on trees(unlike money, it actually does grow on trees, the government just has to process it first). You would think that every desktop PC monitor would come with all 3 major connections(d-sub, dvi, hdmi) given how relatively small the cost would be relative to the monitor, right? Wrong. If a manufacturer can save a paltry $1 bill on a sale they are going to do it.

Your solution to the safety concern of a growing population of drivers that are seniors is a rearview camera? How about changing the law to require a drivers test more frequently as they age? A rear view camera isn't going to solve 'all' their visibility problems or the speed of their reflexes. Or do anything for those with alzheimers or other dementias.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Your solution to the safety concern of a growing population of drivers that are seniors is a rearview camera? How about changing the law to require a drivers test more frequently as they age? A rear view camera isn't going to solve 'all' their visibility problems or the speed of their reflexes. Or do anything for those with alzheimers or other dementias.

They don't want to label GMOs because people will freak out. Look at what happened with the MMR vaccine and the autism scare. The 'Doctor' who did the study admitted to making up the numbers and had his license revoked but that didn't stop a LOT of parents from skipping ALL vaccines and turning schools into 18th century germ factories. Look at gluten for another example. Gluten-free is the new fad and that's not bad for you at all.

I didn't say my solution to elderly drivers was a backup camera, I said it won't bother me if elderly drivers have one. It's just one factor in this debate, and it comes out in favor of the cameras.

 

[Heihachi1337]

Stupid laws to allow our society to continue to be morons.
Rather than teach kids not to play, sit, whatever behind a friggin vehicle or teach people to pay the hell attention we just make laws to *****-proof for *****s.
Way to lower the bar further America.....excuse me 'murica now isn't it.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

They don't want to label GMOs because people will freak out. Look at what happened with the MMR vaccine and the autism scare. The 'Doctor' who did the study admitted to making up the numbers and had his license revoked but that didn't stop a LOT of parents from skipping ALL vaccines and turning schools into 18th century germ factories. Look at gluten for another example. Gluten-free is the new fad and that's not bad for you at all.

I didn't say my solution to elderly drivers was a backup camera, I said it won't bother me if elderly drivers have one. It's just one factor in this debate, and it comes out in favor of the cameras.

But your 'implication' is that you would feel 'safer' if every senior had a rear view camera? You don't have to say everything your implying.

Yeah, if the drug companies weren't pushing ****ng pharmaceuticals like it was popcorn people wouldn't BE afraid of them. Big Pharma are victims of their OWN ****ING GREED. As Axel Rose once said, "If you got the money honey, we got your diease.". And we got a pill for it too. Tell us your symptoms and we'll create the pill.

It's the same thing with vaccinnes. Is there scientific evidence to support the theory of vaccinations to prevent outbreaks of virus becoming worse and becoming pandemics? Yes. But when you release a new vaccinne for a new strain of virus that magically flies in from other countries on a yearly basis people start to question the mentality. That's the problem. For me personally, I believe in the science behind vaccines. I just don't trust the people who make them anymore. Especially, after the H1N1 scare tactics.

And besides what do you have against people choosing the foods they eat? Is there a food that I can consume that has the potential to kill you? Please tell me what it is so I can laugh. Since the debate will never be settled about whether GMO is safe or not the solution is to label foods that are GMO and let the people decide what they believe. Choice, that's all I want, choice!

 

[Neojt]

Right

now I would prefer Blind spot indicator over this.. compare the amount of time a car almost backed into me vs the amount of time I had to : avoid/brake like a maniac/honk @ ppl changing lane without looking properly on the highways....

plus its alot cheaper that a cam + big screen

 

[Guest]

@MilwaukeeMike

Just to let you know Gluten-Free may be a fad to you however my daughter will get sick if she eats gluten. I'm very glad that these days we can go into a standard grocery store and purchase gluten-free foods that are clearly labled. A few years ago, we had to go to "Health Food" stores to find anything for her.

 

[cliffordcooley]

It makes absolutely no difference how many hi-tech safety bolts are added to a vehicle, it all boils down to the nut behind the wheel. Self driving autonomous vehicles is the only way to go but I don't think I'll see them become mainstream in my life.

Making these features mainstream, is the only way you will see mainstream autonomous vehicles.

A rear view camera isn't going to solve 'all' their visibility problems or the speed of their reflexes.

That sounds as if everyone on the highway needs to qualify for driving the Indianapolis 500.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

And besides what do you have against people choosing the foods they eat? Is there a food that I can consume that has the potential to kill you? Please tell me what it is so I can laugh. Since the debate will never be settled about whether GMO is safe or not the solution is to label foods that are GMO and let the people decide what they believe. Choice, that's all I want, choice!

I don't have anything against people's choice.. I said people will freak out. And they will. People freak out first without learning about what they're freaking out about. Want an example exactly the type of assumption I'm talking about? Here's your quote...

Is there a food that I can consume that has the potential to kill you? Please tell me what it is so I can laugh.

They're called food allergies and there are 8 major ones. Peanuts, Tree Nuts (they're different), milk, soy, wheat, shellfish, fish, and egg. And yes, they kill people. Last summer a 13 year old girl was at a camp out and someone put peanut butter in a brownie and she had a bite. She spit it out right away, but her body started reacting anyway. Her father, a doctor, was right there and they had their epi-pens with them. They gave her 3 of them (1 usually does it), but she died... right in his arms at the campground. Luckily that's a rare case.
My daughter is allergic to peanuts and egg, so I'm a pretty big fan of food labels. She went to the ER last Halloween because a grocery store didn't label their stuff right. I'm not against labeling GMO food... all I said was people won't learn about them before making a decision.

Everything credible I've read about GMOs says they're about as dangerous as UFOs. It doesn't matter anyway because the big GMO makers (like Monsanto) have already stopped making them due to their reputation. They have new ways of cross-breeding crops that don't involve changing them. You won't see your GMO labels because there won't be any GMO food left to label.

How did we get started on food anyway?

 

[GhostRyder]

Well, to be fair my new vehicle I just bought has a built in back up camera and screen in the dash which is quite a nice feature considering how big it is. However I do not see the point of it being required as we have for years gotten by just fine without it.

I mean in all honesty while its a good feature, its just going to make things more complicated and expensive for the low end vehicles and its going to become to much of a crutch in my opinion. I use mine so much more subconsciously than I ever thought I would it seems almost scarry. I mean we have had massive vehicles since the 40's, why do we need the cameras now, what has changed?

 

[TheBigFatClown]

I don't have anything against people's choice.. I said people will freak out. And they will. People freak out first without learning about what they're freaking out about. Want an example exactly the type of assumption I'm talking about? Here's your quote...



They're called food allergies and there are 8 major ones. Peanuts, Tree Nuts (they're different), milk, soy, wheat, shellfish, fish, and egg. And yes, they kill people. Last summer a 13 year old girl was at a camp out and someone put peanut butter in a brownie and she had a bite. She spit it out right away, but her body started reacting anyway. Her father, a doctor, was right there and they had their epi-pens with them. They gave her 3 of them (1 usually does it), but she died... right in his arms at the campground. Luckily that's a rare case.
My daughter is allergic to peanuts and egg, so I'm a pretty big fan of food labels. She went to the ER last Halloween because a grocery store didn't label their stuff right. I'm not against labeling GMO food... all I said was people won't learn about them before making a decision.

Everything credible I've read about GMOs says they're about as dangerous as UFOs. It doesn't matter anyway because the big GMO makers (like Monsanto) have already stopped making them due to their reputation. They have new ways of cross-breeding crops that don't involve changing them and they. You won't see your GMO labels because there won't be any GMO food left to label.

How did we get started on food anyway?

You must not be reading the same stuff I am. Do you have a link to an article that states Monsanto is getting out of the genetically altered food business? That's like saying Big Pharma is getting out of the drug business because of their negative reputation. Give me a break. I can see it already:

"**NEWS ARTICLE: Monsanto gives up multi-billion dollar patented seed business because of bad reputation" LOL.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I mean we have had massive vehicles since the 40's, why do we need the cameras now, what has changed?

Probably just the internet allows people now to learn about the accidents that have happened. That...and the camera and screen tech is now cheap enough. From the USA Today

In a 2010 report, the DOT's NHTSA said that each year 210 people die and 15,000 are injured in light-vehicle backup incidents, with about 31% of the deaths among kids under age 5 and 26% adults over 70.

You must not be reading the same stuff I am. Do you have a link to an article that states Monsanto is getting out of the genetically altered food business? That's like saying Big Pharma is getting out of the drug business because of their negative reputation. Give me a break. I can see it already:

"**NEWS ARTICLE: Monsanto gives up multi-billion dollar patented seed business because of bad reputation" LOL.

Oh, I'm pretty sure we're not reading the same stuff. That's why I clarified what I read by calling it 'credible'.

Here's your news...first two hits from a google search.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...79029a-927c-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html

Here's the story in WIRED that really gets into it well. It's called Monsanto is going Organic in a quest for the perfect veggie.
http://www.wired.com/2014/01/new-monsanto-vegetables/

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Making these features mainstream, is the only way you will see mainstream autonomous vehicles.
That sounds as if everyone on the highway needs to qualify for driving the Indianapolis 500.

It only gets better all the time. If I think back to the vehicles of 35 years ago (around the time I got my licence) the changes and safety even on the base range compact vehicle are astonishing. Now we await the widespread adoption of electric power and it's high time.

 

[Tritton]

Well going though the comments it good to know people are passionate about their views, but you do know it APRIL FOOLS DAY

 

[Jad Chaar]

Well... that's because our politicians need to justify their existence every now and then by passing some laws to protect us. And as much as I don't like govt sticking their nose in our lives and increasing the costs I'm not going to get worked up about this one.

I have two cars with backup cameras, on my SUV the screen is built into the rear-view mirror and it's basically needed to backup the car because of how high and small the back window is. On my smaller 4-door car, it's not needed at all and really doesn't do much. It's actually an annoyance because it takes over my dash screen with is also how I control the radio. So I can't change the radio while backing up, which sounds like no big deal, but the two things I do first in the car is put it in reverse and change the channel to what I want.

Anyway... regarding the cost; cameras are cheap, we know this. We're not talking about a nice 8MP iPhone 5s camera module. just a cheap $20 piece will do. The screen also won't be much more. The rear view mirrors with screens aren't really expensive and tech gets cheaper all the time. It won't increase the cost of cars because the BASE costs of cars don't go up by adding technology. The costs only go up based on the option packages they overcharge like criminals for.
If this is required by law, I don't think cars will cost any more. The car makers will eat the cost to stay competitive and/or just raise the cost on option packages to make it up. Basically, it won't hurt much.

And then there's the whole argument about our entire population getting older and elderly drivers currently don't need to retake a drivers test... regardless of whether they can turn their heads around or not. Sure won't bother me any if they can now see perfectly behind their car so they won't back into my car in a parking lot or worse.

+1

 

[TheBigFatClown]

Good point. I think I've just been Punk'd by TechSpot.