...is really going to look at a tiny screen and try to figure out what they're seeing there?

It would make more sense to put a motion sensor there, and just not let the car back up if there was anything moving behind it. Maybe that's the plan after people get used to this.

if the sensor fails which does happen from time to time.

I realize that you may be that rarest of creatures, a perfect human being, but have you ever been in a hurry? Picture the scenario - you're late to work, you rush out the door, not knowing that your wife took your 2-year old kid out of the high chair, and he/she slipped out the door right behind you. You get in the car, you look behind you when you're backing up - but you can't see your kid who is directly behind the car, out of view, and back over him.

If the technology to prevent such a tragedy is there, why not use it? Are you against air bags, or seat belts?

Just yesterday I was ready to pull out of the parking lot at my barn but had to wait for the lady parked next to me with her two little dogs running loose to let her get them both settled in car before I could pull out because I had no way of telling where they were.

If a child is just sitting there, the motion sensor will not alert the driver. Many modern cars now have rear view cameras. With the falling price of camera technology, it would not be prohibitively expensive.
Now, the car companies and the Libertarians will object, over the cost, and people's right to run over their kids without the government trying to control how they do it.

The problem is that a short child can be directly behind the car and in an absolute blind spot where the driver can look backward, check all mirrors, and still not see the child.

A motion sensor might do the same thing, but not if the child is stationary.

No matter how much I look back and use the rear view mirrors, there are blind spots where I simply cannot see a person behind the truck. And if there is a child or animal shorter than the back door windows, I can't see them at all.

A sensor wouldn't be a bad idea, but being able to see those invisible spots would be great.

when parallel parking in a tight spot!

It's hard enough to park it in straight slots! That truck is called "Moby" because it's white and as big as a whale.

Though I did take my first driving test in Mom's 1961 Cadillac Sedan de Ville four door - you know one of those big cars with the fins? Nailed parallel parking in it - I was so proud!



Ours was black - it had belonged to a funeral home.

which is much shorter, my parallel parking skill improved dramatically. (It was my skill, not my car, that made the difference, right?)

I remember going from my 'high school car', the 1958 Buick Special four door sedan massive beast with fins, to my 'college' car, a Datsun station wagon. It was amazing how many more places that Datsun fit that the Buick couldn't even think about going!

Or maybe my skills got better?

It makes parking a lot easier. It will beep if there's a shopping bag on the ground behind the truck, but probably wouldn't react to a crawling child or a sleeping cat, or even a six-pack of beer (oh, the humanity!).

The wireless types are easier to install, but more expensive. They'd be good for trailers or motorhomes.

One of many different kinds:
http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/widi4inbuflm.html

Are they going to rewrite state inspection reg's to have them inspected for proper function annually as well? (In the state's that actually have safety inspections, of course.)

Who funds KidsAndCars.org? I'm guessing Samsung, Motorola, Siemans...

to every safety feature ever required, be it seat belts, air bags, etc. That and the cry that this would add a couple of dollars to the cost of manufacturing each car ... for which they would have to charge another couple of hundred dollars.

That boy that cried "Wolf"? They ignored him, too...

I don't happen to think the cost-benefit value is reasonable in this case. Back-up video systems have been available for years as optional/aftermarket accessories. For those who want them. I don't. I've seen how many people can't keep their power windows functioning while waiting in line at the tolls.

(I can drive my Jeep with the seatbelt unfastened and no buzzer goes off. It came like that from the factory. )

wondering how to disable the seat belt alarm on their Jeeps.

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&newwindow=1&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=jeep%20seat%20belt%20alarm&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=3b781ad305109a2c&ix=sea&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1366&bih=681

I have an '06 LJ. Just has a dummy light on the dash.

Kinda. It's bad enough the drivers I see backing up while looking in the rear view mirror instead of turning around! Now no one will turn around! (I can't do it... go backwards while looking forward)

I want to shoot an entire film using back up cameras. Too artsy fartsy?


HOW ABOUT SOME MILAGE STANDARDS!!!!

Imagine the video would be used for insurance purposes, too.

Now we're recording the imagery. More complexity and expense. Best to upload it via satellite for "safekeeping". And the children.

For how many children are subjected to breathing issues due to auto exhaust. When they are done putting cameras in the cars, maybe they can require that all vehicles become electric or super high efficiency next. For the children.

The toddler slipped out of the fast food restaurant just as we were leaving. We've got a CR-V so visibility near the rear bumper is zilch. I was lucky. When I glanced in the driver's side mirror before backing I saw a flicker of motion darting behind the car. We got out and there was the child. We returned her to her parents, told them what happened and to watch their child more closely.

I have never forgotten that incident, and how close I came to backing over the child. I don't know if I could ever forgive myself, even though it would clearly have been an accident.

When I practiced law we had a case where a child of about the same age darted over to an empty ball field behind his house to see what the big truck was doing (pumping out a porta-potty). The field was empty when the driver arrived, and he didn't see anyone around when he climbed back into the truck. Even though he looked in both mirrors, he never saw the child which had crawled under the truck. I remember how shaken he was during the deposition, and I'll never forget the photos of the tire tracks over the child's body.

I don't think rear view cameras should be mandatory, however. It sounds like a "good idea" without the science to back it up.

For one thing, before the third brake light was made mandatory an extensive study was done where the devices were installed in New York taxi cabs. After a year it was found there was a sizable -- about 50% -- reduction in rear-end accidents. Based on that study the brake light rule was issued.

As far as I can tell, the only study re: children and cars shows that two-thirds of the time a parent or other close relative is driving. The only conclusion to derive from that is that parents and relatives shouldn't drive. That would cut the number of accidents substantially.

Now that the novelty of a third brake light is gone, does anyone pay attention to them anymore?

Last edited Tue Feb 28, 2012, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Whereas the tail lights may be braking, or may be turning on the headlights.

but there are times I'm driving in the freeway, on a slightly uphill incline, and the car in front of me has its third light on, indicating braking, but it's still going at a constant or increasing speed up the hill. I get quizzical when I see that, like, "what's going on here?" Yes, the side lights are also on, indicating braking.

I do agree, though, the novelty probably did contribute to the big effect seen in the original study, and I don't see how one could repeat the study without somehow recruiting a cadre of drivers to go around bulbs out. That poses ethical if not legal questions.

I'm curious as to what a followup study would show, but it's more about how the original study was not properly controlled, not advocating that they be removed...

Making it that little bit more noticable.

Reversing cameras cover the area below the rearmost sill. The inevitable blind spot.

Sadly, parents are the most likely to run over a small child, because they are the ones most likely to assume that another has the child under their supervision.

Why are toddlers running about unsupervised outside without their parents knowing where they are?

Jeez... I raised a child to the age of majority without losing track of where she was at any given time... that is called being a responsible parent knowing where my child was. Everything else is an excuse for not doing that.

Now, we have the state stepping in when the fact of the matter is parental negligence is what killed those kids.

I cant think of anything more horrible.
I heard that he was a different person for the rest of his life.

I dont know that cameras are the best solution but it is an issue.

Let's abolish seat belt laws, air bag laws, impact safety laws, annual inspections, speed limits, etc. Way too much gummint regulmagation.

You might want to review the studies on the effectiveness of anti-lock brakes. They haven't been the panacea that they were sold as. Adding technology doesn't automatically make a vehicle safe. It's laudable they want to do something about the issue, the quesiton is THIS the answer to the question. Just because it may "seem" like a good idea, doesn't mean it is.

What is so wrong with government keeping up with technological innovations?

While we're at it, we should disband the FDA - who needs gummint sticking their nose in what we put into our bodies?

I think you may have missed the sarcasm.

But furthermore, I only see people questioning the value of THIS technology per sea. Regulation is fine, but it needs to be backed up by the right kind of studies that demonstrates the particular technology selected will produce the results desired. In this case, it appears there may have been some rushing. Worse, it has the smell of a K-street regulation.

That since I have had a backup camera in my current new car, for the past year, it gives a much better view of the lower rear of the car. A view that one cannot see in the rear view mirror. That being said, I believe that this is a good safety measure.

I suspect this is the wrong answer to the problem, and one would probably find alot of K-street behind this regulation. As several have suggested, a motion sensor or proximity sensor is probably what is really needed here. One is presuming that the unaware driver will be aware of what's on the screen. Truth is, I'm not sure that adding a screen is what we need to increase the awareness of drivers, it comes off as just another distraction. I certainly don't want them staring at the screen while backing. A "brake pedal shake" or audio signal connected to a proximity or motion sensor could cover alot more "space" behind a vehicle, and allow the driver to still be "looking" at where they are backing.

As I suggest, this sounds like an idea cooked up more on K-street than out of any exhaustive study on risk/reward or comparative safety analysis and testing.

Especially as a driver you should be looking backwards to some extent too! I'd also argue for front-facing proximity sensors so the driver is forced not to "tailgate", or slam into the back of a vehicle if that vehicle in front of you brakes hard and suddenly.

Now *that* would be cost effective and add to safety. A rear view camera is just a "nice thing to have".

Maybe the annoying "beep beep beep" should be in place on all vehicles when reverse gear is engaged - turned on by default, but with the ability to be disabled by a savvy consumer on certain vehicles (like if you take your Jeep where it's supposed to belong, get stuck, need to use reverse... that beep beep beep would be embarrassing)

A bunch grass blowing in the wind would set it off, but a baby in a carrier would not.

The Prius has a back-up camera, and I have to say that it's pretty cool.

Motion, and/or proximity sensor. The motion is "relative" to the vehicle motion so even stationary objects appear to be "moving" to the sensor. A bit of intelligence will help to differentiate between objects that are "moving away" and those that are getting closer. And you really only care about motion that is within a certain distance. But the advantage is that it can have a much larger "field of view" than the camera. One has to distort the image (objects may be closer than they appear) in order to get a truly comprehensive field of view. With non visual sensors they can have a field of view that is extremely large.

I'm not "against" rear view cameras, it's more of a case that if this issue is important enough, they don't seem to be the optimal answer to the problem.

One is NOT SUPPOSED to back up looking in the rear view mirror. You are supposed to TURN AROUND and look.

Didn't you take driver's ed?

Pickup with camper top, you can't see much of anything out the back anyway, you either use the side mirrors or back completely blind.

The school system didn't teach me, my father gave up on teaching me... it was my wife that helped me master the vehicle and got me passed my drivers licence. However the theory part is/was easy for me as I'm a bit of a bookworm... and though my dad gave up on me he did actually manage to teach me a thing or two.

We didn't spend much time on such trivia, and you are right, you shouldn't use the side view mirrors for that, and the rear view mirror is not for backing up either. I was merely stating the fact that due to its lower placement on the absolute rear of the car, at a low point (usually somewhere near the license plate, it provides a better viewing angle than any head can, by looking behind you.

I used to twist around and look back every time.

...when I was young and could twist like that.

I love my backup cam and, at least in my experience, it's been a great help in seeing what's going on behind me.

Unnecessary cost. Delete option.

directly behind your rear bumper? I don't think that you can, even with the convertible down.

it to see what's out there. I actually turn my head and look in both mirrors before I move.

If a child were to run in back of my car, at the very last second, I might see him/her, but I might not.

How are they going to regulate drivers to always watch the video screen when it is often easier for the driver, like me, to actually turn and look back as I move. A motion sensor, or some other beeping device to detect a warm body back there would do more than putting in lots more video electronics, which, of course, will break down eventually and have to be replaced, at a cost in the hundreds of dollars, probably.

We'll require 2 people to be in the car at all times. One to turn around while backing up, and one to watch the camera and advise if they see anything.

It might work.

You forgot your sarcasm thingie.

law.

"You didn't see your 4 year old hit your 3 year old on the head. Abusive mom arrested and becomes another "profit" for our prison complex.

Your example makes absolutely no sense. How does having a rear safety camera equate to Big Brother?

I had wondered how they brought video up to the tow vehicle dashboard. Now I know.
http://www.qualitymobilevideo.com/RVCCTR1PKG.aspx

And if it's raining, the lens is blurry. It beeps once you put the car in reverse and the beeper goes ballistic when you get really close to something behind you. I rarely use the camera view because I've been driving for nearly 30 yrs and forget that it's there. It's come in real handy when parallel parking. Anyway, more safety items on vehicles is great as long as you know that it won't PREVENT accidents only help to avoid them.

O.T. I just wish people would HANG UP AND DRIVE. Damn people, you scare the crap out of me. I think hands free devices should be the FIRST STANDARD EQUIPMENT INSTALLED ON CARS. Sorry, don't mean to shout but I've had more near misses from you cell phone callers than someone backing up into me or someone I know.

I have the same experience. How about we just insist that people drive safely and back up cautiously by actually turning and looking?

And as for cell phones and texting in cars, how about we make it impossible for a cell phone signal to get to the moving car, (by having the moving car jam the cell phone signal), and make sure texting cannot happen. Lots more lives would be saved that way than with a camera and video screen for backing up.

when it rings. I don't have to fumble around for the phone, it rings inside the car and I can talk and drive without moving my hands from the steering wheel. I can also get directions from the navigation system by voice so that I turn where needed. This is very important for people that don't live in their home towns anymore. I can't text through the car panel anyway so I never would consider doing that.

we didn't have phones in cars, about 90 years.



We looked at maps, we planned ahead, we didn't need some robot telling us to turn left or right.

Get a map, get directions from you next destination. Turn OFF your phone, and concentrate on driving for 3 hours before you get to your destination!

No, you don NOT need to talk on a phone as you drive. Just as you don't need to watch TV as you drive.

Do the driving, concentrate upon looking OUTSIDE your windshield, not listening to some robot.

There was a time when people had to stop and make a call from a phone booth. There was a time when people actually couldn't drive at 70 MPH and talk on the phone and text their friends while listening to four channel bass-boosted stereo. Please, learn that driving involves planning, strategy, and skill, not reliance upon some robot to tell you what to do next.

and it might serve you to read my other posts. I rarely drive and rarely if ever talk on the phone in the car. I have a pay as you go cell phone because of lack of need. It's for emergencies and you make it sound like I could manage to talk on the phone, text and change the speakers when I have both hands on the wheel and looking around to make sure nobody side swipes me from texting on their phone.

I've had my drivers license since 1976. I've never hit someone in an accident and have a good driving record. Pls don't talk down to people like that as it's disrespectful.

I often get compliments from people watching me parallel park. I guess they assume the big truck is going to smash a few bumpers. I can put my truck in some really tight places without touching another car. Solid beep means six inches left to go.

A camera would be nice as the sensors give false positives if there is something, like another car, within 45 degrees and a couple feet of the rear when backing. Or if ice is on the sensors.

On SUV'S, Pickups and maybe Minivans which have pretty big rear blind spots I'd OK it with it. But every passenger car? C'mon car are expensive enough as it is

...more high-maintenance electronics you pay for whether you want it or not.

Leave your vehicle in 'P' (for Park on automatic transmissions).

Added advantages - savings in money not spent on gas, and no-one gets run over by a stationary vehicle.

But as I added up post... cameras - meh... proximity detectors (flashing ones for deaf drivers) heck yeah. Saves rear bumpers *and* lives on reversing. Similar thing for proximity detectors for going forward - prevent tailgating and the vehicle can brake if the vehicle in front slows down rapidly without explanation. I'd also go for audible reverse warnings but the drivers of certain vehicles must be able to dis-engage them (e.g. take a Jeep off road, no need for the audible warnings... you're stuck so you'll be sprayed with mud if you're behind!) - but law to have the noise on when driving on paved roads.

Be nice if the proposed law took into account some standard of visibility from the drivers seat, rather than 'herp derp, every passenger vehicle'.

In fact, I think the wording of the law might exempt my truck.

But I think this is a very good idea. The fact so many people have tall SUVs and Pickups, means a big blind spot. Plus regular cars are being designed today with very high trunk lids to improve on aerodynamics thus increasing fuel economy. This means many cars have a blind spot directly behind the car.

I can't imagine anything more horrible than to back over a child.

The next new car I buy will have a backup cam, even if I have to pay extra for the option.

Because they were looking at the pretty "snow rooster tails" coming off the back of their car

Half of the population should be subjected to driving very simple vehicles, like a base model Tercel.

No blue tooth, no MP3, just AM/FM, no cameras or video players or seperate climate controls, nothing.

Just the basic shit you would have gotten in 1984.



Then after driving for 5 years you can take my advanced road course test and be able to pick any vehicle you want. This includes being able to navigate a corner with no hands, only your knee. Also includes tests such as being able to drift on a gravel road while staying in your lane and awareness tests. The instructor may ask at any time what type & color of vehicle is in front, behind or to either side of you and approximate distance. Your answer should be immediate.

Just another app on the triple DIN radio set.

Soon enough Sprint and Verizon will have apps you'll just upload to your triple DIN radio tied to your TN (telephone number). It will probably even have presence functionality to know you are in/driving the car so the switch or IMS platform or whatever technology they decide to use will know. Then your cellphone won't even ring, call will come in directly to your triple DIN radio

I guess keeps folks like me in a job-

Maybe they can also install a full BT keyboard in there so I can surf the web while I'm bored driving the highways.

and gets better all the time

I need a FPS that I can play while I'm fighting traffic.

going on just in front of my truck's front bumper! Picking up the kids at school used to be a white knuckle time. I generally waited until we were the last car in the lot before moving.

You can rail about people's carelessness all you want to , but "two children die and about 50 are injured every week when someone accidentally backs over them". It happens. It happens ever to careful people.

When my Dad visited us when the kids were small, he never moved his van unless and until every kid was accounted for. People rushing out the door to work don't necessarily think of taking that precaution!.

you can't make idiots pay attention.

Yesterday, I was almost run over in the parking lot of my bank when the guy who had been sitting in his SUV put it in reverse and immediately started moving. There was less than a second delay for me to jump out of his way.

I am not small. He did not have an obstructed view. He just didn't look.

Cameras are omnipresent nowadays. It's cheap to place one in the center of the back. It would only show up on the dashboard when the car is in reverse and perhaps require the driver to press a button to OK the image before the accelerator pedal can engage.

So for example, the driver shifts to reverse. The image comes up on the dash. An "OK to go" button also pops up beneath the image. Driver looks at image, taps the button. Reverse gear is now engaged and driving is possible.

Possibly good to have one up front as well.

If you see school buses, you see all those angulated mirrors all around the bus. THAT is hack for a real problem of students mindlessly walking in front of or behind the bus and out of view of normal mirrors for the bus driver. All those extra mirrors help the driver see blind spots. I think a camera situation would be the best thing do have. But once the car is underway, the camera turns off to not distract the driver.

Spectacularly stupid..

What I meant was like one of those little FM gadgets you get to play the iPod through the radio.

He was an electronics technician and got a camera and a little monitor, and even rewired it to reverse the picture so the rear view would look the way he expected when in the driver's seat.

LOVE IT.

Once again - US is years behind....

I was reversing down my driveway and two little girls walked past just as I was backing out had I not seen them in the camera they would be dead so yes they work and are so worth it!

Can also install a warning buzzer to sound etc . . .

I drove a Passat in Europe last summer that had an ultrasonic ranging system in both front and rear (mainly as a parking aid). Any object within a certain distance set off beeps whose frequency increased the closer the object was. People passing behind the car would set it off. There was also a display showing roughly how far the nearest obstacle was directly behind and in front as well as near the corners of the car.

The display was like the image below except without the side sensors:

Then I thought "Why?"

then I read the headline again

then I laughed

Toyota Tacoma. The camera is in the handle you pull down for the gate.
When you put it in reverse, the camera pic automatically shows up in the left side of the rear view mirror. I think it is very handy.

I hardly ever use it.

It's been virtually hard wired into my brain to back up by looking over my right shoulder.

I have had to force myself to watch the monitor. Frankly, even though it's wide angle, I don't trust it. I can't make a good judgement on its depth.

It's really just a matter of retraining people, but frankly, you can make this a law, but it doesn't mean people will use it.

My first thought upon using it was that soon every car built will have this feature.

If people use them, there will be fewer injuries and deaths. Same as safety belts.

My primary thought on this particular piece of technology is that in order to use it, you're kinda looking in the wrong direction to begin with. Unless the display unit is on the back window, it kinda has ya lookin' forward when ya ought to be looking backwards. You need to look more places than just directly behind you.

But when I added the A.R.E. walk-in top, I lost the O.E.M. tailgate and its built-in camera. That was not good. After-market suppliers - like A.R.E. - should have to include a rear-view camera (they are cheap as dirt). It becomes much more critical in a pickup truck with a bed top.

I did not like the rear-view mirror projection, but I'd like to have it now.

The trial lawyers will get access to the deep pockets of the automobile industry. Next time an accident happens and it can be demonstrated there was some ‘flaw’ in the backup camera, the lawyers will sue the dealership, car maker, and the company that produced the cameras.

Radar that beeps when I'm about to hit something makes sense, but I really can't see the benefit of a camera for the typical sedan. At best I'd glance at it before I started moving, but that doesn't mean something small hasn't run behind me in the meantime.

this just takes it up a notch. I don't even come close to being able to afford a new car as it is. As a mechanic I can say its ridiculous and counterproductive - most of this stuff is broken within a few years, and service needs quickly erase the value of the car. I really wish someone was still allowed to make a basic reliable car in the US.

I would expect that a new car with such a feature might sell well enough to maintain a place in the market.

If the market would have tried the feature without having been required to do so, they might not now face regulations requiring them to install such a feature.

All the talk about free enterprise, but we in fact have oligopolistic industries that try to take as little risk as possible.

It essentially mandates higher-quality basic entertainment units because, presently, they're the most cost-effective means of installing a screen on the dash.

I want full cable TV while I'm driving, and I don't want federal or state governments telling me I can't.