NHTSA to require rearview cameras in new vehicles

TPMS is already a giant PITA that I have to pay for, and now this :( at least you only pay for it once when you buy the vehicle...
 
Davetouch said:
I've always found it to be the other way around; the frame is set by the legislation/safety/BIW people then the aero is shaped around that. Thick pillars in the wrong place is just bad design and thought from the outset mixed with horrific safety strength required. :dunno:

Apart from stuff like the P1 where the aero team will work very closely with the design and body teams.
Click to expand...

High belt lines are the result of increasing side impact standards (glass is not as good as metal). Thick pillars are the result of airbag mandates and rollover protection standards (why the Crown Vic is now extinct.) High hood lines are the result of EU pedestrian safety standards (apparently EU pedestrians are dumber than American ones and must be protected from themselves.)

Then you throw in the mandatory fuel economy laws and what you're looking at for a sedan is something with a high tail for aero (as well as cargo) purposes. And also so the car doesn't look stupid, like the old hunchback Sevilles.
 
blackman said:
TPMS is already a giant PITA that I have to pay for, and now this :( at least you only pay for it once when you buy the vehicle...
Click to expand...

Funnily mine doesn't even work, the wheels were switched at some point and sensors never registered (it's an annoying procedure that requires some specialized tools and taking tires off).
 
I just changed my wheels, the new ones are equipped with TPMS. Cost me $130. Didn't register them with the car. Worked fine for a couple of days but stopped working recently. Seems like the registering of the sensor is just one more way to make cash for car dealers...
 
Davetouch said:
I think if it already had a screen I'd have a camera, but I don't like the idea of now every car having to have a screen. Even though most cars now have screens anyway it shouldn't be something forced.
Click to expand...

I read through the ruling to look for this.

First, my head hurts now. Legalese does not make for easy reading.

Second, the ruling explicitly stated it is not against alternate display solutions. In particular, it called out several manufacturers' solutions to put the display in the rearview mirror much like Ford does/did with some of their lower-trim models lacking a large center dashboard display.

bilde


The ruling is mostly concerned with producing a suitable enough image, which it states will be when standard test objects set a standard distance away from the camera produce an image of each object at a minimum visual subtended angle of 5 degrees of arc which, for reference, is the apparent height of the large letter E in Snellen charts when viewed from the standard 20 feet (6 meters).

So, dashboard displays are not the only allowable method under the ruling. Meeting some other criteria on positioning (the ruling toyed a little with a comment suggesting the display be mounted behind the driver facing forward, deeming it impractical), displays can be mounted wherever a manufacturer can meet minimum image requirements.

Practically, though, this means more large center screens, as it is simply easier to do that.
 
Davetouch said:
If this was mandating audible parking sensors that'd be a lot better, cheaper and would ensure people still paid attention to their surroundings.
Click to expand...

Oh fuck no! I'll pay for a camera over that option. My mom's Volvo defaults the parking sensors on and the font ones go nuts with the beeping the moment you put the car in reverse. One of these days I'm going to jab the "off" button right through the fucking firewall.
 
Blind_Io said:
Oh fuck no! I'll pay for a camera over that option. My mom's Volvo defaults the parking sensors on and the font ones go nuts with the beeping the moment you put the car in reverse. One of these days I'm going to jab the "off" button right through the fucking firewall.
Click to expand...

I have the same thing fitted to my Passat, but it only activates the rear sensors when reversing. To get the front ones going, you have to push the button.
 
Blind_Io said:
Oh fuck no! I'll pay for a camera over that option. My mom's Volvo defaults the parking sensors on and the font ones go nuts with the beeping the moment you put the car in reverse. One of these days I'm going to jab the "off" button right through the fucking firewall.
Click to expand...

Blame Volvo for shoddy implementation :dunno:
 
I must admit it does seem a solution looking for a problem - install the "backing up" noise thingy (NB Cheap) - that will give you most of the benefit at a fraction of the price.
 
I can just about guarantee that this will have little to no impact on the injuries and fatalities. People don't pay attention anyway, they just back out obliviously. I can't count the number of times I've almost been hit in parking lots by vehicles obviously equipped with a rear-view camera NOW.
 
There is no patch for human stupidity.
 
I have to echo the others who wouldn't mind the backup camera. More models are coming with the camera as standard and some brands are putting in cameras across the range*.
Personally, I'd find a backup camera to be a boon for parallel parking. It's something that I'm, admittedly, fucking terrible at.

The camera would also be welcome (especially if it was one of the better implementations with guidance lines/trajectory when reversing out of tight parking spaces: Today's high decklids, rear seat head restraints and thick C pillars on many sedans make reversing through a postage stamp sized window in a narrow lot a exercise in the multi-point turn.

I doubt that a camera module likely used in a 5 year old smartphone along with a wire and perhaps a thicker mirror for the display would add noticeable weight + cameras have been around for years now in luxury cars and high trim vehicles and I haven't really heard of widespread camera failures. If cameras were dying left and right, one would figure it'd be known more.

Yes one can and should do a walkaround of the vehicle, but there's still plenty that can happen in the timespan between getting in the car, getting situated, then reversing. Especially if there's a blind zone directly behind the trunklid/tailgate/liftgate.

*of course with new models tending to come with the camera standard, the fiscally/politically conservative among us could make and likely successfully back up the argument that the free market is implementing this already due to customer demand. Maybe not at a fast enough clip for regulators but it is seemingly happening, albeit not as much on the low end as standard equipment.
 
rickhamilton620 said:
Yes one can and should do a walkaround of the vehicle, but there's still plenty that can happen in the timespan between getting in the car, getting situated, then reversing. Especially if there's a blind zone directly behind the trunklid/tailgate/liftgate.
Click to expand...

Additionally, you're not only reversing when setting off out of your home driveway. I doubt anyone does a walkaround every time they engage reverse.
 
Most places other than your driveway you are backing into the travel lane of a parking lot and approach your car from the back anyway.
 
Most places I back into are parallel parking spots :dunno: I look at them while passing so I don't back into things stationary in the parking spot, but people tend to move :shakefist:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top