My name is Dr. Greg Gulbransen, and I am a pediatrician practicing in Oyster Bay, New York. I spend most of my time caring for the health and safety of children. I would consider myself to be a very safety-conscious professional and parent. My tragic story could absolutely happen to any family in America.
On October 19th, 2002, my wife Leslie and I returned home from an evening out. It was 9:30 p.m., and I went outside to put my SUV in the driveway. Inside were the babysitter, my wife and my two sons – or so I thought. While I was backing up the car into the driveway, I felt the wheel go over a bump. I jumped out of the SUV so I could figure out what I had hit. There on the driveway was my 2-year-old son Cameron, bleeding to death from massive head injuries.
I can’t begin to describe the shock and devastation. How did this happen? He was in the house and I looked where I was going. How could I have missed him? I had looked in the rear view mirrors, the side mirrors and out the back window, but I never saw him. I never even had a chance of seeing Cameron. He was too small.
Before becoming a parent, I would have described this fellow as “publicity-seeking douchebag egomaniac who used what was probably a semi-intoxicated speedbumping of his designer yuppie baby to stick his nose in the business of other people who have yet to negligently speedbump their own kids, attempting to get his son’s name on some intrusive legislation for the purpose of calming down his wife so he doesn’t lose his Chihuly collection in the divorce.”
Now, in 2012, as a parent of a nearly three-year-old child myself, I realize that calling him a drunk on a major website could get me sued, which could negatively affect my ability to pay off the parents of the first girl my son knocks up at a rave twelve years from now. So let’s assume that Dr. Gulbransen was totally sober after his night out when he tossed that pup in reverse and tragically killed his own son. Regardless, let’s discuss the “Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007” and what it now means as of this past Wednesday.
The New York Times reported yesterday that the NHTSA will force automakers to add a backup camera to all vehicles sold in the United States beginning in 2014. The Times opines that
However, in a preliminary version circulated for public comment, regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle. At least some of the cost is expected to be passed on to consumers through higher prices.
You think? Hard to believe that the entire auto industry won’t just throw that in as a freebie. Backup cameras for everyone, courtesy of The One Percent! It also seems difficult to believe that the cost of putting a working backup camera in a vehicle is a hundred and sixty bucks. Perhaps in a loaded Ford Explorer that already has a unibody full of fiber optics and a big center-dash LCD. The cost of putting one in a base Kia Rio will certainly be higher. So the poorer you are, the more the legislation will cost you. Sounds awfully, um, regressive to me.
According to the people at Kidsandcars.org,
In the U.S. at least fifty children are being backed over by vehicles EVERY week. Forty-eight (48) are treated in hospital emergency rooms and at least two (2) children are fatality injured every WEEK.
• The predominant age of victims is one year olds. (12‐23 months)
• Over 60% of backing up incidents involved a larger size vehicle. (truck, van, SUV)
• Tragically, in over 70% of these incidents, a parent or close relative is behind the wheel.
Those are fairly depressing statistics. It’s easy to see how the 30% of “stranger-related backovers” occur. Plenty of people do careless reversing, self included, and particularly in places where we don’t expect to see children. The rest of it just seems inexcusable. Having lived in a suburb for over a decade, I’m in the habit of walking around the back of my car before backing up. Perhaps two dozen times in that ten years there has been a child in the vicinity. The solution to the situation is always clear. You move the child, alert the parents, or wait a moment. It’s that simple. Even when I know my own son is somewhere else, I look for my neighbor’s children. Dr. Gulbransen’s failure to do that cost him the life of his own son.
The Times article notes the so-called “Liddy light” — the third brake light mandated back in 1986. The effect of the “Liddy light” was very clear to most of us who were driving at the time. For the first few years, the presence of a high-mounted stoplight reduced rear-end accidents… and then people simply adjusted to looking for one light on the back of the car instead of two. Nowadays, having a dead CHMSL will get you nailed in the ass faster than attending one of Kobe Bryant’s house parties. Let’s hope that these mandatory cameras don’t wind up just being ignored… or worse yet, creating a false sense of security. There’s no substitute for looking for children. Ever. If you back over a child, it is your fault. Not the SUV’s fault, not the government’s, not the child’s. Your fault. Tragic, but true.
He was looking for the wrong thing. I don’t look to make sure I can’t see my kids. I do a head count as I get in the car, and I look to make sure I can see every one of them. If I can’t see all kids in the area, mine or otherwise, I don’t move.
Concern is that with a backup camera you focus on the limited viewing area that the camera provides and you don’t do a proper head check. I have already met one person that has been T-boned this way (he did admit it was his fault for relying on the camera).
Bottom line, you can’t fix stupid! You can’t legislate carelessness away with gadgets.
Children are more important than cars.
You do everything possible to prevent these deaths.
$200 is what, three tanks of gas?
Get it done.
We are not comparing children to cars. We are comparing raping everyone in the country in order to make some idiot more comfortable with not raping everyone in the country while leaving the idiot crying in his pillow.
As for the 3-rd brake light, I still cannot fathom why they didn’t mandate yellow turn signals instead. Dumbest idea ever.
Well, the cameras are a good thing. I personally would not buy another SUV or a truck without one. I don’t have one in my Honda Ridgeline and it is a major pain in the rear to back it up or parallel park. It wouldn’t be a bad idea for all the trucks and SUV to come with one standard…gov’t mandated? I am not so sure.
If you are not going to look around your vehicle before backing up you are probably not going to pay attention to the backup camera either. If a driver is not inclined to see a full size child near a car with their own eyes what are the odds they with see a miniature one on a 7″ low resolution screen on the center console?
Just because something is being done “for the children” does not make it good, smart, practical, or effective.
“If you are not going to look around your vehicle before backing up you are probably not going to pay attention to the backup camera either. ”
Huh? You walk around your car before you back up?
Yes, I always look behind a vehicle before I back it up. I have had a CDL for over 20 years, and big trucks have big blind spots and don’t have backup cameras so you learn to look very carefully before you move. Plus a truck will crush almost anything organic, and most smaller cars, without missing a beat.
I also live in a neighborhood full of small kids on foot and bikes, as well as assorted pets. For that reason I always reverse park my personal vehicles into the driveway; I want a clear line of vision when I am pulling away from the house or any other parking space when practical.
I also know this is the exception and not what most people do.
But in the real world, do you think harried dad or multitasking mom is suddenly going to focus on the fuzzy dash cam while backing up? Since most drivers can’t back up using mirrors, how will they look out the back window and at the dash cam at the same time? Even if they did, would they see a kid/dog/cat in the shadows or camera blind spots? I don’t think so. Unfocused drivers are going to remain unfocused, and bad things will come of it.
Absolutely. $200 is a VERY small price to pay. I really can’t see any downsides at all. The additional weight/electrical system demands would be negligible at best, and in no way would negatively effect the car’s performance, aesthetics, or ergonomics. I don’t think there’s any question that it could directly lead to the avoidance of tragedy (and more mundanely, avoidance of fixed obstacles and resulting bumper/body damage).
I’m no more eager to futher empower the “nanny state” than anyone else here, and am typically quite libertine in my views, but sometimes reality just doesn’t harmonize with political ideology, and this appears to be one such situation. I just cannot conceive of any logical reasons to oppose this, regardless of political orientation. It doesn’t restrict anyone’s behavior or trample on personal “freedom” in any meaningful way, doesn’t negatively impact the economy, and doesn’t mandate any significant changes to the rest of the vehicle; I agree, LET’S GET IT DONE.
As always, one person craps and the liberal answer is to mandate everyone else in the country buy and wear diapers forever.
“But in the real world, do you think harried dad or multitasking mom is suddenly going to focus on the fuzzy dash cam while backing up?”
Yes.
The cost will not be $200. It will probably be nothing to the end consumer. The $20 it will cost, in high volume manufacturing, to put a camera in the license plate light housing, and a small LCD screen somewhere, will be a wash.
When the government makes a semi-monopoly like AT&T do something then the consumer is going to pay.
In a highly competitive industry like the auto industry, this is not going to get passed onto the consumer. Especially because of price psychology. A car isn’t going to go from $13,995 to $14,015 because of the backup camera.
That said, I do not agree with this.
1) It will create a false sense of security, as Jack said. People should really get out and look behind their cars before backing up.
2) The standard LCD screen will encourage the spread of infotainment features, causing more distracted driving.
3) The government is picking a winner. Why should a digital camera and LCD screen be the answer. Why not better mirrors, or a low rear deck and large rear window? The requirement should be that people can see what the hell is behind their cars, whatever solution allows for that.
“Bottom line, you can’t fix stupid!” This guy was a pediatrician, not Larry the Cable Guy or a welfare queen. But there are a lot of sloppy f-up doctors. Think about that next time someone cries about the need for malpractice reform. I would not be surprised if his kid was not the first kid whose death the good doctor caused.
“A car isn’t going to go from $13,995 to $14,015 because of the backup camera.”
There are numerous ways for manufacturers to pass along the cost to consumers, some seen and others unseen. One way would be to hike the price. They may or may not do that. Another would be to, say, keep the price the same but reduce the amount spent on the rest of the car. So instead of paying $13,995 for a car with interior materials that cost $2000, you’ll pay $13,995 for a car with interior materials that cost $1800, and that comes with a backup camera. Or perhaps they will take a previously standard feature and turn it into an option. Or they will take an audio system that previously had 6 speakers and reduce it to 4.
Some how, some way, the cost always gets passed on to consumers. If you think it’s not, you’re not thinking hard enough.
If all regulation costs could be effortlessly passed on to consumers then companies would not fight them.
If an automaker could get away with charging $13,995 for a car with your hypothetical $1,800 interior and 4 speakers, instead of your hypothetical $2,000 interior and 6 speakers, then the automaker would be selling the car equipped that way already.
And we are talking about how $20 to $50 will be split, the cost estimates are way high.
I’m not for this, but I think there are better arguements against it than the cost.
3) The government is picking a winner. Why should a digital camera and LCD screen be the answer. Why not better mirrors, or a low rear deck and large rear window? The requirement should be that people can see what the hell is behind their cars, whatever solution allows for that.
Exactly. This is a bandaid to poor design. Why should automakers not have to design properly sized vehicles that don’t have huge blind spots? Cuz they can throw a 2 dollar camera in.
And I also agree this is pretty much sealing the deal that ALL cars are going to have the annoying touch screens in them controlling everything from the HVAC to the radio to god knows what else. Maybe the touch screen could be used to adjust the remote mirrors, electric windows, and power seats too. Think of the cost savings!
And when those f’ers break, and they will, it is going to be a lot more than 200 dollars to fix. Not to even mention all the distracted driving those are going to cause and those accidents….
Not to sound like a jerk, but if a parent runs over his own child, then they probably were not fit to be a parent anyway.
By the way, I always walk around the back of my car before backing out of the driveway as there are lots of kids in my neighborhood. Either that, or I park on the street requiring no backing up.
“3) The government is picking a winner. Why should a digital camera and LCD screen be the answer. Why not better mirrors, or a low rear deck and large rear window? The requirement should be that people can see what the hell is behind their cars, whatever solution allows for that.”
Have you looked at the NHTSA requirements? They didn’t mandate rear cameras, they just said cars need to have better visibility in the rear — all the automakers just jumped on board with the rear camera idea, because it’s easier than redesigning cars.
Perhaps it’s possible that the way the details of the spec are worded that it’s impossible to have any other solution than a camera, but I haven’t seen anybody quote specifics…
Closer and closer to the days predicted in the old Road and Track story, “A Nice Morning Drive”, by Richard Foster and the corresponding Rush song, “Red Barchetta”.
Story:
http://www.mgexperience.net/article/nice-drive.html
Like rt said above, “Bottom line, you can’t fix stupid!”. I certainly agree.
What are children doing behind, or under cars? Why aren’t parents doing their job? It seems people want more and more things done to make sure they have to do less and less parenting. I assume if you don’t know where your kid is, you probably weren’t too terribly attached to it anyway.
Thump. Whoops. There goes your tax deduction.
If you care about safety and think that a backup camera is the solution to all your problems, they’re already on the market. If you care enough, buy one or buy a car that comes with one. Also, please don’t let your kids play directly behind my car. It’s quite small and will take significant effort to clear their cranium.
Kids die and you make jokes about it? Really? Shameful.
Dead toddler humor?
It is a conservative position to be pro-life and conserve life.
This is a simple inexpensive thing to do. You don’t make jokes about dead toddlers to prove some sick point you wish to make.
For once, I’m agreeing with VanillaDude.
All the whining about how bad drivers are not to do a walk around everytime they back up, or that no one should drive an SUV with bad sight-lines, or that people are bad parents because they don’t know where every toddler in the neighborhood is – give all your heads a shake.
O, and don’t worry about your constitutional rights being abused – they can’t make you use the backup camera if you don’t want to.
We all make mistakes- so if a $200 camera can help to stop me (or any other supposed brain-dead, inattentive, unfit parent/driver) from maiming or killing children, then it’s money well spent.
My “sick point” is keeping track of your children and being a responsible parent?
Well…we’ll have to agree to disagree.
More and more electronic nannies can’t fix stupid, and stupid+cars will equal deaths. And I’m guessing alcohol had something to do with it.
The way most backup cameras are calibrated these days, at least on evil killer SUVs and trucks, is to avoid hitting parked CARS as you back up and they’re angled as such. They still have blind spots big enough to flatten your kid after a night out drinking, especially if he wandered right behind the vehicle before you throw it in reverse.
What’s next?
Job site-style beeping? People still get whacked by construction equipment despite the shrill sound the it makes when it backs up.
“More and more electronic nannies can’t fix stupid, and stupid+cars will equal deaths.”
As stability has clearly demonstrated – we most certainly can.
Why do you think a $200 million Boeing 787 goes “Woop, woop, too low gear.” Because even highly trained pilots sometimes do stupid things and try and land without putting the gear down.
Woop, woop, woop child under car, child under car.
I don’t think there’ll ever be a warning that shouts “Sober the f*** up and check your surroundings before backing up as not to squash your toddler!”
Although my GMC truck warns me too look out for ice if the outside temperature is around freezing. I’m guessing the next thing is that it’ll warn me about rain if I have the wipers on.
Actually, a sonar-based system that detected obstacles directly behind your car when reverse is engaged and activated an alarm would probably be more effective. A lot harder to ignore than a LCD screen, and probably cheaper.
+1 for the solution offered by Russycle. This would be the most effective and least able to be ignored by drivers, least impact on vehicle cost and instrument panel design. Could also consider adding some sort of external audio warning like commercial vehicles have so that other adults in the area might be alerted to intercede.
I agree that nothing should replace looking behind your car before you back up, or actually turning your head to look side to side and around as you back up, but I’m not against the move to include backup cameras in all cars.
Properly set up with a wide-angle lens and angled slightly down a backup camera should show anything that isn’t sitting right up against the rear tires. In many cameras you can see the edge of the rear bumper of the car.
I’m not sure I agree on the cost suggested. There are aftermarket systems already out that cost less than $120. Cameras and LCD screens are both cheap and getting cheaper – this isn’t a situation where you need a high resolution HD camera or screen. The most expensive part of installing an aftermarket backup camera now is the labor to run the cable from the screen to the camera itself. If the camera were to be designed into the vehicle it could easily just be laid in with all of the other cables running around a vehicle on the line.
+1. This is all about reducing blind spots. Right or wrong, this particular blind spot grabs the most attention because it usually involves parents running over their own children. When was the last time you heard of anyone blame their side blind spot for a fatal accident?
To various degrees, all passenger vehicles have a blind spot below where your line of vision meets the end of the trunk or tailgate. Whatever needs to be done to see in this blind area I think is a good thing. It could be as simple as a high-mount mirror on the back of the car, just like some delivery trucks have. Something tells me the average consumer won’t go for that, though.
“it usually involves parents running over their own children”
Parents who don’t want to run over their own children have incentive to purchase vehicles with backup cameras if they think that will help. That will solve most of the runover problem without any government intervention.
Except if said parents can’t afford the attached tech packages that are usually required for rear-view cameras, or can’t afford the cars where said cameras are usually present.
A study reported by Popular Mechanics indicated that more safety features causes people to become complacent. I believe it. A back up camera will give people a false sense of security and their habits will become worse.
USAToday reported that last year 292 people (pedestrians) died from being backed into – typically very young or very old. I agree that simple responsible behavior is all that’s needed to prevent this (as well as cars that you can actually see out of). Now, let’s do the math: Beecause of carelessness and the fact that even with the mandate, not every car will have a back-up camera, and those who are careless enough to not pay attention to where they are going are still going to be careless, only about about a third of those deaths will be prevented.
Using your numbers, that’s $2.7B to save 100 lives = $27M per life saved. I honestly don’t know anyone whose life is worth that.
“A study reported by Popular Mechanics indicated that more safety features causes people to become complacent. I believe it.”
I have a company car that has collision warning, a rear view camera, and adaptive cruise.
The first day I got into my piece of crap Cavalier after driving my company car for 6 months straight, I left work, exited onto the interstate and rear ended another motorist (who thankfully was a co-worker with another POS). I didn’t even put 3 miles on the odometer before I fell victim to my own idiocy. Inferior brakes and the distracted driving habit I had developed due to the luxury of collision warning caused the mishap.
Follow that up with the recent FAA report that additional automation in the cockpit reduces pilot skill levels.
Presumably there are also a lot of non-fatal, but expensive, injuries caused while backing up, not to mention damage to vehicles and other property. I’m sure the insurance industry knows what the dollar figure for that is, doubt if we ever will.
It’s reported that there are around 18,000 injuries from backing vehicles to pedestrians a year. I do not know how this compares to other car-pedestrian accidents, nor do I know their severity/cost.
“I would consider myself to be a very safety-conscious professional and parent. My tragic story could absolutely happen to any family in America.”
Doctors are notoriously bad drivers. They also are as a rule very impressed with themselves and believe that if they can’t do something, e.g. not back over a child, then nobody can.
I’m all for backup cameras in every car and frankly a $160 increase in price on something that costs on average $25,000 new is negligible. It shouldn’t be the only thing people are looking at but considering that I see idiots backing up just by looking at the rearview mirror (seriously…I see people do this ALL THE GODDAMN TIME) it’ll at least make the average backup less horrible. I remember slamming my horn at some idiot in a parking lot who was about to back their brand new LS460 into my car (I couldn’t even back up since there was traffic right behind me) and they kept backing up blindly even with me leaning on my horn at them.
And I’ve definitely driven vehicles where no matter how hard you looked you could probably run a kid over if they were behind the car. I don’t have any kids so there’d be no heads to count or account for but if someone or something ran behind a larger vehicle they’d probably get crushed. The fact that cars have gotten ever more tank-like doesn’t really help.
So I hope they bring on the backup cameras. And at least this way there won’t be a huge markup on them-they used to be a luxury option with the usual insane markup but as standard equipment everyone will basically get to pay near wholesale and the cost of implementation drops since every car will be getting it on the assembly line. A victory for everyone who wanted one anyway.
While I empathize with those who have lost love ones in tragic incidents such as these, to make the entire economy and population pay for it by forcing us to buy camera-laden cars is just silly. My prediction: This foolishness may REDUCE, but it will not eliminate these incidents. I doubt if a such a camera rig were in Dr. Gulbransen’s car, it would have prevented the good doctor from runnig over his son. Why do I say this? Because we are a nation in a hurry. We don’t take the time to check behind our car’s when we back out. And though Big Brother may force us to pay for cars with kidcams, they can’t be there to force us to use them, just as they can’t force us to use seatbelts…either you’re careful, or your not.
How did I ensure that my son wouldn’t become a statistic in this fashion? I SPENT TIME with him TEACHING him that cars and trucks are dangerous, and you never PLAY around them. A novel approach, I am sure. One I like to call COMMUNICATION.
Just another way Liberal d-bags feel like “they’ve done their part to ensure a better life for children in America.”
Over 60% of backing up incidents involved a larger size vehicle. (truck, van, SUV)
Isn’t it ironic that the large vehicles we perceive to be safe are in fact contributing to such unsafe conditions? Long vehicles, high-riding vehicles, vehicles with tailgates and high belt lines kill rear visibility.
This statistic is irrelevent without knowing what percentage of vehicles on the road are large vehicles
“The cost of putting one in a base Kia Rio will certainly be higher. ” The Kia Rio SX already has a backup camera as standard equipment. But don’t let facts interrupt the usual right-wing stupidity fest, which we’ve been hearing since the days when seatbelts were first required.
Funny how wingers mock auto-industry flackery except when it coincides with their pet peeves, when they instead repeat it uncritically.
Elaborate? I think the Kia statement was a) a simple mistake, and b) still true. Just because it comes with a camera doesn’t mean the cost is not higher. If I may make a sweeping generalization to counter yours, liberals don’t understand that everything has a cost, whether or not it has a line item.
Probably best to let the liberals have their cameras. The alternative proposal is helmets and orange flags for all two years olds and above.
Supersleuth, I could be missing the point, but what does “right-wing” or “left wing” has to do with it? Now, if you want to talk about political inclinations and government regulations, normally, is not the right wing that dictates private industry what to do or what not to do. So, if you want to rant about something, at least rant about it intelligently.
Thanks for making my point. Yes, the right is where you find reflexive hostility to any and all regulation of industry. So “right-wing” has everything to do with this topic.
I suspect I’m quite a bit older than you, so as I said, I’ve been hearing exactly the same kind of crap ever since the days when mandatory seatbelts came along.
I consider myself centrist to left-leaning.
Mandating backup cameras in cars is just one more frivolous piece of legislation that frankly makes me sick, and worried for the future of the citizens of this country. If the common reaction of the government is to try and legislate people into acting like they have a sense of personal responsibility, what the heck are they going to do when they actually have to show some backbone and take real responsibility for their actions?
Supersleuth,
The Rio SX costs $5,000 more than the base car. Some part of that is certainly the camera. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
I’m also not sure this is a right-wing or left-wing issue at its heart.
What does it matter what part of the package it is? It’s still likely no more than part of whatever it costs to equip an Explorer with one, since neither vehicle has one standard, but both offer one. Just like you said with the Ford, everything needed to offer one on the Kia is already engineered and there, ready to install. In fact, even the Versa has the display there already. The Sonic’s the only thing that readily comes to mind where there’d be much required to offer this. Let’s assume an additional $250. That’s about $6 a month over 4 years if we assume 6%. The counseling and drugs for the aftereffects of killing a kid would be far more, rest assured.
Considering that the SX is more than competitive with comparably equipped B-segment cars, it clearly doesn’t contribute all that much.
ppxhbqt, it’s a matter of statistics. For those $6 spent, you are getting (on average) less than a penny of actual, life-saving benefit. For comparison: why are there no seat belts on school buses? The answer is that there are so few deaths from it that the added costs aren’t justified.
There are less than 300 *TOTAL* deaths each year from this type of accident. That is literallly one-in-a-million odds. And nearly all of those accidents are easily preventable through common sense behavior.
If I’m going to pay an extra $6 on my car for safety, I expect to get $6 worth of safety out of it.
«I’m also not sure this is a right-wing or left-wing issue at its heart.»
Jack,
This the quintessential lefty-right issue.
Lefties pushing feel-good unpaid mandates on the rest of us;
Correct-minded people pointing out you’ll get 1¢ of benefit for $6 spent;
1% imposing rich-man standards of the poor;
Free thinkers underscoring that $100 are little to you, but a lot to minimum-wagers;
Liberals forcing you to pay $200 for unwanted and unnecessary features;
Liberty advocates emphasizing that $200 “protects” against one-in-million risks.
At the bleeding margin, there will be a minimum-wage single mother of two in Tennessee who in 2016 will purchase a hungry used 2006 car without ESP instead of an efficient used 2014 with ESP because of a price differential that will exist there b/c of the camera mandate.
That woman will end up burning more gasoline and may get killed on some icy road because of the camera issue.
It’s called unintended consequences.
vww12
When arguing against government mandates, try not to use examples that show the advantages of government mandates. The reason the 2014 car in your example has ESP and is more efficient is because of government mandates.
Also, while you may be a libertarian, the right-wing in this country is not. That is why Santorum is a threat and Ron Paul is an also ran. The right-wing in this country does not stop until the bedroom, while the backup camera rule is only a regulation dealing with what people drive on government roads. If it was not for the right-wing limiting people’s choices the pill and plan B would be hanging on a shelf in the store like asprin, and Jack wouldn’t be stuck worrying about raver girls.
I don’t understand how people nowadays can turn anything into a left-wing right-wing debate.
The author is at fault here for his mockery in the article with his comments of “one percenters” and “regressives”.
I expect personal attacks and vindictive reviews from Jack Baruth, that’s part of the entertainment. But for the love of all things holy, keep politics out of it. I can’t turn on the TV without getting a headache from listening to someone say something mind-numbingly stupid about politics, how about we keep my automotive websites a politics free zone, okay?
The base Kia Rio is $13,400. The Rio SX with backup camera is $17,500. Here’s your sign!
Total times my wife or I backed into something without a backup camera = 0. With a backup camera = 1 (luckily it was car not a person). The whole situation sucks, but this does not fix it. I agree with ‘redav’, having backup camera can make people complacent. It’s fine to help you parallel park, but it should not be used in place of looking back. It does not help at all when it’s sunny, raining, or snowy out. If anything, a backup alarm would be better. One of the stupider laws I ever heard of.
It is hard to find a car that has not come installed with an option you don’t want, even on a “cheap” car. A lot of kids are getting killed/hurt, so if they help $200 is worth it.
Our parents piloted cars sometimes twice the size the A-segmented cars today and we are here to talk about it.
Unfortunately, the kids whose parents DID back over them aren’t here to counter your point. It’s still a problem.
Selection bias my man. With 37k a year dying likely 1.6 million people aren’t here because they died in car accidents since your parents day.
Care to retract your statement?
Edited to assume 37k deaths a year and assuming Norm’s parents are 60 and started driving at 16.
Still No. Norm was likely not referring to his biological parents, but to the parents of his generation generally, given the context of his statement. So assumptions about Norm’s parents’ ages are irrelevant.
Further, you cited “car accidents” as the cause of death, but the context of Baruth’s article and of virtually all the comments here (my own snarky one, infra, notwithstanding) has to do specifically and exclusively with “speedbumping” small children. Bothe cause of death and the victim group are far narrower than those you used to generate your statistic.
Finally, the chronology is this: NormSV650 implied, if I read him rightly, that the problem is modern drivers, not modern cars. That is, the cars from our parents’ generation were generally larger, more steel/less plastic, and had less visibility and fewer safety features. Nevertheless, most folks from that generation magically failed to run over their kids, even without backup cameras.
In reply, you asserted selection bias, and then pulled some numbers out of thin air regarding Norm’s parents in order to justify your claim of selection bias, and then I called you on it, and then you linked to some web page, and then you edited to change to some other numbers that also seem wild-blue-yonder-birthed.
Caboose,
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
I assumed Norm’s parents are in their 60s and started driving at 16.
duplicate
has to do specifically and exclusively with “speedbumping” small children.
I was responding specifically to Norm’s comment which made no mention of “speedbumping”. He is able to make his comment because he was not among the 1.6 million to die in automobile accidents since his parents generation started driving i.e. his is the victim of selection bias.
” That is, the cars from our parents’ generation were generally larger, more steel/less plastic, and had less visibility and fewer safety features.”
Nope. Doesn’t matter how old your parents are, their car probably had much better visibility than yours.
On average, today’s cars are probably the worst to see out of in the whole history in motoring. Some of the old cars had huge blind spots in the rear.
Nearly every new car has freaking humoungous blind spots in the rear and huge ones everywhere else, beginning by the A-pillars.
I have trouble putting modern B or C-segment cars in the parking space that would be plenty big enough for my ol’ Chevy Caprice, which was about a three foot longer. And one of the main reasons is I can’t see an effing thing out of them.
It probably should not be mandated, but any new car without parking sensors and/or parking camera is useless.
There is another side to this too and that’s todays auto styling trends. I do agree with most posters here, no electronic gadgetry can replace common sense when it comes to safely operating a motor vehicle and nanny systems teach drivers they can drive carelessly. However Jalopnik pointed out in their coverage on this about how poor visibility is on todays cars and how it’s just getting worse because of modern styling trends. It’s not just SUVs we’re talking here. Glass area is being taken away and replaced with swooping doorlines and roofs and thin rear windows in the name of sporty styling. The visibility on the 2010 optima vs 2011 optima is the perfect example. One of the reasons I love my Grand Marquis is the fact that I can see everyting 360 degrees around me simply by looking out the window.
“I agree with most posters here, no electronic gadgetry can replace common sense when it comes to safely operating a motor vehicle and nanny systems teach drivers they drive carelessly”
You’d be wrong. People have been driving like idiots for a century, and these electronic (and mechanical) nannies have been making cars safer and reducing injuries year over year.
I agree completely. The slit windows, bulky C pillars, and too-shallow windshields drive me nuts. If they want to legislate anytihng, they should legislate visibility
I’ve never driven a car that didn’t have a blind spot big enough to hide a small child. I don’t like the current high beltline styling, but even a low long wide 60s sedan has a potentially deadly blind spot. One has to check for kids, dogs, cats, bicycles, tricycles, and other stuff when backing up on a suburban driveway.
Back up Cameras
Tire pressure monitor systems
Third Brake lights
Irresponsible people and lawyers have already sent us down that “slippery slope” years ago, we just didn’t realize it.
We will always have both irresponsible people and lawyers with us, so claiming that we should arrange things as though they didn’t exist makes no sense.
Have any of you used an OEM backup camera on new cars?
They’re not that great. They’re fuzzy, they distort, and many of them do not work well after dark, even with reverse lights on.
Further, if an object is at, or just under the rear bumper, you won’t see it. Backup sensors work great with conjunction but the best thing to do is, as Jack said, walk around and see what’s behind your car. I’d say that’s done about .08% of the time.
Has anyone heard of economy of scale? Aftermarket backup cameras are sold anywhere from $20 to $200. Sure, a $20 unit is probably garbage, but if every car had one, the cost of a decent BUC would certainly fall to a reasonable level, one which would disappear in the cost of a typical car.
Shh, common sense is not allowed in ideological discussions.
Mark,
Few manufacturers will stick an independent LCD on top of the dash, like the aftermarket stuff.
Instead, they’ll want to integrate the screen with the radio. This introduces quite a bit of video input/switching/priority issues in low-end cars. As a consumer, you may consider it moot. Engineers will spend real money and real time sweating it out. They’ll have to change radios, wiring, radio cavities, even whole dashes in certain cases. Check out all current Suzukis, for instance.
For people such as myself who already drive cars with full infotainment and cameras, or which at least have such full infotainment as an option, this is moot or nearly moot.
For people who drive econoboxes, this is going to be a multi-hundred dollar tax.
Don’t forget what it will do to the used car market. Requiring rear view cameras will basically require in dash LCD screens, and at that point the manufacturer is probably better off using that screen to operate the entertainment system and HVAC controls.
Presto! Now everybody has MyFordTouch or iDrive. Which is fine until it dies, the cost to repair or replace is in the four figures, and it becomes cheaper to junk the car. Judging how the current systems are aging (not well) and how computer/LCD controls in general age, we will be crushing cars sooner than ever.
If you are middle class or wealthier, this is not a huge problem because you will trade the car before the system dies or repair it if you have to. If you are poor it means you will have no HVAC or entertainment system, and the value of your used car just dropped like a stone.
It already sucks to be poor, and the unintended consequences of mandates just make it worse.
As long as they don’t do something idiotic like make the whole system rely on a mechanical hard drive (and they won’t), I see no reason why the in-dash display would have any less longevity than any other computerized part of the car. I mean, you do realize that virtually every used car on the market has a computer running the fuel injection, right?
«It already sucks to be poor, and the unintended consequences of mandates just make it worse.»
Exactly right.
But one suspects that the 1% would rather feel smug about their “good” intentions than dwell on the tragic consequences of their nannysm on the poor of the land.
Not for nothing are they called limousine liberals.
Nonsense. They’ll use the retrofit solution they’re already using, in most cases — integrating the screen into the rear-view mirror. Works great. Disappears when it’s turned off. One cable hidden under the headliner.
“Over 60% of backing up incidents involved a larger size vehicle. (truck, van, SUV)”
I don’t know if this was meant to demonize evil SUVs, but I suspect it’s the case because the demographic that has little kids tends to also drive minivans and SUVs. I doubt the size of the vehicle contributes much; a 2-year-old can hide behind a Mini as easily as they can a Suburban.
I once scraped my door against the parking pylon at the local gas station in my little first gen Subaru Impreza. The pylon was ~2.5′ tall and being on my passenger side, where the gas filler is, it was just out of sight below the shoulderline. The pump I’d pulled up to was broken, so I put the car back in gear and pulled around to the other side. The horrible crunching noise told me that I’d just done a number on my passenger doors. Any car that has metal up to the shoulderline has the ability to conceal a child, dog, etc.
I have a backup camera and rear sonar on my 4Runner. I find it mostly useful for backing into parking spots or parallel parking, but it is worth every penny, IMO. It isn’t a silver bullet to prevent me from backing into something, but every little bit of info helps.
People will begin to replace the center rear view mirror with the back up camera. With the limited visual range provided by the back up camera, people will be more likely to get struck by cross traffic as they back up. What will be the solution to this? Mandatory cross traffic radar.
This is the problem with NHTSA’s approach: they become so narrowly focused on a problem and discovering the technological solution to mandate that they fail to understand the bigger picture. I’ve seen this happen too many times before. It will continue to happen. Some mandates have been entirely worthwhile (e.g., ESC). However, a lot of it is knee-jerk reactions to rare, albeit tragic, events that garner attention.
Perhaps the best thing NHTSA could do is rank the causes of injury or death and associated years of life lost (I know they have both of these data) and start at the top with research addressing the root cause of the problem. If they took this approach, we would probably see less of the “find any technology to throw at the problem” solutions and more emphasis on driver training.
What if the root cause is “boneheaded voter syndrome”? Pols really don’t like telling stupid voters that they’re stupid.
Of course not. The DOT’s position is that the driver is never at fault (unless it is a truck driver, in which case the trucker is always at fault)- it is almost always the vehicle’s lack of some safety technology.
I think backup cameras have their place, but not every vehicle needs them, and they certainly shouldn’t be mandated. That said, my next truck will have one, not for avoiding children, I do that the old fashioned way, but so I don’t have to rely on my wife’s gesticulations when hooking up to a trailer.
It’s overkill. Backup cameras are becoming the norm in almost all SUVs equipped with NAV systems, and some high trunk lid sedans as well. Just let the market deal with it. There was never a need to mandate air bags, and they became standard across the board. Back-up cameras will become standard in all but the cheapest and smallest cars, and in those cars, you may already have sufficient rear visibility.
> There was never a need to mandate air bags
I don’t think this is accurate.
Wikipedia is stating that airbags were in cars as early as the late 70’s. Passive restraints, be it airbag or automatic seatbelts, were made a requirement in 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Regulatory_specifications
Seems like the market was starting to make them anyway, regardless of forced government intervention, as usual.
If this keeps up cars will be regulated to the point that they are not affordable to the masses. Seatbelts, even airbags are one thing. TPMS, Traction Control, and now this. So next someone will tragically get lost in the wrong neighborhood and GPS navigation will be required in cars.
All of these things are great OPTIONS but should not be required. A Kia Rio has much less need for this than an Explorer. If I want to manually be responsible for looking out for kids, manually check my tires before driving off, manually try to control my car in rain it should really be my choice to do so.
My friend’s RDX has the backup camera and I have never seen him give it a glance when in reverse. He’s looking out of the side mirror. Maybe this is dumb but how many people will either quit paying attention to it, especially in a hurry, or not use it at all?
Garmin will sell you a handheld navigation unit with lifetime map and traffic updates for <$200. Although built-in systems cost much more, I suspect that's a reflection of what the market will bear, not OEM costs.
Regardless, I expect that satnav (and rear camera, +$30 incl wiring) will soon be standard features, and the time/fuel savings from getting lost or sitting in traffic (less often) will render the cost trivial.
Tying this into the anti-distraction campaigns, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Land Rover "dual-view" screens catching on more broadly.
So, for ~$300, we're looking at reduced distraction, reduced time/fuel consumption (frustration), and safer backing. Pretty cheap compared to systems like ABS, stability, traction, airbags, lane monitoring, radar cruise control.
If the (often ignored) parking brake weren't std, and the "gummit" tried to introduce it today, people would be upset by "expensive overreach". After all, the Park pawl works fine, and if you don't trust it, a set of roped wheel chocks cost $7 on amazon.
My company worked on an optical sensor system for industrial use. It did the job much, but not all, of the time. With vehicles, unless you are going to have a camera mounted on a powered swivel arm, there will always be blind spots. As has been noted, big, tall vehicles will have bigger blind spots, and as was suggested, a walk-around or a head count is the correct procedure to avoid this tragedy. If you need that extra one minute, then leave a minute sooner.
I’m sorry, but this is just baloney. Gulbranson ran over his kid and so the rest of us are bad drivers needing to be legislated against? Whatever happened to the 1990s and “blame the SUV”?
So many of these entitlement-minded Gulbranson types (for whom every consequence befalling them is someone else’s fault, and someone else’s burden to repair) are the same people who say the world is overpopulated.
As the father of zero children (thank God), shouldn’t we encourage more of this behavior? Build fenceless day-care centers adjacent to short-oval race tracks frequented by Super Dutys (more convenient, since you wouldn’t feel the bump) and poor-rear-visibility cars like Camaros and ‘Stangs and Challengers? When we’re finished speedbumping our own kids, Angelina Jolie can adopt the other half of Laos or Thailand or wherever, and in ten years, voila! overpopulation solved! Economy fixed!
I want my country back! I want my freedom back! Give me liberty or give me that guy’s kid’s death!
If I stand in a parking lot and observe what happens, it seems that many SUV pilots don’t even look. They can’t see out the back, anyway, so why bother turning the head?
A mandatory backup camera might give the rest of us a chance.
As to the disproportionate effect on lower-priced cars, that is unlikely to be a problem. We are rapidly approaching the point where the cheapest Tata-wannabe will have a 7″ screen; the electronics are becoming very cheap and the marketing pull is irresistible.
More problematic is whether or not states that inspect will include this on the list of features that must be working in order to pass inspection. That would likely be a somewhat more troublesom burden on people of limite means.
In my experience, pedestrians don’t take responsibility for their actions. If you’re walking through a parking lot, don’t walk behind a vehicle with the backup lights on. I’ve had people run behind my car as I’m backing out.
Whether I’m walking or riding my bike, I always assume that cars and trucks don’t see me, and watch my own butt.
I’m all for the back-up camera requirement. I’m a parent, but my kids are mostly grown now. Still, I remember the anxiety every time I backed my car. Just limiting the anxiety is valuable IMHO. I think they should go further though, they should mandate that the camera have night-vision. In my minivan, at night time, thanks to ordinarily-tinted windows, I can’t see anything that doesn’t have lights behind me. I look before I get in the car, but I back up on guts.
If it’s valuable to you then go buy a backup camera yourself. Why do you need a law for that?
Your anxiety is worth zero dollars to me.
That feeling of anxiety is the reason you didn’t run anyone over. If you are worried about hitting your kids you are likely to be incredibly careful while backing up to avoid doing so. Take away the feeling of anxiety and people will carelessly backup assuming the camera will show all.
He’s just trying to pass the guilt; damn Dr.’s, I’ve known enough of them to know they can never do no wrong….
Personal responsibility. That word has been lost for ages. I don’t want a back-up camera in my car.
The car I drive everyday is a 78′ Chevy sedan. It doesn’t have a third brake light (and I’ve yet to be rear-ended, although I have been side-swiped, which has resulted in a free-to-me much needed paint job for the car). I have never cars too, but use that everyday to keep miles off the former. There is nothing government-mandated on my newer cars that I wish was on my 78′.
1. My parents had 8 kids, a station wagon, and a pickup, and managed never to back over any of us, not even once.
2. Where the hell was Mrs Dr. and the babysitter? Did babysitter figure her child watching duties had ended upon arrival of her employers? Did mom figure her duties didn’t resume until babysitter was off the premises? OK, it sounds sexist, but I have to lay half the blame on the women. 2 year olds should not be outside, w/o supervision, even if no one in the neighborhood is planning to back anything out of any garage.
3. In the end it’s Doc’s fault for not looking.
4. Every vehicle manufacturer since 368 B.C. has complained about each and every requirement, always with a x12 exaggerated cost factor and the dire prediction that it would destroy the vehicle market “as we know it”.
5. Even if we pretend the actual cost to the consumer is $160, no one is just one hundred sixty dollars away from being able to buy a new car. If money is that tight, a new car probably isn’t a good idea anyway.
Not looking? What good is looking at an area that you can’t possibly see?
One quick tip to avoid backing accidents at home if you park in the driveway: when you come home, back into your parking spot. That way you see the space as you approach the house (so you know it’s clear), and when you leave in the morning, your first move is forward. It’s a little bit of a hassle when you’ve had a long day at work, and you just want to go inside and have some dinner, but it saves you a lot of trouble and grief in the morning (when a lot kids are walking or biking to school).
My father works for a major oil company. Many years back, they realized they lost more workers due to driving accidents than they did to worksite or workplace accidents. They now put every employee (including all salaried office workers) through an intense driver training course with annual (if not biennial, I forget) re-tests. You are expected to drive according to company rules and procedures, whether you’re driving a company car or your own. Heaven forbid they find that an accident you had was as a cause of breaking their alcohol, hours driven per day, seatbelt, speeding rules, etc. I’ve heard they fire you on the spot.
Now that you know how rigorous this company is about driving, you may wonder, how did they resolve to eliminate backing-out accidents? Simple: mandated reverse parking. It always amazes me when I drive down to the corporate campus and see hundreds upon hundreds of cars, all reverse-parked. It’s an unbelievably simple solution; you always pass by the space you’re about to pull into before you park in it, so you can be sure it’s empty and clear. And when it’s time to leave, instead of backing out somewhat blindly, you drive straight ahead, where your field of vision is as good as it’s going to get.
I’m rehashing everything you’ve said but it makes me feel good about the extra 15 seconds I take to reverse park (though I’m guilty of saying “screw it” every once in a while when it’s a fairly empty lot). Those extra 15 seconds are just like the extra 2 seconds it takes to fasten a seatbelt and the 30 seconds it takes you to forget to wear it; for some people, the fact that someday it will probably save your life just isn’t ever going to be enough to overcome the momentary annoyance. In this case, we’re talking about someone else’s life; unfortunately most people just don’t care.
I always reverse park my vehicles for the same reasons. Adding 2″ convex mirrors to the side mirrors makes reverse parking (not to mention passing and merging) a breeze.
Mandating the convex mirrors would save many more lives than any kind of camera system and at a cost of about $3 per vehicle. All commercial vehicles already have them, and it makes a big difference.
Also being in the oilfield, I am aware of at last one of the majors that has now mandated that no one back into parking spots. Why? Because they found that people backing into a tight space caused more fender benders and negated the benefit of pulling forward out of the spot. There is no panacea for backing up beyond being cautious and careful.
Personally, I prefer to pull through spots so that I never have to back up at all.
Funny, earlier this week or last week someone was ranting in the comments about people reverse parking in supermarket parking lots. I agree with you though, I tend to reverse park whenever possible.
@ Toad: I see more manufacturers slipping them in. I passed a GMC or Dodge pickup that had them integrated in the outer edges a few days ago. The Ford Focus I test drove had a similar treatment, very nice.
Count me in as another one of the reverse parkers. it should be a mandatory part of driving lessons IMO, and would be a lot cheaper than installing the cameras. And btw, if anyone thinks using 15 seconds more to park a car is too much work, they would be delighted to learn that they can easily save 3 minutes of backing up into cross-traffic and shopping trolley hell (with the added risk of becoming a murderer. Whenever I see a car reversing onto a public road after coming out of a store I always get a sudden urge to T-bone their car, but lucky for them I have had decent impulse control so far….
I’m glad I’m not the only one who does this… It might take a total of 5 seconds longer but like everyone has already said – you know the spot is clear of people and you are driving forwards when you leave. Plus, if you’re at a mall parking lot and someone coming from the other direction just eyed your spot, you can pull ahead to park AND block him/her from pulling into that spot. :)
Yeah it took me a while to learn how to do this with just side mirrors, but I got good enough to do that with my Chrysler T&C (and that’s NOT a small vehicle). Eventually I got my wife to do the same too – into the garage no less.
One thing I’ve discovered is that in order for me to back in far enough without hitting the parked car behind me, I’d look for the reflection of that car’s license plate on the car next to me. Once that license plate has disappeared behind my rear bumper, I know I’ve gone far enough.
I live very close to an elementary school. I don’t often drive in the morning so it’s not much of an issue, but I’m thinking I’ll become reverse parker in my driveway. The 5 seconds you lose you get back when you pull out, so it’s a wash anyway. Thanks for getting the wheels turning, B&B!
In a household with kids, I’m not certain you’d reduce the risk; Junior’s more likely to run into the driveway or garage near the house than near the road. Moot if the kids are in the car, though.
I think the backup sensors that beep might be more helpful than a camera. A beep intoduces another sense, besides vision, into the act of backing up. If you are looking at a monitor, you are not looking out your window, but you can listnen for the “beep” and look out the window.
Agreed. My roommate used to drive a Q45, and when he traded up to a 3-series, he always complained about BMW’s use of parking sensors instead of a camera. The camera looks cool and does the job, but like you said, the beeping provides you with a superhuman sense of position, while the video feed just takes your attention away from your mirrors.
I have a 10 year old Audi A6 that has beeping backup sensors. I learned to ignore them because they were overly sensitive.
“Nowadays, having a dead CHMSL will get you nailed in the ass faster than attending one of Kobe Bryant’s house parties.”
CLASSIC!!!
After my car was rear ended I was given a Buick Enclave as a rental. There was no screen/nav option in the dash, but it did have a backup camera. It was nested in the rear view mirror and was only visible when the car was in reverse. I don’t know if this is a GM only innovation but I was impressed with the elegance of their solution: your eyes are already looking to the rear view when backing up anyway so it’s not yet another place to put your eyes while in reverse and it avoided the extra cost of a screen or having to bundle it with a $1000+ nav option. Easier to implement, cheaper than an in-dash screen and it would even be possible to retrofit older cars if someone in the aftermarket or existing car designs without redesigning the dash.
Toyota uses mirror screens for their backup cameras if the car isn’t navigation equipped. Some people complain they are too small, but I find it very useful on my 4Runner.
Cool, maybe they will gain wider acceptance and this mandate won’t drive up costs as much. It was small and grainy but I never had trouble identifying objects. Just something to supplement my view, not a main viewer for my starship :)
I hope that setup will be deemed compliant with the new regs, because it does seem to be the least intrusive. If there’s gotta be a screen on the dash, I hope that it will remain legal to have it set up to turn the display OFF whenever the car is in a forward gear.
When I am driving I do not like to have any screen in my line of vision at all. I do not own any car with a built in nav system and I will not use a freestanding GPS unless I absolutely have to. I find that if there is any kind of display screen in my field of view, my eyes are drawn to it. Let’s face it, we all spend too damned much time looking at screens. I’m doing it now. And during a big chunk of my work day. And if I wasn’t writing this comment I would be watching TV or reading a book on my Kindle. We have conditioned ourselves to be attracted to screens. My cars are about the last place I can still be free of them.
My wife is a elementary school teacher (25+ years) and has an incredible amount of “mother instinct”. We never move the car, mower, golf cart or whatever without checking surroundings and knowing where the kids, cats etc are. It’s like someone said, personal responsibility. It’s a beautiful thing. BTW, the 08 Highlander she drives has a back up camera, we still check anyway.
And I think growing up and working on a farm at an early age helped me avoid getting flattened too. Kids these days are walking around with their fancy phones/ipods texting, playing games etc, and looking where you are going is dead last on the list. Doubt me? Go to any shopping mall on Friday – Saturday night. I want to take a cattle prod just to zap the dummies walking around all zombie like.
On the farm, you learned quick to know your surroundings unless you “liked” chickensh!t on your shoes or worse if you were bare footed, you learned to get out of the way when tractors were near, to avoid hornets nest, wasps, snakes, pulling your uncle’s finger, ya’ll get the idea….
Junebug,
It’s not the phones, it’s the person using. People still walk around like zombies even if they’re not on a phone. They expect the other person to look out for them and don’t ever look out for themselves.
That’s why you still see that “the pedestrian ALWAYS has the right-of-way” myth floating around.
This is an argument which never ends: to what extent should the government mandate features that reduce the vehicle’s demands on the driver for safe operation, recognizing that those features add to the cost of the vehicle?
In essence, this is the equivalent of a tax — money that you have to pay.
It seems to me the only rational way to deal with this is to compare the cost with the benefit. If the cost of a backup camera is less than $200 per vehicle AND IF IT CONFERS A REAL BENEFIT, then the mandate makes sense to me.
I own a Honda Pilot EX-L (the topline model). Nevertheless, because I didn’t want the very expensive navigation system, I ended up not getting a backup camera. My kids are adults, so presumably, they’re not crawling around behind the car where I can’t see them. None of the cars we owned when our kids were children (2 minivans, a Jeep Cherokee, an Audi sedan) had backup cameras. We managed to avoid running over our kids. That said, kids are unpredictable and it’s not inconceivable that a child not in the path of a reversing vehicle could suddenly run into that path.
I rather doubt that the proximity “beeping” system will provide enough range to effectively replace a camera.
The comments about reversing into a parking space are very good, for a lot of reasons having nothing to do with avoiding running over toddlers behind your vehicle.
All vehicles have blind areas to the rear, not just SUVs and minivans. So, the question is: should every vehicle be required to have these, or do we allow a blindspot behind the vehicle so long as it doesn’t exceed, say 3 feet from the rear bumper?
The rearview mirror implementation of the display is nice. Kudos to GM on that one!
Oh, and darts to everyone who slimed the Dr. There’s nothing in what he wrote that suggests he is blaming anyone but himself for what happened. Being rational, he’s just looking for a way to avoid such future tragedies that doesn’t depend solely on the operator. I still recall vividly an incident with one of my daughters, who was about 13 at the time. I was dropping her off at school. She was in the back seat of a 4-door sedan on the passenger side. I had come to a stop at the curb, when the crossing guard who was directing traffic motioned me to move forward. I yelled “wait” to my daughter, but unbeknownst to me, she already had opened the door and was about to step out as I began moving the car forward. Fortunately, nothing bad come of it, but the incident scared the beejeezus out of both of us. Sure, you could say I should have looked in the back to see that she was still in the car before moving it, or that she should have responded to my command to “wait.” But that wouldn’t have healed her injuries, had my action caused them. As a parent, I can say that the second-worst nightmare is experiencing the death of one of your children (the one or two whom I know have never gotten over it) and the worst nightmare would be causing your child’s death. So, whatever his faults, the doctor gets my heartfelt sympathy. He will live with this the rest of his life, and it will not be pleasant.
on the one hand, i see jack’s point about retrofitting cheap vehicles never intended to have a backup cam. on the other hand, it could be as simple as a bluetooth enabled, low res camera mounted on the hatch/decklid, as well as a bluetooth receiver unit and display mounted on the rear view mirror. i think with such a setup, costs could be kept below … maybe $300??
regardless, this still isn’t a substitute for proper behavior. if you have a huge truck/suv/crossover, you need to take extra precautions. it’s not the world’s fault that you need a giant vehicle.
another point, is that kids need to know that vehicles are extremely dangerous to play around. why would an unattended child be sitting behind a running vehicle? furthermore, why would an unattended child not be taught how reverse lights work? when i’m walking through a parking lot with my niece, and i see a car with the reverse lights on, she knows not to walk behind it.
i feel bad for the guy in the story, but next time his children probably shouldn’t be left to play, unattended, around vehicles.
While I would certainly pay $200 to eliminate such accidents, the data doesn’t seem to suggest it will help. Those vehicles equipped with backup cameras have only marginally lower accidents of this type. Most people just ignore the camera after a while. If we could add some sort of logic that would detect children and pets and alert the driver, that would be way more useful.
If you enter your parking spot/driveway in reverse, you never ever have to back up in oncoming traffic/on children. Because when you arrive at your place, you can see through the windshield exactly what’s happening around, and use reverse safely.
I heard/read once that in some places (I would bet on Scandinavia as always), it is the only accepted way to park, and I would support such “free” legislation that educates rather than spoliates.
Technology will never cure stupidity, but fines can.
Not to mention how more maneuverable your car is when reverse parking…
Please, lets not give cover to the insufferable jack-asses who waste everyone’s time by incompetently backing their cars into parking spaces everywhere they go. If you’re driving a large SUV, you’re not going to be able to see small things (like children) directly in front of your tall/long hood. Unless they’re doing jumping jacks or something.
People are not backing over their children in parking lots, they’re doing it in their own driveways. And even if there were unattended small children lurking around parking lots, waiting to get run over, you would see them when you walked up to get in your car if you were backed into the parking place.
My question is, how do you rectify this in retail parking lots. I load my purchases in the rear of the vehicle I’m in (except for pickups). If you back into a space, it’s usually difficult, if not impossible, to open the rear hatch.
If you were going to mandate technology to try to solve this issue (leaving aside, for the moment, whether or not you should), wouldn’t a backup sensor system that makes a rapid beeping sound if there’s something behind you, make more sense and be cheaper than a backup camera that requires an LCD, and is easy to ignore if you don’t happen to be looking at the screen?
Jack, you’re a disgusting, self-righteous prick and I’m not going to read TTAC anymore. Fuck you!
While the experience of the good doctor is tragic, it could have been
avoided if he had simply checked behind the vehicle before he put it in reverse. Two-year olds aren’t exactly logical, they leave all sorts of stuff around on the driveway: toys, tricycles, bikes, etc.
So now the feddie guvment wants to mandate yet another gadget to protect us from ourselves. What happened to common sense?
Little kids (and cats) are small. They can fit UNDER big SUVs too. A rearview camera won’t help you there.
“If you back over a child, it is your fault. Not the SUV’s fault, not the government’s, not the child’s. Your fault. Tragic, but true.”
That’s lovely, but it’s completely irrelevant. Fault has nothing to do with making good vehicle safety policy. Good policy is about saving lives and reducing crash severity, not about pointing fingers and flushing out guilty people.
The dubious part about the camera idea is that active safety doesn’t usually work. Devices that save us from ourselves are effective, but devices that are intended to make us better drivers generally don’t work.
I haven’t seen the research on the backup cameras, but I would imagine that they will very much be like the third brake lights, which lost their effectiveness because drivers started tuning them out once the novelty wore off. As it turns out, drivers don’t rear end other cars because of a lack of warning, but because they follow too closely, and so far, no one has figured out how to get tailgaters to stop tailgating.
“…and so far, no one has figured out how to get tailgaters to stop tailgating.”
Too damn true. After 20 years of trying just about everything short of eltroshock therapy, I’ve concluded that as long as I’m married to my wife I’ll be married to a tailgater. I just try to look anywhere other than the bumper 10 feet in front of us.
Watch your mirror and wait until they are taking a drink of coffee or soda, then give the brakes a tap. Works wonders.
I don’t think the cyclops/CHMSL was supposed to solve tailgating. It might buy a bit more time, as it’s more centered in the field of view and the mental processing is simpler – single light, on or off.
Unlike those brake/parking/turn-signal combos, which are much more complex to understand without even accounting for common failure modes.
“I don’t think the cyclops/CHMSL was supposed to solve tailgating.”
I understand that. The point is that alleged improvements to reaction time don’t reduce crash rates.
The crashes aren’t being caused by inadequate reaction times, but by inadequate following distances. It’s a behavioral problem, not a motor skills problem.
Given that even the cheapest pre-paid cell phones have cameras nowadays, would a camera and screen in a car even cost $160?
If there’s already an in-dash LCD screen from the navigatortainment system or whatever I could see the additional bill of materials being well under $30. They’ve already got the CANbus lines going to the back of the car anyway, after all.
I used to be up in arms against this sort of thing because I used to have a fairly accurate mental model of the entire electrical system of my car, and as cars get more and more complicated I can feel that slipping away. But on the other hand, I’m pretty sure that self-driving cars are inevitable at this point, and they’ll all end up with a sensor to detect if they’re backing up over something anyway, so this probably doesn’t make that much of a difference in terms of the car’s complexity in the long run.
Go leave your cell phone outside in -30 degree weather for a year.
Then take it to Death Valley and leave it there for a year.
Spray it with water.
Then salt water.
Then do it all over again.
Come back when you’re done. Now you know a small fraction of what an automaker OEM part needs to do :)
Another point: Cars outlast phones by factors of 3 to 10. When these things fail, diagnosis and repair may not be cheap.
And the smarmy army of shakedown artists who mandate state “auto inspections” is currently salivating over mandatory repairs to any of these devices to “save the children”.
I am a driving instructor and the standard drill for reversing is known as POM
Prepare: Get the car into gear, bring the engine to a “steady hum” and find the biting point and hold the car on its brakes
Observe: Look all around using both your mirrors and over your shoulder. If you are still not sure about where you are reversing into, get out and have a look.
Move: Once you are ready to move, there should be no gap to change gear or increase pressure on the throttle. Simply release the brake and proceed with caution.
As you move, continue observations and prepare to stop.
Attaching cameras to cars is no guarantee that the drivers will look at them plus the lenses can get dirty or blurred and there still may be blind spots. There is NO substitute for looking directly at something with your eyes.
If you are scanning the area behind you & to either side, your head is turned that way, and you won’t be looking at the camera display anyway.
If we mandated louder exhaust systems maybe it would scare children and animals away from reversing vehicles.
I hate when the likes of LaHood come up with rules like this. There’s a huge industry in DC of study groups, interest groups and lobbyists pushing this sort of thing for good $$. No unemployment anxiety for them! [End of rant]. Now, any time I operate a car, I check who/what is anywhere near me. In a driveway, on the road – I’ll often ask myself, “Where’s that white Explorer that was behind me a few moments ago?”. And, “Is anything/anyone near where I’m backing up?”. I had a Rendezvous with a radar backup beeper – it beeped faster as an object got closer. Very nice and useful. I’ve seen these cameras/nav screen gadgets – even nicer. So, even with the camera, will I still, very rarely, fail to check? Yes. I’ve done it – just some scratches from fixed obstacles; a few close calls on the highway. So, this is a nice accessory, but there’s no substitute for the drivers’ and family’s responsibilty here.
The article states that 2 children are killed per week by being backed over, so that’s 104 per year.
According to the NHTSA, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811396.pdf
between 2000 and 2009, an annual average of 139 people (all ages) died in accidents involving school buses. That’s pedestrians, occupants, and passengers in other vehicles that hit or are hit by a school bus.
So come on. School buses are a lot less numerous than SUVs, vans, trucks, etc. They are 40 feet long, bright yellow, are covered with flashing lights, and have gobs of safety features. They are supposedly operated by drivers who have higher license requirements, and stricter training, then the average motorist.
So if school buses are involved with 139 deaths per year, is it really the school bus or the transporation system that needs work, or maybe its the skills and decisions of flawed humans that are causing these deaths.
Will a backup camera maybe save some lives? Who knows. But as long as there are humans in the mix, accidents will happen.
I suppose the people who said “tl;dr” to the article probably won’t read this either, but it seems that the child was not hanging out under the wheel of the car. Since he was backing the Explorer into the driveway after being out carousing, it would seem that he was in the street, backing into his parking spot, a practice a few above comments seem to suggest would alleviate this kind of problem. I would presume that after he started going the kid got in the way, not that the kid was waiting to be smooshed.
What the hell a two year old is doing up at 9:30, let alone out of the house completely unattended is beyond me, but hey, accidents happen.
I don’t think the back up cameras will save lives, but if it saves my small street parked car another scar in the bumper cover, I don’t really mind if all new cars will have them. As has been mentioned, most cars have the display already, and some others have the display built into the mirror.
Overkill, pay attention, take responsibility.
The cost for each live saved is just under $4 million annually.
Yes I have kids.
Backup cameras sure aren’t perfect and technology is not the answer to all of societies issues.
To put this in perspective, about 20,000 children die every year of leukemia, the most common form of childhood cancer. $2.7 billion a year would buy an awful lot of research and medical support saving a lot more lives.
Absolutely
– let’s go for the low-hangning fruit first, and
– let’s use more effective, lower cost solutions to fix this problem.
SUVs make me laugh – when they’re not backing up over children, that is. These vehicles are ridiculous on so many levels. Most people don’t really need something that big, they just want to be taller than the rest of the cars and they feel safer in something huge. Too bad most SUV drivers have no idea how to handle these beasts properly.
Sports cars make me laugh – when they’re not crashing into something, that is. These vehicles are ridiculous on so many levels. Most people don’t really need something that fast, they just want to be able to brag to their buddies and they feel more manly in something fast. Too bad most sports car drivers have no idea how to handle these beasts properly.
Yes, I drive an SUV. I take it offroad, I camp in it, I don’t complain about gas prices, I haven’t wrecked it, and it is super comfortable and capable for anything I throw at it. I have averaged over 22mpg over the 28k miles I’ve had it. I’d venture to guess that many people driving sports cars do worse… and endanger lives significantly more than my SUV that is happy as can be going to speed limit and driving in a relaxed manner.
Doubtful, since more SUV’s sell than sportscars. But I understand what you’re getting at and it comes to personal responsibility, not vehicle type. Any car has the ability to be a baby smasher.
I don’t want a camera. A camera won’t help in the common situation that the kid is playing around UNDER the macho oversized jacked-up mommymobile. I want a sensor with a buzzer and blinker telling me that there’s something alive under or immediately behind me. That would be useful. This camera thing is about as well thought out as motorized shoulder belts.
When we got our Tahoe, the main reason I wanted the back-up camera was for towing. Most of the stuff I tow with it are too heavy to move by hand. For that, the back-up camera is the cat’s meow. Especially when your backing up to a trailer at an angle, which is almost always the case for me.
Rear camera on all vehicles? Not everyone drives a SUV/truck/van.
“While I was backing up the car into the driveway, I felt the wheel go over a bump.”
Sounds like the good Dr. is also a back end parker.
Is this story even real? So he and his wife get home at 9:30. Go in the house. I assume the front door was left wide open, and then the two year old wandered outside to the driveway.
Or he parked along the street and the kid was already hanging out in the driveway. He and wife go in the house, he remembers that he forgot to park the SUV in the driveway so backs it up over his kid’s head.
I think there is something missing from the story. Like how he and his wife had drinks that night. Came home, bs’d with the baby sitter for 15 or 20 minutes, had another glass of wine, front door was not closed, two year old wanders outside. Mom too busy gossiping with the babysitter, and the Dr. too self congratulatory about himself to even notice little Cameron is playing in the street.
According to his story he got home at 9:30. Most places is pretty dark or close to pretty dark at that time. A camera would not have helped much in this situation. Because according to his story, he saw both his children in the house when he went out to back the SUV up. There would have been no reason to even acknowledge the video screen, plus at that time of night the resolution would have been terrible. Unless there was a flood light on the garage, turned on. But if there was, he would have seen the kid sitting in the driveway.
I call BS on this story.
I thought as much too. There seems to be a lot missing from this “story.” Who the hell has a 2 year old up at 9:30? And for it to get behind his car in the driveway from being in the house just seconds prior? That’s one fast 2 year old. Something tells me BackUpCameraCompany had a good time creating this one.
You can call BS, but a quick Google search would show that you would be wrong. The guy checks out as a pediatrician in Oyster Bay, NY. The original statement, replicated in part by JB’s article comes from the Public Citizen website (not that everything that Ralph Nader’s guys say is the gospel truth). There’s also a contemporaneous ABC News story about the Dr.’s appearance on TV telling his story.
BTW, this is not news; the statement is dated 2004.
From his description of the accident, it appears that Gulbransen thought everyone else was indoors and backed from the street into his driveway. Most likely, he approached his SUV from a direction that gave him a clear view behind it. Two-year-olds can move fast enough to get into danger after you check all around your vehicle but before you start moving. The only way to do an effective head count is to line everybody up on the lawn. Reverse parking just means you will run over something when returning home rather than when leaving.
My Infiniti coupe has a backup camera that came with the $2,000 navigation system. I don’t care about navigation, but the camera works so well that it was worth $2k by itself. The view is so wide that I can see all the way to the bumper and well to each side. Low light sensitivity is so good that the backup lights provide adequate illumination at night. Without the camera, the view to the rear is so bad that backing would have to be done by dead reckoning.
I like my camera so much that I will require one on every future vehicle I buy. However, I question the wisdom of a universal mandate. Is there a more effective way to spend $2.7 billion on health and safety? There isn’t enough money in the world to pay for everything that is worth doing. The most we can accomplish is to allocate available funds in the most effective way.
In 10 years, electronics will be so much better and inexpensive that the lowliest Honda Fit will have a camera system just as good as your Infinity Coupe today.
A mandate will do nothing but put substandard camera systems in low end vehicles. People who don’t want these cameras will tend to not use them.
Very sad. I had a friend lose a daughter this way. I wonder if ultra sound sensors triggering an alarm might be more effective than cameras.
I had reverse sensors in my Explorer… they were really useful, better than a camera for parking IMO. But they would always go off as I backed out of my garage, because the range to the side would cause them to “sense” my garage door jams, once I passed that point, they stopped. So I learned to ignore them. And one day the kids left a bike by the garage door, I didnt see it in the mirror, and backed up… ignored the beep… and ran over one nearly brand new bike. Luckily, with no kid on it. But there could have been a kid on it.
A camera would prevent that.
So… how are they going to make people actually look at the camera display while reversing? I bet this won’t have any impact on the number of accidents. There’s no law against stupidity, in fact it seems to be encouraged these days.
So once again we pass a “It can’t be the Parents fault, let’s blame something else” bill.
Put this next to a long line of Parental blame-shifts. Like, how about next to, “It can’t be the parent’s fault that little Johnny acts like a brat in school. It HAS to be the teacher’s fault”