With the mandate that all vehicles post-2018 possess backup cameras set to begin its ramp up in 2016, suppliers will be the biggest beneficiaries of a growing safety market.
Automotive News reports current cameras supplied by Magna — who claims the largest piece of the market by 40 percent — Delphi, Panasonic, Gentex and Valeo already meet the standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, though Magna’s director of image vision systems Joel Gibson believes the cameras will receive rapid upgrades in order to meet consumer expectations of high-resolution images like those found on current smartphones.
In turn, the cameras could drive business toward more safety systems — including pedestrian detection, automated parking and blind-spot alerts — that would compliment a 360-degree situational awareness system.
From all the numbers I’ve see our society will be spending millions of dollars for every life saved. Same math as the GM recall frankly. People get all bent out of shape over “not worth the risk” but it’s only because they aren’t factoring the real cost per actual fulfillment of the risk. In short, life is dangerous.
That being said, from everything I’ve read, there is no requirement for back-up cameras as the media is reporting. It is for rear visibility, and my understanding is that Fords blind spot mirrors actually are in compliance with the laws requirements, which are a much more useful feature at all speeds and helpful in both directions.
Agreed. There is an excellent discussion of public risk perception and safety costs in a book published about nuclear power. It’s freely available here: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
People die, sometimes due to accidents. Accidents are preventable up to the price we are willing to pay for prevention. Our societal tolerance and policies are extremely varied in terms of cost per life saved due to various threats. The discussion quickly exceeds the capacity of the average citizen’s comprehension. Welcome to modern democracy.
Any cost/benefit analysis should also include the savings in property damage (both to the car and other objects), due to less accidents. Personally I would rather have sensors before cameras, but both technologies are cheap enough where I would like both on my cars.
Active safety doesn’t work generally, and backup cameras don’t work in particular, because most people won’t use them or use them well.
Those who research traffic safety have come to realize that equipment and training do very little to modify behavior. Safety equipment that is passive does work, because it expects little or nothing of the driver. Drivers don’t benefit from empowerment; they don’t take advantage of it when it is provided.
NHTSA has been stalling implementation for years, probably for this reason. Its own research shows that these cameras will accomplish next to nothing.
I won’t argue with good research, but my own experience was different. I recently had a rental car with a back up camera. I found myself naturally checking all three mirrors and then looking at the backup camera screen, when backing. Perhaps it was the novelty but I did use it. Can’t say it’s cost justified and haven’t backed over anyone or anything.
If you weren’t going to plow into anyone, anyway, then the cameras didn’t really help you, even if you did use them.
The incidents that these cameras are trying to prevent are rare, and there aren’t many instances when the cameras would have made a difference for those who are involved in such crashes. If one has the sort of driving habits that makes him a good candidate for running over a child, then the cameras aren’t likely to do that driver much good.
I would like to disagree with you Pch, but from what I’ve seen you are right. Someone I know backed into her neighbors car who was also backing up. Both cars were equipped with backup sensors.
This is not to say that I don’t like the cameras, especially if they have the parking lines that show you where the car will travel based on the steering wheel.
My on research has shown me that they allow me to back up much faster, and without bothering to turn my head…….
So what do you do about the objects along the side, out of the field of the camera?
“So what do you do about the objects along the side, out of the field of the camera?”
Hey… rubbin’s racin’. Or so the saying goes ;)
It’s a $30 webcam using a screen that would be there anyway. Frankly it’s a really nice feature anyway. I realize this is the auto world where it costs $2000 to get a nav system that is inferior to the $100 stand alone, but in real terms the resources ‘wasted’ here aren’t all that much. Over the twenty year life of the vehicle if it avoids one scraping one curb it probably is worth it.
Some of us don’t want the screen “that would be there anyway.” and, by extension, the “cheap” add-on that would utilize that screen. Call me a luddite or a cheapskate, but I want a longitudinally mounted engine up front driving the rear tires through a manual transmission. I like a limited slip diff, but I would concede that I don’t need it most of the time. Other than that, manual control of the creature comforts is preferred to any automatic system. And I don’t want to drive a damn truck.
I like to drive my cars, not manage them.
Additionally, less tech means less weight and superior reliability. I’m not convinced the screen and $30 webcam will be functional after 5 years, let alone 20. I’m confident that they will be functionally obsolete between 5 and 20 years. Of course, this ignores the fact that a modicum of driving skill and awareness obviates the need for the additional technology in the first place.
I wouldn’t call you a Luddite, but you are in the minority.
Next time you get on an aircraft ask the pilot if he prefers flying his plane by the seat of his pants rather than manage it using on board electronics in order to avoid mid air collisions, weather up front, automated landings; you get the picture.
Technology when designed and implemented correctly is superior to the human driver/pilot. To think otherwise is egotistical to say the least.
OTOH, backup cameras don’t increase safety that much and shouldn’t be mandated for that reason. Good technology, wrong reason to mandate it. Audible and tactile proximity alerts are better at improving safety while maneuvering.
It’s not a great analogy — if it were, even 20 year old jalopies would be $100K technological marvels — but I think you’re overestimating the degree to which the technology replaces the pilots, versus merely augments them and reduces their workload.
Same difference, when the technology is done right.
It is a poor analogy for several reasons, but since you brought it up…Colgan 3407, Air France 447, First Air 6560, UPS 1354. These are examples of perfectly serviceable airplanes that crashed due pilot/automation interface problems. There is no question that technology in the cockpit is generally safer and more efficient, but in reality, the risk has manifested itself in another area. Look at this thread’s comments, people are praising back-up cameras, but the identified threat outside of their purview is cross traffic. Among pilots, a good stick is valued more than a good automation manager. For insight into aviation, google “children of the magenta line”. I trust the pilots up front to effectively manage the automation, I hope that when the automation faults, they are skilled enough to make it a non-events for the folks in the back.
The price of Nav is coming down. At $795, I find it worth in any MFT equipped Ford. On the Mustang, its a $2000 option right now because the Mustang uses the old system. The price will continue to drop as well.
On luxury cars, they still make you select some crazy options group to get Nav. Lincoln especially pisses me off because the cheapest vehicle they have with navigation costs $40K. The “Reserve” package is required for navigation on a vehicle that comes with MFT/MLT standard. It gets bundled into a $4000 option with things like a soft close power decklid and a wood (maybe fake) steering wheel insert. Ford will sell me an almost exactly equipped Fusion for $12K less.
I would also add this to the “didn’t hurt” category, given the proliferation of dash screens and the falling prices of digital cameras.
However, I just have my doubts that the advocates for such things will be eventually willing to admit that they were wrong when the needle ends up not being moved by this. We have already reams of data that shows that active safety does very little good, and not much reason to believe that these cameras will prove to be an exception.
We also have reams of data showing that, when regulation invariably falls short of its goal, bureaucrats, statists, and partisans will clamor for even more regulation. I think yours is a safe bet.
I think the 15,000 annual non-fatal backing accidents are a larger factor – those medical bills are significant, and if a lot of them are factored into the benefits of the mandate the numbers start to look better.
You’re presuming that the cameras will get drivers to alter their behavior.
For the most part, they won’t. NHTSA understands this, which is why there has been little enthusiasm at the agency for this regulation.
Agreed. Cameras are used more for the convenience of the driver. Having glanced once I just backup and may look elsewhere during the maneuver, i.e. out the side windows, whatever, I’m not fixated on the camera image looking for kids on bikes entering the cameras viewpoint after I set off.
Audible and tactile proximity alerts are much more effective at getting your attention. ALerts are a better safety feature than the camera itself.
Pch101: you can alter driver behavior but it is a very slow process, and usually a substantial financial penalty is required. Seat belt usage and DWI come to mind. There is a way to go, but clearly belts have saved an enormous number of lives. Probably claimed a few, too but a tiny minority.
My wife and I looked up the statistics on this.
As of 1986, seatbelts helped something like 99-point-somethibg percent of the time, and harmed/entrapped their occupants well under 1% of the time.
And that’s 30 years ago, before automotive safety engineering got good.
I’d thought the ratio was closer to 90% saves and 10% harm, but I was pessimistic by almost two orders of magnitude. Using 1986 numbers, not 2004 numbers (the year my car was made) or 2014 numbers.
She has the citation somewhere, I’m sure. (She’s a CPST and a journeywoman science researcher, so she can provide a lit review at the drop of a hat…)
Seat belts are passive safety devices. Cameras are active safety devices.
Passive safety works, while active safety doesn’t do much good. Active safety works on the theory that drivers will become better drivers if they are given better equipment. This approach to traffic safety doesn’t work because drivers don’t seize the day and improve their performance when provided the tools to do so.
As for penalties, high fines don’t do much good, either. That is commonly believed by laypeople, but studies show that high fines aren’t a deterrent. Increasing the odds of getting caught can be a deterrent, but the cost of the penalty itself doesn’t much matter.
I give full credit to MADD to reducing the DUI problem. I don’t personally care for some of the specific tactics, but MADD single-handedly transformed drunk driving from being innocuous or funny into something that is socially unacceptable. Social stigma is far more powerful than a police force.
As a car safety guy by trade, I’m going on record as saying the cameras are well worth it.
Even with all the sightline sins of modern cars I can still see directly behind me well enough to avoid depopulating the neighborhood.
I want some effin’ side-looking cameras on the car’s ass to avoid getting nailed while blindly backing out from between behemoth trucks and SUVs at the mall.
Many back up cameras have cross traffic alerts. They come in handy in the situation you described.
This. The Verano (ITS HERE!!) has a backup camera which I generally don’t use while reversing, but the rear-cross traffic alert, its pretty darned cool.
Surely you must be getting 200 mpg while using reverse.
@davefromcalgary… congrads on your car.
^ This x 1000. I’ve got a Ford Fusion with back up camera and cross traffic alert. I only really use the camera to help me back-in park. Otherwise I still head check and rely on the audio alert if something’s in the way or approaching. It’s come in VERY handy at times.
Ford probably has one of the best implementations. They hired an engineer from Boeing who worked on cockpit technology to assist pilots in their jobs. He’s applying the same logic to the drivers seat of a car.
Autonomous vehicles are a ways off, enhanced technology in the drivers seat is already here and more accepted by drivers who want to drive.
In other news, DuPont and Honeywell claim all humanity will die if we don’t adopt 1234yf. While we at the liberal media enjoy anti-big business rhetoric, D&H claim this will prevent global warming, so we know they have our best interests in mind.
Yawn
Even though I like back up cameras, I don’t think they should be required in cars. I like using them in parking lots, so I can squeeze another foot or two out of backing up our 18 foot land whale. The cross traffic function is also helpful at Costco, since my car always ends up between a Suburban and Econoline.
Agreed. A Mandate is an OTT reaction to a safety issue and will cause the base price of all cars to go up.
I love the backup camera in my LEAF, especially since it has a large LCD screen to view it on. I really miss the backup camera when driving other vehicles, very useful for judging distance down to the inch when backing up, or squeezing into a parking spot while parallel parking. I won’t buy another car without one, but a mandate is intrusive govt at its worst.
I wonder how large the image needs to be to comply with the law? A small screen would make the device ineffective in helping safety. I order to save money on base models expect to see postage stamp images in the rear view mirror. Ineffective compliance at a price.
I’m not a huge fan of mandates driving up the cost of cars yet again. I’ve never used a back up camera.
But, it seems most of those who have used them like them. Cameras and LCD screens are dirt cheap these days, despite the premium charged by the auto companies. Making them standard shouldn’t cost more than $100, probably much less. If these cameras prevent a significant number of parking lot collisions, as well as minor dings from clipping inanimate objects while backing up, everybody wins.
Except the body shops, boo-hoo.
Let’s make this fun and add a periscope feature. As mentioned above by another commenter, you would be able to see past all of the big SUV behemoths when backing out of a space. You have a little light blinking on top as well to notify people you are in periscope mode.
You can’t see because the stupid car designers are placing Form .. e.g their pretentious little design egos over and above any function . Preferring to sell you a ton of techno weenie devices to solve the problems and blind spots their Form over Function designs create . So don’t go lambasting those of us with sense enough to purchase tall vehicles with excellent outward vision . Rather go air your complaints to the Idiots that designed the little pos you’re driving that comes with more Blind Spots than that of a full faced helmet with tape to block the sun out
Actually, grtsingr, you’re part of the problem.
Your posturing, gas-slurping SUVs and crossovers are so excessively tall, they pose a lethal crash hazard to the majority of motorists who continue to meet their transportation needs with the generally more practical choice of passenger cars. Because so many buyers have done what you’ve done, it’s become necessary to make cars more tall and slab-sided to add side-impact crash protection — hence the reduction in visibility that’s led to the need for techno-tricks like right-side and rearview cameras.
“Excellent outward vision” == a 90-pound soccer mom saying “I love sitting so high!”
Your mommy-mobiles are easy to whip around in a proper car, though, so I don’t mind.
Oh golly gee willikers … Lookee that ! Once again the manufactures standing to benefit from a government mandated – overly complicated – expensive to manufacture , repair or replace bit of hyper pretentious bs posing as technology …. while We the People take yet another one up the @$& financially .
And I mean … gee… it makes so much more sense to mandate expensive techno zoomies to benefit the poor little manufactures rather than mandate that the freaking Auto Designers stop it once and for all with the plethora of goram Blind Spots in the name of Form over Function
Nahhh… That’d make sense . And since when has either the Government or the majority of auto manufactures ever tried to make sense
Actually this will hurt the manufacturers, since before the mandate the only way for people who wanted the camera was to pay a couple thousand for a “tech” package, with a lot of other features they may have cared nothing for. They could have made the camera a $200 option and made money, but couldn’t resist gouging the customer.
Im glad they didn’t mandate cameras. Those things are about useless as they have a very limited field of vision, and you can’t see the damm screen in full sunlight.
And that then becomes the manufacturers’ problem. “Sorry Judge, I reversed over Tiny Tim because GM cheaped out on only a 7 inch screen and a 140 degree field of view camera. There was no way I could see him behind me after I put my Big Gulp in front of the screen so I could answer a phone call.”
This will also result in touch screen radios in all cars.
When I’m selling cars with My Ford Touch I only focus on the fact that it has voice activation, which is a safer way of changing the climate and radio. Touch screen is pretty stupid in a car that I’m supposed to be driving.
Not necessarily: you could do context-sensitive buttons, like on an ATM. I had a Rav4 as a service loaner a little while back that had a setup like that, IIRC. The radio/trip computer/etc. worked through the little screen, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a touchscreen.
Despite being poverty spec, I was pleasantly surprised to find it came with a backup camera. I don’t know if it’s a standard feature or a fleet request, but either way, it seems to argue against the mandate.
Aren’t we a little overboard with this “safety” stuff. People need to be better drivers.
I have backed a 1992 Dakota pulling a 16′ flatbed car hauler around a bend- with the side mirrors. Trust me- 1992 Dakota mirrors are way too small!
Visibility is important, but we don’t necessarily need back-up cameras. We did go 100 years without them in cars, after all.
I agree a mandate is overboard for a minimal safety improvement, if any. However one can’t justify NOT having one because we haven’t had one in a 100 years.
Audible proximity alerts are more useful for safety purposes when backing up.
I love my reversing camera, don’t knock them, they are great. I considered it a fanciful feature when I bought the car, but the utility of it is awesome – you have to live with one for while to appreciate the usefulness. Just don’t cram them down everyone’s throat based on flaky safety improvements.
Does anyone actually know from experience how reliable and durable these backup cameras are? We have one on our 2012 Grand Cherokee that comes on automatically in the NAV display, when we put the car in Reverse, but we’ve never used it. We prefer looking over the shoulder to get the bigger picture.
@hdc…Sounds like you were taught to drive, the same way I was. Look over your shoulder, check your mirrors, when in doubt, get out and have a look.
Yeah, Mikey. That was in the old school days when a Drivers Training instructor sat in the passenger seat and three or four students in the car with dual pedals all learning how to drive and getting yelled at for scaring the instructor.
They don’t do that anymore. My 16 yo grand daughter got book learning in Drivers Ed, but no practical driving experience. Her grand mother, my wife, took that task, and my wife is hell on wheels. She taught ALL the girls in our family to drive. I taught all the boys.
A common failure mode for backup cameras is the lens gets covered by mud and dirt, rendering the camera useless. The problem is easily fixed – simply wipe the lens clean – but under some conditions it means the camera is not available much of the time.
Don’t have much problem with mud and dirt, dirt has a minor impact on image quality in my experience. Raindrops can blur the image badly, to the point of the image being useless. Manufacturers should be smarter at shielding the lenses from rain run off.
Another failure point is reversing with the hatch open, all you can see is sky :-)
From what I understand, Honda will have a standard rearview camera in all of its U.S.-market cars once the 2015 Fit debuts.
Another worthless law, brought to you by Crony Capitalism…
It does make me sick that the unholy alliance between big business and government mandates in the name of safety/environment doesn’t get much airtime.
It’s like any new government requirement could only be put in place to make our lives better, it’s never about influence peddlers getting their way. No telling who gets a cushy lobbying job that was the bureaucrat that made this decision.
Think of how many lives we could save if breathalyzers were required on all new cars in order to operate. This stuff becomes a slippery slope very quickly.
Becomes a slippery slope? We’ve already slid to the bottom of the mountain.
I agreed with the above vitriol until I had my first at fault accident in 40 years. Backing out of the 7-11 parking lot with my Lexus RX 350, despite using all 3 mirrors, I didn’t see a Corvette had zipped into the driveway, directly behind me. A back up camera (without the package with $2500 Navigation) would have saved me its cost several times over. Additionally, my daughter can now parallel park, using the back up camera on her 2012 CR-V, a Standard feature…not extra cost. I will never buy another car without a back up camera. Maybe you guys have more driving experience, maybe my gray hair has cost me my edge, but no rear view camera means No Sale to me.
Same here, will always buy a car with a backup camera / rearview monitor. I can reverse on driveways at night without fear of hitting anything and can do so a lot faster than without one.
“Backing out of the 7-11 parking lot with my Lexus RX 350, despite using all 3 mirrors, I didn’t see a Corvette had zipped into the driveway, directly behind me.”
Using all 3 mirrors to do what? Is that supposed to be an acceptable substitute for turning around and looking where you’re going?
I’m not opposed to back-up cameras. It makes sense to install them on anything that already has a screen. They are an inexpensive and useful tool. But they should be something you glance at to see if there are any small objects directly behind as you turn around to reverse properly with a full field of vision.
Recently got my first car with a back-up camera. I use it some of the time, but mostly for the last few feet. But, since it’s raining today, my suggestion to manufacturers and designers is to deal with the distorted view when the lens gets wet and dirty. Putting the camera inside the rear glass where it gets coverage from a rear wiper might be one approach.
That won’t help — assuming you can replicate the same view from inside the glass, you now have to zoom to compensate for the added distance, which means water on the glass is even more of a problem.
A smart manufacturer can take advantage of a spoiler or trunk lip (to shield from above) and the natural low-pressure area behind the car (to keep crud from being deposited) to keep the lens pretty clean.
I recently got a new Fusion with a backup camera. With the sheetmetal on new cars being up so high, I like having that camera rather a lot.
Shortly after I got the car, I was getting ready to back out of the garage one morning. I put the car in reverse and glanced at the backup camera. There on the screen was a little black dog (ours) who has no car sense. My wife didn’t realize I was still getting underway an had let the dog out the front door. The dog came around to the garage to see if she could get in the car with me, as we often take her when going to pick up a child. Without the backup camera there’s no possible way I could have seen her.
I think these cameras will pay for themselves in property damage prevention. Between the two of us, my wife and I have been backed into four times in the last twelve years. CUVs/SUVs in particular have poor rearward visibility.
Much of the hand wringing I’m reading here reminds me of what happened when airbags were first proposed. Turns out they were kind of useful after all.
It’s all about how big and tall current cars are now. That’s why the bottom of the side door window on your sedan has to be 7 feet from the ground. Get rid of the CUV and you solve the problem.
Where that dog was standing, I wouldn’t have seen her if I had been in the ’71 Toyota Corolla I learned to drive in. Without a camera, you can’t see something small (like a dog or a child) that’s directly behind the car.
Good luck getting rid of all the taller vehicles on the road.
I’ll bet politicians were scrambling to purchase as much of the camera producing companies’ stock as they could afford.
As a motorcyclist (Australia), we have had mandated daytime headlights for decades; and one often reads letters to the editors demanding the obligatory wearing of hiviz vests. Yet there is no evidence that detection systems based on human visual attention work. Like the chap above in the carpark this is reality for bikers everyday. I would like to see an active bike/pedestrian detection system developed and tried: but it cannot rely on human vision. A flashing image in dash screen (rear and side view mirrors as well),accompanied by a loud sound that increases as distance closes may help cut the principal death-by-car statistic.
What’s wrong with being a responsible human being and looking where you’re going?? Maybe if modern windows weren’t just apocalyptic gun slits then it wouldn’t be such a problem. From the looks of it 8 50 years well all be in self driving electric powered Abrams tanks without cannons.
Nothing wrong with being responsible. We are however human, full of failings and distractions, not even a country mile from perfect.
Its easy to denigrate backup cameras if you’ve never used one in your own car to truly appreciate the benefit they bring. I had no interest or desire to use the camera when I first got my car, saw it as an expensive toy at best. I was wrong; the things are amazing, I won’t buy a car without one now.
As for mandating them. That’s a bridge too far IMHO. Let folks decide for themselves. They will soon become commonplace, their usefulness will soon spread to the average driver. It wouldn’t surprise me once the mandate kicks in, the quality of the units is downgraded to save money and they become less useful.
We went decades without backing over a lot of people. Maybe the solution isn’t these cameras but more normal sized cars to replace these giant CUVs.
The reason the mandate finally went through is that family members repeatedly testified of the enormous pain that killing their own children brought upon them – a pain that a simple dollar analysis could not illustrate. That, and the fact that almost all cars are going to have LCD screens standard anyway, made it easy to mandate the extra $50 that the camera would add.
Now if the “evil govt.” had mandated that ALL cars/trucks on the road would have to be retrofitted with the devices, then that would have smacked of an overbearing bureaucracy that was out of control.
I made sure that my new Malibu had the feature, as the high decklid would leave me anxious when backing – I have no kids/dogs, but I go shopping, and I couldn’t forgive myself if I backed into a wayward rugrat in the Target parking lot.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the motivation for wanting to reduce accidents while reversing will not be helped much with cameras. I feel for the families, but this isn’t the answer to their grief. Audible and tactile proximity alerts are a more effective measure than relying on the (potentially distracted) driver to notice something in a camera image which may or may not be obscured by sunlight.