Over the past 20 yrs, I have been fortunate to visit PacRim countries. Years ago, all cars in Taiwan (and a few other countries) were equiped with back up cameras. Trying to park is very difficult where land is optimized to its fullest. At the time, I thought these cameras should be on all US cars to drive down the overall cost to each consumer (high volumes).
Whether parking, making sure that a kid or adult or pet is not behind your car can be invaluable. Many of the screens were not activated until backing up and the response time appeared to be real time not delayed.
Hopefully, US cars can use the current generation of cameras used overseas so several generations of product refinement can be avoided and the cost can quickly be reduced.
I believe such mandates as presented here a just steps towards a future were cars will drive autonomously. I have been following this trend over the last 30 years. First it was evident, that to realize that a future with autonomously driving cars, electronic systems and sensors would have to be in place in the car in a way hard to believe that long ago. Later it became evident to me, that only that long term perspective, combined with intelligent roads and a new way to organize the traffic on them, would be able to reduce dramátically the energy consumption in vehicles. Now safety and the cost related to accidents and their consecuences is adding to this equation. We can also see this trend following the goals of driver assistance systems. I remember the disciussions around the automatic parking function in the cars of a german car manufacturer. I have heard about that autonomous driving of vehicles might first be seen at logistics centers. Trucks could start to move autonomously achieving a better flow of traffic in such centers and with less legal implicacions in terms of liability. Also a development in the legal system can be perceived. The famous story about the person drying the cat in the oven and what happened when that person switched to a microven and was not explicitly instructed no to place the cat in the oven to dry examplifies the need to develop the legal aspects involved. Finally there is the education of the drivers. I remember many saying they would never trust a car driving by itself or that driving the car themselves was important to them. In the days of smart phones, tablets and social networks and heavy traffic on the roads more and more drivers could well imagine to hand over the driving of a car to the car itself!
This is great, BUT it is not just a $200 item mandated in the car, it one of many $200 and up devices mandated in a car. All of this stuff should be OPTIONAL. This is having the effect of increasing new car prices, keeping older vehicles in the fleet.
Laughing about your comment to report A-hole drivers!You must live in state where front-license plates are used. Also, you must be incorporating a recording capability to the images on this Hi-Res camera. But that would overly complicate things; to your point ...
Regarding improved screening for crappy drivers – Amen!I want to lobby the State Troopers to begin ticketing for driving in the left lane. C'mon people its for passing! Move over!
Pub, the problem with human errors is that they are concentrted primarily on a single portion of society. Those unthinkuing fools who should never be allowed to drive at all. Also on that newly developing group of folks who are unable and unwilling to focus thier attention on anything for any amount of time. The problem is that all of the expensive safety add-ons don't do any good in the hands of the stupid. A backup camera that is never watched is a waste of money, and one more item to fail. And of course they will fail.
The other fundamental flaw is the lack of understanding that the "safety" systems do not provide invincibility. The assumption that antilock brakes will stop a car on ice is one of them. It just means that you slide straight into something instead of having to steer out of a slide.
I think technology is degrading the quality of our drivers. Today's young adult who is used to a 2009 Camry with abs and traction control does things habitually that would get you killed in a 1968 Bonneville. Does the backup camera mean people won't be able to back up with mirrors anymore? I think tpms is just as silly. It adds cost to every vehicle unnecessarily. If you don't know what a soft tire feels like while driving then you shouldn't be driving. All this technology makes driving more like a video game while disconnecting the driver from what's really going on. I remember being in my teens and hearing a woman in her sixties at the time talking about her father teaching her to drive in the forties or fifties. Her father wouldn't let her take the car until she could not only drive it well (standard shift of course) but also change a tire and file points!
While he was expounding on the benefits of this mandate did anybody ask Mr. Cornyn how many people in the nhtsa his company (and industry) have on the payroll?
You're right on GTO. That camera will add 142 in cost but it will cost
$500 at the car dealer to replace. Rear end collisions are most common. They will now cost more to repair. That means higher insurance rates.
Even if the camera only adds $150 to the price of the car I'd rather keep the money and not have the camera. I apologize to all you people who think mechatronics and electronics are the greatest thing since Christ but...
As a professional mechanic and engineer I've learned that more electronics means more trouble and more cost to repair. I can afford a high trim pickup truck but there's a reason that mine has crank windows and manual lockout hubs. My neighbor has put five window motors in the two windows on his 01 Silverado. I've never replaced a crank window regulator on any vehicle I've owned. The problems with electric stuff on vehicles is exacerbated here by road salt - especially the liquid kind.
So here the government is mandating a part which the oems will add as cheaply as possible. They know it's crap so they will exclude it from all extended and limited warranties. Nanny states will make it part of inspection. Thus when your car is four years old the pos camera will break and you'll be forced to pay $500 to fix a backup camera you never wanted on a car you're still paying for.
More Nanny state BS. The same stupid political agenda that wants to outlaw AR15s and 28oz Coca Colas for our own safety also want to make us pay for cameras we don't want.
Earlier this year paralyzed IndyCar drive Sam Schmidt did the seemingly impossible -- opening the qualifying rounds at Indy by driving a modified Corvette C7 Stingray around the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.
Wearables are changing the way we see ourselves. With onboard sensors that have access to our bodies, we are starting to know our physical selves like never before, quantifying our activity, our heart rate, breathing, and even our muscle effort.
Last week, the bill for reforming chemical regulation, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, passed the House. If it or a similar bill becomes law, the effects on cost and availability of adhesives and plastics incorporating these substances are not yet clear.
This year, Design News is getting a head start on the Fourth of July celebration. In honor of our country and its legacy of engineering innovation -- in all of its forms -- we are taking you on an alphabetical tour through all 50 states to showcase interesting engineering breakthroughs and historically significant events.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.