Car Rear-View Cameras Could Be Required by 2014

The Department of Transportation today is proposing a new safety regulation that would effectively make rear-view cameras mandatory equipment in all new cars by late 2014. The proposed rule is intended to help eliminate blind zones.

The rule itself would not explicitly require cameras, but it would mandate that new vehicles provide a 180-degree field of view behind the vehicle when it is in reverse -- so it would have the practical effect of requiring rear-view cameras as standard equipment.

The proposed rule change, put forward by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was required by Congress as part of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. The legislation was named for two-year old Cameron Gulbransen, who was killed when his father accidentally backed over him in the family's driveway.

The NHTSA estimates that, on average, 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries occur each year because of drivers backing over people, and children and the elderly are particularly at risk.

"There is no more tragic accident than for a parent or caregiver to back out of a garage or driveway and kill or injure an undetected child playing behind the vehicle," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "The changes we are proposing today will help drivers see into those blind zones directly behind vehicles to make sure it is safe to back up."

If the rule is made final, which would happen sometime early next year, it would start getting phased in the following year with 10 percent of auto-manufacturers' fleets required to meet the standard by September 2012, 40 percent by September 2013, and 100 percent by September 2014.

---

Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of her posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.

[alohaoceanus]

Sadly, many of the comments here are unintelligent and careless. Today I will be attending the memorial service of a two year old girl who was dragged 25' by a SUV and killed. Our community is in mourning. We welcome legislation that will help to address the dangerous situation posed by large vehicles and small children. This is one way we can hope to prevent further tragic deaths.
Those who oppose government in their lives should allow others the freedom to allow their children to grow in a safe and healthy environment.

[Jdelvecch]

Is there any liberal regulation that cannot be justified by saying somebody somewhere won't be hurt or killed because of the regulation in question. In essence what this rule will do is require all buyers of cars to buy cars with the rear view cam installed. Currently the cam is an elective option which adds $300 or more to the price. The people who will be most hurt by this regulation will be poor people, who will now have to come up with another few hundred bucks to buy a car. That $money spent on a mandatory cam will be that much less left to buy other things and the economy will suffer. So the poor person may be less likely to run over their kid (already a very small risk), but will now have to serve their kid Kool Aid instead of OJ or milk. Will all the costs this causes be outweighed by the 3 injuries a year that will be avoided? You libs are nuts.

[Jdelvecch]

Not to mention the many poor people who won't be able to come up with the extra few hundred dollars, and will have to settle for a less safe used car (no cam or any of the other recent innovations which make cars safer) or have their kids walk the streets and use the bus, which I am guessing is a greater risk than living in a home with a new car without a cam installed. Liberals view of regulation is whack-a-mole: see a problem, draft a regulation. Dealing with problems is one of balancing risks, and people do a better job balancing their own risks according to their needs and means than bureaucrats can with authoritarian rules.

[Birdman04]

Heck the companies making these camera's think it is a great idea! Surely, they have our ultimate safety in mind first and foremost.
Nanny state!

[tsigili]

You will NEVER make cars safer with gadgets.......that can only be done by creating safer drivers.....and NO ONE is doing THAT!

[lilbear925]

Why would it not be easier to teach drivers to fricking look where they're backing, first? Does the car have to do all the work? Also, maybe keep track of the children and tell old people (of which I am one) to not stand behind cars that are backing up. When the backup lights come on, get the flock out of the way! Government, not the market, is driving up the price of cars.

[presjfk]

How about a camera on the front of the car and removing the steering wheel, the car can drive itself and we can all stay home.

[tsigili]

Just how much garbage, does the government think they can require on cars, to give a false sense of safety, from idiot drivers?????

None of it has worked yet!

[presjfk]

I wonder where these millions of camera's will be made.

[jtdev1]

Yeah, guess those seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes are just too much government "garbage" and lets not even mention those darn child seats.

We need to go back to the 60's & 70's where we always drove around with our kids laying in the back window of the car...

[crazyname]

More government crap, If you take the amount of drivers out there and ratio that to how many kids geet backed over, it is miniscule. You probably have to turn it on, and most people cannot go forward let alone backing up while looking at a video display! Sonic arnings are not enough?

[retiredgustav]

I think we should do away with all govt. required items on cars, seat belts air bags, anti-lock brakes,shatter proof glass.Lets go a stick the gas tank on the out is of th axles while we are at it that will save a few dollars. We can go back to dum brakes that would always fail when we go thewm wet. This way we could all buy that little car from India for $2000 + . While we ae at it lets do away with driver's licenses that is just another govenment program. Lets go teabaggers we don't need no stinking gubment regulations.

[hdc77494]

Yeah, the dems are really looking out for the middle class, y writing regs that raise the price of everything.

[jtdev1]

the cost of this camera is minimal compared to the insurance payout for running over someone.

[WillowSunstar]

This is unnecessary legislation. If you have young kids or are near others who have young kids, always check behind your car *before* you get into it. Being cautious and checking your surroundings as a preparatory measure is what all drivers should do. Checking outside first would prevent a lot of these getting kids run over stories.

I also, in shopping areas, never ever park where I have to back up, even if I have to walk a long way to get to my parking spot. I never trust mall parking lots. Just too many people out and about.

[jtdev1]

I know for a fact that no matter how much I check behind my vehicle, I can't see all of it, especially directly behind.

[apuan777]

My neighbor with a rear view camera has run into her wall twice...my guess is that the statistics won't change much when if you make these mandatory.