Great idea! US government to require rear-mounted video cameras in cars by 2014

I almost ran over my daughter.

It happened a few years ago, before she started walking, but the memory is still fresh in my mind. Somehow, she’d crawled out of the house, and I didn’t see her until I’d backed my car out of the garage. I’d come within inches of crushing her.

Let me tell you, there’s no worse feeling — none at all — than that sickening combination of relief and dread.

Thank God, I missed her! What if I hadn’t missed her?

Well, now the government wants to do something about the issue, and I, for one, think it’s about time. The Department of Transportation today proposed a new safety regulation that would help eliminate blind zones behind vehicles that can hide the presence of pedestrians, especially young children and the elderly.

“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,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “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.” (There’s more from DOT, including an interesting video, on its blog.)

The proposed rule was required by Congress as part of the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. Two-year old Cameron Gulbransen, for whom the Act is named, was killed when his father accidentally backed over him in the family’s driveway.

The proposal, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, would expand the required field of view for all passenger cars, pickup trucks, minivans, buses and low-speed vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of up to 10,000 pounds so that drivers can see directly behind the vehicle when the vehicle’s transmission is in reverse.

Automobile manufacturers will probably install rear-mounted video cameras and in-vehicle displays to meet the proposed standards, according to the government.

To meet the requirements of the proposed rule, 10 percent of new vehicles must comply by Sept. 2012, 40 percent by Sept. 2013 and 100 percent by Sept. 2014.

Adds NHTSA Administrator David Strickland,

The steps we are taking today will help reduce back-over fatalities and injuries not only to children, but to the elderly, and other pedestrians. And while these changes will make a difference, drivers must remember that no technology can, or should, replace full attention and vigilance when backing up. Always know where your children are before you start your car and make sure you check that there is no one behind you before you back up.

This isn’t an isolated problem. NHTSA estimates that, on average, 292 fatalities and 18,000 injuries occur each year as a result of back-over crashes involving all vehicles. Of these, 228 fatalities involve light vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less.

Two particularly vulnerable populations — children and the elderly — are affected most. Approximately 44 percent of fatalities involving light vehicles are children under five–an unusually high percentage for any particular type of crash. In addition, 33 percent of fatalities involving light vehicles are elderly people 70 years of age or older, according to the government.

Here’s what you can do to prevent these tragic accidents now:

Comment in support of the the proposed rule. You can do that here.

Look before you back up. Technology alone won’t solve this problem. Always look before you back up.

Warn your kids. If you have young kids, warn them about the dangers of playing near a parked car. It sounds like common sense, but you’d be surprised by how many parents never talk to their children about the hazards.

After almost rolling over my little girl, I made sure all the kids were strapped into the car before I turned the ignition. Thank goodness, we’ve never had another close call.

I imagine there will be some who think this requirement is just another intrusion by government. Then again, they said that about seatbelts, too.

(Photo: gamma r ay/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • Kevin M

    For Jennifer (the other one), and those who think like/agree with her:

    I’m sure you do check behind your car every time before you get in, and I’m sure you check your mirrors. But if there’s a child anywhere nearby, that isn’t necessarily going to be enough. You look behind your car when you get to it, then turn to open the door, put in your purse, sit down, pull the door closed. How long does all that take – 5, 8 seconds? In that amount of time, a kid who was 20 feet away on the sidewalk that intersects your driveway could be almost on your car. You look in the passenger side mirror – nothing – you look in the driver’s side one – nothing, and you start to back out. But while you were looking in the driver’s side mirror, the child peddled his tricycle behind your car from the passenger side – never appearing in the mirror when you were looking at it.

    It can be argued that no system will ever prevent all accidents – that’s true. I hit a small child once in a parking lot. Driving parallel to the front of a strip mall, I stopped to let a family cross in front of me. The father crossed, but the mother held back with a child in one arm, bags in the other, and a 4-year old boy holding to her skirt. She signaled me to go ahead, so I started forward. Just as I did, the boy decided he wanted to be with his father, let go of his mother’s skirt, and ran in front of me. Luckily, I had an old Beetle at the time, the front end was relative light, and though the car knocked him down and rolled over his foot, he wasn’t seriously injured. No camera or mirror or warning system would have prevented that.

    But it’s precisely BECAUSE I know there are things we can’t prevent, that I’m in favor of technology that helps us prevent the ones we can. One can blame parents for being inattentive all one wants, but the fact is, if you’re the one driving when the accident happens, even if there’s nothing you could have done differently, it still is a horrible, horrible feeling. I can’t imagine what the feeling would be like if you knew there WAS something that could have helped, and you didn’t do it.

  • Steve

    I have a great idea of my own! Drivers should look behind them before backing up, and parents should keep track of their kids. Implementing that plan should cost about, oh, $0 per car.

    Okay, I’m being snarky. But here’s the thing: as Ernest pointed out, the vast majority of preventable accidents are preventable not because we could install new technology, but because drivers could pay better attention to the road and their surroundings. Adding rear-view cameras would not do much more than carefully checking one’s surroundings before getting in the car and then checking all of the mirrors and turning around to see behind the car.

    The other thing is that maybe if some of the self-entitled SUV drivers who don’t need them would give them up and drive something of a reasonable size, visibility wouldn’t be such an issue.

    I’m strongly opposed to requiring the addition of yet another expensive mandated feature. If you feel strongly about backup cameras, there are plenty of vehicles that offer them. Feel free to buy one.

    If it wasn’t so ridiculous, it would be comical that the gov’t is trying to mandate more and more safety features into vehicles while simultaneously trying to raise fuel economy and wondering why it hasn’t gone up in the past two decades. It’s because cars are bigger and heavier thanks to all of the stuff manufacturers are required to put in. I drove an ’87 Camry wagon that averaged over 35 mpg (admittedly, I did mostly rural/highway driving) because it wasn’t crammed full of safety features that, honestly, I’m skeptical of the benefit of.

  • Jake

    For everyone opposed, one simple question – how much is the life of your (or if you don’t have one, a) child worth? Once you determine that, you can just do the math on the system. If your child is worth $500, then a system less than that amount makes the installation worthwhile for the potential savings. It goes without saying but we do impute the value you place on your own child to every other potential ‘target’ as well.

    Hopefully you all realize that the above is (mostly) facetious, designed make you realize that you’re really just trying to put a price tag on a human life, which is just terrible.