Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday August 27, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2014, 04:00 PM   #1
A W
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 265433
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default Federally mandated backup camera legislation heating up again [w/poll]

Quote:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could finally be ready to implement a law first expected back in 2008. Automotive News is reporting that while many of us were opening presents and eating Christmas dinner, NHTSA was busy submitting a revised version of its plan that would mandate that all new cars be fitted with a backup camera. The goal? To reduce the number of people – especially children – who are backed over each year.

Originally, the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act required all new cars to come with a backup camera by 2014, but delay after delay after delay has now pushed this date back to 2015. It's not clear what percentage of vehicles currently come standard with the cameras, but the article does point out that all of Honda's lineup will comply with the original regulation once the 2015 Fit goes on sale.

Previous estimates indicate that adding backup cameras to new cars costs between $58 and $203 per vehicle, but the upside is that doing so is estimated save about 100 lives per year. Other estimates put the total cost to automakers for enacting the law at between $700 million and $1.6 billion, a tab that critics say will be passed directly to consumers. As NHTSA reportedly employs a statistical cost of $6.1 million as the value of a human life, under a best-case scenario, the law is expected to cost between $11.8 million and $19.7 million per life saved.
Lol at the last sentence. I made it a bigger font size just for WRXHillBillyClimber. There's your human life < money value.

And the poll currently going on at AutoBlog.com has this to show:


Oops, forgot to add the source URL:
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/03/c...ating-up-poll/
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

Last edited by A W; 01-06-2014 at 02:26 PM.
A W is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 04:21 PM   #2
hi5.0
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 340456
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza

Default

If it helps, why not? Doesn't look like automotive styling incorporating smallish windows and tall rear decks is going away any time soon. The manufacturers will be more than willing to pass the costs on to the consumer because safety features sell. Look at airbags, ESC/traction control, and TPMS. However, all the cameras and sensors in the world don't mean squat if the driver doesn't pay full attention in the first place. Or will there be an app for that?
hi5.0 is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 04:57 PM   #3
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Vehicle:
4-14 Happy 10 Years
Nasioc Member

Default

OEM suppliers should have already integrated the screen and camera function into ALL headunits by now. They've had since 2008? The tech is so cheap and accessible. Manufacturers just need to design a readymade camera location in the rear of their platforms and run additional wires in the looms.

There was such a OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO LOSE BUYERS push in that same time period to offer MP3 and iPod capability in their vehicles, why not the rear camera? Especially knowing a law would eventually mandate it?

Here we are, 6 years later, and this has been spun into the BAD GOVERNMENT FORCING THIS ON US crap polarizing issue.

Do we need more polarization in this completely insane culture? I guess we do.
4S-TURBO is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 05:57 PM   #4
mitch808
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 10228
Join Date: Sep 2001
Vehicle:
2002 Subaru WRX

Default

It cost all of about $20 and the labor of a few Asian minors to make this. May be per 10,000 units for a camera and screen we're talking what maybe 100 bucks more per vehicle when all is said and done.

However manufacturers charges thousands for this upgrade as part of a package. Think of all the margin they are losing by not implementing this now... Profits before morality.
mitch808 is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 05:59 PM   #5
A W
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 265433
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hi5.0 View Post
If it helps, why not? Doesn't look like automotive styling incorporating smallish windows and tall rear decks is going away any time soon. The manufacturers will be more than willing to pass the costs on to the consumer because safety features sell. Look at airbags, ESC/traction control, and TPMS. However, all the cameras and sensors in the world don't mean squat if the driver doesn't pay full attention in the first place. Or will there be an app for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
OEM suppliers should have already integrated the screen and camera function into ALL headunits by now. They've had since 2008? The tech is so cheap and accessible. Manufacturers just need to design a readymade camera location in the rear of their platforms and run additional wires in the looms.

There was such a OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO LOSE BUYERS push in that same time period to offer MP3 and iPod capability in their vehicles, why not the rear camera? Especially knowing a law would eventually mandate it?

Here we are, 6 years later, and this has been spun into the BAD GOVERNMENT FORCING THIS ON US crap polarizing issue.

Do we need more polarization in this completely insane culture? I guess we do.
Apparently it's not cheap enough for WRXHillBillyClimb. According to him, the MSRP is going to skyrocket because we add tiny cameras to our cars.

To give him some credit, the OEM cameras they put on some of the cars out there are terrible and utterly WalMart cheap as hell. Subaru Forester camera is no different. Seriously, where the hell are the trajectory lines and the better camera resolution? Subaru has enough money for that. I know I saw somewhere recently a low priced car, probably a Kia Soul has a backup camera with trajectory lines. It's a Kia and it has a better backup camera than Subaru, lol.
A W is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 08:17 PM   #6
SoapBox
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 204578
Join Date: Mar 2009
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Philadelphia
Vehicle:
S54 M3, N54 135i
In another life: REX8

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hi5.0 View Post
If it helps, why not?
Apply that ridiculous logic to everything...and you see the problem.



Put me in the "leave me the hell alone" category. The government is not in the car-making business for a reason. Keep it that way.
SoapBox is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 08:22 PM   #7
Amazing Asian
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 259589
Join Date: Oct 2010
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Vehicle:
05 Saabaru 9-2X
Deep Blue Metallic

Default

What ever happened to teaching your kids not to play near your car or any moving vehicles?
Amazing Asian is online now  
Old 01-05-2014, 09:17 PM   #8
blubaru703
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 71380
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: International
Default

Well, if it's for the children.........
blubaru703 is online now  
Old 01-05-2014, 09:41 PM   #9
Brahmzy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3293
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: CO
Vehicle:
'14 FXT-T
'15 WRX? '15 STI?

Default

Ban all high-capacity reverse gears. It's for the children.
Brahmzy is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 09:43 PM   #10
GDB FAN
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 105814
Join Date: Jan 2006
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Vehicle:
two V8's..
'murica

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoapBox View Post
Apply that ridiculous logic to everything...and you see the problem.



Put me in the "leave me the hell alone" category. The government is not in the car-making business for a reason. Keep it that way.
Somebody gets it.
GDB FAN is offline  
Old 01-05-2014, 10:40 PM   #11
quentinberg007
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 7887
Join Date: Jun 2001
Vehicle:
2015 Dodge Charger
HelloCatty

Default

I love the backup cameras in my vehicles. Handy little feature for backing into a tight garage or getting as close as possible to the curb. As far as being mandatory, I really don't have much of an opinion on it. I was backed into by an Escape Titanium over the summer and I'm fairly certain that the backup camera is standard on those. The rear sonar might be more functional... but people would probably turn it off.
quentinberg007 is online now  
Old 01-05-2014, 11:49 PM   #12
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoapBox View Post
Put me in the "leave me the hell alone" category.
Put me in this category for everything. I'm sick to ****ing death of people wanting mandated help with everything.

I'll help if I want to and won't if I don't. Sorry I've just been lucky enough to be someone who doesn't seem to need a lot of help for ANYTHING, but that's just it: my luck. Sucks if you're not the same but that's not my problem.

As for these cameras, yeah. I don't need it, and if you're a good driver, you shouldn't either...

"If it helps, why not?" Are you serious?

Because of the statistics outlined whereby a person is "worth" 6.1 mill and for every live saved it costs an effective 16 mill. I'd argue the value of a human is far less if you do a world wide average (think of all the people in china making mere dollars a day, as many of your current residents should).

Why mandate something over what even a grotesquely generous statistic says is unfeasible? Because statistics don't matter, costs don't matter; all that matters is every single human life is saved and lives to 150, regardless of what is realistic right?
WRXHillClimb is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 12:46 AM   #13
hi5.0
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 340456
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza

Default

Hey, it would have helped me - because some numbnut backed into my car in a parking lot and then took off. I'm used to not having or needing such devices. It's those who "park/drive by feel" that brought up the whole perceived need for this proposed legislation. It only doesn't make sense until crap happens to you even though it may not be your fault. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of this idea - it's just the number of people out there who don't have the necessary attention span and the spatial awareness of their vehicle's size from behind the wheel seems to be increasing, so they need all the help they can get. Too bad everyone else has to pay for it whether it becomes mandatory or not. I'm no fan of SRS either - don't wear a seatbelt - feel free to die for all I care.
hi5.0 is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 01:25 AM   #14
Not-EWRX
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 158043
Join Date: Aug 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: SLC
Vehicle:
2013 Wrx Hatch
SWP

Default

This could go both ways. It will make it so it's not a $1,500 option when the actual cost of the components are $100. The problem is car manufactures screw things up and they'll likely make it pixalated and 2" wide with no other functionality.
Not-EWRX is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 08:51 AM   #15
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

The problem with this is it doesn't make sense for a small car especially in the lower price brackets. The cost is more easily absorbed in SUV's and higher priced cars where there will be a small LCD screen already installed, so a backup camera is truly a $100 addition to each car. If they made it a mandate, it should only apply to vehicles above say $25,000 or so.

Also we can't say for sure that it'll save 100 lives per year. The problem is people will become reliant on this technology for backing up, that they won't watch cross traffic or turn their head around. It may actually cause more accidents.
gggplaya is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 09:51 AM   #16
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
The problem is people will become reliant on this technology for backing up, that they won't watch cross traffic or turn their head around. It may actually cause more accidents.
My mom has a 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.0t with tech pack (meaning she gets the backup camera). Across this past winter season I went to visit her like a good son, regretfully, and I found myself doing exactly what you outlined. I was watching the green/yellow/red bars like it was a video game and paying attention to dick all else when backing her car up into the driveway. I realized it afterward and proceeded to disregard the screen thereafter, reprimanding myself with whiplashes in my head for being such a stupid person.

It's also important to note that the only time I used the camera I ended up blocking the back passenger door from opening because it was 6" away from a support pillar on the side of the house and my mom made me redo it
WRXHillClimb is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 10:07 AM   #17
Rootus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89821
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: A Series Of Toobs
Vehicle:
2015 STI LE

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
The problem with this is it doesn't make sense for a small car especially in the lower price brackets. The cost is more easily absorbed in SUV's and higher priced cars where there will be a small LCD screen already installed, so a backup camera is truly a $100 addition to each car. If they made it a mandate, it should only apply to vehicles above say $25,000 or so.
If an auto manufacturer is actually paying $100 for a camera, wires, and LCD (which requires no special design changes, it fits in the rearview mirror), they need to fire whoever is in charge of procurement .
Rootus is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 10:47 AM   #18
gggplaya
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:
2008 Impreza
Dark Gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rootus View Post
If an auto manufacturer is actually paying $100 for a camera, wires, and LCD (which requires no special design changes, it fits in the rearview mirror), they need to fire whoever is in charge of procurement .
You have to keep in mind that OEM costs are much higher than aftermarket. This is because they have to back it up with a warranty of at least 3 years or more, the design has to be integrated into the tail section of the vehicle and the mirror. The wiring cost is negligible and can just be integrated into the current harness.

Those cheap chinese camera's you see on ebay and amazon are total junk and malfunction at a very high rate. Anything reliable is going to cost about $100 with the plastic pieces to integrate the design.
gggplaya is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 11:04 AM   #19
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

I am against letting the car do the thinking for you. I hate this mandate like I hate lane warning departure signals, blind spot warning signals, auto braking, auto steering, park for you systems.

THe more the car thinks, the less the driver does.
SCRAPPYDO is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 11:12 AM   #20
C4RBON_F1BER
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 208507
Join Date: Apr 2009
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Cedar Falls, IA
Vehicle:
2012 WRX 5-door
PBP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
You have to keep in mind that OEM costs are much higher than aftermarket. This is because they have to back it up with a warranty of at least 3 years or more, the design has to be integrated into the tail section of the vehicle and the mirror. The wiring cost is negligible and can just be integrated into the current harness.

Those cheap chinese camera's you see on ebay and amazon are total junk and malfunction at a very high rate. Anything reliable is going to cost about $100 with the plastic pieces to integrate the design.
I will also add that the OEM solutions must function in all temperatures, -40 to +140F , must be tested in those conditions, and integrated into the vehicle software with warnings, labels, etc.

I think there are situations where the cameras definitely help. That being said, I've gotten by just fine without them. I would have liked to see the car companies make them standard on their own without government regulation, because now EVERY car must have them; even if a car such as the Ariel Atom were to be sold here.
C4RBON_F1BER is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 11:16 AM   #21
a2cpc
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 10139
Join Date: Sep 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Indy/Broad Ripple
Vehicle:
9&11 WRX 5Dr
DGM/Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
THe more the car thinks, the less the driver does.
That is probably the truest statement of all! But, that being said, there are way to many inept people driving. Because of those people, we all will have get autonomous cars in the future.
a2cpc is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 11:24 AM   #22
Scrappy_do
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 376064
Join Date: Dec 2013
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Nashville, TN
Vehicle:
2007 WRX
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
I am against letting the car do the thinking for you. I hate this mandate like I hate lane warning departure signals, blind spot warning signals, auto braking, auto steering, park for you systems.

The more the car thinks, the less the driver does.
First of all I want to say sorry for ScreenName jacking...

But on the flip side, I agree with you. Auto makers are only making the consumer lazier with new technology. The reason we have so many accidents now, is because people are losing their need to actually drive. They expect the car to drive for them.

I say this to from experience. We had a BMW 335i for a while and when we traded it for the Subaru, My girlfriend suddenly became a terrible driver!
Scrappy_do is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 11:33 AM   #23
WRXHillClimb
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206907
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Abq, NM
Vehicle:
2014 EvoX GSR
2005 S2000 Track Car

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy_do View Post
Scrappy_do
Oh snap!
WRXHillClimb is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 11:44 AM   #24
Scooby921
Merci Buckets
Moderator
 
Member#: 88606
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Clarkston
Vehicle:
2011 GMC Sierra
'13 JCW

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
OEM suppliers should have already integrated the screen and camera function into ALL headunits by now. They've had since 2008? The tech is so cheap and accessible. Manufacturers just need to design a readymade camera location in the rear of their platforms and run additional wires in the looms.
Nothing is ever as easy as it seems, especially if it becomes a government mandated safety feature. It goes beyond just adding a camera and wiring. There is software development, integration with manufacturer specific signal processing, calibration, testing, and of course fit and finish so customers don't complain. But also have to account for the fact that it's a safety feature and as such will require redundancies. All of the signals get more complicated because the government mandates that safety features be protected. Instead of just having a camera feed signal you now have the camera feed, a rolling counter to confirm that the camera is alive and operating, and a protection value to confirm what the camera is actually reporting vs. what another module is reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A W View Post
Apparently it's not cheap enough for WRXHillBillyClimb. According to him, the MSRP is going to skyrocket because we add tiny cameras to our cars.

To give him some credit, the OEM cameras they put on some of the cars out there are terrible and utterly WalMart cheap as hell. Subaru Forester camera is no different. Seriously, where the hell are the trajectory lines and the better camera resolution? Subaru has enough money for that. I know I saw somewhere recently a low priced car, probably a Kia Soul has a backup camera with trajectory lines. It's a Kia and it has a better backup camera than Subaru, lol.
This is another problem with ever changing technology. It takes 2-3 years to design, build, test, and release a new vehicle. By the time they finally show up on the dealership lot most of the electronic technology inside the car is out-dated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rootus View Post
If an auto manufacturer is actually paying $100 for a camera, wires, and LCD (which requires no special design changes, it fits in the rearview mirror), they need to fire whoever is in charge of procurement .
Or you need to assume less and try to understand the costs involved. It's not just a camera, wires, and a screen. The aftermarket is held to a lot lower standard for quality and production than most OEM stuff. And even when an aftermarket product appears superior in function it may not have even 1/10th of the testing and validation behind it. It is entirely possible to have an aftermarket product that exceeds the OEM product. It's not always possible to have an aftermarket product that outlasts the OEM product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gggplaya View Post
You have to keep in mind that OEM costs are much higher than aftermarket. This is because they have to back it up with a warranty of at least 3 years or more, the design has to be integrated into the tail section of the vehicle and the mirror. The wiring cost is negligible and can just be integrated into the current harness.

Those cheap chinese camera's you see on ebay and amazon are total junk and malfunction at a very high rate. Anything reliable is going to cost about $100 with the plastic pieces to integrate the design.
Cost of wiring, unfortunately, is not negligible. The cost of the physical wire is cheap, but wire harnesses can get expensive if you have to modify something that already exists. It gets worse if you have to run a new one. Adding a couple of wires seems simple, but if you have to change connectors somewhere in the harness just to add those few wires it becomes a serious change. It will impact the harness supplier as they need to change some of their tools to run more wires and plug terminals into a different connector. It could also impact assembly tooling and processes at the manufacturing facility as they'll have to work with a new connector which may mount in a different orientation or different location. And now that you've added wires you have to rerun all the electrical interference testing on that harness to make sure you haven't screwed up something else.

Plus you've added weight to the car. That's a negative impact on fuel economy, which is a huge deal these days. It seems asinine, but running from a rear camera to a front ECU/screen is probably 8-9 meters worth of harness once you weave down and around all the different body panels to keep them hidden. Because it's a safety feature the camera wires will need redundancy, so double the number and weight. And for that distance of run you'll need a larger gauge to account for the increased resistance, so increase the weight again. You probably add 30lbs to the car by adding a camera system.



Manufacturer requirements are quite ridiculous at times, but they exist based on past experience and events which drive the necessity for a requirement. Changing the rubber material and stiffness on an engine mount should be simple and cheap. It's the same material cost and goes into the same mold to make the same shape part. But because you've changed the material and stiffness you have to rerun all of the major durability tests to validate that there are no concerns for products breaking on a customer's car. And that takes months and could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars when you account for the engineering personnel running and evaluating the tests and the cost of operating the equipment.

GM wants my employer to add cyber security features to our ECU so it can't be hacked and no one can take over control of your AWD system while you're driving down the road. I think we quoted them $2m just to make a software update. The detail in the requirements, the number of personnel dedicated to the update, and the amount of testing and validation involved is pretty crazy. And as the calibrator I think the end result will make it harder for me to do my job as I'll have to have a new tool to plug in and unlock an ECU before I can plug in with a different tool just to calibrate.



I hate government mandated safety features. I figure if you can't drive you shouldn't. Driving is a privilege and people should be held accountable for their vehicle and their ability to operate it. The government is making it easier for people to be less aware and more dangerous while driving. It might keep the rest of us safe from them, but it only breeds a society which excuses itself from responsibility because the electrical overlords keeps them safer.
Scooby921 is offline  
Old 01-06-2014, 12:11 PM   #25
Stanley
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 7374
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: North Bay, SFCA
Vehicle:
2007 Grandpamobile
BlingBlingBlue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hi5.0 View Post
If it helps, why not?
It doesn't necessarily help. My wife got a back up camera in her Lexus in 2008 and I think she has completely forgotten how to use mirrors. Both corners of the bumper are scarred up from her hitting things because she relies solely on her camera.
Stanley is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.