NHTSA Submits Rear Visibility Rule to White House, May Mandate Backup Cameras

TTAC Staff
by TTAC Staff

After several delays, on Dec. 25th, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration submitted a proposed revised regulation to the White House that could mandate automakers to equip cars and light trucks with backup cameras. According to Automotive News, the regulation will be part of new rear visibility standards for passenger vehicles sold in the U.S and the rationale for the backup cameras is to prevent children from being injured or killed by drivers that don’t see them behind their cars when traveling in reverse. NHTSA estimates that backup cameras would save about 100 lives a year.

No details on the planned standards have been released yet. Their submission to the White House was spotted on a White House database that tracks the rulemaking process. They could mandate cameras or may allow automakers to comply using redesigned mirrors or electronic sensors. The notice confirms what former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last year, that the administration intends to release the final rule by January 2015.

The release of a final rule, part of implementing the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act, enacted in 2008, has been delayed four times since the original deadline at the end of 2011. Congressional backers of that legislation blame the delays on the White House, saying that it rejected NHTSA’s original 2010 proposal that would have required all new light vehicles to be sold with backup cameras by 2014. Since then, backup cameras have become more common as navigation screens capable of displaying a camera feed have proliferated. Some automakers have made backup cameras standard equipment on some models and in the case of Honda, across their entire U.S. lineup.

Still, many cars and light trucks are not available with the safety feature and auto safety advocates have pressed for the regulations. In September, Consumers Union, the advocacy wing of Consumer Reports magazine, filed a lawsuit to compel the Obama Administration to make backup cameras part mandatory. Scott Michelman, an attorney at the group Public Citizen, which supported the lawsuit, said at the time, “When Congress ordered this rule issued in three years, they meant three years, not seven.”

TTAC Staff
TTAC Staff

More by TTAC Staff

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 147 comments
  • Celebrity208 Celebrity208 on Jan 08, 2014

    So, Here in VA we have annual "safety" inspections. If a camera or screen stops working will the car fail the "safety" inspection? The "safety" inspection requires that all safety related systems on the car work. For example, if my '98 A4 has the AirBag or ABS light on... FAIL. Never mind I still have a working seat belt and never mind that there are people out there driving cars that never had an AirBag or ABS. So when the 3rd owner rolls around and the screen has since displayed its last pixel will that presumably financially constrained individual be compelled to fork over $$$ to fix it? Probably. In my opinion, this is BS.

  • Ixim Ixim on Jan 11, 2014

    This horse may have died, but I must add this - My 2013 Equinox lacks both a camera and a beeper. Backing up to park requires me to unbuckle my seat belt in order to see even the partially blocked view available. Narrow windows and fat pillars are the stylish culprits. I haven't hit anything yet, and I'd prefer a beeper to a distracting screen, but this is ridiculous. Of course, by the time theses systems are mandated, tall greenhouses will be back in style, solving this avoidable problem.

  • Rna65689660 For such a flat surface, why not get smoke tint, Rtint or Rvynil. Starts at $8. I used to use a company called Lamin-x, but I think they are gone. Has held up great.
  • Cprescott A cheaper golf cart will not make me more inclined to screw up my life. I can go 500 plus miles on a tank of gas with my 2016 ICE car that is paid off. I get two weeks out of a tank that takes from start to finish less than 10 minutes to refill. At no point with golf cart technology as we know it can they match what my ICE vehicle can do. Hell no. Absolutely never.
  • Cprescott People do silly things to their cars.
  • Jeff This is a step in the right direction with the Murano gaining a 9 speed automatic. Nissan could go a little further and offer a compact pickup and offer hybrids. VoGhost--Nissan has  laid out a new plan to electrify 16 of the 30 vehicles it produces by 2026, with the rest using internal combustion instead. For those of us in North America, the company says it plans to release seven new vehicles in the US and Canada, although it’s not clear how many of those will be some type of EV.Nissan says the US is getting “e-POWER and plug-in hybrid models” — each of those uses a mix of electricity and fuel for power. At the moment, the only all-electric EVs Nissan is producing are the  Ariya SUV and the  perhaps endangered (or  maybe not) Leaf.In 2021, Nissan said it would  make 23 electrified vehicles by 2030, and that 15 of those would be fully electric, rather than some form of hybrid vehicle. It’s hard to say if any of this is a step forward from that plan, because yes, 16 is bigger than 15, but Nissan doesn’t explicitly say how many of those 16 are all-battery, or indeed if any of them are.  https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24111963/nissan-ev-plan-2026-solid-state-batteries
  • Jkross22 Sure, but it depends on the price. All EVs cost too much and I'm talking about all costs. Depreciation, lack of public/available/reliable charging, concerns about repairability (H/K). Look at the battering the Mercedes and Ford EV's are taking on depreciation. As another site mentioned in the last few days, cars aren't supposed to depreciate by 40-50% in a year or 2.
Next