Andrew M. Daniels - Comment

Document ID: NHTSA-2010-0162-0151
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Received Date: March 23 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: March 25 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: March 2 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: April 18 2011, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80c0f398
View Document:

This is comment on Rule

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Rear Visibility, Rearview Mirrors, Low-Speed Vehicles, Phase-in Reporting Requirements; Public Workshop and Hearing

View Comment

While I appreciate the motivation behind this proposed rule, I remain highly skeptical that it will achieve the desired results. In all but one of the anecdotes that I have heard as motivation for requiring rear-view cameras, the underlying reason for the collision wasn't the existence of a "blind spot" behind the vehicle or even badly-adjusted mirrors. It is, as far as I can tell, simple negligence on the part of the drivers, who did not bother to look behind the vehicle either before getting into it or before and during backing up. I don't see how adding a rear-facing camera to the equation will make such drivers look where they're going if they're not doing so now. I grant that the rule will make a difference in some cases, but I doubt that it will in enough intances to justify the additional costs. The one thing one can be sure that this proposed rule will accomplish, on the other hand, will be the enrichment of the vendors of these required camera systems.