Rear-view cameras set for 2018
Questions remain about how mandate will affect auto prices and driver habits
May 1, 2018 — that is the date that will see most of the cars we purchase require a rear-view backup camera. That includes “light-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb.), including passenger cars, trucks, three-wheeled vehicles, multi-purpose passenger vehicles (e.g. Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4), small buses (e.g. Mercedes Sprinter passenger van), and low-speed vehicles.”
You’re forgiven if the news seems a little Groundhog Day. We generally tie our automotive regulations to the U.S. and that country had previously announced 2016 as its target for the implementation of the rear-visibility devices. While there has indeed been an uptick in the number of cars that are now equipped with the cameras, that magic “mandatory” took an extra couple of years to come to fruition. A dig into the proposed wording reveals why.
The United Nations had to invent and sign off on new regulations regarding indirect visibility. Studies also had to be carried out by Transport Canada in conjunction with the “Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association (CVMA), representing Ford, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and General Motors; the Global Automakers of Canada (GAC), representing 15 manufacturers, including the major European and Asian manufacturers; the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council (MMIC), which represents organizations engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or distributing motorcycles, mopeds and scooters in Canada, including Bombardier Recreational Products.”
The push for mandatory rearview cameras began back in 2002, when Dr. Greg Gulbransen (an American pediatrician from Long Island) accidentally struck his two-year-old son Cameron while backing out of his driveway. In reaction to this fatality, the United States Congress passed the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007.
Statistics on these kinds of injuries and fatalities are difficult to ascertain because they typically take place on private land — parking lots and driveways — putting them outside the purview of the National Collision Database. Transport Canada requested input from all provinces and territories, but only three responded. Therefore, they estimated their findings and saw that, between 2004 and 2009, there were about 1,500 injuries and 24 to 27 fatalities in backover collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists.
When the U.S. did its initial costing into requiring backup devices on all vehicles, it came up with US$43 for vehicles that already had screens available and US$142 for those that didn’t. They also considered sensors, chimes and alarm features, but all were deemed ineffective for the types of rear rollovers that needed to be addressed. They also came to the conclusion that those costs were rapidly dropping with mass production.
Missing from their conclusion was the fact that you can rarely just order a backup camera without having to take a bump up in trim levels that include a camera. I would like to see the manufacturers’ estimates on what a mandatory inclusion will ultimately cost the consumer.
The official word now is “Transport Canada is reviewing the need for an allowance of new technology rear-view visibility systems on vehicles to be sold in Canada,” and you can submit your comments to Transport Canada for the next 75 days. That’s the official word. But if the U.S. has already got this mandate, we can be certain that we will be rigidly aligned with its manufacturing requirements.
The threat posed by non-compliance is that “manufacturers could decide in the future not to provide Canadian vehicles with the enhanced rear visibility systems or could choose to equip Canadian vehicles with substandard equipment, or could offer these systems as an option at an additional cost.”
Backup cameras are a great safety feature, and the aftermarket products I’ve used and seen ranged from really terrible to slightly less terrible. I hate what I call Dead Children Laws, but with a persistence by consumers to buy huge vehicles, I’d rather see backup cameras mandated than any more vulnerable people hit.
I do retain a fear that, like all the other safety features we’re seeing, the backup cameras will further degrade the actual awareness that too many drivers have of their own surroundings.
And I have one other question for all involved: Have you ever driven on the salt- and sludge-covered roads we have during half the year? Those cameras are fair-weather friends in Canada.