The Backup Camera Debate

I think in class we got a little sidetracked with our discussion of the backup camera mandate. If we ignore the details for a minute, the point becomes very clear. If a car has a backup camera and the driver uses it when reversing, there is less of a chance that they will hit something or someone. The safety of the car is increased, so why not mandate it? The same thing happened with seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc. As technology improves, the backup camera increasingly becomes a vital tool in increasing vehicular safety. The cameras are now being produced with wider lenses and lines to indicate the predicted path of the car as the driver turns the steering wheel. My friend has a very high-tech car, and it actually shows a bird's eye view of the car on the display screen. It looks like this:

These technology advancements make the case stronger for mandating backup cameras.

Some people brought up some points against the backup camera mandate that I will try to address. Once point was that it might make people too reliant on the backup camera. I don’t really see that being a huge problem. The screen displays exactly what is behind the car in real time. What’s the problem with becoming too reliant on it? It’s a better view of what’s behind the car than you would get in the mirror.  The backup camera is not designed to substitute checking both ways laterally before backing, so I don’t think that people would just throw their car into reverse and look only at the screen. But I do thing that the screen gives a far better view than you would get turning around and looking out the back of your car, unless the back of your car is made entirely of glass.

Another point was that if people are stupid enough to back over their own kids, they shouldn’t be driving anyway. I think that point was pretty well crushed in class. This kind of accident could happen to anyone. Without a backup camera, there is simply no way to see a child behind your vehicle in many situations. And maybe a camera wouldn’t prevent these types of accidents altogether, but it would certainly reduce the chances of them happening. All cars are required to have seatbelts now. Does that mean everyone is going to use them? No. But they have caused a significant and measurable reduction in fatalities because many people do use them. I think the same case would occur with backup cameras.

Another argument against the cameras was the cost. When you’re spending five figures on a car, you’re not going to notice the extra $15 dollars because of the backup camera. Based on this, I couldn’t see cost being an issue.

Going off topic a little, I think that backup sensors would be more effective in alerting drivers of an obstacle than a backup camera alone. A backup sensor system uses several sonar sensors embedded in the rear bumper to detect obstacles. As an obstacle approaches, a beeping sound is heard inside of the vehicle, with the frequency of the beeping increasing as the car becomes closer to the obstacle. With a backup camera, the driver may or may not look at it as they are backing up. I was backing up in my old car (which had a backup camera and no backup sensor system) and I nearly bumped into the car that was parked behind me. I thought I knew what I was doing and I wasn't paying attention to the screen. It wasn't until I looked at the display at the last second that I noticed my error and slammed on the brakes. My point is that if I had a backup sensor system, it would have grabbed my attention and warned me that I was about to hit something. I wonder why there is a push to mandate cameras and not sensors.

With everything above considered, I think that nothing but benefits could be gained from having backup cameras be mandatory in all new vehicles.