Delays litter long road to vehicle rearview rules

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In the private hell of a mother's grief, the sounds come back to Judy Neiman. The SUV door slamming. The slight bump as she backed up in the bank parking lot. The emergency room doctor's sobs as he said her 9-year-old daughter Sydnee, who previously had survived four open heart surgeries, would not make it this time.
Her own cries of: How could I have missed seeing her?
The 53-year-old woman has sentenced herself to go on living in the awful stillness of her West Richland, Wash., home, where she makes a plea for what she wants since she can't have Sydnee back: More steps taken by the government and automakers to help prevent parents from accidentally killing their children, as she did a year ago this month.
"They have to do something, because I've read about it happening to other people. I read about it and I said, 'I would die if it happens to me,'" Neiman says. "Then it did happen to me."
There is, in fact, a law in place that calls for new manufacturing requirements to improve the visibility behind passenger vehicles to help prevent such fatal backing crashes, which the government estimates kill some 228 people every year — 110 of them children age 10 and under — and injures another 17,000.
Congress passed the measure with strong bipartisan backing, and Republican President George W. Bush signed it in 2008.
But almost five years later, the standards have yet to be mandated because of delays by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which faced a Feb. 28, 2011, deadline to issue the new guidelines for car manufacturers. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has pushed back that deadline three times — promising in February that the rules would be issued by year's end.
With still no action, safety advocates and anguished parents such as Neiman are asking: What's taking so long to remedy a problem recognized by government regulators and automakers for decades now?
"In a way, it's a death sentence, and for no good reason," said former Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook, who once directed the federal agency responsible for developing the rules.
The proposed regulations call for expanding the field of view for cars, vans, SUVs and pickup trucks so that drivers can see directly behind their vehicles when in reverse — requiring, in most cases, rearview cameras and video displays as standard equipment.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, charged with completing the new standards, declined requests to discuss the delays. Spokeswoman Karen Aldana said the agency would not comment while the rulemaking process was ongoing but was on track to meet LaHood's latest cutoff date. In a letter to lawmakers in February, LaHood said his agency needed more time for "research and data analysis" to "ensure that the final rule is appropriate and the underlying analysis is robust."
Others insist the issue is money, and reluctance to put any additional financial burdens on an industry crippled by the economic crisis. Development of the new safety standards came even as the Obama administration was pumping billions of dollars into the industry as part of its bailout package.
"They don't want to look at anything that will cost more money for the automobile industry," said Packy Campbell, a former Republican state lawmaker from New Hampshire who lobbied for the law.
NHTSA has estimated that making rear cameras standard on every car would add $58 to $88 to the price of vehicles already equipped with dashboard display screens and $159 to $203 for those without them.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a lobbying group that represents automakers, puts the total cost to the industry at about $2 billion a year. Last December, the group met with White House budget officials to propose a less expensive alternative: reserving cameras for vehicles with extra-large blind zones and outfitting the rest with curved, wide-angle exterior mirrors.
The alliance declined comment, but earlier this year the group's vice president, Gloria Bergquist, told The Associated Press that it urged the government to explore more options as a way to reduce the costs passed on to consumers.
"There are a variety of tools that could be used," she said, adding that automakers also were concerned that the cumulative effect of federal safety regulations is driving up the average price of a new car, now about $25,000.
Industry analysts also question whether cameras are needed on smaller, entry-level class cars with better rearview visibility.
"It may just be a couple hundred dollars, but it can grow pretty significantly if you are talking about ... an inexpensive car that was not originally conceived to have all these electronics and was only going to have a simple car stereo," said Roger Lanctot, an automotive technology specialist.
Before the delays, all new passenger vehicles were to carry cameras and video displays by September 2014. The industry has now asked for two more years after the final rules are published to reach full compliance.
Despite its resistance, the industry on its own has been installing rearview cameras, a feature first popularized two decades ago in Japan and standard on nearly 70 percent of new cars produced there this year. In the United States, 44 percent of 2012 models came with rear cameras standard, and 27 percent had them as options, according to the automotive research firm Edmunds.
Nine in 10 new cars had console screens available, according to market research firm iSuppli, which would put the price of adding a camera on the low end of the NHTSA's estimates.
These backing crashes are hardly a new phenomenon. Emergency room doctors, the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NHTSA have produced dozens of papers on the problem since the 1980s.
Researchers at the University of California, Irvine, started looking into the issue in the 1990s after noticing toddlers showing up in hospital databases of injured child pedestrians. They found that many of those children had been killed or hurt by vehicles backing out of home driveways.
In 1993, the NHTSA sponsored several studies that noted the disproportionate effect of backup accidents on child victims. One report explored sensors and cameras as possible solutions, noting the accidents "involve slow closing speeds and, thus, may be preventable." Still another 1993 report estimated that 100 to 200 pedestrians are killed each year from backing crashes, most of them children.
Three years later, Dee Norton, a reporter at The Seattle Times, petitioned the NHTSA to require improved mirrors on smaller commercial trucks and vans after his 3-year-old grandson was killed by a diaper delivery truck that backed over him.
The NHTSA started looking into technology as a solution, but in one proposal — issued in November 2000 — it noted that sensors, cameras and monitors were still expensive and promised to later reevaluate the feasibility of such emerging technologies.
Adding to the scrutiny were studies by Consumer Reports magazine, which started measuring "blind zones" to determine how far away a toddler-sized traffic cone had to be before a driver looking though the rear window could see it. The research found an overall trend of worsening rear visibility — due in part to designs favoring small windows and high trunk lines, said Tom Mutchler, the magazine's automotive engineer.
"Cameras are basically the only technology that is going to let you see something right behind the bumper," he said.
With a growing body of research, better statistics and inaction by regulators, advocates such as Janette Fennell, president of a safety group called Kids and Cars, and Sally Greenberg, then with Consumers Union, turned to Congress for a solution.
In 2003, U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, introduced the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act, named for a 2-year-old Long Island boy whose pediatrician father backed over him in their driveway. Five years later, it finally became law.
While no one doubts that cameras could help reduce deaths, they aren't regarded as a perfect solution either.
One recent study by a researcher at Oregon State University found that only one in five drivers used a rearview camera when it was available, but 88 percent of those who did avoided striking a child-sized decoy.
In its proposed rule, the NHTSA estimated that rearview video systems could substantially reduce fatal backing crashes — by at least 95 a year — and result in at least 7,000 fewer injuries.
Judy Neiman's 2006 Cadillac Escalade didn't have any cameras installed. They weren't added as an optional package until the following model year. Instead, her vehicle was equipped with a "rear parking assist system" — bumper sensors, an alarm and lights that are supposed to go off within five feet of objects or people.
Neither Neiman nor the 10-year-old neighbor boy who had accompanied her and her daughter to the bank on Dec. 8, 2011, would recall hearing any alert, according to a police report.
Sydnee was carrying her purple plastic piggy bank and account book, so she could deposit $5 from her weekly allowance. After the transaction, Neiman slid behind the wheel and waited for the children. She heard the door slam, then saw the boy sitting on the right side of the back seat as she put the car into reverse.
She figured Sydnee was seated behind the driver's seat. Instead, the boy had gotten in first, telling Sydnee to go around and get in from the left side. He would later tell a police investigator that the girl had dropped her piggy bank on her way around the SUV.
Even if she were upright, at 4-feet-3-inches tall, Sydnee would have been practically invisible through the rear window, the bottom edge of which was a few inches taller than she was.
As the first anniversary of her daughter's death passed, Neiman hoped that sharing her story might spare other parents from enduring the pain she feels every day.
She tortures herself by replaying a conversation she had with Sydnee the summer before she died. Her daughter always had taken her heart condition, a congenital defect, in stride. She never complained or showed fear, despite her many surgeries.
Then one night Sydnee started crying, and she wouldn't tell her mother what was troubling her until the next morning.
"She said, 'I don't want to die, Mom,' and when she died, that's all I could think about. She didn't want to die," Neiman says. "She survived four open heart surgeries. If God had taken her at that time, I could accept it. But who could take her with her being hit by my car? And my hitting her?"
Her own cries of: How could I have missed seeing her?
The 53-year-old woman has sentenced herself to go on living in the awful stillness of her West Richland, Wash., home, where she makes a plea for what she wants since she can't have Sydnee back: More steps taken by the government and automakers to help prevent parents from accidentally killing their children, as she did a year ago this month.
"They have to do something, because I've read about it happening to other people. I read about it and I said, 'I would die if it happens to me,'" Neiman says. "Then it did happen to me."
There is, in fact, a law in place that calls for new manufacturing requirements to improve the visibility behind passenger vehicles to help prevent such fatal backing crashes, which the government estimates kill some 228 people every year — 110 of them children age 10 and under — and injures another 17,000.
Congress passed the measure with strong bipartisan backing, and Republican President George W. Bush signed it in 2008.
But almost five years later, the standards have yet to be mandated because of delays by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which faced a Feb. 28, 2011, deadline to issue the new guidelines for car manufacturers. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has pushed back that deadline three times — promising in February that the rules would be issued by year's end.
With still no action, safety advocates and anguished parents such as Neiman are asking: What's taking so long to remedy a problem recognized by government regulators and automakers for decades now?
"In a way, it's a death sentence, and for no good reason," said former Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook, who once directed the federal agency responsible for developing the rules.
The proposed regulations call for expanding the field of view for cars, vans, SUVs and pickup trucks so that drivers can see directly behind their vehicles when in reverse — requiring, in most cases, rearview cameras and video displays as standard equipment.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, charged with completing the new standards, declined requests to discuss the delays. Spokeswoman Karen Aldana said the agency would not comment while the rulemaking process was ongoing but was on track to meet LaHood's latest cutoff date. In a letter to lawmakers in February, LaHood said his agency needed more time for "research and data analysis" to "ensure that the final rule is appropriate and the underlying analysis is robust."
Others insist the issue is money, and reluctance to put any additional financial burdens on an industry crippled by the economic crisis. Development of the new safety standards came even as the Obama administration was pumping billions of dollars into the industry as part of its bailout package.
"They don't want to look at anything that will cost more money for the automobile industry," said Packy Campbell, a former Republican state lawmaker from New Hampshire who lobbied for the law.
NHTSA has estimated that making rear cameras standard on every car would add $58 to $88 to the price of vehicles already equipped with dashboard display screens and $159 to $203 for those without them.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a lobbying group that represents automakers, puts the total cost to the industry at about $2 billion a year. Last December, the group met with White House budget officials to propose a less expensive alternative: reserving cameras for vehicles with extra-large blind zones and outfitting the rest with curved, wide-angle exterior mirrors.
The alliance declined comment, but earlier this year the group's vice president, Gloria Bergquist, told The Associated Press that it urged the government to explore more options as a way to reduce the costs passed on to consumers.
"There are a variety of tools that could be used," she said, adding that automakers also were concerned that the cumulative effect of federal safety regulations is driving up the average price of a new car, now about $25,000.
Industry analysts also question whether cameras are needed on smaller, entry-level class cars with better rearview visibility.
"It may just be a couple hundred dollars, but it can grow pretty significantly if you are talking about ... an inexpensive car that was not originally conceived to have all these electronics and was only going to have a simple car stereo," said Roger Lanctot, an automotive technology specialist.
Before the delays, all new passenger vehicles were to carry cameras and video displays by September 2014. The industry has now asked for two more years after the final rules are published to reach full compliance.
Despite its resistance, the industry on its own has been installing rearview cameras, a feature first popularized two decades ago in Japan and standard on nearly 70 percent of new cars produced there this year. In the United States, 44 percent of 2012 models came with rear cameras standard, and 27 percent had them as options, according to the automotive research firm Edmunds.
Nine in 10 new cars had console screens available, according to market research firm iSuppli, which would put the price of adding a camera on the low end of the NHTSA's estimates.
These backing crashes are hardly a new phenomenon. Emergency room doctors, the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NHTSA have produced dozens of papers on the problem since the 1980s.
Researchers at the University of California, Irvine, started looking into the issue in the 1990s after noticing toddlers showing up in hospital databases of injured child pedestrians. They found that many of those children had been killed or hurt by vehicles backing out of home driveways.
In 1993, the NHTSA sponsored several studies that noted the disproportionate effect of backup accidents on child victims. One report explored sensors and cameras as possible solutions, noting the accidents "involve slow closing speeds and, thus, may be preventable." Still another 1993 report estimated that 100 to 200 pedestrians are killed each year from backing crashes, most of them children.
Three years later, Dee Norton, a reporter at The Seattle Times, petitioned the NHTSA to require improved mirrors on smaller commercial trucks and vans after his 3-year-old grandson was killed by a diaper delivery truck that backed over him.
The NHTSA started looking into technology as a solution, but in one proposal — issued in November 2000 — it noted that sensors, cameras and monitors were still expensive and promised to later reevaluate the feasibility of such emerging technologies.
Adding to the scrutiny were studies by Consumer Reports magazine, which started measuring "blind zones" to determine how far away a toddler-sized traffic cone had to be before a driver looking though the rear window could see it. The research found an overall trend of worsening rear visibility — due in part to designs favoring small windows and high trunk lines, said Tom Mutchler, the magazine's automotive engineer.
"Cameras are basically the only technology that is going to let you see something right behind the bumper," he said.
With a growing body of research, better statistics and inaction by regulators, advocates such as Janette Fennell, president of a safety group called Kids and Cars, and Sally Greenberg, then with Consumers Union, turned to Congress for a solution.
In 2003, U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, introduced the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act, named for a 2-year-old Long Island boy whose pediatrician father backed over him in their driveway. Five years later, it finally became law.
While no one doubts that cameras could help reduce deaths, they aren't regarded as a perfect solution either.
One recent study by a researcher at Oregon State University found that only one in five drivers used a rearview camera when it was available, but 88 percent of those who did avoided striking a child-sized decoy.
In its proposed rule, the NHTSA estimated that rearview video systems could substantially reduce fatal backing crashes — by at least 95 a year — and result in at least 7,000 fewer injuries.
Judy Neiman's 2006 Cadillac Escalade didn't have any cameras installed. They weren't added as an optional package until the following model year. Instead, her vehicle was equipped with a "rear parking assist system" — bumper sensors, an alarm and lights that are supposed to go off within five feet of objects or people.
Neither Neiman nor the 10-year-old neighbor boy who had accompanied her and her daughter to the bank on Dec. 8, 2011, would recall hearing any alert, according to a police report.
Sydnee was carrying her purple plastic piggy bank and account book, so she could deposit $5 from her weekly allowance. After the transaction, Neiman slid behind the wheel and waited for the children. She heard the door slam, then saw the boy sitting on the right side of the back seat as she put the car into reverse.
She figured Sydnee was seated behind the driver's seat. Instead, the boy had gotten in first, telling Sydnee to go around and get in from the left side. He would later tell a police investigator that the girl had dropped her piggy bank on her way around the SUV.
Even if she were upright, at 4-feet-3-inches tall, Sydnee would have been practically invisible through the rear window, the bottom edge of which was a few inches taller than she was.
As the first anniversary of her daughter's death passed, Neiman hoped that sharing her story might spare other parents from enduring the pain she feels every day.
She tortures herself by replaying a conversation she had with Sydnee the summer before she died. Her daughter always had taken her heart condition, a congenital defect, in stride. She never complained or showed fear, despite her many surgeries.
Then one night Sydnee started crying, and she wouldn't tell her mother what was troubling her until the next morning.
"She said, 'I don't want to die, Mom,' and when she died, that's all I could think about. She didn't want to die," Neiman says. "She survived four open heart surgeries. If God had taken her at that time, I could accept it. But who could take her with her being hit by my car? And my hitting her?"
Can't blame people for trying to have their hands held through life in order to avoid natural selection.
Â
Yes woodie, I feel the same way about gun control.
Â
They should also be required to post a warning about the hazards of being behind cars on the bumper in 176 different languages. Or maybe we should just ban stupid people, stop with all this technology complicating our lives and let nature do it's work.
I'm sorry, but relying on government and technology to avoid such a horrible tragedy as running over your own child instead of taking a moment to be absolutely certain where your children are before backing up is folly. Â Â
How bout people buy vehicles they're actually capable of driving instead of these big ugly monstrosoties to start, then people can actually be a responsible driver in the first place instead of trying to rely on every piece of technology they can. People like this irritate me, she kills her child due to her own negligence, and then blames everyone else for it. Noone made her buy the big ugly "truck" in the first place, it was her responsibility to teach her child not to play behind a vehicle, her responsibility to make sure that the area around her vehicle was clear before backing up. I have no pitty for people who blame the world for their own stupidity in life.
Â
I often joke with my wife that we as a society have made it too easy for the stupid and incompentent to live these day's but sometimes it's oh so very true!
 @JFR I don't think she's "blaming" anyone... just trying to get a law passed to require rear cameras. In my opinion, this is the same as trying to get "breathalyzer" ignition locks on every car made. If she really wanted a backup camera, she could have added onto to her vehicle at any time.
But again she's requireing one more thing that takes just that much more responsibility off of the driver. You can't make a better driver by adding all this technology, only an over confident one that ends up causing more harm in the end because they get it in their head that all this technology makes it so they don't have to think while driving. What people like her need is common sense and responsibility, not more 'toys" on their car.
I have an aftermarket camera on my pickup. (http://www.amazon.com/Peak-PKC0RA-01-Wireless-Back-Up-Monitor/dp/B001P27ZVE/ref=sr_1_fed1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1356551992&sr=1-3&keywords=back+up+camera+for+car) I bought it for under $50, but I installed it myself. Add another $50 to have a pro install it and it is still cheap insurance.
As an ex phone company employee, we were taught to park where we could pull out forward whenever possible. Ever wonder why phone guys put cones out front and rear? It is to insure that we look both in front and behind our rig before we start out.
@Glassman With a new teen driver I am most certainly going to get one of these. Thank you for the information.
Seems like staring at a small screen while backing up would be far more dangerous than looking behind and to the sides.
Seems like one of those backup alarms would be cheaper and more effective. However, that would require people be aware of their surroundings and teaching children to understand what that beeping means.
 @Rider Apparently you've never used a backup camera.
 @Stock Woodie Not sure where I'd put one. Don't have a reverse gear either.
There's two problems here. One who is getting paid off in the US DOT to slow this down and two this will only effect new cars.
Sad story. But I don't understand why you would begin to drive if you did not see your children in the back seat... we have a couple of old animals and I always have to look to see where they are before backing up. Takes a couple of seconds to walk around the car, or do a quick accounting of who is in the car. It's just common sense.
 @albion Sorry, but it is not effective. I lost a nephew to a backing accident. His father had insured that he was out of the way, got into the car and in the 2 seconds time lapse, the boy had run behind the car.
There are little kids on my street, so whenever possible, I back into my driveway. If I thought I needed a camera, I would install one. Too much nanny state nonsense.
Its called personal responsibility. Look where you are going. Drive slower and with more caution and if you can't see out a large SUV (I see this woman behind a large Cadillac SUV) then dont buy one. Get something you CAN see out of.
once again people trying to make the government responsible for their stupidity.
Â
I am very sorry for the loss of a child but you only have yourself to blame. Â Walk around your vehicle. Â Know where your child is. Â Park in a manner that you don't have to back out. Â There are many things you could have done to avoid this.
 @FBrumfield You must feel the same way about gun control?
 @Stock Woodie hmmm, I don't see anything in my post about guns. And Yes, I feel anyone that leaves their gun out where a child can get ahold of it should be held criminally liable.  But that has nothing to do with taking responsibility when you get in your vehicle.  Try to stay on topic.
 @FBrumfield  @Stock Woodie thats because a topic diversion is the only way to desperately form a rebuttal.  the logic is that if you feel parents should be more responsible, you also like innocent people dying by gunfire.  sad thought process, isn't it?
 @Stock Woodie  @FBrumfield I must have missed the part in the article where it said that the lady also tried to kill 20 children with her SUV.
Â
However, it is sad that many children are killed accidentally by guns in the home. That would be a matter of personal responsibility... made especially sad by the fact that there really is no empirical benefit to having a gun in your home since you are statistically much more likely to be killed or injured by the guns in your home than by an intruder.
 @albion  @FBrumfield I suppose... if you count guns/suicide in your own home.  If you pull a gun on an intruder, he's going to leave (unless you shoot him), which means no injury happened (ie bad statistics). Irresponsible gun owners can easily hurt themselves in their own home if they are not "safe".
Â
I am VERY sorry for your loss but, you ran the child over not the manufacture. you Bought the big SUV. You did not look good enough To see if the re was someone behind you. This is your personal responsibility. Stop trying to lessen the blam and shiting the buck to some place else. When you buy the big SUV's this is one of the problems and as the driver you need to deal with it. Slow down, buy a camera, look better, it does not matter and the manufacture is not the problem. Lazy passing the falt people are the problem. Once again Sorry for your loss. It was you that is to blame.
 @bustedupredneck You must feel the same way about gun control?
Solution: Look before you back up, check your surroundings. Twice...Should have been taught this in drivers training.
If it only cost $203 to add a screen and backup camera to a new car, I would do it in a heartbeat. The problem is, the auto manufacturers charge about $500-1000 buck for this "upgrade". Make it mandatory and we all get it cheaper.
 @Stock Woodie No excuse. Aftermarket cameras are available for under $50.
Â
(http://www.amazon.com/Peak-PKC0RA-01-Wireless-Back-Up-Monitor/dp/B001P27ZVE/ref=sr_1_fed1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1356551992&sr=1-3&keywords=back+up+camera+for+car
 @Glassman I don't want a rinky dink screen/camera anywhere near my vehicle... I want it integrated into my navigation system or "stock" screen.
 @Stock Woodie That is, of course, your choice. But my rig didn't come with one and I can't afford to buy a new rig when they do come out, nor did I wish to wait.
 @nobelprizeme Sorry, but no. Young children move too fast. I put the camera on my truck for two reasons: First, so it will not be me who runs over a child like happened to my nephew and his dad, and two, so I can see the car behind me when I am backing in to parallel park. A canopy on a truck is just one big blind spot waiting for an accident.Â
 @Stock Woodie  @Glassman or you could just learn to drive safely and know where your kids are to save the money.