This ruling really just makes cars heavier, and as a result, less efficient. It's the reason a modern Insight is less efficient than a CRX from 20 years ago.
Are you any less likely to get into an accident with that CRX than a new Insight? Probably not. As long as humans are behind the wheel, they're the ones that need to be trained better, not the cars.
It's useless.
Adding a backup camera, wiring, and video screen is going to add a small amount of weight, I'd guess around 15 lbs and that's including any additional mounting material for the camera. It's going to have an insignificant effect there.
One trend that's making this less pointless is the increasingly tiny back glass on modern cars. In order to give larger trunks and a more streamlined shape the back window is shrinking making it harder to see out of. (In a lot of cars I see)
Now, with regulations like this, closer to 3000 pounds is the norm.
Every pound adds up.
All the safety regulations that have led to this increased weight aren't pointless, but one wonders if it's really worth MANDATING everyone to tote around an additional ONE THOUSAND POUNDS.
It wasn't all that much more, if at all, common than it is now. Sure, some subcompacts were under 2,000 pounds -- just as they are now.
> Now, with regulations like this, closer to 3000 pounds is the norm.
Regulations don't require 3000 pound+ cars, consumer preferences do. The Smart Fortwo meets all applicable US regulations and has a curb weight of 1,600 pounds, a little less than the 1980s Le Car. Neither are exactly rare in their time, but both are notable among contemporaries in the US market for being small.
Amazon puts the _shipping_ weight of a camera at one pound.
A soccer mom will make her car more inefficient every time she orders McDonalds for the whole family.
Is using technology to prevent kids deaths pointless?
Are you less likely to survive an accident in a modern car? Yes, you are. Depending on who you ask airbags by themselves save 5,000-20,000 people per year.