Print 34 comment(s) - last by coldar.. on Mar 21 at 3:24 PM

Cameras alone are more effective than cameras and parking sensors says survey

Rear view cameras are becoming a standard accessory on many cars sold in the U.S. The cameras have been mandated to prevent accidents where small children are backed over by inattentive drivers.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has performed a study -- using volunteers driving 21 different vehicles in an empty parking lot -- that found backup cameras are much more effective than parking sensors while travelling in reverse.
The results of the study show that cameras would better prevent “backover” crashes into pedestrians who are in the vehicle blind spot than parking sensors alone. Oddly, the study found that while cameras worked better than sensors alone, the camera alone worked better than a combination of sensors and camera.

"Right now cameras appear to be the most promising technology for addressing this particularly tragic type of crash, which frequently claims the lives of young children in the driveways of their own homes," says David Zuby, the Institute's executive vice president and chief research officer.
During testing, researchers used a pole that had bands painted to represent children of different heights. Bands were market for the average height of children 12-15 months old, 2.5-3 years old, and 5-6 years old.
The study found that on average if the child was within about 27-feet of the back bumper, drivers couldn't see them using mirrors and looking around alone. Not surprisingly, large SUVs performed the worst in visibility, while small cars typically performed the best.
An estimated 292 people die each year and 18,000 are injured by drivers that back into them. Backup cameras reduce the rear blind zone by 90% on average according to the study.
Current legislation that would mandate the installation of backup cameras on all new passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. has been delayed.

Source: IIHS

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Surprised at the results
By Rukkian on 3/18/2014 10:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
I used to like the sensors, but now that I have a camera, I think I like it better, as it helps to lineup perfectly when backing into parking spots, especially combined with looking in the mirrors.

I have no idea why having both would be worse, it makes no sense.

RE: Surprised at the results
By CaedenV on 3/18/2014 10:39:28 AM , Rating: 3
We are much simpler creatures than we would like to admit. At the end of the day too much good information is just as detrimental as bad information. Having a single effective input is much less distracting than trying to pay attention to several sources of information. I love these new systems that stitch together a few different cameras for a composite view around the vehicle, it makes reverse parking, parallel parking, and navigating through tight places much easier.

RE: Surprised at the results
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/14, Rating: 0
RE: Surprised at the results
By michael2k on 3/18/2014 4:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, no.

They actually did the research, and it was quoted in the summary.

The study found that on average if the child was within about 27-feet of the back bumper, drivers couldn't see them using mirrors and looking around alone. - See more at:

I have small kids. This is literally my worst nightmare, my kids (or their friends), lying on the sidewalk or driveway playing with chalk and not hearing my car, and me not seeing them because they are only 10" tall.

It's easy to tell them to not do this. It's impossible to expect them to always listen to me. Dying, death, injury, and harm isn't really a good way to teach them to pay attention, I'd rather this not happen at all.

RE: Surprised at the results
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2014 4:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
I have small kids.

Then this is available as an option for you to purchase on your vehicles.

I DON'T have kids, so why should this equipment be mandated on me, adding to the cost of the vehicle for equipment I don't want or need?

This is the problem with you people. If something is really important to you, you wouldn't just wait around for the Government to do it for you. That kind of lazy pro-socialist crap is why we're in this mess.

And how hard is it to use a little foresight, observe your surroundings better, and NOT run over a kid?

RE: Surprised at the results
By michael2k on 3/18/2014 4:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I did go for the camera option!

I've never said I want this mandated as a law.

What I am disagreeing with is the statement, now made several times, that said you don't need the camera to avoid kids; as per the actual study, it's essentially impossible to do so.

Kids are too small, tailgates too high, and even with the cameras you still had a high hit rate.

RE: Surprised at the results
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2014 5:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
You realize of course, that the "study" was engineered to support the already-made conclusion that this equipment is necessary.

That's what our Government does. If they want to do something, they commission "studies" to prove that what they want to do is vital and necessary.

Somehow I never got run over by a car and have never known anyone who personally did or had it happen to them.


RE: Surprised at the results
By Samus on 3/19/2014 2:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't an option on my CX-5. Every model since 2013 has it AFAIK. I didn't care for it at first, but considering I don't have backup sensors (they were $500!) I actually use the camera to nudge as close to car bumpers when parallel parking.

I haven't love tapped a single bumper yet. The camera boxes out dimensions and they are pretty accurate.

Overall I like it, and if it weren't for government regulation, I would have probably never opted for it not thinking I needed it. Thanks Obama! Always lookin' out for us!

RE: Surprised at the results
By CharonPDX on 3/18/2014 5:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get into accidents, why should I pay for a passenger airbag?

My house has never caught fire - why should I pay for a fire department for the lazy irresponsible idiots who DO light their houses on fire?!

I've never threatened another country - why should I pay for a military because we we have warmongers around me?

I rarely get sick, why should I pay for insurance to subsidize those that waste our healthcare going to the doctor all the time?

Because, once in a while, it's good to think about more than just yourself... And because some people are greedy self-centered assholes, we must mandate these things.

I would rather insist that someone HAVE something than insist that they be DISALLOWED from having something. And, hey, it's pro-business requiring you to get certain things!

If you don't like it, don't buy a new car, buy an old one.

RE: Surprised at the results
By alpha754293 on 3/19/2014 8:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
YOU don't NEED to have small kids. That pre-supposes that NONE of your friends have small kids either (or that whenever you get together, it's either always at your place, or it's in a public setting).

By your logic, NONE of the safety technologies should be in your car. So in other words, your ideal car would be like a 1959 Chevy Bel Air.

Seatbelts? Don't need 'em. Airbags? Yank 'em. Turn signals? probably don't use those either. Crush cans? Pull 'em. Crumple zones? pffttt...I LAUGH at you.

If you crash into a tree or a building, that your problem. Where it becomes a public problem is when you crash into someone ELSE, (or someone else crashing into you), and then because YOU have NONE of those things, your risk of injury is SUBSTANTIALLY and SIGNIFICANTLY higher, which means at best, you end up in a fair amount of pain, but you get a big fat check for it or you end up being paralyzed for life, leeching off the government for the rest of your vegetative life.

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan

People, generally and for the most part, SUCK at math, arithmetic, and statistics. They don't understand it, and then WE end up having to pay for your "lazy pro-socialist" butt because you won't buy a car that has been properly engineered to mitigate your risk to society. So instead of forking out a hundred to two hundred bucks for the camera, we have to pay THOUSANDS to keep you alive with a breathing machine because you now have a collapsed lung after being ran over by a truck that was backing up.


RE: Surprised at the results
By coldar on 3/21/2014 3:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
I live near an elementary school and kids cross my driveway all the time at peak hours. My solution to the problem is not technical: I developed the habit of backing into my parking spot.
When I leave my driveway I'm facing the street and don't depend on ANY technology to keep kids safe.

By the way, I do have a rear-view camera but since I don't live in a consistenly sunny state, it often gets blurry by smudge, dirts, mud, etc. I feel a lot safer not depending on that technology for safety.

RE: Surprised at the results
By danjw1 on 3/18/2014 10:55:35 AM , Rating: 4
I have no idea why having both would be worse, it makes no sense.

My guess is that people are not looking at the camera and just listening to the sensor output. So, if the sensor misses something they don't see it on the screen.

RE: Surprised at the results
By sorry dog on 3/18/2014 1:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
...or perhaps the setup of test or the devices used are seriously flawed.

It wouldn't be the first time that these guys used statistics to support a conclusion rather than make one.

RE: Surprised at the results
By Solandri on 3/18/2014 3:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you click through to read the source article (from the IIHS, not some reporter munging what they're told), it looks like a pretty robust test setup. For this particular test, told the test subjects to evaluate the car's entertainment system, then to move the car to a different parking spot. Then they snuck in a child-sized foam dummy behind the car (pic in the article). Some of the dummies were stationary, some moved.

There are more interesting tidbits if you read the source article. Most surprising was that even with the camera, nearly half (44%) of the drivers hit the stationary dummy. Inattentiveness seems to be the biggest killer here.

RE: Surprised at the results
By Sazabi19 on 3/19/2014 9:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is because the sensors are at a certain level and inexperienced people using it could be fooled by it. The lines are there sure but that is set for a certain height as well. If you see something in the mirror that looks close but hear no beeps you may be inclined to back up farther because you think surely the sonar would have picked it up and actually hit it on accident. Meanwhile with just the camera you would have seen it and just thought well, that is close enough. My old car only had a camera but my new Cadenza also has sonar, I can't tell you how often it doesn't beep until I am extremely close to an object or it is just at the wrong height. That isn't anything wrong with the car but you can't just pelt the back with nothing but sensors to cover every area. You just need to be smart about it, if it looks close, it probably is. It just takes practice. I use the cam primarily, the beeps honestly don't do much for me I can see that I am close.

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki