backtop


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

obvious
By Murloc on 3/18/2014 2:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
it's obvious: if people have both, many don't use the camera unless they're parking close to vegetation and sensors go full retard, they park like they always do and use the sensors to gauge the remaining distance acoustically.

Anyway sensors and cameras are nowhere cheap enough to feature them in a majority of vehicles. Most cheap cars don't even have integrated GPS.




RE: obvious
By CharonPDX on 3/18/2014 5:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
A small tablet computer can be had for $99. It includes a camera and a screen - likely larger than the screen in the vast majority of EXPENSIVE cars. It's amazing how things that the government mandates in new cars go from "luxury really expensive add-on" to "dirt cheap item since the company can no longer charge extra for it" really quickly. (See airbags.)

Hell, I see one Android tablet for $40. And I found a car backup camera system (camera plus screen) for $60 at Best Buy online. $80 for one with night-vision, $130 for a "name brand" set.

This is not a massive expense. Car companies WILL find a way to integrate it for less than $20 per vehicle.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki