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

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

/shrug


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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g

Seatbelts? Don't need 'em. Airbags? Yank 'em. Turn signals? Yeah...you 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.

#factshavealiberalbias


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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