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 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!

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki