The Chicago Sun Times reports that The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is less then enthusiastic when it comes to in-car systems aimed at preventing motorists from backing over pedestrians. The nonprofit group Kids in Cars figures that between 2002 and 2006, reversing vehicles killed 674 children. At the behest of Congress, NHTSA looked into the issue. The agency reported that “at least 183 fatalities occur annually," with no evidence indicating an statistical increase. But they admitted that they have little hard data on “back over” incidents, as many occur on private property (e.g. car owners' driveways). As for prevention, NHTSA spokesman cited its '05 official report that concluded that systems designed to detect persons behind a vehicle are "expensive, unreliable and gives drivers a false sense of security." In any case, most new cars lack these $300 to $600 backup systems because automakers usually bundle them with expensive navigation units.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
If one were to get off the phone for a brief moment and actually WATCH WHERE YOU ARE GOING for a change, back-up systems would not be necessary. Anyone with me on this?
It’s more than just phone usage. A fair percentage are from SUV drivers backing up and not seeing their own children because the back window and mirrors are obviously rather high. Same with vans.
I’m with ya. Problem is, the automakers seem intent on adding gizmos so that inept/incompetent/oblivious drivers can keep on being inept, incompetent and oblivious.
My mom, for instance, while not necessary being any of the above, actually misssed the obnoxious Beep-Beep of her Lexus’ backup sensors when they broke. I said “Ma, that’s what mirrors are for.” She said, “I know, but…”
Sigh.
The “paying attention” thing is paramount! Not enough people do it! However SUV’s are a huge problem, I know lots of people that have them but no one that needs them. If people have so many kids that they can’t keep track of them or they need an SUV to transport them the problem is obviously deeper than thier form of transportation! But that’s a diffrent Blog alltogether;)
It adds to the justification for the $$$$ upgrade for your new car though.
“Sure, you don’t need navigation, this package has a backup sensor that will keep you from backing over your kids. You don’t want to murder your children…do you? Sign here for the upgrade.”
The Roadmaster VR3 wireless backup camera is easy to install and works okay – it does pick up stray signals on the wireless frequency. Cost: $90 at Costco.
http://www.roadmasterusa.com/backupcamera_vr3.php
But they admitted that they have little hard data on “back over” incidents, as many occur on private property (e.g. car owners’ driveways).
Bad data = invalid study. You could always run a prospective trial, say, 2008 DC vans with and without backup sensors comparing backup death rates, but you would likely need a minimum of tens of thousands of vans over a few years to collect statistically valid results.
If one were to get off the phone for a brief moment and actually WATCH WHERE YOU ARE GOING for a change, back-up systems would not be necessary. Anyone with me on this?
I’m not. As noted above, rearward visibility is a function of vehicle design, and the design bias is toward viewing other vehicles, not people who are less than 2′-3′ tall. Not only do SUV’s and minivans have poor rearward visibility to this height, but so do many sedans, due to the popularity of high trunk lines.
So I have no problem with the sensors, per se. But if they don’t work, they don’t work.
# Pch101:
So I have no problem with the sensors, per se. But if they don’t work, they don’t work.
Worse than not working is when people assume they do, and then pay less attention to whatever may be behind the car than they would without the sensors.
Joe: Who “needs” a sports car?
Heck, who “needs” a minivan or a van, especially if “having more people than will fit in a smaller car” isn’t a good reason?
(For that matter, who “needs” more than some dirty water and a bowl of rice a day, right? See the problem with “needs”?)
Pch: My impression that that high beltlines are not “popular”, but “required to meet pedestrian safety standards”.
Nobody I’ve talked to about them likes the look of high beltlines, or their effect on visibility.
Since when do high beltlines have anything to do with pedestrian safety? They are a visual signal that makes occupants inside the vehicle feel safer, and make the car safer in a side impact with an SUV, but that’s about it.
Why would one buy a car that they can’t see behind? That’s a massive design flaw if I ever saw one. I’d have to get out of the car and look behind it every time I backed up
Since when do high beltlines have anything to do with pedestrian safety? They are a visual signal that makes occupants inside the vehicle feel safer, and make the car safer in a side impact with an SUV, but that’s about it.
That’s correct. Pedestrian safety is compromised by high beltlines, not enhanced by it. Pedestrian safety is enhanced by eliminating sharp corners, lowering belt lines, and designing cars to crumple so as to soften the blow.
Why would one buy a car that they can’t see behind?
Increased trunk capacity. That, and a high trunkline often matches the relatively high beltline of the rest of the car. High beltlines are commonplace in current car design.
The back-up sensors in a new Mercedes SUV we drove did not sound until we were within four or five inches of a fire hydrant, which was too low to be seen through the rear window.
The warning signal was almost inaudible. Had the radio been on we would not have heard it.
Back up cameras do a much better job.
An acronym from truck driver training: GOAL
Get
Out
And
Look
Some drivers don’t realize that some of these (or it may be all of them) automatically turn themselves off if you’re backing up faster than a pre-set speed. So if someone goes zooming out of a driveway in reverse, they may not hear a warning because there won’t be one. (As my teen-age son learned when he backed our van into a Suburban parked across the cul-de-sac.)
Would taking away driving aids make drivers better? I don’t think so.
Who really thinks that back-up cameras are going to replace walking around your vehicle before taking off? I don’t, because I know that hardly anybody does the walkaround thing right now. Those who do will probably be careful even after they buy a backup camera.
Vehicle design is part of it too. I’ve driven behind friends with pickups, and they can’t see my Miata when we’re at a red light. Lots of people in the Miata forums have stories about being backed into at traffic signals. But back to backup sensors… I’d like to see some actual testing by the NHTSA!
Maybe I’m just old, but there was a period in car and truck design when glassy cabins were all the rage, accompanied by downward sloping trunks for those cars that had them. The current pillbox fashion makes it damned hard to see out of a small sedan, much less a larger vehicle. It would be interesting to look at ‘back-over’ stats from the late ’70s and early ’80s when glass was “in” and the pillbox look was rare.
Surely we’re not adding that much to trunk room with higher beltlines, and the visibility out the sides ain’t so hot either.
I bought my Dad a $5 plastic Fresnel (sp?) lens for the back window of his ’72 Pontiac SW; he could see (albeit with image distortion) the rear bumper as well as the car behind when he was backing into a spot. It would work with an SUV or minivan just as well — you just have to position it so that you don’t block too much of the normal rear view. It doesn’t do much for the looks of the car, but it’s better than the convex mirrors mounted at the rear corners of FedEx trucks…
The high trunks of sedans also help the aerodynamics (I think)– better than a flat trunk (but not as good as the achtypical “teardrop” shape, but not much trunk room there)
Kevin Klutz
I just have one word for your post.
Werd.
I wish the person who backed into my motorcycle and knocked it over last week had one of these. Correction: a functioning one of these.