Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: U.S. Rule Set for Cameras at Cars’ Rear [View all]LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,536 posts)The toddler slipped out of the fast food restaurant just as we were leaving. We've got a CR-V so visibility near the rear bumper is zilch. I was lucky. When I glanced in the driver's side mirror before backing I saw a flicker of motion darting behind the car. We got out and there was the child. We returned her to her parents, told them what happened and to watch their child more closely.
I have never forgotten that incident, and how close I came to backing over the child. I don't know if I could ever forgive myself, even though it would clearly have been an accident.
When I practiced law we had a case where a child of about the same age darted over to an empty ball field behind his house to see what the big truck was doing (pumping out a porta-potty). The field was empty when the driver arrived, and he didn't see anyone around when he climbed back into the truck. Even though he looked in both mirrors, he never saw the child which had crawled under the truck. I remember how shaken he was during the deposition, and I'll never forget the photos of the tire tracks over the child's body.
I don't think rear view cameras should be mandatory, however. It sounds like a "good idea" without the science to back it up.
For one thing, before the third brake light was made mandatory an extensive study was done where the devices were installed in New York taxi cabs. After a year it was found there was a sizable -- about 50% -- reduction in rear-end accidents. Based on that study the brake light rule was issued.
As far as I can tell, the only study re: children and cars shows that two-thirds of the time a parent or other close relative is driving. The only conclusion to derive from that is that parents and relatives shouldn't drive. That would cut the number of accidents substantially.