« Auto LED: Light at your fingertips — in the dark | Home | World's most expensive baseball glove »
August 25, 2007
'At least 183 fatalities annually caused by drivers striking pedestrians while backing up'
The headline above is from Jonathan Welsh's depressing August 16, 2007 Wall Street Journal article about the alarming rise in fatalities of children killed by being backed over by vehicles.
Long story short: "From 2002 to 2006, 474 children died after being backed over by a vehicle, compared with 138 from 1997 to 2001."
Why is this so depressing?
Because improving things isn't rocket science — heck, it's not even neurosurgical anesthesiology.
I've noted the existence of a cheap, fast and completely under control tool to decrease the likelihood of backover accidents here on two occasions previously but I'm gonna hope that a third will perhaps save a life.
Buy a Back-Up Alert (below).
$9.98 won't break the bank.
Better yet, buy two and put one on each side of your car's rear end.
It works for me (below).
Here's the Wall Street Journal article.
- A Cause of Child Auto Deaths Draws Increased Attention
Some Say Tall SUVs Worsen The Problem of 'Backovers'; Regulators Step Up Research
Many people are familiar with the perils children face in cars, from poorly installed booster seats to a lack of safety features in older vehicles. But they often overlook a significant danger outside the vehicle.
Sometimes, drivers injure or kill children by accidentally backing over them. And often, the driver is the victim's parent, pulling out of a driveway.
See safety tests of cars backing up towards small children playing, conducted by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Such tragedies are getting increased attention, with federal regulators planning more research into prevention, and consumer organizations contending that the problem is on the rise. From 2002 to 2006, 474 children died after being backed over by a vehicle, compared with 138 from 1997 to 2001, according to Kids and Cars, a nonprofit consumer-advocacy group. The group, which is funded largely by private donations, says its estimates are based on police reports, media reports and tips from lawyers, as well as discussions with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
So far, the NHTSA, the federal agency that oversees vehicular safety, has few statistics of its own on such accidents, because the incidents occur mostly on private property. However, late last year the agency published a report at the behest of Congress on backovers — and the use of electronic-sensing technologies to possibly prevent them. NHTSA officials say they have combined information from federal crash records with death-certificate reports and other data to develop rough estimates of at least 183 fatalities annually caused by drivers striking pedestrians while backing up. As many as 7,419 injuries, many relatively minor, result from backover crashes per year, the agency says.
The report said that the NHTSA doesn't have evidence that the problem is on the rise. But it did find that the backup-detection technology available in cars today "is expensive, unreliable and gives drivers a false sense of security," says NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson. The agency is continuing to gather statistics to better track backover accidents. And it plans to work to improve the use of electronic detection systems that can be installed in vehicles to potentially help alert drivers to backovers.
Many consumer advocates and parents believe the problem of backover accidents is exacerbated by the way vehicles are designed. Taller SUVs and crossovers with big rearward blind spots are increasingly popular. Also, most cars today have high trunks and small rear windows that don't allow drivers to see certain obstacles close behind them. Very young children are simply not tall enough to be seen out of the back window of many of today's vehicles.
Some advocates, including Janette Fennell, founder of Kids and Cars in Leawood, Kan., have called for the government to mandate the use of backover-detection systems.
Angela Gridley says her daughter Aliviah would probably be alive today if her uncle's pickup truck had a rear-view camera. The Cedartown, Ga., mother of four says her 2-year-old darted behind the truck as it was backed out of the driveway at a family gathering in late 2005.
However, she says that while electronics can help drivers avoid accidents, the biggest contributing factor may be parents' denial. "They really think it can't happen to them," says Ms. Gridley. "It's like a syndrome."
The NHTSA notes that backup-technology systems are marketed largely as parking aids and are not an ideal way of detecting small children behind a vehicle. The agency — which plans to continue to research the potential of such technology — conducted a number of tests [video] in which children were placed behind vehicles equipped with a variety of rear-sensing devices. In many instances the equipment failed to detect the children. "It was scary," Mr. Tyson says.
Last year's NHTSA report was a follow-up to a similar report about 10 years ago. The first one focused more on commercial trucks — and the bulk of available detection equipment came from aftermarket sources and had to be added to a vehicle after purchase. Now, the emphasis of the agency's inquiries has shifted to passenger vehicles, where detection technology is increasingly available on cars and SUVs directly from auto makers.
Still, the technology has been relatively slow in coming to market and the vast majority of passenger cars lack rear-view cameras. One reason is that, while back-up cameras themselves are relatively inexpensive — costing about $300 to $600 — they are typically available only when buyers also order a much costlier satellite navigation system. That's because navigation systems come with dashboard-mounted screens that also work with the camera. With a satellite system costing as much as $2,000, many shoppers skip both options.
Toyota Motor Corp. is one manufacturer trying to overcome the sticker shock by offering backup cameras either with or without navigation systems on its recently redesigned Tundra pickup truck and Highlander SUV. But a Toyota spokesman notes that rear-mounted sensors were designed mainly to warn of the proximity of another car's bumper or other large obstacles while parking, rather than to detect small children.
Nissan Motor Co., too — which installed division installed rear-view cameras on its 2002 model Infiniti Q45 sedan as part of a package with a navigation system — says the cameras and sensors on its vehicles are parking aids and aren't meant to detect children.
Ford Motor Co. offers a rear-view camera system — bundled with other options — on its 2008 Ford F-Series Super Duty, F-150, Expedition, Lincoln Mark LT and Navigator. Ford spokeswoman Tara Martin says the company doesn't consider its rear-view cameras and rear sensors as safety features, but as conveniences for parking and towing.
The choice is yours.
August 25, 2007 at 12:01 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5dea53ef00e54ecd64428833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'At least 183 fatalities annually caused by drivers striking pedestrians while backing up':
Comments
It'd be interesting to know how many of those 183 wouldn't have been able to get out of the way even if there had been a warning beeper. Children who're too young to know what it means, children who go rigid rather than move, crumblies who either couldn't hear the tone or move fast enough if they did...
Rather than place the onus on the pedestrian/cyclist, place it on the driver to be sure they're reversing safely.
Posted by: Skipweasel | Aug 27, 2007 4:07:34 PM
183 fatalities, that seems small compared to other things going on.
And the people that would by this product are probably self-selecting towards safety
So this product is for a relatively small problem and bought by those that don't use them.
What change in fatalities would make the impact of this product significant?
Or you can just be scared and go buy one.
Posted by: ag | Aug 26, 2007 3:11:48 AM
It should be illegal for a common person to own an SUV unless they have an appropriately graded license like they do in other countries (i.e., friends in Germany tell me they have to go through several steps to get into the BIG cars).
Or maybe make the penalties for hurting someone more strict. Run someone over? It is instant manslaughter because you are too eff'n stupid to look where you are going, or to buy a vehicle that you can properly operate. Unfortunately, we have this victim society where EVERYONE involved is a victim. Not just the person hurt by the soccer mom in the SUV who can barely see over the steering wheel. The SM gets to be a victim too. A few weeks ago, someone did something entirely stupid where I worked, that person got written up, and then I got one too because I was 'a part of it'...how was I a part of this? I noticed, corrected and reported the incident -- but it would be unfair to the first to write her up if I wasn't too, because the responsibility needs to be shared and fair. WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS VICTIM SOCIETY??? WHY CAN'T BLAME BE PLACED AND APPROPRIATE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE???
So instead of building these things -- the people that would buy one of these would more or less be observant caring people -- why not just get the idiots off the road? I say hold people accountable to the speed limits and take away licenses, and cars and if that doesn't work freedoms of those that infringe upon others freedom -- and not worry about devices that won't be bought by anyone but those that aren't going to be doing the actions that cause accidents (with the exception of the things that are TRULY accidents and can't be avoided anyways).
Anyhoo....
Posted by: clifyt | Aug 25, 2007 1:51:39 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.





