Consumers Union advocates backup cameras

Rear blind zones are a serious safety issue. According to federal statistics, about 228 people were backed over in 2007 in the U.S. when drivers couldn’t see them.

Based on its years of experience with backup cameras and sensor systems, Consumers Union recommends a regulation be crafted to mandate such systems in order to remove deadly blind zones behind cars.

In public comments made this week to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Consumers Union, parent of Consumer Reports, recommended the agency adopt a standard requiring backup cameras and passive sensors to alert drivers when they need to look at the rear-view screen.

In our testing, we have found that no single system offers a perfect solution. Radar-based sensor systems generate frequent false alarms and also fail to warn drivers when a small object is near the back of the car. (Too many false alarms are likely to cause drivers to ignore the system when an alarm is justified.) And drivers don’t always look at video cameras.

We think the standard should include requirements for screen clarity and size based on how far the screen is from the driver’s eyes. While displays in a rear-view mirror can work well, some dashboard displays, like the Toyota Venza’s, can be too small. We estimate the manufacturer’s cost of a camera system shouldn’t exceed $100.

Any standard also needs to limit the delay between when the car is shifted into reverse and when the rear-view image appears on the screen. In some new-car systems we have tested, it takes several seconds for the image to appear after the car is put in reverse, making it long after you’ve started moving. In others, the dashboard screen won’t display any image until the driver has accepted a legal disclaimer that appears every time the car is started. 

Consumer Reports has measured the blind zone behind cars for several years. For some SUVs and pickups, a short driver may not be able to see what is behind the rear bumper for up to 50 feet behind the vehicle. In addition, we’ve found that while some aftermarket camera systems work well, some inexpensive aftermarket backup cameras aren’t durable, and some systems can be difficult to install.

In the meantime, drivers need to exercise caution when backing up. Always check your side mirrors, and turn and look before you back up. In general, slow down, take a breath, and don’t rush when you start driving. The consequences of backing over something unnoticed are too severe.

—Eric Evarts

Comments

[Cale]

Thank you for the thoughtful blog and efforts to reduce backup-related accidents. Too often manufacturers have made important safety systems a luxury item (only available as part of an expensive trim level) and not as a important feature for all versions of a particular model. A trend that has been notable in the offering of stability control (ESC), side and head curtain airbags, and anti-lock brakes.

I applaud the importance you place on rear visibility in the CR Model Summary description and first paragraph of Road Tests. I also encourage you to include mention of a camera in those places where it doesn't appear, such as in the introduction appearing on the Road Test of the Lexus ES350. The first paragraph is too often where readers end their research.

It would also be helpful to know if a camera is available (or optional) under "Safety" in the Ratings & Specifications tab.

[SunnyvaleCA]

Mandatory backup cameras are an elaborate technical "solution" to a simple problem. They aren't going to work, although it might make politicians feel better.

"For some SUVs and pickups ... driver may not be able to see what is behind the rear bumper for up to 50 feet behind the vehicle."

Perhaps the vehicle design is the problem. The vast majority of SUVs and pickups in my area of the country never see even a dirt road; these vehicles should be much lower to the ground and have a larger rear window.

"drivers need to exercise caution when backing up"

There is an abundance of bad judgment and lack of caution: poor vehicle choices, drivers backing up without looking and thinking. What really floors me is 3-year-old children running wild in busy parking lots.

Frighteningly, your statement seems to indicate that adding mandatory backup cameras will then alleviate the need to "exercise caution." That's probably the biggest problem. People don't exercise enough caution now, but they will exercise even less caution with these devices.

Some of the worst parallel parking I've ever witnessed was from people whose cars had parking sensors. Some of the worst breaking and stearing crash avoidance I've ever seen where form drivers of cars equipped with ABS and stability control systems. Everyone has witnessed the fact that 4WD SUVs are the first ones in the ditch on a snowy (or even wet!) road. Soon we'll be able to add: backup cameras result in more deaths.

[alba]

OK, so 228 people were backed over last year while nearly 16,000 people were killed by drunk driving. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to advocate car breathalyzer/ignition interlock devices as well?

[Michael]

Backup cameras are a great idea, but I'd actually take larger windows first. My concern with backup cameras is that they A) provide less incentive for driver caution and window-checking when backing up, and B) provide an excuse for manufacturers to continue with styling that impairs visibility. My '96 Subaru Legacy wagon is old and hardly flashy, but it has amazing visibility--something I've always realized when driving other cars.