I'd feel more comfortable if we'd raise the standards for the driving test so that only responsible people can drive. For example, the proper way to park is to back into the driveway. You should never be backing from a smaller road or driveway into the larger one. The perk of this is that you do not have to watch for cross traffic while backing up and also looking at a camera, no gear change delay when pulling out, and better visibility into the area you are backing up to due to your approach. This makes it significantly safer for all parties when exiting the driveway.

    I'd feel more comfortable if we'd raise the standards for the driving test so that only responsible people can drive.

That perfect driver doesn't exist. Virtually everyone will eventually drive unsafely when they're sleepy, in a rush, distracted by kids in the backseat, etc.

To give a programming analogy, this is like saying "we can prevent memory safety issues by only allowing good programmers to use C". Everyone makes mistakes.

And all those things exist with a backup camera too. The point isn't about a perfect driver. The point t is that different people find different things comforting. If we think about this logically, a backup camera is only help a very small percentage of driving time at very low speed, for which the number of fatalities is extremely low. On the other hand, increased driver training applies to all driving situations, including the high speed, higher risk scenarios that are linked to more injuries and fatalities.

Fun fact: if you look at the FARS data for 2017 vs 2023, it appears backup cameras have made no difference at all. All the advocacy websites are referring to old NTHSA reports and none of them are using modern datasets.

But how do you want to test for this? Lots of bad drivers are not bad because they can’t drive well, they just don’t give a shit. They would pass the test with flying colors and go back to driving like there is no tomorrow.

The assumption you have is that it's mostly a physical ability test. In many cases people don't know the rules or the reasons behind them. Right now, it's something like a 50 question test and you only need to get get 75% right. If you don't know what the proper procedure is up to a quarter of the time on only a subset of the rules, that leaves huge room for errors. I see it all the time with people passing on the shoulder and changing lanes in an intersection. These are high risk illegal activities that many people don't even know aren't legal because everyone else does it and cops rarely enforce it. I have yet to meet a person who doesn't give a shit about getting into an accident. Those people are more likely uninformed and overly cocky.

I mean, sure, of course that'd be great too. If we could raise the standards high enough that there was never any accidents ever, that'd be even better.

But the realistic option that worked immediately was mandating backup cameras.

(I would note that even in a world where everyone backed up into their driveways and parking spots, mandated backup cameras would still be a good thing.)

"But the realistic option that worked immediately was mandating backup cameras."

Citation needed. FARS data shows no decrease in reversing fatalities pre vs post backup cameras.

You're also mischaracterizing my argument. The point is, the current test of 50 questions and a 10 minute drive around the block is a joke of a test. Of course you're not weeding out people who aren't fit to drive with such an easy test.

How we got to whatever your country's driving test is comprised of from me simply saying "I like backup cameras" is wild. You seem to think I've said "with backup cameras, everything is fixed!" which is so disingenuous I don't know where to begin. I think you're just trying to be contrarian for the sake of trolling.

By the way, I don't even know what FARS is. There's no agency by that name that I can think of in my country. Does it collect data on accidents worldwide?

I'm guessing you're from the US. Here's a quote from the NIH.

>"This study indicates that drivers not only attend to an audible warning, but will look at a rear-view camera if available. Evidence suggests that when used appropriately, rear-view cameras can mitigate the occurrence of backing crashes, particularly when paired with an appropriate sensor system."

From the IIHS.

>"Rearview cameras reduced backing crash involvement rates by 17%. Reductions were larger for drivers 70 and older (36%) than for drivers younger than 70 (16%)"

FARS is the fatality tracking system in the US. None of the studies I've seen have shown real world fatality reduction. The studies they do have still list things like inattentive drivers or reckless choices. While small increases in non-fatal, typically low speed accidents is good, it's not really adding to child pedestrian safety. Better driver testing and education will provide the better overall improvement in fatality reduction.

Backup accidents aren't high speed and the rate of fatality is low, why would you use FARS data in this context? Its clear cherry picking.

A kid getting hit by a backing up car causes injuries and concussions, and you saying it doesn't "add to child pedestrian safety" to prevent that because they aren't splattered by these incidents is offensively absurd.

I'm using FARS as it's the best data I found. Do you have other data? Or at least data to show that concussions etc aren't proportionate to the fatality numbers since you are implying those have gone down while fatalities have stayed roughly the same?