Because dogs and children get backed over with regularity. That's why. No other reason.

The manufacturers did not want to have to build these into every car, they wanted to keep charging a premium for it.

> Because dogs and children get backed over with regularity.

8,000 people in the US die every day -- that's as regular as you can get.

Children dying from a vehicle backing over them is _rare_. Obviously, any death or injury is awful, but we're never going to get the number to zero.

The fear of backovers is much greater than the reality.

> The manufacturers did not want to have to build these into every car, they wanted to keep charging a premium for it.

I think it's quite the reverse: now they can pocket that money from every car.

Why would they not want to make yesterday's premium option into today's standard non-option?

> The fear of backovers is much greater than the reality.

You know, the reason so few children die from backover is maybe due to people fearing it?

If safety was a reason half of modern cars would be straight up banned

> Because dogs and children get backed over with regularity. That's why. No other reason.

In general or in those stupid, oversized trucks/SUVs with utterly poor visibility?

Which popularity is due to Corporate Average Fuel Economy?

It's one piece of tech that makes life universally easier. Especially on car dependent continents.

That being said, I'd take large European mirrors that know to go down when car is put in reverse and basic sensor over this any day.

I'm from Europe, so probably that's my surprise. Most of the cars around here are still (I hope we will never reach what's in the US) mostly city-compact cars (VW golf size) so visibility is quite OK and rear mirror + sensor is more than enough.

(though, I'm now in Chile and amount of huge cars/SUVs/trucks/pick-ups on the street is simply mind-boggling... whhhhyyyy on earth one would drive this monstrosity in the city?!)