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.
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%)"
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.
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.)