Large SUV Blind Zones Raising Child Safety Concerns Once Again: Video
21
Sponsored Links
U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut has expressed concern over vehicle blind spots after an NBC affiliate in Washington, D.C. aired a segment demonstrating how the blind spots on certain large SUV and truck models can put pedestrians at risk, particularly small children.
Washington-based NBC affiliate NBC4 aired a segment last week that used a K2XX-generation Chevy Tahoe to demonstrate to parents how difficult it is to see small children over the hood of a large SUV or truck. Sen. Blumenthal was among the viewers that saw the segment and is now calling on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to investigate the matter more closely.
“I’m extremely troubled that large blind zones in front of SUVs are reportedly causing senseless deaths of children,” Blumenthal said in a letter that was sent to NHTSA Administrator Steven Cliff this week. “In such instances, called frontovers,” tragedy strikes because a child in front of the car is not visible above the car’s hood and no warning occurs.”
Blumenthal went on to request NHTSA amend its steps for collecting and sharing public data that may be relevant to ‘frontover’ style accidents, and suggested NHTSA implement a mandatory front-facing camera or sensors. The last non-traffic-related NHTSA data summary was released in 2018 using data from 2015, and did not explicitly identify frontovers or how many of these accidents occur in the U.S. each year. Blumenthal also asked NHTSA to provide data on how many of these accidents have occurred since 2015, and to provide the injury and fatality data for each year.
Many modern-day large SUV and truck models carry a frontal blind zone of up to sixteen feet, making it difficult to see children or smaller pedestrians standing in front of the vehicle. Congress ordered NHTSA to implement standard backup cameras in new production vehicles in 2007, which finally came into effect in 2014, but a similar rule does not apply to the front end of vehicles. Such a requirement could mandate large vehicles to include front-facing cameras or sensors to warn drivers of objects obstructing the vehicle’s path.
NBC4’s report on frontover-style accidents is embedded below.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM-related politics news, GM safety news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Sponsored Links
I do agree that I would like to see real world data, but I have reservations that this is as big of an issue as this news story would like to portray. They used a single lady as a test subject. It seems very much a scare tactic. Most of these SUVs already have full cameras, sonar, and pedestrian detection indicators. Requiring a front camera seems like a reasonable idea but stories built on this delivery model rub me the wrong way.
I agree real world data is needed but I do not think this is as big of an issue as he is saying. Sounds like a waste of of the time Congress has. I like the technology and think its great, but I also think its the responsibility of the driver to not hit something or someone. The cameras and safety equipment do not need to be pushed by using scare tactics.
Who believes Blumenthal cares?
nobody believes he cares but he does have a big mouth and the news loves anything to do with bashing the american auto makers
Who believes Blumenthal?
There are blind spots in a lot of places as well.. I noticed when I fly I can’t see out the right side passenger window when I am siting on the left side of the plane. I have also leaned as close to the window to see behind me or below but the dam wing blocks my view.. But there are also blind spots for the pilot as well. The pilot can’t back up without some one walking in front waving there arms. And there must be more blind spots than I know of as sometimes the wings of different planes are damaged as they crash into each other on the apron near the terminal. Just the other day I was in a store, walked past a display, then quickly decided I want one. Stopped to step back and BANG, I didn’t see a shopping cart behind me. Senator Blumenthal should bring in legislature that you can’t walk. All that walking pedestrians do take up a massive amount of good clean air they breath in, and then breath out carbon dioxide which is contaminating our environment, I can see the new law, January 1, 2040 you can only get around by E car, or E skate board. I just wanted to share a laugh and bring a smile to your face.
A larger blind spot on my Yukon XL is the RH mirror and the widee pillar post. I have almost had accidents because of that blind spot.
GM has never done a good job with their A-pillar visibility. Brands like Honda, Subaru and Hyundai have put far more effort into forward visibility with thinner pillars and side mirrors placed on the doors. It makes such a huge difference when you live in a dense urban centre like I do.
Got to disagree with you there Len – increased crush test strength for roof has resulted in all A, B and C pillars having to be stronger 9generally) bigger. GM is one of the only manufacturers I know that’s front, rear and side zone detection is active at zero kms per hour when the vehicle is switched on – most other manufacturers are only active above 25 km/h.
Side pillar sizes and strength is legislated due to crash testing, until additional safety features are legislated for then some areas will be blind spots, even some 360 camera systems have blind spots as there stitching software is poor
Da Nang Richard.
Da Nang D**k won’t print.
Part of driving is to be aware of your surroundings before you enter your vehicle to drive off… Blumenthal is an idiot who just likes to hear himself talk. If people were taught properly how to drive this would not be an issue. New drivers used to be taught to look around the vehicle, not only to see if it was in good shape (no flat tires, etc) but to ensure that the area around the vehicle is clear to drive off from.
You are 100% correct, I do this all time, its a great time to catch any damage to the vehicle, low tires, or any objects in the way. I drive a New Tahoe with all the fancy safety equipment but I do not rely on them to be safe. I grew up on the farm driving things much larger and with bigger blind spots and never once hit anyone or anything.
People get in vehicles and absentmindedly just take off, the problem is how people are not taking driving serious and no amount of ‘safety’ features are going to fix this, its a training issue.
Both my previous 2016 Chevy 2500HD and my current 2021 GMC Sierra had/have high grills that limit visibility especially when approaching the crest of a steep hill . At 5′ 11″ I am not exactly short .I used a cushion on my ’16 but they are a nuisance . There is lots of head room on either .Would be great if the power seats would go higher .My 2021 Denali has more than enough cameras and alarms .
As an aside ,love the 3 litre diesel and 10 speed auto trans .Sips fuel .
Apparently Blumenthal thinks he can regulate negligence.
My guess is that there’s no data because the instances are nil.
How many cameras will Bluementhol demand on tractor-trailers? HOW MANY DEATHS RESULT FROM DRIVERS TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONES WHILE DRIVING? When will we get rid of cell phones and cars? By the way, Dave, the filthy air produced by carbon dioxide, feeds the plants that produce the lovely oxygen that our deserving species so deserves. A green earth will be quite different as there will not be any humans on it. P.S. Where will we get our electricity while we are waiting for wind and solar to make a significant contribution.? Love y’all.
I agree that the front of many SUV’s and pickups are unnecessarily high. Many kids run to the car when mom or dad comes home.
Trucks and SUVs have gotten increasingly higher over the years. Front sensors or even a camera make sense.
I trust those naysaying this idea fully appreciate their backup cameras, despite initial grumblings that drivers have existed just fine for decades without them when those were first federally mandated. I’m confident the data will show that rear end fender benders and accidents have decreased dramatically since the advent and expansion of back up cameras.
It may not be a big deal to those without kids or those who believe kids are infallible once taught but I know how my dumb kids can be at times and, despite being taught to stay away from the front and back of cars ad nauseam, lapses in judgment still occur (even in adults). Having this as a second line of defense won’t hurt that much but will make a world of difference to those few whose kids would otherwise be killed without it.
And yes the politician is self interested; which of us is not also? The difference here is his self interest may save a kid’s life while my self interest is to save myself a couple bucks.
The problem is that new drivers have become too reliant on the backup cameras, the 360-degree cameras, and the little idiot lights that flash on your mirrors to let you know a vehicle is beside you. Nowadays you don’t even have to shoulder check, back up or parallel park to pass a driver’s test. One used to be taught to mind one’s surroundings, circle the vehicle to make sure there are no obstructions, little kids playing around the vehicle… one did not need cameras to ensure safe operation of a vehicle.
The need for the technology in question is due to the fact that trucks are now feet higher than they used to sit. Even after a visual inspection around the truck, a kid can approach and remain unseen. This could happen in the olden days but because of how high the hood is now, it’s even less likely the driver could see in front. And the kids most likely to remain unseen (smaller ones) are also the ones most likely to have lapses in judgment (younger ones).
No doubt people become reliant and lazier with these new technologies. Such is the way with all technology – we used to need to mail in a letter and payment to subscribe to a newspaper and walk to the end of the driveway every morning to get it. Farmers used to have to plow their fields by hand but now can use GPS to drive their tractors autonomously. We used to rely on pumps to tell us our tire pressure but now can see it every time we turn on the car.
However, I’m still confident the data will show that accident occurrences have decreased due to these technologies. Yes, we’re lazier, but less people are dying.
You are correct we have become lazier, but instead of addressing the problem your solution is to keep adding band aids to the issue. The issue is people are lazy and not taking driving seriously, people can still get hurt with all of the above safety features. Those features are meant to be an assistant and people are relying on them 100%, for which they are not intended to be. It even says so in the many pages of documents that these features are meant to assist the driver and does not replace your skill.
I do not believe the data will show any significate change in the amount of wrecks as these new features REQUIRE that someone buys a new vehicle and that it is equipped with them. Not everyone can afford new vehicles with fancy features.
The real fix is with the driver and the process of learning to drive, everyone seems to be accepted, even people with medical issues with passing out at the wheel will still drive. No safety feature will prevent this lack of seriousness with driving. People absentmindedly are taking these risks and more legislation does not make you safer.
Where are they getting this collection of data where someone is reporting an ‘almost accident’? Are people calling NHTSA and saying “Well I almost had an accident but you can mark this one up as an almost thanks to feature X”, I highly doubt it. The decrease in wrecks can be attributed to many things, less drivers, holiday, gas prices, weather, etc. I’d like to see how this data proves without a shadow of a doubt this actually was the sole reason for the decrease in wrecks.
I am a huge fan of these features, but only when used as an assistant, the problem is, that is not how people are using them.