[shiroiushi]

No, backup cameras are better than rear visibility has ever been. If a small child is sitting directly in front of your rear bumper, can you see that in any car? I don't think so. But with any modern car with a proper backup camera, the kid is easy to see on the monitor. This, in fact, is the main reason these cameras were mandated: lots of kids were getting run over, usually by their own parents. Of course, worse visibility makes it even more likely, but rear visibility has never been great in any car.

[SkyPuncher]

I have an old jeep and I’m dying to put a backup camera on that thing. I can basically reach the bumper from the driver seat and I still prefer the visibility that a backup camera brings.

[Freedom2]

> any car

I had a friend who avoided a situation like this because he was in a 1989 Miata and was able to see the child who was looking at the stickers that my friend placed on his rear bumper at the time. So yes, there are cars that exist that can do this.

[shiroiushi]

No, they don't. What if the child were smaller, or lying on the ground?

The idea that any car has such visibility that you can see something small on the ground immediately in front of the rear bumper is just ridiculous. Of course your chances of seeing a child in a Miata are far, far better than in a 2024 pickup truck or mega-SUV, but nothing will give you the visibility of a camera with fisheye lens mounted on the rear bumper.

[Freedom2]

I was specifically referring to this statement:

> If a small child is sitting directly in front of your rear bumper, can you see that in any car?

No one mentioned comparing it directly to a fisheye lens (of course that's better!). Please don't move the goalposts.

[shiroiushi]

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. A fisheye lens is normal on any backup camera. My statement that you quoted is literally correct: you cannot see a small child lying down directly in front of your rear bumper, in any car. Why you're trying to disprove this, I have no idea.