I do, but I also haven't run over any kids.

I'm saying that for backup cameras to solve anything in any measurable way, the majority of these accidents would have to be because a person is taking every precaution, and then elects to back their car up, even when they can't see their child (a huge no-no.) Consider:

• If you're not checking your mirrors, turning to look behind you, and visually finding your child before backing up, your irresponsible ass isn't going to be looking at a monitor in your car, either. If you're not taking any basic safety precautions, you're not going to just randomly start doing one.

• If you are taking those precautions, and you still hit a kid, a camera won't fix that. You're talking a full, 100%, unpreventable accident. Someone moving behind you before you have time to react; a mechanical malfunction with the car, etc.

Bottom line is: If you back over a kid in your driveway, that's because of irresponsibility on yours or someone else's part. You didn't identify where the child was before backing up (or a similar lapse in judgement and decision making) having a camera wouldn't solve that because you already weren't using the safety precautions available to you.

And 10% is a hugely generous number to put on this, in my opinion. You're talking about situations where someone does everything right, but because of their inability to see in their blindspot while backing up, a child was hurt. I'm positing that it's not a question of inability-- the safety precautions in place would prevent 99.99% of these accidents, and people simply don't use them. So adding another safety precaution wouldn't reduce the number of injured kids in any meaningful way, because most people who end up involved in these accidents were behaving inattentively/distractedly/irresponsibly at the time of the accident, anyway.