I don't really remember it being an endemic issue of people getting run over by backing up cars that had that small blindspot. Could have been an issue of unattended children/pets or tall car/short people, but I think it was more a big convenience boost.
Most people are idiots/lazy, and I say that on both sides (walkers and drivers). I see it more as making a robust solution a law, but doesn't necessarily benefit me to the extent that I want a mandated backup in my car personally.
That's a false equivalence - just because it's not an 'endemic' issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I don't see why things getting run over by cars (think of immovable things as well) shouldn't be fixed?
The stats are clear. Back-over accidents are directly correlated with a) large vehicles and b) the high belt-lines and "as close to a truss as we can get away with" body lines that make modern vehicles "safer".
And yet drivers managed to (mostly) not back into kids for over 100 years, without rear cameras. You walk around the car before you throw it into reverse. The screens fix the "mostly" problem, but they're not a substitute for driving skill.
Some cars do have remote-control drive features these days, so you can reverse it from outside the car, but that's a super high-end feature (designed for getting in to and out of extremely tight city parking spaces) and relies on the chips that are in shortage, so that's not a solution.
We are but muggles, so I don't think we need to worry about teleporting children appearing in the time it takes you to get back in the car. You know your blind spot is clear and can see where your future blind spot is now.
Kids also used to stand in the back while being driven around. I certainly did. Not only were there no car seats, there weren't even seatbelts in the back. Putting kids and their toys in the back of a station wagon for a road trip used to be a thing. Everyone mostly made it out alive, and yet we still have laws against all of the above now, everywhere in the world.
