OK, so I drive a somewhat high ground-clearance car: an Outback. (And yes, it's still classed as a car, not an SUV. Technically, they call it a "raised station wagon.") It has cameras front and back, but the back camera is mounted underneath the hatch handle, while the front cameras are mounted at the top center of the windshield. What this means is that in real terms, I can see the ground behind the car (to within 6 inches of the bumper) clearly while backing, while the length of the hood means that the area of ground in front of the car that I cannot see is more like 6 feet from the bumper while moving forward. Also, the front sensors turn off at a speed of less than 5 mph, while the rear ones stay active at any speed. In my car I *can* see that unattended toddler if he is right behind my car, while I cannot see him if he is in front of it.
It's not actually possible for me to back my car in at home unless my husband's car is not home, because our garage opens onto an alley, and there isn't room to back from the open space into the constrained one unless the garage is empty at the time. Kids play in the alley constantly, and it is literally impossible to see directly out to the sides of the garage until the driver clears the door. When I come through the walking gate I check for kids/parents, and if I see any I tell them to be careful because I'm leaving, and I also count heads.
I can think of a whole raft of practical reasons why it makes more sense to park nose-out than nose-in wherever possible, but I'm not sure that better odds of avoiding hitting a child or animal is really one of them, at least not while driving a camera-equipped car. I think the chances of an unattended child managing to get close enough to a moving vehicle to get hit by it really don't change all that much based on what end of the car he's closest to; what matters most is whether the child approaches the car from the side (or worst of all, the inside.)
FWIW, I am personally acquainted with a person who accidentally ran over and killed their own child. It happened because the child managed to unlatch her car seat and open the door enough to slip out as the car was pulled (forward) out of their driveway. The child fell underneath the car and was run over by the rear wheel. It happened a long time ago, before the advent of rear-door child safety locks, but I personally don't think any driver should trust that those will be on unless they personally check the locks each and every time they put a child in the back seat.
When dealing with the safety of children near cars, there is just no substitute for counting heads, but even that doesn't always work.
PS: If I had to guess why more pedestrians get hit by cars than by SUVs or light trucks, I would go with the likely age of the driver. The majority of situations where drivers hit pedestrians are situations of driver inattention or impairment: very young drivers are more likely to be inattentive, and elderly drivers are more likely to have visual impairments and/or slower reflexes. Both groups are probably a bit more likely to drive cars; the young because they are cheaper, and the old because of that and because they have lower ground clearance to climb in and out.
thers may disagree.
