Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018? 496
cartechboy (2660665) writes "Just the other day we read about how the Department of Transportation will require all manufacturers to include rearview cameras on all new cars produced after May 1, 2018. But there's something else auto manufacturers are pushing for, the ability to replace sideview mirrors with cameras in 2018. Tesla in particular is pushing for this to happen as traditional mirrors are bulky, and not very aerodynamic. That lump of plastic can cause surprising amounts of drag on an otherwise smooth car body. Camera units are much smaller and can be made streamlined, or even mounted nearly flush with the body, thus reducing aerodynamic drag. The idea has been around since the 1990s, and many concept cars have used cameras instead of sideview mirrors for years. But how will NHTSA respond? Is it finally time to ditch the sideview mirror?"
Somewhat cheaper... (Score:5, Interesting)
When you see the cost of replacing a mirror, it'd be cheaper to have a camera and a 7" screen inside.
On the other hand, night vision would suffer from having a screen on.
And I know more than one person who has saved their cars' doors by having the mirror remind them how close they really were to that post...
Re:Somewhat cheaper... (Score:5, Informative)
It won't be cheaper because everyone will have their own vehicles-specific mounts, adapters and enclosures which they will sell at ridiculous rates like every other car part.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the cameras have night vision too... like some expensive cars already do. They have a front facing infrared camera and screen on the dashboard. It can pick out heat signatures behind objects like bushes, highlight human shared and temperature objects and calculate their speed and direction to warn you if they're going to cross your path.
Re:Somewhat cheaper... (Score:4, Informative)
I had to replace a side view mirror about 6 months ago. $150.
Re:Somewhat cheaper... (Score:5, Informative)
If you have a camera embedded inside a side panel and it needs to be replaced, the cost of the camera will often not be your biggest issue...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Hell, you can just slap a stick-on mirror over a broken one, in a pinch. I was driving cross-country once and needed to do just that - it got me through that trip until I was able to replace it. If the camera/connector/cable/display goes wonky it would have been a much more time consuming, expensive, and bitchly process, even just to figure out what stopped working.
There is also something to be said about feeling disconnected - no pun intended - that you get in video but you don't get in mirror
Re: (Score:3)
There is also something to be said about feeling disconnected - no pun intended - that you get in video but you don't get in mirrors. You are looking at a direct reflection of reality with your own eyes as opposed to a digital image - it may not be measurable in metrics but your eyes are still seeing the reflection (insert "objects are closer than they appear" message, LOL) versus a digital eye that you then interpret. I just think disconnecting ourselves further from what is outside of our cars is probably not the best idea.
This. My daughter had a loaner Prius while her 2008 model was in the shop, and the loaner model (2013) had a rearview camera. I couldn't see a damned thing on that little screen when I was backing up, especially at night. It was like those grainy, out-of-focus videos claiming to show proof of Sasquatch or UFOs (or Sasquatch flying a UFO).
And what about obstructions? My rear windshield gets covered with mud or snow, I can flick on the rear wiper and see clearly out of it. What happens when mud or snow
Why stop there? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus augmented reality could let the car alert you to things you might not notice.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah this is dumb (Score:2)
I love the subtexts of this question...for the above sentence to make sense all three items below must be true:
> There is an open debate in car design/safety as to wether cameras would be better than mirrors
> There is an organized effort among many stakeholders that all agree cameras are better than mirrors
> They have been trying to ditch the sideview mirror for a long time..."finally"
Lastly...if cameras increase safety...why not have both????
Re: (Score:3)
I'm totally with Tesla that it should be a legal option, but it shouldn't be a requirement to go digital with side view. On one hand, you have the drag...on the other hand, the classic mirrors are less prone to ceasing to function effectively. (smudging/moisture/frost is also a concern, which often renders my rear camera useless -- easily fixed with classic mirrors, and driver's side can wiped off while driving)
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Copenhagen and drive a bike, I think replacing sideview mirrors with cameras is a horrible idea. If someone is driving around with a broken mirror, I can tell from a long distance, and I will know to be careful around that driver - if he breaks his monitor or camera and don't get it replaced, I will have zero "heads up" about his lack of information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously don't bike...
The mirror is important because that's when the car is interacting with your space - when both parties are going straight, you don't care about their brakes or speed; The time for danger (provided you as a bicyclist actually adhere to the law) is when a car is trying to do a right hand turn - this is when they enter your domain and this is when you are going to get killed (statistically speaking); this should never happen at high speed, nor with malfunctioning brakes (yay for mand
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent... then we could have more of this when parked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] (safe for work)
Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Funny)
What about ditching the windshield and replacing it with a 4k HD screen? Then you can embed the driver lower-down and deep inside a protective hardened shell. A no-glass car all around.
Then how about ditching the wheels, and just simulate movement on the 4K screen. You could drive as fast you want in perfect safety.
Re: (Score:2)
What about ditching the windshield and replacing it with a 4k HD screen? Then you can embed the driver lower-down and deep inside a protective hardened shell. A no-glass car all around.
Then how about ditching the wheels, and just simulate movement on the 4K screen. You could drive as fast you want in perfect safety.
That's more or less what I already do with Amazon. I have ditched the car altogether for most shopping trips and replaced it with a virtual shopping center that has almost everything I need right there on my 24" computer monitor.
Re: (Score:3)
When the power drops, and I need to get across X lanes of traffic to the breakdown lane, I'll be glad to have a mirror.
A driver certainly would want to be encased inside a protective shell if the windshield were replaced with a monitor blocking the view and bringing a whole new meaning to BSOD.
Of course once self-driving cars hit the successive generations/versions, all bets are off.
Re: (Score:2)
When the power drops, and I need to get across X lanes of traffic to the breakdown lane, I'll be glad to have a mirror.
A driver certainly would want to be encased inside a protective shell if the windshield were replaced with a monitor blocking the view and bringing a whole new meaning to BSOD.
Of course once self-driving cars hit the successive generations/versions, all bets are off.
The Apollo space capsule didn't have a glass windshield up front and the astronauts managed to get all the way to the moon and back without a BSOD killing them. I think I can handle a trip to my local Piggly Wiggly without one.
CAFE requirements (Score:3)
Not as good a field of view (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you put the screen up by the window, with a mirror you can always move your head a bit to get a bit more visual context. With a camera and screen, that doesn't work. Unless they also put in head tracking, or use a 3d screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not as good a field of view (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever hear of this invention called a zoom lens? You'll be able to adjust you field of view....
Shazzam!
Re:Not as good a field of view (Score:5, Insightful)
Shazzam!
Is that what happens when you run into something while adjusting the zoom on your side camera?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would I need to? The only reason mirrors are adjustable is because people's eyes aren't all in the same place while driving. Cameras don't have that problem, and could be engineered to cover the entire relevant area.
It will have a better field of view (Score:5, Informative)
With a camera, you have the option of mounting it at the front corners of the car instead of by the driver, The display can still be by the driver, but the camera can be way in front. It can then show the same area using a much smaller field of view. The blind spot will still be there, but it'll be pushed out to 2-3 lanes away, making it irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason you have to move your head around with a side mirror is because they are placed very close to where your peripheral vision ends.
I imagine he was speaking of being able to move your head a little more and check the blind spot on that side.
The blind spot will still be there, but it'll be pushed out to 2-3 lanes away, making it irrelevant.
Except when you're changing lanes. And we'll see if the blind spot is still there or not. A lot of cars taper in front, meaning there isn't a mount point for such a camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Put a camera where the sideview mirrors currently are. This gives you the field of view of the outside edge of the mirror, rather than mostly in the middle. Given the right alignment, it will see everything you can by moving your head around. Put two cameras there, and you can even put a "fish-eye mirror" view in part of the field of view, and have more perspective than you'd ever normally have.
Another option is to put the cameras on the roof, near where the windshield meets the roof. This could be done
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of cars taper in front, meaning there isn't a mount point for such a camera.
No, almost no cars taper in the front. There isn't a modern car that exposes the tires to the air, so at "worst" the camera could be in front of the front tires, which is a good distance forward of the "standard" placement for most cars.
There was a fad for a while to move the mirrors as far forward as possible such as http://images.johnnycupcakes.c... [johnnycupcakes.com]
Those have smaller blind spots because the better angle. That would be a better place to put the camera than by the door. But it was placed by the door b
Re: (Score:2)
It's been shown that curved side view mirrors can almost completely eliminate the blind spots [nytimes.com], but the NHTSA dictates what size and shape your mirrors are.
Personally, I'd rather keep the side view mirrors and use the camera to eliminate the big rear view mirror placed right in the center of my windscreen. These are almost always placed for midgets, at my height it completely obstructs the right half of my field of view (If I pull up to a four way stop, any vehicle stopped at the sign to my right is complet
Re: (Score:2)
Or cars designed by stupid people where it isn't physically possible to adjust the mirror far enough to eliminate the blind spot.
Re: (Score:3)
> Even if you put the screen up by the window, with
> a mirror you can always move your head a bit to
> get a bit more visual context.
What if the camera let you see 3x more in the first place? You wouldn't need to adjust your field of view.
It's not broken. (Score:2, Insightful)
So why do I need a camera? This is a classic case of over-engineering a simple, solved problem. Rear and side view mirrors have an extremely low failure rate, and require no power.
Re: (Score:2)
Rear view mirrors don't let you see the space obscured by the trunk, and side view mirrors cost $$$ due to aerodynamic drag.
I love the idea because I think I'll get a wider field of view and better nighttime rear vision.
Re: (Score:3)
The efficiency savings differs from car to car. In smaller vehicles it can be something like 1.3 MPG, which is fairly significant. But even if it's only 0.2 MPG, over the life of the car that's still a lot of gas.
Also bear in mind that many modern mirrors are motorized, and sometimes heated -- they're already fairly complex and expensive. And they're a frequently damaged component.
If you're worried about replacing a failed camera system with a physical mirror, I don't understand why that needs to be enginee
Re: (Score:2)
Back when the aptera was a possibility, they removed the mirrors in favor of camera for the aerodynamic gains. (Aptera was a very aerodynamic car so the gains were real). Unfortunately, state laws didn't allow it everywhere, so they had to put them back on.
Also, mirrors aren't that simple. Even in many low end cars, they have electronics to move them around in the meantime for the driver and I'm it can break. Mirror themselves often are poorly made and lose their finish (see this on vans and the like).
S
Re: (Score:2)
side view mirrors have an extremely low failure rate,
Not so, judging by the number of side view mirrors I see hanging from car doors.
and require no power.
Some do. For pan/tilt motors and defrost heaters. That's why the mirrors have some wires to hang by when they get whacked*.
*Why are there still a few manufacturers who haven't figured out the swing-away side mirror mechanisms?
What about aircraft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
By the time you certified your system of a $5 CCD and a $30 LCD for aviation use, you'd have to sell it for $15,000 to make a profit. You can't install ANY equipment on a certificated aircraft that isn't certified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And if the FAA ramp checked you (and the FAA inspector's motto is "We're not happy until you're not happy"), and decided it was an unauthorized modification, they could ruin your day dragging you through an expensive prosecution in court.
Yes, people who own small aircraft often do it and will usually get away with it (in many cases it won't count as a modification, a camera with a suction cup on the windscreen and powered off its own battery or the cigarette lighter connection isn't considered a modificatio
Re:What about aircraft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Airliners do have external cameras, mainly for taxiing (on some airliners the pilot is seated forward of the nose wheel and if you're in a tight spot it is very useful to actually be able to see under the plane and be able to just barely cut corners near the edges of the taxiways. Having cameras pointed at control surfaces isn't actually a bad idea, but they do have servos on them and their positions can be displayed in the cockpit.
Re:What about aircraft? (Score:5, Informative)
Many Airbus planes do have some cameras that the pilots can use. Usually in the tail. I was on a 777 recently that had at least 3 cameras that you could view via the inflight entertainment system. Was very cool.
The real deciding factor (Score:2)
In a tight economy, side cameras will only sell if they are a. manditory on all new models, or. b. not marked up at the same exorbitant rate as side mirrors. If the industry cintents itself with a replacement price that's not much more than for conventional mirrors, this could work, but what I expect is a scenario more like this.
1. Car companies decide that the lower profile possible means fewer side viewers will be hit in accidents, so they will see fewer replacements.
2. Since they won't see as much sales
Re: (Score:3)
In a tight economy, side cameras will only sell if they are a. manditory on all new models, or. b. not marked up at the same exorbitant rate as side mirrors.
Actually, one of the reasons for having cameras is that they can boost fuel economy. With CAFE requirements that means that manufacturers can sell more SUVs and stay under the limits. So, there is plenty of incentive to put reasonably-priced cameras on cars, if not make them standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Just sent the image to my phone (Score:3, Funny)
That's all I'm looking at, anyway.
Where will the image be? (Score:4, Insightful)
The advantage of side view mirrors from a situational awareness perspective is that you can check the entire side of your car from front to back very quickly because the whole view is there. Blind spot indicators solve the problem of blind spots (mostly..). Side view mirrors may take away from aerodynamics but they're a very convenient place to look.
A camera image could be nice (night vision, variable view angle, etc), but it seems a downgrade from a safety perspective to use a center console display because it causes you to look away from the side of the car.
Maybe they'd mount mirror-size displays in the dash against the doors? Sounds kind of expensive for any usable resolution and brightness and maybe even distracting, especially at night. Perhaps the displays could have a secondary function or overlay (distance to largest and maybe bonus points for being hackable to display some other display.
Displaying a heads-up type display on the windshield? Some kind of perspective-corrected or floats-outside-the-car-like-a-real-mirror image on the side windows (useless if the windows are rolled down, though).
A rearview mirror option might not be a bad idea because it would then be a complete "behind you" image, but how big could it be without making the rearview mirror into a head-injury risk?
Better Wind Profile - Something More To Fail (Score:2)
Oh, my, two more things to fail at the most inopportune moments. So is this going to increase the cost of the cars too?
On the other hand, the benefit is a better wind profile so better gas mileage. Should that be kilometerage by now? *sign*
$150 (Score:2)
It will add $150 to the cost of the car, but when it fails the dealership will charge $500 for the same part plus labor to replace it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes (Score:3)
Just as soon as camera/screen pairs have the parallax of a mirror and the dynamic range approaching anywhere near reality.
In other words, not for a long time.
Re: (Score:3)
But why is parallax relevant?
It allows us to judge distances using depth perception, partly because we have two eyes at offsets, and as mentioned earlier, because we can bob our head about to help us get depth cueing.
The only way cameras will come close to being as good as a mirror is if they are 3D cameras and displays, to allow us to judge distances like a mirror, at which point I suspect they will be a lot more expensive than just having a mirror.
(Talk about using a jackhammer to crack a nut. It is always easy to make things complic
Do Both! (Score:2)
Fresnel lens (Score:2, Interesting)
Not that it's necessarily the best for every single application, but I find a 15cm square fresnel lens stuck to my rear windscreen gives a much better picture than any camera system I have ever used:
The dynamic range is practically the same as through the glass, so no squinting at nearly-black screens in summer time or having eyes burned out at night.
The picture is on the actual windscreen, so I don't need to take my eyes off the "road" when reversing, or the rearview mirror to see what's behind me.
The focu
Winter? (Score:2)
I'd really like to know how they would address the removal of ice/snow/slush that we see in the winter in Canada/Northern US. And how much light would the screen emit at night, potentially blinding the driver. So many questions, so little answers.
What. (Score:5, Insightful)
This idea is dumb and you should feel dumb for even considering it.
simplicity and reliability (Score:5, Insightful)
A car is a place I value simplicity and reliability over features. If a camera fails on the road, people can die.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:simplicity and reliability (Score:5, Funny)
Pussy.
First thing I do when I get a car is rip off those damn mirrors. They're just another government intrusion into our freedoms to drive as we please, which is one of our God-given rights.
Anyway, they would only distract me and interfere with my natural feel for the road. I trust my instincts and experience a hell of a lot more than I trust some "mirror". Why would I need to see backwards if I'm going forwards?
Re: (Score:3)
and in those situations a camera or multiple cameras is far superior to a fucking piece of glass with silver.
(if it breaks, take it for fixing, like you would if someone kicked off your real mirror - and unlike popular myth you don't have to drive like an asshole even if everyone else is driving like one so you can take your time to get to the shop..).
Re:simplicity and reliability (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand...
The mirrors are legally required, they can already do cameras, but they can't remove the mirrors legally.
What they are asking for is the ability to do so.
You can still put mirrors on and I can see some cars like the Wrangler still having them for just the reason you offer.
But most cars don't need them, cameras make more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming they'd have extra cameras to give you a good view out of either side of the car. Not sure how people would take it though ant it would have to mean more than just a screen in the center of the dash, if you wanted to provide the same area for viewing things behind the car.
I wouldn't want it mandated but I see nothing wrong with letting automakers do this if they want to.
Re:nope! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
Windshields also. They can see outside with the cameras going to their iPhone, which is what they are looking at anyway while the driver is texting.
Re:nope! (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly, I just drive with my Oculus on and have full visibility. When Zuckerburg is elected president (after everyone on Facebook finds that all of their friends of have posts saying they are voting for him) and mandates an Oculus for every driver, you guys are going to love seeing everywhere.
Well, until the hackers start overlaying the Second Life furry content. But that only happens about every other day.
Re:nope! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sideview mirrors let you see places a rearview camera won't.
That doesn't make sense at all.
You can point a camera anywhere you want, they'd be far more versatile than mirrors, and car makers will be certain to take advantage of that. You'll most likely get multiple cameras, stitched views, and more coverage, not less
I'd be happy just to get a good rearview camera on my motorbike. All I get to see in the mirrors are my elbows...
Re:nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I think there might be something just out of my field of view in a mirror, I can lean slightly to change the angle. That doesn't work with cameras. Not necessarily a problem, but the engineers will need to find a way to cover all of the necessary angles without taking up too much space on the dashboard. I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You can have a wide-angle projection sort of like those convex mirrors on large truck mirrors, which only take a little experience to use properly. This would show all areas at a glance with no field of view limitation.
You could also imagine a virtual-reality approach which at the limit could provide a virtual mirror in the location you expect, reacting to the driver's head position to act like a mirror while actually being drawn by a heads-up-display projector and an external camera. I wonder if you could
Re:nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
The change in view with the change in angle of incidence is one the *problems* with existing mirrors. A camera could be permanently fixed to view exactly the right area, whereas mirrors need to be properly adjusted for each driver, and don't work correctly if you move your head even a little.
Plus it's video -- you can take multiple images and stitch them together (or display multiple views in a single location, as is common in side mirrors in larger vehicles) and you're not limited to the vantage point of the traditional mirror. For example, a combination of a side-rear looking camera from near the driver's position and a side-looking camera from near the back of the car -- and both could be mounted up high, rather than below the window line -- would provide better field-of-view than virtually any existing side view mirror.
Plus no reflected headlights/sun. Heck, with high camera mounting points you can significantly reduce the possibility even of shining a headlight into the camera, let alone blinding the driver.
And of course once you've put a sensor pod on the side of the car and a display in the dash, adding things like ultrasonic proximity detection become much cheaper and easier to integrate into existing driving methodologies.
Re: (Score:3)
You could also imagine a virtual-reality approach which at the limit could provide a virtual mirror in the location you expect,
An array of ultra-sound sensors around the car, compiled into a simple birds-eye-view display. Like a storm radar image. You'd see at a glance the car (or motorbike) in your blindspot. Dramatically improved situational awareness.
You'd then only need mirrors (or cameras) to see things beyond the range of the sensors, which may make side-mirrors redundant. A single wide-angle view from the back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I think there might be something just out of my field of view in a mirror, I can lean slightly to change the angle
And with the cameras, you could move them, rather than moving your head.
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
But swinging your head wildly because your mirrors are poorly set is a good thing? They could make the camera screens mimic mirrors, but that would add complexity and cost for a few people who can't be bothered to adjust a camera if they want to see where it isn't pointed.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car, like a convex rearview mirror, but withou
Re:nope! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car, like a convex rearview mirror, but without pillar reflections and such in the way. That's the closest to today's operation that makes sense to me. And with that, you'll *never* have something you need to move your head for.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly what we should have. Also, a smart system could sense when any of those cameras stopped operating, and the others could fill in at least temporarily to cover the critical spots.
Re:nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're greatly exaggerating with "swinging your head wildly" in response to the OP's post. I learned to drive with and always have my mirrors splayed out to cover my blind spots rather than the end of my own car (as is recommended by many driving experts). However, given the size of the mirrors, I still have a tiny blind spot that's the perfect fit for a motorcycle who's riding too close to my lane and hugging my rear quarter panel. A slight tilt of my head and I can clear that spot. It's not necessary when regularly scanning the road to keep track of traffic, but I always do it before I change lanes just in case.
Contrast that with 90% of folks who have their mirrors turned to watch their own gas caps, and have to fully turn their heads to check their much larger blind spots before changing lanes. That's the "swinging wildly" bit that's more dangerous.
I don't have any issues with your 180 degree mirror idea, other than that it would take time to adapt to it. Drivers that start with it would likely be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
Let's make the steering wheel itself surround a giant screen showing everything behind you then, with an additional "pannable" view as a heads-up display projected on the windshield.
If you want to TURN you rotate the wheel.
If you want to pan the camera, you tilt one side of the steering wheel forward and the other side backward, vice-versa.
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
Let's make the steering wheel itself surround a giant screen showing everything behind you then, with an additional "pannable" view as a heads-up display projected on the windshield.
If you want to TURN you rotate the wheel.
If you want to pan the camera, you tilt one side of the steering wheel forward and the other side backward, vice-versa.
If it comes down to that, I'm selling my car and getting an M1 Abrams. That way I don't have to check my mirrors before I change lanes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Try to collect it.
Judging Distance (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Judging Distance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those mirrors are not flat - wide angle.
Depth perception works just fine on flat mirrors.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why things will inevitable drift towards the "beehive style mirror view". Although it is a bit confusing at first, you can bee seeing all angles at once.
And it bee far safer for everyone involved.
Re:nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
You can point a camera anywhere you want, they'd be far more versatile than mirrors, ... You'll most likely get multiple cameras, stitched views, and more coverage, not less
Really? I've had a stitched view [cartalk.com] for over a decade [orlandosentinel.com] now. (PDF [cartalk.com]) It takes no power or extra equipment and I can see what's in the adjacent lanes behind me.
True, I have to glance at one non-adjacent sensor to another, but then again the road is still visible around me -- if something happens in front I already have a slight visual and can immediately lock and focus on it. (Then again, in high school driving class they taught us to continually scan our surrounding, check our mirrors, as well as maintain a "space cushion" around the car.)
Oh, and a spot of dirt or water (wherever might THAT come from?) will obscure that entire mirror as opposed to just being an inconvenience.
Ever had to scrape off a mirror from the accumulated snow / ice / fog? THAT'll be easy to do on the camera lens as well, I'm sure.
Then again there's be some idiot that will reconnect the camera inputs to watch TV, never mind being slightly night-blind from the always-on slight blue glow from the camera display. Or did you want to use B/W LCDs?
Mandate this in all new cars? Well if that's what you want. Personally I'll be out buying a glass cutting kit and a lot of superglue while re-positioning the camera to get an upskirt picture [dailypostal.com] of the car next to me.
bar end mirrors (Score:2)
My Monster's OEM mirrors did the same thing yours are doing.
I replaced them with these (although, if you want to look "mod" enough, you could add, rather than replace):
http://www.constructorsrg.com/mirrors/hindsight_ls.html [constructorsrg.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:nope! (Score:4, Insightful)
Agree ... do not want. One more thing to go wrong, and then you're looking at an expensive repair rather than something you could take care of yourself, just to keep the car legal.
I'd probably have an easier time replacing a camera than may side mirrors.
Besides, I had the driver side mirror taken out by a deer, and it was over a hundred to replace! Now consider how many vehicles on the road today have those fancy turn signals on their side mirrors, that's gotta raise the price a bit.
Plus people are used to looking over there to see what's behind them, it could cause all kinds of distraction trying to switch the dashboard TV set between navigation mode and rear view mode. Keep focused on getting the weight of the battery pack down instead.
1. Reducing the drag would probably save more fuel than reducing battery weight(unless you REALLY reduce that weight).
2. The views replacing the side mirrors would probably be on dedicated panels that are active at all times while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
The all around system I saw, has a virtual sky eyeball of all the cameras with a car icon in the middle. So one look at the screen shows where every thing is around your car. The system I saw had proximity sensors as well, so while stopped, it would highlight in red any area where a object (person?) was detected. When in gear, it would highlight objects that could be a problem in your intended direction. while in motion it would just show the vehicles around you. Had a touch screnn you could touch any
Re: (Score:2)
It would take some thought on layout to have a system that works, where if a motorcycle is in a blind spot (and sometimes they will drive on the breakdown lane to pass), it will show it.
The idea would be a very useful advance, but it would have to be tuned to be able to have information coming in at a glance so one doesn't have to take the time to notice that there is something coming in from the side or whatnot.
Maybe one compromise is on the road already. Freightliner Sprinter vans have a LED that lights
Re: (Score:2)
I assume submarines have replaced the captain looking thru the periscope with his eyes to a camera mounted there and a Star-Trek-style viewscreen viewable to everyone in the control room. If they haven't they should. You can add infrared sensors and stuff to the video. And no more red light so as to not damage the captain's night vision.
Probably, But they haven't replaced the bullets a soldier uses with smart ordinance that can find it's target on its own.
Not because it technically isn't possible, rather because it isn't 100% reliable in a situation where less than 110% reliability can easily result in a fatality.
Re: (Score:3)
Volvo blind spot system is optical, not radar. The radar panel is on the front grill for collision avoidance and distance sensing cruise control, which does not use lasers. The parking sensors are ultrasonic.
And you know you can mute bands on the V1, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A camera would be more useful than a mirror for an accident data recorder.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not claiming it's safe to thave restricted view, but that it isn't something that will cause immediate and fatal consequences.