Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Transportation

Mitsubishi Electric Believes Its AI-enhanced Camera Systems Will Make Mirrors on Cars Obsolete (ieee.org) 169

In its annual R&D Open House on February 14, Mitsubishi Electric described the development of what it believes is the industry's highest-performance rendition of mirrorless car technology. From a report: According to the company, today's conventional camera-based systems featuring motion detection technology can detect objects up to about 30 meters away and identify them with a low accuracy of 14 percent. By comparison, Mitsubishi's new mirrorless technology extends the recognition distance to 100 meters with an 81 percent accuracy. "Motion detection can't see objects if they are a long distance away," says Kazuo Sugimoto, Senior Manager, at Mitsubishi Electric's Image Analytics and Processing Technology Group, Information Technology R&D Center in Kamakura, 55 km south of Tokyo. "So we have developed an AI-based object-recognition technology that can instantly detect objects up to about 100 meters away."

To achieve this, the Mitsubishi system uses two technology processes consecutively. A computational visual-cognition model first mimics how humans focus on relevant regions and extract object information from the background even when the objects are distant from the viewer. The extracted object data is then fed to Mitsubishi's compact deep learning AI technology dubbed Maisart. The AI has been taught to classify objects into distinct categories: trucks; cars; and other objects such as lane markings. The detected results are then superimposed onto video that appears on a monitor for the driver to view.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mitsubishi Electric Believes Its AI-enhanced Camera Systems Will Make Mirrors on Cars Obsolete

Comments Filter:
  • same old problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cellocgw ( 617879 ) <cellocgwNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday February 19, 2018 @12:06PM (#56152592) Journal

    The vehicle driver is focussed at infinity when looking forwards. If you look at an actual mirror, you can remain focussed at infinity.
    If you have to look at a monitor (let alone one that's got cartoons based on target classifications), you have to refocus to the monitor distance. So unless MItsu is planning to project their image to infinity-equivalent, this is NotAGoodIdea(TM) .

    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @12:17PM (#56152684)

      The vehicle driver is focussed at infinity when looking forwards.

      When I'm driving I'm not looking at some mountains 10 miles away. I'm spending a lot of time looking at traffic around me, and at upcoming signals which I assure you are not at infinity...

      Any good driver is going to be doing a ton of constant re-fosuing from near to far, as they re-scan everything around and upcoming. So a mirror that is really a screen is not an issue as it's just another re-focus with some slightly different information than normal.

      You can also take in overlaid information without ever re-focusjng, just from color and shape and size of overlaid markings you would know where something was behind you even if you didn't focus specifically on the symbols to see them as totally crisp.

      • by skids ( 119237 )

        Any good driver is going to be doing a ton of constant re-fosuing from near to far

        Come back when you get into your 40s and the presbyopia starts to set in and tell us how much you like those screens.

        • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @01:51PM (#56153378)

          Come back when you get into your 40s and the presbyopia starts to set in and tell us how much you like those screens.

          I'm past my 40's and I like those screens just fine. I mount my iPhone in my car to use Waze.

          I am quite concerned that you and all other responders seem never to look at instruments in the car like the speedometer, since those would mean focusing as close as any other screen...

          I myself like to pay attention to how fast I am going. I guess everyone else is just driving staring blankly in the distance. That would explain a lot of the erratic behavior I see in other cars when driving...

          • ...I am quite concerned that you and all other responders seem never to look at instruments in the car like the speedometer, since those would mean focusing as close as any other screen...

            I myself like to pay attention to how fast I am going.

            You are irrationally focused on something that can be easily controlled automatically. Cruise control has been around for a very long time, and enhanced cruise control solutions of today only scrape the surface as to how much that "problem" can go away. tomorrow.

            I guess everyone else is just driving staring blankly in the distance. That would explain a lot of the erratic behavior I see in other cars when driving...

            Let's just stop with the bullshit. Everyone is staring at their cell phone. That explains the problem and the erratic behavior.

            • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @02:36PM (#56153634)

              You are irrationally focused on something that can be easily controlled automatically. Cruise control has been around for a very long time

              The more I read responses the more concern I feel, and it's all quite rational - when most driving is through city streets (or ever highways) with varied speed, to bring up "cruise control" as a defense is beyond alarming and right up into head-slapping territory.

              Keep digging that hole buddy! Or admit that yes in fact as a driver you look at the instrument cluster occasionally, even though it would validate someone elses point. But this being the internet, I can feel safe in assuming you would rather paint yourself as the worst driver that ever lived rather than admit someone else on the internet was correct about anything.

              Peace out, I'm no longer in this increasingly absurd thread that 100% ignores how people actually drive. You may continue if you wish.

          • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

            Have your eyes gotten to the point where you need 'cheater' glasses to read a menu? When that happens you will find out how dumb of an idea it is to have a screen you have to focus on.

            You absolutely DO NOT have to be able to focus your eyes to read a speedometer or other instruments. All you need to be able to do is see where the needle is pointing, which is FAR different from having to read text. Why do you think race cars have those nice, big, analog gauges instead of some stupid screen for the driver

            • You absolutely DO NOT have to be able to focus your eyes to read a speedometer or other instruments.

              In another post (maybe my original) I pointed out you don't have to focus on the electronic rear view screen either, you can easily make out the annotated shapes and colors and sizes to make out important details about what is behind you, where it is and how close without ever really focusing.

              which is FAR different from having to read text.

              ???? You aren't reading text on a rear view mirror either.

              Why do you

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by beelsebob ( 529313 )

        You're doin it rong then.

        When you're driving, you should be looking as far into the distance as you can. Your peripheral vision will take care of things happening near to you. What you need is advanced warning of what's up ahead.

        https://driversed.com/driving-... [driversed.com]

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Lots of research shows that good drivers are constantly moving their attention, from far ahead to closer objects, mirrors, instruments, and back. The ones who gaze one thing, including the distance, are dangerous.

        • not always. When in traffic you should be monitoring the cars in front of you (preferably 2 -3 cars in front) so you can anticipate braking etc
      • by jklein ( 582887 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @12:43PM (#56152940)
        Anything beyond about 20 feet is essentially at infinity focus. What is lacking in cameras is depth perception. Try driving, or backing up, with one eye covered (caution). It's surprisingly difficult to do confidently. Until they figure out how to do 3D cameras and displays in cars, they won't replace mirrors in functionality.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Until they figure out how to make 3D cameras and displays that are as reliable as mirrors in cars, they won't replace mirrors in functionality.

          Cameras go wrong all the time. There are many fewer points of failure in a mirror, and they're a sight easier (and cheaper) to clean/adjust/replace when necessary too.

        • Try driving, or backing up, with one eye covered (caution). It's surprisingly difficult to do confidently.

          I can drive with one eye closed with absolutely zero problems. I attribute this fact to all the time I've spent playing racing games. You don't have any direct depth perception, and have to do everything with secondary depth cues. Remember, the car is going to handle stuff like lane and distance keeping. It's not a big deal if the driver has to refocus.

      • The vehicle driver is focussed at infinity when looking forwards.

        When I'm driving I'm not looking at some mountains 10 miles away. I'm spending a lot of time looking at traffic around me, and at upcoming signals which I assure you are not at infinity...

        Well, it kindof is though. The human eye has a hyperfocal distance of about 6 metres (ie when focussing at 'infinity', everything further than 6m will be sharp). Which unless you're going very slowly is nearer than vast majority of stuff you will be looking at outside the car.

      • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        Infinity focus happens at about 20 feet in humans (you know 20/20 vision), not 'mountains 10 miles away'. The signals, etc, certainly are at infinity, despite your 'assurance' to the contrary.

        • The signals, etc, certainly are at infinity

          The cars next to you certainly are not, no matter which of you is right about where "infinity" is for human vision.

          By the way, you are all wrong about focal distance - humans CAN focus out WAY farther than 20-60 feet. Yes hyperlocal distance is closer but that is a term that just means things from close to far are "equally blurry" so to speak, and doesn't mean your eyes will actually rest at that focal point - eyes being eyes they will actually focus until someth

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

        I'm spending a lot of time looking at traffic around me, and at upcoming signals which I assure you are not at infinity...

        Nope. Those are at infinity. Infinity is about 30 feet. The binocular separation is about a tenth of a degree. So, even sitting at a light, first in line, the lights on the other side of the intersection are effectively infinity. The dash is not infinity. The car in front in traffic is not infinity. But in a car, almost everything except the dash is at infinity. Adding more to the dash, taking away from the trend to infinity, would decrease safety.

      • by jtara ( 133429 )

        The cars around you might as well be at infinity, compared to a close-in display. Your eyes are doing little/no focusing to look at different cars around you.

        Of course we all look at the speedometer and other indicators. But not constantly. And every time we do, we have to shift focus, which means we are NOT getting a clear view of the outside. BOTH due to changed focus and changed direction of gaze.

        When you glance at a mirror, you do not need to change focus if you were previously looking outside.

      • by cpotoso ( 606303 )
        Oh, gee... not looking at mountains 10 miles away? You know that 1m is as close to infinity as 10 miles?

        Now for what is really important: any distance MUCH BIGGER (i.e., 10x) than the normal short distance focus length (25 cm) is for all practical purposes in optics a "focus at infinity".

        Do you understand now?

    • Not if you have eye-tracking. You can track the users eyes/head and adjust the image. Like this was done with off the shelf gaming hardware a decade ago.
    • I'm more concerned that the system freezes and lures the driver to think the area is free and clear when it's not.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      The vehicle driver is focused at Infinity when looking forwards.

      It was a Lexus.

  • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @12:07PM (#56152598)
    I'm not understanding how this works better than a $0.50 mirror.
    • by TWX ( 665546 )

      That's what I'm wondering too. They're cheap to manufacture, very reliable (most vehicles go to the scrapper with their original mirrors still fitted) and short of adjustment to fit an individual driver, don't require any work on the part of the driver to use.

      The only thing I would see being potentially useful would be figuring out how to aim the mirrors for a given driver without that driver having to do much beyond taking a seat. That would probably be a matter of figuring out where the driver's face is

      • 1. Mirrors don't cost $0.50. A side mirror assembly can cost over $100.
        2. Mirrors have blind spots. Cameras don't.
        3. Side mirrors create drag, increasing fuel consumption.
        4. Side mirrors limit car-to-car parking distance for self-parking cars.
        5. Rear view cameras and displays are already mandatory on all new cars, so the mirrors are redundant.

        • by Kohath ( 38547 )

          6. A mirror is another surface that increases the profile of the car. If you just barely hit a car or a person on one side of the car, you'll hit them with the mirror.
          7. Mirrors fog up, frost over, and get covered by snow. A camera lens can also be blocked, but camera lenses are smaller and the camera already has power available to defrost the lens.
          8. Cameras can be used to record video.
          9. Rear view mirror vision can be blocked by passengers or cargo.
          10. Rear windows are partially designed for driver visi

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            Everything depends on where the screen is, the view you see. I have a reversing camera, when I reverse when the sun is setting I can not see a fucking thing on the screen, because glare. I use the mirror. The more stuff you have, the more that will break and the more you need to service. If my reversing camera dies at the moment, meh, some convenience lost. If rear view equipment dies, well guess what, that's a tow away because you can still drive with a side mirror gone using the main mirror (legally it wo

            • by Kohath ( 38547 )

              Shorter version: cameras fail all the time but mirrors are unbreakable, everything in the world is a conspiracy.

              • And there is at least some truth to this. Occasionally a rearview mirror will fall off if they are held on with adhesive. I've never seen a side mirror spontaneously break, though. You have to have a collision. Although looking at the number of broken side mirrors out there, people sure do have a propensity for whacking into things with them.
        • by TWX ( 665546 )

          1. Mirrors don't cost $0.50. A side mirror assembly can cost over $100.

          Not quite. [partsgeek.com]

          Sure, some replacement side mirrors can cost over $100. Replacement side mirrors may have significant markup though. Dealerships charge a lot more for parts than those parts need to cost, and aftermarket manufacturers of such parts have had to spend money to reverse-engineer to make functionally-identical parts that are not sold the same volume as original manufacturing for new cars.

          That $100 side mirror assembly is probably a quarter that cost when factored over millions and millions of units

          • Rear view cameras are only necessary because trunk lids are half-again taller than they used to be on coupes and sedans,

            This has been increased to improve rear crash safety, and it is legally mandated.

            and the rear lower-window height is taller than it used to be on minivans and other wagon-bodied vehicles like SUVs, and because trucks all ride at 4x4 height even when they're only two wheel drive.

            4x4s are still taller than 2wd trucks, as ever. The difference was only ever an inch or two, and it still is. The window heights went up with the belt lines to improve side impact safety, and are legally mandated.

            Modern automotive design sucks when it comes to driver view. A-pillars and B-pillars are huge and create significant blind spots.

            The pillars were increased in size to improve rollover protection, which was mandated. They can make the pillars smaller, but that costs a lot more money.

            Mirrors are poorly designed such that looking at the side mirror results in seeing the frame of that mirror in the reflection, losing on viewing angle.

            The mirrors are hooded to protect them from the elements, with t

        • Mirrors are easier to clean and and are clearer in the rain and snow which is why they are still putting them on cars.

        • 1. Mirrors don't cost $0.50. A side mirror assembly can cost over $100.

          Shit, the driver's side mirror assembly for my old 2000 Honda Prelude cost me about $300 if I were to get it from the dealer...

      • I demoed something like this in the Mitsubishi booth at CES in January.
        It worked surprisingly well. I was dubious about actually doing the demo, but came away wondering when I can get a car with this technology.

        The (demo) car was smart enough to:
        automatically open the door as I approached (from a particular angle), with path lighting;
        automatically adjust the seat and rear-view mirror so that I could see all the HUD's, the rear view, and the other instruments - it may also have adjusted the steering wheel a

    • I'm not understanding how this works better than a $0.50 mirror.

      I'm not understanding how it can be as reliable as a $0.50 mirror. Also, if one of my mirrors breaks, the remaining two can partially cover the deficiency. If the electronics goes down, I'm blind to what's behind me without looking over my shoulder.

      Then there's the whole hackability aspect. I can see the headlines right now.

      • I'm not understanding how this works better than a $0.50 mirror.

        I'm not understanding how it can be as reliable as a $0.50 mirror. Also, if one of my mirrors breaks, the remaining two can partially cover the deficiency. If the electronics goes down, I'm blind to what's behind me without looking over my shoulder.

        Then there's the whole hackability aspect. I can see the headlines right now.

        You wouldn't think that the current drive-by-wire control systems would be as reliable as the old rods and cables, but here we are. I think you're missing the point anyway. What's more likely? That the camera system malfunctions, or that a driver misses or misinterprets what is in his side view mirror? The system is not aimed at being more reliable than an optical mirror, but at bringing the overall reliability up by making the driver more reliable. Suddenly that motorcyclist in your blind spot is glowing r

        • If the camera is external then probably the camera system is more likely to malfunction.

        • by beckett ( 27524 )

          What's more likely? That the camera system malfunctions, or that a driver misses or misinterprets what is in his side view mirror?

          i think likeliness would variable, depending on the design and external protection of the camera, time of day, road conditions, road and weather debris blocking the camera's view.

          Equally important to consider is the redundancies each system furnishes; with most cars i can shoulder check and look around my glass-enclosed cabinif my mirrors are fogged or blocked by snow. ot

        • You wouldn't think that the current drive-by-wire control systems would be as reliable as the old rods and cables, but here we are.

          Yes, here we are with a less reliable system. Before vehicles had throttle-by-wire, they sprouted throttle positioning sensors. But even before that, they didn't have any such thing and they were purely mechanical. And those systems were far more reliable than the TPS, which will typically be replaced at least once during a vehicle's lifetime. My 1982 300SD has the same linkages, vacuum switches, cables, and so on that it had from the factory.

    • My main expectation is that it will be better at blind spot detection, and adjust for bright lights better. Also it could consolidate all the mirrors so you are not craning your head to know what is going around.

      That said, if it is anything like the rear view camera, it will need to be setup with a way to clean itself. One spray from the car next to you, you are SOL. while a mirror with a bigger surface area will usually be quite usable even if very dirty.

    • by skids ( 119237 )

      What I don't understand is why so few of these AI systems seem to be aimed at not blinding oncoming drivers with your headlights. You'd think that this [scientificamerican.com] would have been a great pilot application for these systems, before trying to make AI do anything fancier or more potentially dangerous.

      • As it so happens, a number of higher-end cars (Tesla included) do have auto-dim headlights. I can only speak for the Model S, which is occasionally confused by bright lampposts close to the road but is very good at dimming not only when oncoming traffic exists but when coming up on a car (taillights) in front of me.

        • As it so happens, a number of higher-end cars (Tesla included) do have auto-dim headlights

          My parents just bought a Peugeot 308 (hardly a high-end car, roughly Golf-level), and that has fully automatic headlights (including auto dimming), rear and 360 degree cameras with GTA-style overhead view, lane keeping that nudges you back if you stray across the lines and a whole host of other fancy gadgetry.

          And that's a perfectly ordinary mid-priced family hatchback.

    • Just look at the benefit of using an always connected internet camera and monitor in place of any mirror in the home. What could possibly go wrong.

      They obviously want to get rid of the mirror protruding on the sides of the car. They will also not have to worry about sight lines out the rear window (those roof pillars keep getting thicker due to safety requirements).

      Also remember that things in a mirror are always reversed, if they don't keep it that way it will lead to some problems for all but the noob dri

    • by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @12:33PM (#56152848)

      The big problem with a $50 mirror and $100 enclosure is that that mirror and enclosure cause enormous amounts of aerodynamic turbulence, and drag. Having those mirrors contributes around 7% of the total drag of the car. Improving a vehicle's fuel economy by 7% is ENORMOUS.

      You only need to look at the styling on any modern car to see that *huge* amounts of effort goes into designing the thing to do nothing but steer air around the mirrors, and/or tidy up air that's just come off the mirrors.

      • When I did a quick Google search, the claimed increase in drag for side mirrors is 3%-6%.

        Let's assume that it's 3%, the car gets 25mpg, the travel life of the average car is 50,000miles and the average cost of gas through this period is $2.50/gal.

        With the mirrors, the cost in gas is: (50,000miles / 25miles/gal) * $2.50/gal = $5,000.00

        Without the mirrors, the fuel economy goes up to 25.75mpg and the calculation becomes: (50,000miles / 25.75miles/gal) * 2.50 = $4,854.37

        Even using the 7% figure in the parent p

        • by Njovich ( 553857 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @03:17PM (#56153866)

          According to this article [sciencedaily.com] air resistance only accounts for 5% of energy output of a car. So if the mirror accounts for 7% of air resistance, that's 7% of 5%. So that means it's only 0.35% of fuel economy.

          • That article makes no such claim. In fact, it makes quite the opposite - it points out that reducing top speed dramatically improves on fuel consumption. That's because energy usage caused by drag squares with speed. At 30mph, not much of the energy you put in is used to overcome drag. At 60mph, getting on for 60% is used to overcome drag. At 80mph, almost all the energy goes towards overcoming drag.

            That's why Teslas are the shape they are - because they're shaped for optimal aerodynamic drag. That's

            • by Njovich ( 553857 )

              The article quite literally makes that claim:
              "Of the energy output of fuel in a car engine, 33% is spent in exhaust, 29% in cooling and 38% in mechanical energy, of which friction losses account for 33% and air resistance for 5%."
              I made no claim that aerodynamic drag is insignificant, I just wanted to point out that the numbers above may be wrong. The 'only' was in respect to the calculations by the parent post, not a qualitative assessment.

          • That article claims that air resistance is 5% of the energy of fuel, or 13% of the actual mechanical output of the engine (assumed 38% thermodynamic efficiency). The 13% is the relevant number, if the article is correct.

            I find the numbers dubious; I don't think a car (gasoline) engine has as much as 38% thermodynamic efficiency. Also: at motorway speed (120 km/h) and a typical drag area of 0.7 m2, the air resistance is responsible for 15 kW of mechanical power, which is about 25% of the energy of combustion

        • When I did a quick Google search, the claimed increase in drag for side mirrors is 3%-6%.

          Let's assume that it's 3%,

          I used to own a 1989 Nissan 240SX fastback. The claimed Cd is 0.24. That used to be epic. Now, it's common for sedans to be around there — the current Audi A8 has a 0.26, for example. As the drag is reduced, the penalty for side mirrors increases. That's why my 1998 Audi A8 has a lame mirror on the passenger side. It's actually substantially smaller than the driver's side mirror. It was literally worth it to make a second set of mirrors for a low-production vehicle (since they sold them all over the w

        • It's 3% because much of the cost has been externalized in the form of oil subsidies, wars and ignoring environmental damage. As a result shaving 3% off the amount of gas used has a disproportionate impact on the entire global situation let alone any single country's economy, than just the base 3% savings.
      • The aero dynamic drag is mostly caused by the size of the front cross section of the car.
        That includes the side mirrors obviously.
        Assuming that the side mirrors cover that cross section by 7% is absurd for most cars.
        Perhaps you think about big trucks or busses that have gigantic mirrors?

        • Nope, the aerodynamic drag is a combination of two things - 1) the cross sectional area, and 2) the coefficient of drag. The cross sectional area of the mirrors is very small. The coefficient of drag though is huge compared to the rest of the vehicle.

          • Unfortunately wrong.

            The drag coefficient of the mirror is the lowest of the whole car or any part of the car. The highest drag coefficient has your engine front side, then comes the wind shield.

            No idea why you believe otherwise.

            And: the main factor is speed as drag increases with the square of the speed.

      • And how much drag is caused by the rear-view mirror, which is inside the car, and is the one that gets the most use?
    • I'm not understanding how this works better than a $0.50 mirror.

      Well if it makes that Vespa in your blind spot glow bright red, that's a start.

    • If anything, they should work on augmenting the existing mirrors. Keep the mirrored surface that always works, no power required, but add various indicators to it. It's trivial to project an LCD through a mirrored surface, lots of vehicles have that for their rear cameras in the rear view mirror. Augment instead of replace.

      Of course, we already have pretty good examples of this, with blind spot indicators and such.

    • by m00sh ( 2538182 )

      I'm not understanding how this works better than a $0.50 mirror.

      Ahole drivers with brights on, misaligned head beams, overly tall vehicles, strange colors and over bright head beams won't blind you.

      Computer keeps track of other aggressive aholes who like to tailgate, lane swerve and do other stupid things.

      You risk your life with a $0.50 mirror everyday. From seeing all the road rage everyday, I'd say we keep trying something better. There is just simply too much dangerous driving out there. Every 5-10 minutes on the road, I see something dangerous happening. From al

    • That's because it isn't. It's a solution looking for a problem. I'll take plain old mirrors, thanks anyway.
  • If something happens (alternator, dead battery), I can get a stalled (or stalling) vehicle to the side of the road. With all these electronic subsystems, if something happens which knocks out the vehicle's electric power, it not just becomes harder to steer and brake (due to lack of assist), but harder to move to the shoulder, with no mirrors present.

    I don't mind stuff as augments, but not as replacements, especially with safety devices like mirrors that can mean the difference versus a safe pass versus be

    • Thats ok, because by then the steering and brakes will be drive-by-wire as well. The fail safe will be for the brakes to auto-apply without power, but I guess you are sort of stuck with the steering wherever it is when the power fails. yep, this is all for the better good.
      • I'm sure heavy braking unexpectedly on the freeway is not only safer than costing like a traditional car, but when the resulting wreck results in a lawsuit, blame will be fully on the driver instead of the automaker. Cars have only commonly had a connection to wireless data for around 8-10 years, even now there are still some dumb cars. Give it another 10 years and I'll be more confident some disgruntled teenager from istonia won't kill a thousand people by hacking thier cars. There already have been
    • Without Power, your car will be rather dead in the water. The mirror will only serve you in knowing that you are inf act about to die, vs. hoping people will see your car had unexpectedly stopped in the highway.

      For the case you car is about to die, chances are the cars electronics tend to still function long enough for you to get into a safe spot.

      • Without Power, your car will be rather dead in the water.

        Especially if you're driving over a bridge at the time.

      • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        Mirrors are quite useful for determining if it is safe to get out of the car. I suppose if you are agile enough maybe you could turn around enough to see anything out the back and off to the side, but when I try that I mostly just see the headrest, B pillar, or seatbelt.

    • If something happens (alternator, dead battery), I can get a stalled (or stalling) vehicle to the side of the road. With all these electronic subsystems, if something happens which knocks out the vehicle's electric power, it not just becomes harder to steer and brake (due to lack of assist), but harder to move to the shoulder, with no mirrors present.

      I don't mind stuff as augments, but not as replacements, especially with safety devices like mirrors that can mean the difference versus a safe pass versus being a long criminal negligence prison sentence for hitting a motorcycle.

      Let's be honest, at that point you're driving an electric car anyway.

    • I'm confused by your argument that not having mirrors makes it harder to move to the shoulder in case of a loss of electrical power. You lose electrical power, your engine will die and you coast to a stop while driving to a shoulder - hopefully other vehicles will notice the change in speed of your car and avoid you.

      I'm not sure how familiar you are with the technology used in contemporary cars; power steering uses hydraulics and power brakes uses vacuum. Without electrical power, your ignition's dead so

      • Steering is now electric in general. No more hydraulic. I am not a fan as the hydraulic I felt had better feedback. There is more of a "rubbery" feel with hydraulic. Even BMW electric steering is referred to as numb. I don't know but does a full EV use hydraulic(brake fluid) for brakes?

        • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

          Steering and brakes were and are mechanical. The hydraulic or electric bits (or vacuum for brakes) apply pressure to make it easier for you to steer/brake, but if they fail you can steer or brake (but it requires more effort).

  • Where I plug in and have all of the cameras piped directly in my brain?

    I hate blind spots and having to turn my head to triple check I'm not pulling into someone. An extra mid-body camera would do wonders for getting rid of that anxiety.

  • I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of this technology - as was pointed out what's the advantage of this technology over a $0.50 mirror?

    When I RFTA, it seems like the technology is really designed for objects in front of the car, which would actually be an advantage.

    This past week, I had my first encounter with a deer - I was driving on a country road at dusk when I saw the deer's eyes glowing from the car's headlights. I can see where they would be a hazard as the deer blended into the background of the

  • I would think that one of the biggest safety advantages of getting rid of mirrors and having cameras would be eliminating the potential for night-vision blindness from drivers who think they make the road safer by driving with their high beams on all the time.

    If the rear view could be shown without the blinding glare of these vehicles, I would consider that a win.

  • by RabidDawg ( 915326 ) on Monday February 19, 2018 @01:49PM (#56153362)
    It seems to me nowadays, that mirror use is optional....
  • At least _somebody_ is watching it, the drivers sure do not.
    Now an AI for indicating the directions the driver is going to use and we're good to go.

  • Vehicle mirrors are quite useful when the vehicle is off yet you want unobstructed vision. Unless you are going full bore driverless and lose everything including all controls, I would be far more concerned these types of systems just drive up the price, lower reliability over passive components (like a real mirror) and don't add any useful function current cheaper systems already provide.
  • I rented a car with a back up camera that was great for showing what was behind me but not the car going 50 through the parking lot that would have hit me had I moved. You gotta turn your head and LOOK.
  • Don't lose power or crash because of bad software.

  • I hope they select the location of the cameras very carefully. The backup camera on my vehicle needs to be cleaned almost every time I use it in the winter. I can just look behind me for the amount of time that I'm backing up, but it would be awful annoying to have to clean 'mirror cameras'. The mirrors on the other hand can get dirt on them and they work just fine.
  • Am I the only one in the world that uses the side mirrors to back into my garage? As my car slides through the open door I disregard all the complaints from the car's existing sensors because I can see that I have a couple of inches on both sides so I'm good. Don't take away my side-view mirrors!
  • With something extremely complex. The utter failure of all engineering skill and insight.

  • Years back, I had an old Grand Voyager. One day, a door window fell into the door. Went to get it repaired, $160, and they just replaced the belt. A few years later, newer Grand Voyager, same thing... and twice the price. The mechanic and I both knew that it was just a broken belt... but Chrysler was making the window a sealed unit, so it was motor and everything else, as well.

    Yup, replace all your mirrors with AI-aided cameras. And when it dies, it's 3 or 4 figures to replace, no repair, sealed unit.

    Let's

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...