Slashdot Mirror


Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018?

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?"

63 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. Somewhat cheaper... by bob_super · · Score: 4, 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...

    1. Re:Somewhat cheaper... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Somewhat cheaper... by bob_super · · Score: 4, 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...

    3. Re:Somewhat cheaper... by sconeu · · Score: 3, Informative

      I had to replace a side view mirror about 6 months ago. $150.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Somewhat cheaper... by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 2

      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 spatters over the camera lens?

  2. Why stop there? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 5, 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.

    1. Re:Why stop there? by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 2

      Like the car Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawk) drove in Daybreakers!

      --
      Karma: Bad
    2. Re:Why stop there? by sarysa · · Score: 2

      If a window breaks, you can still see through it. If a monitor in your tank breaks?

      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)

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    3. Re:Why stop there? by period3 · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:Why stop there? by RJFerret · · 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.

    5. Re:Why stop there? by Splab · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:Why stop there? by AikonMGB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can you spot cars that are long-overdue on having their brakes serviced so that you can be careful around them as well? This is a terrible reason for requiring mirrors on a car. As when driving a car, one riding a bike should always be careful and never rely on other drivers being 100% responsible, regardless of the condition of a vehicle.

    7. Re:Why stop there? by Splab · · Score: 2

      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 mandatory two year inspections).

      As a bicyclist you (should) pay very close attention to what's going on in the right turn lane, are they slowing down? Have they seen me? *CAN* they see me? And trust me, I assume that all drivers are idiots playing on their phone will trying to eat a sandwich - having a indication that the driver turning right is absolutely blind and oblivious to my presence just means I can react a second earlier.

      (I treat vans and trucks like they have zero mirrors)

  3. CAFE requirements by confused+one · · Score: 2

    It might happen, if they can implement it in a way the duplicates the functionality and ease of use of a mirror. The reason it might happen: reduction in drag to improve the manufacturer's chances of meeting the EPA Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements.

  4. Not as good a field of view by tchuladdiass · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Not as good a field of view by radaos · · Score: 2

      A camera based system would also lose the binocular cues of depth, unless it was 3D. I cetrainly don't want to wear stupid 3D glasses when driving, they're bad enough in the cinema.

    2. Re:Not as good a field of view by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shazzam!

      Is that what happens when you run into something while adjusting the zoom on your side camera?

    3. Re:Not as good a field of view by tokencode · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is exactly what I was thinking. A mirror provides both eyes with information, allowing you to gauge depth easily. Depth sensors etc could be used to provide some additional cues, but it is tough to be replace the usefulness of true binocular vision. While my backup camera is great, it definitely is not a replacement for my rearview mirror for this reason.

    4. Re:Not as good a field of view by sootman · · Score: 2

      > 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.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    5. Re:Not as good a field of view by profplump · · Score: 2

      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.

  5. It's not broken. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:It's not broken. by profplump · · Score: 2

      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 engineered into the OEM product -- couldn't you just stick an aftermarket mirror on your door panel if you decided you wanted one? It could glue on, or stick into your window frame, without any significant interference to normal operation of the vehicle.

  6. Re:nope! by ozmanjusri · · 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...

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  7. What about aircraft? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I always wondered why aircraft don't have embedded cameras all around. One to observe the landing gear, one pointed at the tail rudder, one for each engine, one for the ailerons/flaps etc. No more guessing what is going on based on instrumentation and sending a crewman to look out the window to see if he can spot the problem. Easier to detect icing, snow load on the wing while on the runway, etc.

    1. Re:What about aircraft? by Bobberly · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because no one wants to invest in the amount of research and testing required to get a part certified by the FAA. All it takes is one aircraft to crash because of "smoke in the cockpit" from one of these devices to end them. Technically, I could face penalties for unauthorized aircraft modifications for attaching my GoPro to the wing.

    2. Re:What about aircraft? by Rich0 · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:What about aircraft? by caseih · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:What about aircraft? by Alioth · · Score: 2

      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 modification, but mount something to the wing and it most certainly is. There's a good reason why in most cases the camera is set up in such a way that it won't capture the registration of the aircraft. FAA inspectors have been known to trawl for photos/YouTube and launch prosecutions when they see photo evidence of something unauthorized).

  8. simplicity and reliability by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:simplicity and reliability by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Yes. And I have had more than one car with a broken rear-view mirror. So "simplicity" isn't as simple as you imply.

    2. Re:simplicity and reliability by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, 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?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:simplicity and reliability by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      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..).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:simplicity and reliability by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, 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.

  9. Re:nope! by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Meh, just get rid of mirrors altogether. Far too many drivers don't bother using them anyway.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  10. It will have a better field of view by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. Consequently, if you're sitting facing forward, for a mirror to show the region between where the rearview mirror's view ends (almost straight back) to where your peripheral vision picks up (almost straight to the side), it has to have a very large field of view.

    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.

    1. Re:It will have a better field of view by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      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...

      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 because people "feel" better when they see more, even if what they see is less useful.

  11. Re:nope! by artor3 · · Score: 4, 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.

  12. Just sent the image to my phone by Tex+Bravado · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's all I'm looking at, anyway.

  13. Where will the image be? by swb · · Score: 3, 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?

  14. Re:nope! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    The proposal is to have cameras in place of the side mirrors, not to use the rearview in place of side mirrors.

  15. Re:nope! by Anonymous Coward · · 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 get the benefit of a huge truck mirror without the forward-looking blind-spot that it usually creates.

  16. Re:The real deciding factor by Rich0 · · 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.

    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.

  17. Judging Distance by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I agree that field of vision is not an issue (or at least one that can be easily fixed). However depth of vision is a problem. Mirrors preserve depth perception 2D screens do not. Not being able to tell how close a car is in a wing mirror when overtaking is dangerous and will lead to accidents. You can't even judge from image size since camera's fields of view and screen sizes will vary between car models.

    1. Re:Judging Distance by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And you also won't be able to judge depth for farther objects by subconsciously bobbing your head back and forth to increase stereo baseline, as you're apt to do without even realizing it when you have a mirror.

    2. Re:Judging Distance by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      What about a camera system that will tell you the distance of objects from your car directly on the screen with an evaluation of the speed and direction? I mean, it seems people here are discussing this subject like the camera could only be used to display plain image without any processing. Processing power is cheap these days and we can easily build a camera system that can add many informations directly on the screen and evaluate time to collision with all the objects on the screen. It could even be setup to get attention when needed. The possibilities are not limited to displaying a plain image as the camera is viewing it. We are about to have self driving car. Security camera can detect people and evaluate trajectories, etc. It's XXIst century!

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:Judging Distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If mirrors are so good at depth perception, why do they all have "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" printed on them?

      They don't. At least not in other parts of the world.

    4. Re:Judging Distance by mhotchin · · Score: 2

      Those mirrors are not flat - wide angle.

      Depth perception works just fine on flat mirrors.

  18. Yes by Trogre · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Yes by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 2

      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 complicated. Making something elegantly simple, now that requires serious brain power).

  19. Re:nope! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, 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 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.

  20. Re:nope! by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · 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 for over a decade now. (PDF) 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 of the car next to me.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  21. Re:nope! by DexterIsADog · · Score: 3, 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.

  22. Re:nope! by SydShamino · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  23. Re:Overcomplicated junk.. by swb · · Score: 2

    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?

  24. Re:nope! by fustakrakich · · 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.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  25. Re:nope! by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. Re:nope! by The+Grim+Reefer · · 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.

  27. What. by Kuroji · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This idea is dumb and you should feel dumb for even considering it.

  28. Re:nope! by bobjr94 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back in the 90's people started playing with cheap geo metros to see just how much mileage they could get (because 54mpg just sucks). They took of outside mirrors in a gas saving effort and gained around 3-4mpg. Course on a tahoe it might be 0.3 mpg, a civic 1.3mpg, it all depends on the weight and original mileage. They also put on smaller (narrower) tires, smaller alternators (or removed them altogether) and took out weight (door panels, spare tires).

  29. Re:nope! by Firethorn · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  30. Re:nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Try to collect it.

  31. Re:nope! by profplump · · 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.

  32. Re:nope! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.