Japan Says Yes To Mirrorless Cars (carscoops.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Last month, Japan became one of the first countries to allow vehicles to use cameras instead of mirrors. "Video mirrors" will no longer be reserved for concept cars. They will likely turn into a huge marketplace for tech businesses and suppliers now that the "Land of the Rising Sun" gave Japanese companies the green light by allowing mirrorless vehicles. While many would argue that glass mirrors work just fine, video mirrors do have some real-world advantages. They can reduce drag and improve fuel efficiency (Warning: source may be paywalled) while improving the looks of a vehicle in the process. In addition, they can capture a wide-angle view that can see blind spots, and they can improve visibility by digitally compensating for glare, darkness or even rainy weather. The first company to supply digital mirrors will be Ichikoh. Their first product will be an interior rear-view mirror named the Smart Rear View Mirror that will enter production on June 28th.

Comments

It's all fun and games

[Anonymous Coward]

Until your mirror bluescreens on you....

Say what you will about oldschool tech but a normal mirror is never going randomly cut out on you. I could see cameras as supplemental but never as an outright replacement.

Re:It's all fun and games

[Tablizer]

Or hacked:

"What? Why's there a stripper in the right lane!? Not that it's a bad thing..."

Re:It's all fun and games

[tomhath]

a normal mirror is never going randomly cut out on you.

I've had a couple that did randomly cut out on me. While driving down the road the glass just fell off the driver's side mirror. Another time the interior mirror came unglued and dropped off the windshield.

Re:It's all fun and games

[ShanghaiBill]

Until your mirror bluescreens on you....

You have a fallback of looking over your shoulder.

Say what you will about oldschool tech but a normal mirror is never going randomly cut out on you.

Except for the blind spots. Rearview cameras are way better than rearview mirrors at avoiding accidents, which is why they will mandatory starting in 2018. Sideview cameras will likely have similar advantages. There may be an occasional accident caused by electronic failure or whatever, but that will likely be swamped by the accidents avoided by the better view.

Re:It's all fun and games

[CrimsonAvenger]

Another time the interior mirror came unglued and dropped off the windshield.

I remember being surprised by a mirror doing this once upon a time. Luckily, I wasn't in the middle of heavy traffic at the time....

Re: It's all fun and games

[pixelpusher220]

How about folding mirrors with a fish eye type lens on the end. Folds for video operation giving all the benefits and folds out if it ever fails allowing 'normal' mirror usage. Or I'm sure someone will invent the mirror equivalent of a donut spare. Something you pull from the trunk and latch on the car in the normal place.

Re:It's all fun and games

[lgw]

Until it explodes with so much force that it sends shrapnel into the passenger compartment.

I've had that happen! Clipped a misplaced construction barrel at moderate speed, and the glass from the side view mirror exploded into the car (my window was down). Better to have you mirror cut out on you than to have it cut into you!

Re:It's all fun and games

[Anonymous Coward]

Until your mirror bluescreens on you....

You have a fallback of looking over your shoulder.

Say what you will about oldschool tech but a normal mirror is never going randomly cut out on you.

Except for the blind spots. Rearview cameras are way better than rearview mirrors at avoiding accidents, which is why they will mandatory starting in 2018. Sideview cameras will likely have similar advantages. There may be an occasional accident caused by electronic failure or whatever, but that will likely be swamped by the accidents avoided by the better view.

Rearview cameras don't show everything, like the person who is about to pass behind you. Already I am seeing drivers who don't bother to do a shoulder check at all. Even worse I'm had a couple rentals where they've been making the rear window so small that using the camera is mandatory to back up at all, making for a dangerous situation when the camera or screen breaks down (or hell, even got water splashed right on the camera by a passing car, had to get out and wipe it off before I could finish backing out as nothing was visible through the water on the lens.)

Re:It's all fun and games

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I have had one mirror fall off, I hit a construction traffic control thing with the drivers side mirror on my 1986 chevy s10 - Luckily, it was a warm day and I was actually holding the mirror casing and I caught the glass as it got knocked out of the holder.

I've owned more than 16 vehicles over the past many years. Granted, two of them are motorcycles - but having mirrors fall off isn't something I worry about.

Re:It's all fun and games

[Tablizer]

Or, maybe a wild-ass driver

Re:It's all fun and games

[rtb61]

I have had my rear view camera routinely cut out on me. In fact nearly every single fucking day. Reversing down my driveway at certain times of day, means the sun will shine right onto that screen and I see nothing. I ain't quite so bad when it shines onto the camera, you can sort of still see what is happening. Night time with insufficient illumination behind the vehicles, reversing lights are simply not bright enough, is also difficult.

Could be just becoming a grumpy old dude but I gotta be honest, over the years in the conflict between automated and manual, I have drifted to manual simply because it is far more reliable case in point, you beaut super automated coffee machines versus a French press, that French press has already way outlasted those three previous coffee machines. If manual works and is good enough, stick to it, automating for no advantage whilst it does generate profits for others will cost you more over the long run, far, far more (that French press was way cheaper than any one of the failed coffee machines, let alone all three combined and the coffee tasted better because I go create the exact kind of coffee I felt like at the time).

Re:It's all fun and games

[PAjamian]

Right there are any number of things that can, and do happen to normal mirrors. As long as they're not going to remove the windows and replace them with video monitoring then "video mirrors" are no more or less dangerous than conventional ones. Any decent driver knows how to drive without actually relying on the mirrors anyway, they are supplemental to help out in certain situations, but you can look over your shoulder to see behind you when reversing and check your blind spots when changing lanes.

Re:It's all fun and games

[PAjamian]

Rearview cameras don't show everything, like the person who is about to pass behind you.

Neither does a rear-vision mirror.

Already I am seeing drivers who don't bother to do a shoulder check at all.

And you get this with people driving with rear-vision mirrors as well, with the same results. This is not an argument against the cameras, this is an argument against bad driving habits.

Even worse I'm had a couple rentals where they've been making the rear window so small that using the camera is mandatory to back up at all, making for a dangerous situation when the camera or screen breaks down (or hell, even got water splashed right on the camera by a passing car, had to get out and wipe it off before I could finish backing out as nothing was visible through the water on the lens.)

Now this I agree is bad, but not because of the camera, but because of the poor visibility through the rear window. Having a camera should not be a substitute for poor visibility due to car design, neither is it a substitute for poor driving practices. When a camera is used in conjunction with good driving practices and is not used as an excuse to cut back on visibility through the windows by the car manufacturer, it is an aid to good driving as it allows you to see things from angles you otherwise would not be able to.

Re:It's all fun and games

[Solandri]

Except for the blind spots.

NHTSA says there are over 800,000 blind spot accidents in the U.S. every year, resulting in about 300 fatalities. That's why higher-end cars are coming with blind spot detectors now. Note that Japanese taxis mount the side mirrors on the front of the car to eliminate the blind spot. The image is smaller (boo hoo, you can't read the front license plate), but you can immediately see any vehicles in your blind spot. The taxi companies have found such a big improvement in safety due to those mirrors that they use them even though it looks dorky.

Everyone arguing that side mirrors are superior needs to come to grips wit the fact that unless you mount the side mirrors on the front of the car, they are simply not a very good solution to the problem. If cameras can eliminate the blind spot, they will be a huge improvement to safety. Any aesthetic or fuel consumption improvement is just gravy - the important thing is the safety improvement. Even the argument that camera viewscreen require a different focus distance can be addressed by mounting a mild lens in front of the display.

Re: It's all fun and games

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never had the sun temporarily blind you via the mirror? Or cars come up behind you at night with their high beams on?

Re:It's all fun and games

[SvnLyrBrto]

Have you checked the wiring at your house? My own first Keurig, along with some other appliances while I lived there, died at my former (rental) house. Eventually, we had the wiring in out unit and discovered that some outlets had fluctuating voltages. They were usually under but would sometimes spike over. It took a while to discover this, as all of the important electronics (Computers, TV, Playstation, etc.) are on UPSs as a matter of course. But we concluded that the screwy outlets did correlate with the failed appliances.

I''ve since moved, and Keurig #2 (Same model) has lasted twice as long as the first and is still going strong. Said Keurig, BTW, shares the kitchen with a french press, a Bodum pour-over, and a Bialetti moka pot. They all have their use case. And they all see regular use.

Re:It's all fun and games

[GNious]

You _may_ want to pay a little bit more for your cars in the future ;)

Unless you're in the US - never been in a car in the US, where stuff weren't coming loose/falling off...no idea why though.

Re:It's all fun and games

[AmiMoJo]

My car has four cameras and they have never failed. We should be able to build a camera that is as reliable as a wing mirror, considering how many cars I see with them ripped off or missing the glass.

Personally I prefer cameras. Nissan do one that replaces the rear view mirror with a wide angle lens and night vision, and it's great. I suppose if you are paranoid you could carry a stick-on mirror strip to cover it if it ever failed, but rear view mirrors are not actually mandatory on cars anyway where I live.

Re:It's all fun and games

[drinkypoo]

Unless you're in the US - never been in a car in the US, where stuff weren't coming loose/falling off...no idea why though.

Two reasons, cars and roads. American cars are universally built like shit. Even the most expensive ones have garbage interior plastics, and crap fit and finish. And American roads are also built like shit; most of them have inadequate road beds, so they need lots of maintenance that they then subsequently do not receive. The roads in California, where there are the most vehicles and the most vehicle-miles traveled, shake cars to shit. The same is true in every other state in which I've driven, which is not a long list but which includes NV, NM, AZ, and TX. The roads in NC were slightly nicer (only a passenger there) but still pretty poor off of the interstate. The interstate was much, much better though, as I recall. California in particular gets punched right in the nuts when it comes to tax money, getting less of it back than almost any other state.

Re:It's all fun and games

[drinkypoo]

I had a dickass who can't drive crowd me into a trashcan on my road when he had several feet available on the other side, blowing the entire side mirror assembly (except the mount, natch) right off a 1993 Subaru Impreza. The mirror "glass" (which was plastic) flew right through the car, past our faces, and right out the other window. Who uses glass side mirrors anyway?

Re:It's all fun and games

[hcs_$reboot]

Don't blame the concept, blame bad engineering - either the code is bad, or the camera is bad, or the design is bad... we're still relatively early at these things, and it's likely to become way better than mirrors: 1) camera sensitivity, higher range (HDR) to enhance details when the scene is too dark/bright 2) algorithms and some AI to enhance what could need attention, likely dangerous etc... 3) auto zooming based on speed, situation, road ... We can expect a lot from this technology, and when it's proven to be better than mirrors, it'll be mandatory in cars.

Re:It's all fun and games

[CastrTroy]

Very much agree with you on the french press coffee. I'm also a big fan of the old style double edge safety razor. 10 cents a blade and the shave is even better than the expensive 5 blade ones after you get the hang of it. And before anybody says those things are dangerous, I've never got a major cut with my safety razor, and only had maybe 5 minor nicks when I started learning how to use it. Stopped bleeding quickly enough. I'll never go back to those 5 bladed cartridge razors again. It may take an extra 2-3 minutes in the morning, but it's nice to be able to switch out the blade every 2-3 days if I feel like it (although I usually go a week and a half because the blade is still sharp) because the cost of the blades is so miniscule. I used to stretch my cartridge razors for a month because they were just so ridiculously expensive.

Even as a programmer, and somebody who is very into technology, I find that there's way too much technology where it shouldn't be. Much of the technology doesn't make our lives any better, and just ends up costing us more money.

Re:It's all fun and games

[GLMDesigns]

I've driven in many countries around the world including France, England, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Hong Kong, China, Senegal, Grenada, Puerto Rico, Mexico and Canada and I did not notice a qualitative difference between the US and elsewhere.

However one often times you find a marked difference between states (say driving on I-91 between Vermont (great) and Massachusetts (less than great).

Re:It's all fun and games

[internerdj]

Usually about once a week I have to adjust my mirrors so they aren't directly shining someone's high beams or the setting sun directly into my retinas. That usually is to the tune of them being completely useless. That isn't broken but it is pretty much the same thing.

Re:It's all fun and games

[Ol Olsoc]

Everyone arguing that side mirrors are superior needs to come to grips wit the fact that unless you mount the side mirrors on the front of the car, they are simply not a very good solution to the problem. If cameras can eliminate the blind spot, they will be a huge improvement to safety. Any aesthetic or fuel consumption improvement is just gravy - the important thing is the safety improvement. Even the argument that camera viewscreen require a different focus distance can be addressed by mounting a mild lens in front of the display.

This is Slashdot, home of the grumpy old men, and all of the excuses for why cameras are bad is just creeping codgerism. Weird stuff like BSODs and the sun getting in the way of a camera is no different than a mirror falling off or the sun getting in the way of a mirror.

I personally love the idea of a panoramic view of the area around me and blind spot sensors, although I suspect they would be better called proximity alerts since there will be no more blind spots.

I've found that sometimes the argument needs reframed to suit the slashdot crowd

These multiple camera systems on vehicles will be indespensible as evidence when the police officer stops you and tries to take our guns away, not to mention when we take those damn kids to small claims court when they are on our lawn

Re:It's all fun and games

[Grishnakh]

You need to get some brighter LED reverse lights; that'll help with your nighttime issues.

Tinting your windows might help with your glare issues on the screen. It'll also make your A/C work better in the summer.

Re:It's all fun and games

[Grishnakh]

And before anybody says those things are dangerous, I've never got a major cut with my safety razor, and only had maybe 5 minor nicks when I started learning how to use it.

I got a few really nasty cuts when I started using one. Nothing requiring stitches of course, but I did have to wear bandages.

But after having it for several years, and getting used to it and learning to not be in a hurry (this is REALLY important), I haven't cut myself like that in a long time. It's definitely a learned skill. The results are worth it IMO, but it is a sharp blade, and just like a fine chef's knife, if you're careless and/or inexperienced, it's quite possible to hurt yourself with it. But just like the fine kitchen cutlery, there's simply no substitute. Using a safe bread or butter knife just isn't going to give you the same results and performance.

As for "an extra 2-3 minutes", now that I'm so used to it, I don't think it takes me any extra time at all; it's actually pretty quick.

And I agree about going a week and a half: that's at least how long mine last, usually more like 2 weeks.

However I disagree about technology not making our lives better. You have to differentiate between technology that really does improve things (like rearview cameras over mirrors), and technology that does a worse job and costs a lot more money, mainly with the only benefit being ease-of-use for inexperienced people, and it's even worse when such technology is frequently deliberately engineered to be expensive and have a very short lifetime (as in the case of multi-blade cartridge razors) and sell well due to marketing (cheap razor, expensive blade replacements). Technology which is engineered to simply be better (as in bang-for-buck) is almost always a good thing. Technology which is engineered by marketers seeking to maximize profit is usually not.

Re:It's all fun and games

[operagost]

I don't understand why, when modern mirrors include electronics and thus are wired, they both attaching them to the windshield with the glue that invariably lets loose after 5 or 6 years. It made sense to improve the visibility (and looks) by attaching the mirror to the windshield instead of the roof back in the 1960s, but now you have a cable harness attached to the mirror so it's pointless.

This is not new. I have a 2004 model with map lights in the mirror, so when it popped off my windshield (twice), it dangled from the cable.

Re:It's all fun and games

[Grishnakh]

You'll get a better shave (and cheaper) with a straight razor, it's true. However the skill needed is higher than with the DE safety razors, the cost isn't that much lower (DE blades are dirt cheap: $7/box of 100 on Amazon, I can go 2 weeks on a blade), and the shave isn't that much better. DE represent a very good compromise over the all-out performance of a straight razor and the shave and cost offered by modern multi-blade systems which perform pretty well but cost a fortune, though they're safer (DEs won't hurt you as bad as a straight razor, but are more dangerous than a multi-blade cartridge so you do need more practice).

Unfortunately, engineering-types tend to have a very black-and-white extremist view of the world.

Re:It's all fun and games

[operagost]

States like PA have draconian tint laws that allow only barely minimal tinting unless you have a light truck. I'm pretty sure this is due to whining by the police, who are too lazy to demand drivers to open their windows if they're tinted too dark.

Re:It's all fun and games

[Grishnakh]

WTF? Your experience on American roads is laughable.

Arizona has some of the best roads I've ever driven on. It's really easy to understand why: it never even snows there, so the ground never has freeze/thaw cycles, which over time make cracks in the roads. Even better, they never use salt on the roads, or road plows, since there's no snow, so potholes just aren't a big problem. The highways in AZ, in particular, are fantastic.

All the roads in western states are generally pretty good for these reasons. CA probably has crappy surface streets just because of poor governance, poor funding, and too much traffic and not enough maintenance. The highways I drove on over there were always smooth.

If you want to see shitty roads, go to the northeast states, to Michigan, or to Alabama.

The northeast states and places like Michigan have terrible roads mainly because of the weather. They repave frequently, but all the salt in the winter, plus the snowplows, tear up the surface quickly, causing lots of potholes. Alabama doesn't have these problem so I guess they're just incompetent/corrupt or don't spend any money on repaving: the interstate suddenly goes from smooth to extremely rough as soon as you cross the state line from any surrounding state into AL.

Re:It's all fun and games

[operagost]

It's hard to look over your shoulder while driving down the road at speed. Or do you never bother to look in your mirror before changing lanes?

Re:It's all fun and games

[CastrTroy]

I don't think that you could really save money with a straight razor. By the time you buy a quality razor to begin with, and all the supplies needed to sharpen and maintain it, you could buy blades for your entire life on the safely razor.

1 blade a week X 52 weeks in a year X 70 years x 10 cents a blade = $364 spent in blades. You could easily spend that amount just buying the razor and a strop, and then you'd still have to have it honed every once in a while.Which is going to require more equipment or sending it away to be done.

Re:It's all fun and games

[tlhIngan]

Well, a camera protrudes out less than a mirror, so there's the advantage that a lane splitting motorcyclist (or a car trying to squeeze out an extra lane) won't accidentally run into it and knock it off, or a bad parker, etc.

Re:It's all fun and games

[Grishnakh]

Most such states still allow some tinting, even if it's not a lot, perhaps 50% on the front windows and 35% on the rear glass. Those are the limits here in Virginia, the state which hates cars the most.

Re:It's all fun and games

[michael_wojcik]

Obviously mirrors have failure modes as well. And generally speaking, more complexity means more failure modes, and often revenge effects as well.

(An example of a possible revenge effect with "virtual mirrors": Real side mirrors require the driver glance out the windows, which may lead to noticing something to the side that's not in the mirror's field of view. Screens won't require that, so drivers using them may miss hazards they otherwise would have noticed.)

The only sensible way to evaluate this change is with a well-conceived, fairly thorough threat model that looks at the likely failure modes, their consequences, and their probability. My guess is that if done well, "virtual mirrors" don't add that much risk, and largely compensate by reducing risk in other cases (e.g. low-light enhancement) - as long as the vehicle is decently maintained. But they'll be more prone to deterioration in old and unmaintained vehicles than mirrors are. Again, though, that's just a guess; it's all handwaving without a real threat model.

Re:It's all fun and games

[hucker75]

More often someone drives too close and breaks it off.

Re:It's all fun and games

[PSXer]

I wonder how many of those blind spot accidents are due to people setting all 3 mirrors to cover essentially the same place - the back of the car.

If you set your mirrors wider, the blind spot almost completely disappears. Though it will probably be a bit disconcerting at first. If you want to look behind you, you'll have to actually look at the rear view mirror instead of the side mirrors.

http://www.itstactical.com/ski...

Planned obsolescence

[Attila Dimedici]

Just more subtly planned obsolescence. While mirrors may wear out or break, it is simple enough to make a replacement. When these cameras wear out/break it is going to require a factory to make a replacement.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Jeremi]

Just more subtly planned obsolescence. While mirrors may wear out or break, it is simple enough to make a replacement. When these cameras wear out/break it is going to require a factory to make a replacement.

Or, I suppose, you could just go buy a mirror and attach it to the appropriate location on the car.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Fire_Wraith]

Having a camera installed in a car that doesn't have one is a pain, because they have to put in the wiring for it. But once that's done, it's not difficult to just swap out the module. If these are anything like backup cameras, it's about the size of a GoPro (or smaller), and probably about as expensive. Judging by what I paid to replace one of my side mirrors, it's likely going to be roughly on par.

Re: Planned obsolescence

[jrumney]

Because everyone knows how to make mirrors at home, no need to rely on a factory to make them.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Dorianny]

Just more subtly planned obsolescence. While mirrors may wear out or break, it is simple enough to make a replacement. When these cameras wear out/break it is going to require a factory to make a replacement.

I said the same thing when they replaced my trusty hand crank with them fancy electric starters that may wear out or break

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Mashiki]

Or, I suppose, you could just go buy a mirror and attach it to the appropriate location on the car.

Not a bad plan, only problem is if you go to sell the car you have to get it replaced. In many places, when you get a safety done all OEM equipment must be working on the vehicle. So that mirror you attached? Nope, not going to work.

What's going to get really interesting though is all the places where this is illegal. I don't mean replacing mirrors with cameras, I mean where the video displays are counted as a TV(most of north america -- can't comment on europe since I don't know the traffic laws). Which makes it illegal to use unless the vehicle is in reverse or under 5km/h. Something a lot of people don't know is that the trucking industry has been pushing to have video cameras put on trailers for years so the truck driver can see in their blindspots. Said camera is legal, the video display? Illegal to view when the vehicle is in motion.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[drinkypoo]

I said the same thing when they replaced my trusty hand crank with them fancy electric starters that may wear out or break

They do wear out and break, and my local starter rebuilder has gone out of business, you insensitive clod! He was old, and nobody else wanted to do what he did, apparently. On the other hand, I'm not hand-cranking any diesels or V8s, and that's all I own (including a diesel V8...)

Re: Planned obsolescence

[Attila Dimedici]

You mean to tell me that you do not know someone, or of someone, who cuts glass? In my area, there are 5 to 10 professional glass cutters.
So, you buy a mirror larger than you need, take it to a glass professional and have them cut it to size.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Kielistic]

My Honda Accord has a right side mirror camera. It displays your blindspot in the centre screen when the right signal is on so it can't be illegal here in Canada.

That said it does kind of suck. I like having it but on a sunny day it's pretty useless due to both the camera and screen getting washed out. I use the mirror more than the camera still.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[wired_parrot]

Modern mirrors already require a factory replacement. Trying to replace a power-folding heated mirror is not a simple replacement.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Grishnakh]

Well I guess Honda minivans are all illegal now because they now have side-facing cameras that display whenever your turn signal is on. RVs have been using these systems for years and years.

Re: Planned obsolescence

[Grishnakh]

Given the cost of specialized labor, it's likely far, far cheaper to just order a new OEM mirror glass. I don't even know where you'd find someone who can do that. Usually, when someone wants to get a custom-cut mirror, they just go to Lowe's or Home Depot where they do that work cheaply, but they only do rectangular sizes, not odd curvy shapes like car mirrors.

Also, how exactly are you going to find a generic mirror that has a heating grid in it that'll hook up to your car's heated-mirror circuit? Or do you drive in a vehicle that's unsafe to use in the winter?

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Mashiki]

It displays your blindspot in the centre screen when the right signal is on so it can't be illegal here in Canada.

Depends on the province. Ontario and most other provinces besides Quebec haven't changed the regulations in the traffic acts to reflect it yet. But it isn't allowed technically under the existing regulations and traffic law. The only way you'll be caught though is if it's seen in use and you can be pulled over for it. The problem is in ontario o.reg 366/09(and similar) don't grant exemptions for the the mirror to be used in that function. Though in most places it should be updated by the fall.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Mashiki]

The device is illegal, the vehicle is not. FYI the use of those on RV's also illegal. Welcome to traffic law 101.

Re: Planned obsolescence

[Attila Dimedici]

I have never owned a car with a heated mirror circuit and I rarely have a problem with my mirrors getting ice covered.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[danomac]

I was wondering where the displays will be, on the left and right a-pillar? Cause that would block your vision while making a left turn for sure, if there's someone in a crosswalk you won't see until it's too late.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Grishnakh]

So major auto manufacturers are installing systems that are completely illegal to use on the road?

I think you're full of shit (most likely, your information is woefully out-of-date).

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Mashiki]

So major auto manufacturers are installing systems that are completely illegal to use on the road?

Yes.

I think you're full of shit (most likely, your information is woefully out-of-date).

That's okay, I think you're just an idiot that doesn't understand that traffic law doesn't automatically catch up to technology right away. Here's a fun fact: In Ontario, when the police started getting those large support vehicles for on-scene crime forensics and all that, they had backup cameras installed in them so they could back in easily. They were also illegal, until the government took 9 months to exempt police from their use. That was around 8 years ago.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[Grishnakh]

So somehow automakers are exempt from laws?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Moron.

Re:Planned obsolescence

[hucker75]

Why would you need a factory to unscrew and unplug a camera? No more difficult than replacing your thermostat.

Re:Mirrors

[fred911]

-- Bill Gates ... Lady Gaga not like it makes a difference.

Good for Aerodynamics, Bad for Human Driven Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great for aerodynamics. Aptera first used cameras on the sides before the state here told them no.

Bad for the driver though. Tech breaks all too often. Or sunlight on the screens. Etc.

Now will they allow the side mirror with no blind spot already?
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-math-professor-side-mirror-patent.html

Re:My next project

[mADneSs]

That's not ... I don't think ...

Excellent idea!

Just a little heater.

[robbak]

The area over a cameras lens isn't great. Just coat it in a transparent conductive layer, and pass a current across it. It won't take much energy to keep a few square cm free of ice. Keeping a large mirror free of ice is a greater challenge.

Eeh

[Greyfox]

Doesn't seem like a bad idea, but my backing camera gets crapped up a lot more easily than my mirrors do. And any likely camera location on the vehicle is likely to get covered with snow more quickly and thoroughly than my side mirrors do.

Re:Mirrors

[Zaelath]

Accuracy isn't really required here.
        -- Colonel Paul Tibbets

$500 mirror

[garyoa1]

Let's see... 5 bucks for a mirror... 500 for a camera. Sure. After all cars are cheap. What's another few hundred bucks. And who wants to spend 5 bucks for a replacement mirror when they can pay 500? Plus installation.

Re:$500 mirror

[TheRealMindChild]

Most sane people don't buy a mirror from a NAPA retail outlet.

Re:$500 mirror

[AK Marc]

Cheap cell-phone optics are probably cheaper than a side-mirror now. Your costs are not realistic, and quite luddite-driven.

Re:$500 mirror

[EnsilZah]

If my side-view-camera isn't a full frame Hasselblad with a custom Zeiss lens, what's the point of even getting into the car?

Re:$500 mirror

[TangoMargarine]

You can't fix shit on a car for under 100 bucks.

Re:$500 mirror

[Fire_Wraith]

Depends if you want one that works, but looks like a completely out of place cheap POS, or if you actually want one that looks like it's supposed to. When my previous vehicle (a 2006 model) had its driver side mirror clipped, I needed to get one that actually matched the model - and it was all built into the housing, along with the plugin for the adjustment control (electronic) connector. I didn't pay for the original, just an aftermarket clone, but it still ran me about $100 (which was far cheaper still to just order and replace myself rather than pay for someone to do it for me, but that's another matter).

Re:$500 mirror

[AK Marc]

Not at the dealer. You do realize that there are independent mechanics, right?

Re:$500 mirror

[AK Marc]

There's already wiring to the turn signal indicators, so the wiring isn't an issue. Displays for a phone are about $10 per unit, in bulk.

That you are too dumb to figure out all engineering challenges doesn't mean it's hard. It just means you are dumb.

backup!

[p51d007]

I'd prefer a MIRROR to all this tech garbage. With a mirror, it TRAINS YOU to watch, look for blind spots, and not depend on tech. If the tech stops, and people are use to the tech, then they will fall out of habit, or in the case of younger drivers, not know to look outside the "mirror". I've read several articles where car thieves have been caught, or given up stealing cars, because they don't know how to drive a MANUAL TRANSMISSION. (I've driven one for the past 35 years because it's better in snow starting out in 2nd than first, and, I drive a Mustang...can't stomach auto transmission in a sports car). Even a lot of aircraft, have a backup wire pulley system, just in case the high tech stuff stops working. Fine, put this tech in a car, but keep the old school for a backup until the high tech stuff is as DEPENDABLE to the old school stuff.

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

Dude we aren't on your lawn....

Re: backup!

[Adriax]

Well this is a coincidence. 2 times a day I and my co workers have to read off two dozen numbers off the environmental monitor software, which has to run on an old win xp box, and put them into a spread sheet. We can't throw together a quick parser or other automated recording system because my just as ancient manager says that's "a solution looking for a problem".

Just because you don't recognize the benefits doesn't mean a younger generation isn't allowed to innovate.

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

There are numerous benefits to the technology. The single downside is reliability which can be mitigated.

Re:backup!

[AK Marc]

I prefer a horse. It trains you to treat your vehicle with respect.

And the old vehicles weren't "dependable" they were just treated with more care because they were so much more delicate. And were more likely to fail slow, though more often (running rough for a long time before finally failing).

Re: backup!

[AK Marc]

Some cars are impossible to set the mirrors to have a reasonably small blind spot. The camera replacements can fill in more information than a mirror can. But you think more information is a bad thing.

Re: backup!

[Digital Mage]

I think he was confused on the distance due to objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

Re:backup!

[kimvette]

The problem with side mirrors is about 80% of drivers are idiots and aim both side mirrors to show you the view behind the car, which is already covered by the rearview mirror.

Given that /. has lots of engineers and scientists among the userbase, I'll be generous and guess that about 50% of slashdotters get it right, and the other 50% are imbeciles who have all three mirrors looking directly behind the car.

When mirrors are properly adjusted, there are no blind spots.

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...
http://seniordriving.aaa.com/i...
http://www.cheatsheet.com/auto...
http://www.wikihow.com/Set-Rea...

Re:backup!

[Ol Olsoc]

I'd prefer a MIRROR to all this tech garbage.

For the sake of humanity, please be a Poe!

Re: backup!

[Ol Olsoc]

Oh shut the hell up. This is a solution looking for a problem, it isn't in any way necessary, it's just more expensive and not necessarily any better, in fact it might just be worse overall.

Explain? After using a backup camera plus calli's and convex mirrors, as well as a fresnel device on my RV, I can't imagine how less information is better. And the camera is the star of the show, allowing me to back up solo into tight spots, as well as some idea of where kids are.

That prompted me to get backup cameras for my Jeeps, which have also proved very handy.

I like the concept of having as much local tactical info as I can get my little mind around, so having a suite of cameras forward back and side is simply a great thing.

But it will be interesting to get the views of a person arguing for less knowledge of what is going on around you.

Re: backup!

[TangoMargarine]

Then make it optional. Why does all this stuff have to be mandated 5 years down the road?

Re: backup!

[Grishnakh]

You have the wrong younger people working for you. Your company must be one where the bottom-of-the-barrel candidates get hired. You might want to start looking for a better job if they're hiring people like that now.

Re:backup!

[myowntrueself]

I prefer a horse. It trains you to treat your vehicle with respect.

And the old vehicles weren't "dependable" they were just treated with more care because they were so much more delicate. And were more likely to fail slow, though more often (running rough for a long time before finally failing).

I knew a guy who had a model T ford. It was his first car, from when he was a teenager. It still went well, had amazing torque.

Re:backup!

[Grishnakh]

When mirrors are properly adjusted, there are no blind spots.

This is wrong, and depends on the vehicle, the driver, where the driver's seat is positioned (which largely has to do with how long his legs are), etc.. Mine are adjusted properly and there's still a blind spot. Luckily, I have a BSM system in this car.

Given that /. has lots of engineers and scientists among the userbase, I'll be generous and guess that about 50% of slashdotters get it right, and the other 50% are imbeciles who have all three mirrors looking directly behind the car. /. has a bunch of old technology-hating curmudgeons who still think carburetors and 1970s cars are better, and that seat belts are unnecessary. Most of the smart people left this place ages ago.

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

Because it saves lives. People would try to save a few bucks by opting out of seatbelts if it were optional.

Re: backup!

[TangoMargarine]

[citation needed]

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

Citation that seatbelts save lives? Just wow. But for the cameras tech allows much better view than a mirror can. It can highlight the car in the view making missing it in rain or fog less likely. The camera is much less likely to ice over than a static mirror which has a larger surface area to keep clean. Backup cameras are the same thing and seeing what's behind you before you run over it most definitely saves lives. http://www.thedetroitbureau.co...

Re: backup!

[TangoMargarine]

No, citation that replacing mirrors with cameras saves lives, numbnuts.

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

Then see above as the citation that cameras lives is right there.

Re: backup!

[TangoMargarine]

No, adding a camera where there is currently neither a camera nor a mirror apparently saves lives.

Replacing an existing mirror with a camera saving lives is what I'm looking for evidence of.

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

There's this thing called a rearview mirror so there was already a mirror that a camera replaced. That the mirror still exists is irrelevant as it isn't the hindrance that side view mirrors are. It's certainly positioned better as will the side view camera(s).

Re:backup!

[AK Marc]

The only person I knew with a car that old, took it out about twice a year, for parades. He rebuilt the engine every 5 years or so. When you count it, it wasn't too far off one engine rebuild every 10 miles. And I've heard people complain about changing spark plugs at 50,000 miles. My father was the same, remembering his first car he had for years, which was rebuilt many times.

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

http://www.cnet.com/news/bmw-d... Per BMW it eliminates the side view blindspots

Re: backup!

[TangoMargarine]

There's this thing called a rearview mirror so there was already a mirror that a camera replaced.

Yeah, that's my point--adding a safety feature where none existed before is obviously going to help. Replacing an existing safety feature with a more expensive, less reliable one is more dubiously beneficial.

it isn't the hindrance that side view mirrors are.

How are sideview mirrors a hindrance?

Re: backup!

[TangoMargarine]

Still waiting on any statistics that show it's actually safer.

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
- Rice Cook

Re:backup!

[myowntrueself]

The only person I knew with a car that old, took it out about twice a year, for parades. He rebuilt the engine every 5 years or so. When you count it, it wasn't too far off one engine rebuild every 10 miles. And I've heard people complain about changing spark plugs at 50,000 miles. My father was the same, remembering his first car he had for years, which was rebuilt many times.

For this old guy it was his regular car, he drove it every day. Not sure about engine rebuilds.

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

There was already a rearview mirror. Adding the rearview camera makes it safer because you get a better view than the EXISTING rearview mirror can give you. Are you saying that rearview cameras don't save lives? The side view is exactly the same thing. As for hindrance of side mirrors, that's wind resistance and it's not Insignificant.

Re: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

I've provided multiple links. If you want more go ahead and Google it yourself. Done here.

Re: backup!

[TangoMargarine]

Multiple links that answer questions I'm not asking. Good job, sparky.

Mirrors are un-breakable

[DrYak]

Yeah because regular non-electronic mirrors never ever get broken, at all!!!
They are all made of iPhone 8-grade gorilla glass, feature a mithril reflective coating and are encased in adamantium.

(ob staw comic ref)

I suffered more frequently from mirror broken by anonymous dip-shit while leaving my vehicle parked somewhere (when they aren't straigh breaking the whole car), than I've suffered electronics failure since I've started driving cars with cameras on them.

(And that's ignoring the fact that some cars feature a very nice rear camera view, while the back window is absolutely tiny and thus the rear view mirror is useless).

Retractable side mirrors are really a saver on recent cars.

Replacing them with cameras is:
- one protruding item less that will get destroyed.
- less obstacles that interrupt the aerodynamic shape of the car.

Re:Mirrors are un-breakable

[Mashiki]

Sounds to me like you live/work in a very shitty area. I can leave my car parked out in the street and unlocked and nothing happens.

Re: Mirrors are un-breakable

[Anonymous Coward]

Year, I once had a car like that too.

Re:Mirrors are un-breakable

[mccalli]

Or in a city. There's an awful lot of London that this would apply to, even the most expensive areas. Mirrors can get clipped in narrow streets, doesn't have to be intentional or vandalism.

Re:Mirrors are un-breakable

[drinkypoo]

Retractable side mirrors are really a saver on recent cars.

They're not even recent, they've been around since the eighties. Thing is, the place you saw them actually implemented was Japan, because they would cite you for not folding them in... in Tokyo or something. Almost nobody else cares, it's just one more thing to break.

I've been wondering this for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since the first introduction of the back up camera I've been wondering why car manufacturers weren't putting cameras on the backs and sides of cars an allowing the driver to see them displayed on a screen on the dash. Blindspots would have been removed instantly.

speaking of blind angles

[DrYak]

Except for the blind spots. {...} Sideview cameras will likely have similar advantages.

A driver will only occasionally turn their head to watch blind spots. They might forget.

Whereas systems like BLIS can be constantly watching the road and blink a light nearby the mirror alerting the driver of the presence of a vehicle in the blind spot.
Combine it with sideway pointing sonars and you're almost sure that no driver is every going to accidentally cut somebody up.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[PAjamian]

A driver will only occasionally turn their head to watch blind spots. They might forget.

That would be extremely bad driving habits. Keep in mind that in most places if you don't check your blindspots when changing lanes during the drivers test it is at least a significant point loss and likely an automatic fail.

Whereas systems like BLIS can be constantly watching the road and blink a light nearby the mirror alerting the driver of the presence of a vehicle in the blind spot.
Combine it with sideway pointing sonars and you're almost sure that no driver is every going to accidentally cut somebody up.

This would certainly be helpful, but it should not substitute for good driving habits. Unfortunately it probably will for a lot of people. That said, if such a system were to fail unexpectedly then I would think that the driver of the vehicle would become much more cautious and check (and likely double-check) their blind spots when having to drive when the system is not working so this is certainly not an argument against digital cameras.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[GNious]

A driver will only occasionally turn their head to watch blind spots. They might forget.

That would be extremely bad driving habits. Keep in mind that in most places if you don't check your blindspots when changing lanes during the drivers test it is at least a significant point loss and likely an automatic fail.

I took a refresher-course after moving to Belgium, since I hadn't actually been driving for some years, and I wanted to also learn about differences in laws - the instructors basically told me that they never bother telling students to check their blind spots, because "why bother"....

Since moving to Belgium, I've largely stopped riding my bike. Experiences like the one above, and people's driving-habits in general here, scare the shizzle out of me.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[kimvette]

If your mirrors are properly adjusted you do not have to turn your head to check, because the blind spots are covered by the mirrors when they are properly aimed.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[TangoMargarine]

That would be extremely bad driving habits

Welcome to life.

if you don't check your blindspots when changing lanes during the drivers test

I challenge you to find a single person on Earth who drives as carefully as they did during their driving test, a few years later.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[TangoMargarine]

As is prudent. PAjamian seemed to be saying that everybody drives like they did in their driver's test every day. Lots of people are totally ignorant of their blind spots. And e.g. if you drive a manual transmission car you actually *can't* keep two hands on the wheel all the time.

The best way to keep from getting in accidents, in my experience, is to assume that every other driver on the road is purposely trying to hit you. Depending on where you live it's probably not far from the truth :P

People can shout "Luddite!!" all they want, but it's like how they don't let you just use a calculator for everything in math class: You should know how to do it all yourself first (well, for restricted definitions of "all". nobody expects you to know circuit wiring to use a computer or how to build a combustion engine to drive a car).

The more you use technology that does it all for you, the more you become reliant on it. That uncontrolled acceleration thing a few years back--I bet most people who regularly drive manual's first thought when they heard about it was probably, "Why didn't they just pop it out of gear?" But automatics do all that for you so it doesn't cross your mind.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[demonlapin]

You really should link to instructions on how to do that, as most people don't know about this.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[MoaDweeb]

Come drive in New Zealand. We make Europeans look courteous, respectful and safe.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[NotAPK]

I love the habit in NZ of overtaking on a two-lane road by using the middle of the road and expecting on-coming cars to pull over out of the way. Scared the shit out of me the first time I saw it, but after a while I came to love it.

The batshit crazy NZ driving rule from about ten-fifteen years ago now, was that traffic turning across oncoming traffic (that would be a left turn in the US) had right of way!!!! It made some kind of sense as it allowed traffic queuing to turn to instead clear the road and not build up...but it was something I never got used to, and am glad they changed.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[NotAPK]

Which is a great reason why we should have mandatory re-testing. Start with every 20 years at least, and ideally every 10.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[PAjamian]

I love the habit in NZ of overtaking on a two-lane road by using the middle of the road and expecting on-coming cars to pull over out of the way.

What part of NZ do you live in? I've never seen that.

The batshit crazy NZ driving rule from about ten-fifteen years ago now, was that traffic turning across oncoming traffic (that would be a left turn in the US) had right of way!!!! It made some kind of sense as it allowed traffic queuing to turn to instead clear the road and not build up...but it was something I never got used to, and am glad they changed.

Not quite, it was that right turns had the right of way over left turns, but did not over traffic going straight (This would be the opposite in the states because we drive on the left side of the road here). it was a batshit rule for sure and I'm glad it changed a few years ago.

Re:speaking of blind angles

[NotAPK]

I did a two week driving holiday there in 2005, so a long while back now. I did the north island, everything from Rotorua up past Whangarei to North Cape. Every day I was driving I saw someone overtake down the middle of the road into oncoming traffic.

You're probably right about the turning rule, like I wrote, it's been a while since I was there.

Love NZ, it's a great place!

Seems like a good idea

[bobjr94]

Since drivers side mirrors (in the US) still have huge blindspots(so people buy a $3.99 stick on mirror to fix their $40,000 car) mounting a rearward facing camera near the front of the fender would eliminate that blind spot.

Re:Seems like a good idea

[h33t l4x0r]

Not to mention the "objects may appear closer" glitch.

Not in my experience

[DrYak]

but my backing camera gets crapped up a lot more easily than my mirrors do.

Of course. You backing camera is usually situated at the back of the car where it is exposed to lots of mud and dust projections.
Whereas your rear-view mirror is usually *INSIDE* the car.
Of course one is going to get dirty faster than the other.

Whereas for side mirror...

And any likely camera location on the vehicle is likely to get covered with snow more quickly and thoroughly than my side mirrors do.

...in my experience: No.

The side mirrors have a thin rim at the bottom (the must be orientable, so there's always a small rim), and snow DOES accumulate here
(though for the record, most north-european brand will heat the mirror in cold weather to avoid fog build-up, but this can also quickly melt any accumulated snow).

Where as the side cameras (used for automatic detection of vehicles in the blind spots) a pointing a little bit downward and thus don't offer a surface where snow can accumulate.
(In theory, a long period of freezing and melting could slowly bulid an ice stalactite obscuring the view of the camera. In practice they're heated to anyway, again to avoid fog build up, but that would detach any ice stalactite too).

Are mirrorless cars a good idea?

[penguinoid]

Something to reflect on.

Re:Power

[LiENUS]

How often do you change lanes with your ignition off?

Another solution looking for a problem

[kheldan]

Instead of just a small amount of money to replace a broken sideview mirror, now it'll cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars and for most people require a trip to a mechanic shop, if not the dealer service shop, to diagnose and repair -- and you'll still be required to turn your head to look when changing lanes anyway. Passive mirrors are just fine, thanks anyway, I'll skip your overpriced unnecessary 'solution' to a problem that doesn't exist.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[phorm]

I don't know why it should require that much. Backup cameras can be found for $100 or less, so I'd imagine that once these reach mainstream then replacement camera kits won't be exceptionally expensive (barring some nasty protocols/lock-in).

As for turning your head, newer model Hondas have a side-mirror camera which show you much more than the actual mirror - including the zone where you would normally need to blind-spot-check - and are activated by your turn signal. If anything, perhaps this will force people to use their signals more.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[AK Marc]

When's the last time you replaced a side mirror? It's over $1000 now (in some cases). Heated, motorized, color-matched plastic mirrors are not cheap. The $5 optics in a cell phone are a whole lot cheaper than a physical mirror.

When you add in the fuel cost for the heavy wind-breaks, the electronic mirrors are much cheaper than your expensive Luddite solution.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Lumpy]

Honda civic, $350 to replace the drivers side mirror.

I think you need to update your information on how much exterior car parts cost, It's already "hundreds of dollars" for a few pieces of plastic that makes the housing and the single glass mirror assembly.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Grishnakh]

Actually, I just looked up the cost of a replacement mirror for my 2015 Mazda, and it's only $117 from Tasca parts (OEM new), plus another $67 for the glass, plus another $18 for the color-matched cap. That's for the model with heated glass and the blind-spot indicator. (The glass for the non-heated, non-BSM economy model is much cheaper, only $22.)

Where'd you get a cost of $1000? Is that for a BMW or something?

For comparison, the rearview camera for this same car is $189.

Of course, that OEM camera is seriously overpriced: you can buy generic rearview cameras from China on Ebay for $20, but of course they don't interface to the car's existing system. But if you're cheap and don't mind your car looking rigged, you can buy a complete rearview camera system from China on Ebay for car less than the cost of a single mirror, and it comes with everything including camera and display.

In reality, the overpriced OEM camera is not likely to die any time soon, whereas side mirrors get banged and broken all the time. It's utterly amazing how many Luddites here on this stupid site think electronics are unreliable these days. Did these people suddenly warp in from the 1950s?

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[AK Marc]

Heated, motorized, color-matched plastic mirrors are not cheap.

Except that the mirror is the only point of failure in that system..

The only point of failure in a heated motorized remote-controllable mirror with collision sensors, lane occupied warnings, and turn signals is the glass?

Visit a dealership this decade and see what a side-mirror looks like. You are right, when talking about my '67 Bug's mirrors, which were solid glass bonded to solid metal, and mounted to a minimal joint on the car, with no other features. But that's not what mirrors are anymore.

And a mirror that sticks out, compared to a counter-sunk camera with a "lens" that looks like a side turn-signal indicator will be more mechanically protected than a side mirror.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[AK Marc]

Where'd you get a cost of $1000? Is that for a BMW or something?

That was the cost for the dealer-replacement for my mother's Mazda. It had the features you mention, and I don't recall the exact dollar figure, just that it was above $1000. Because it was an insurance-covered repair, it was done with official parts, not OEM.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Grishnakh]

OEM is "official": Original Equipment Manufacturer

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[AK Marc]

OEM (at least where I've heard it) is used to mean "OEM" as in park manufacturer (not maker of the car). That is, if Delphi makes the radio, and you buy a replacement from Delphi, it's OEM, but you didn't buy it from the car manufacturer, which would be GM. OEM is used to mean "unbranded, but same quality as original" as opposed to "cheap", or "genuine". OEM is cheaper than dealer, and the same "quality", but not the same warranty.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Grishnakh]

No, I've never seen that at all. When you're looking for a place that sells factory parts, what you google is "OEM [brand] parts".

And suppliers don't sell directly to the public anyway, unless it's something cheap and consumable like filters or spark plugs. Delphi does not sell radios to end-users.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[AK Marc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When referring to auto parts, OEM refers to the manufacturer of the original equipment, that is, the parts assembled and installed during the construction of a new vehicle. In contrast, aftermarket parts are those made by companies other than the OEM, that might be installed as replacements after the car comes out of the factory. For example, if Ford used Autolite spark plugs, Exide batteries, Bosch fuel injectors, and Ford's own engine blocks and heads when building a car, then car restorers and collectors consider those to be the OEM parts.

If you want the OEM spark plugs, you buy Autolite. You can buy them from Ford, but they are the same, at a higher cost.

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) is a company that makes a part or subsystem that is used in another company's end product.[1] For example, if Acme Manufacturing Co. makes power cords that are used on IBM computers, Acme is an OEM.

The point is, OEM means "not from the brand." OEM explicitly means "not Mazda" in this context. If it were a Mazda part, the correct wording would be "a Mazda part". An aftermarket part built to the original specifications (no better, no worse), is considered "OEM" where I'm from (Texas), and the maker of the part selling it is the actual OEM.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Grishnakh]

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Here's a site for example. You can select a year/model/trim, and look at all the parts for that car. Here's the front bumper parts, for example. I can get a front bumper cover for $226.01, or an impact bar for $167.51, or a bolt for that bar for $0.90. These are genuine Mazda parts, not from some supplier (and Mazda likely makes these parts itself anyway). The whole site is full of this stuff. There's countless sites all just like this, selling OEM parts for every brand, and every part you could want, including body panels that need to be welded on.

I'm sorry if the modern definition of "OEM" doesn't fit what you think it does, but that's how it is now. If you disagree, I invite you to email the owners of all these auto parts sites and argue with them about it.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[AK Marc]

I'm sorry if the modern definition of "OEM" doesn't fit what you think it does, but that's how it is now. If you disagree, I invite you to email the owners of all these auto parts sites and argue with them about it.

Then go edit Wikipedia. I quoted them, and you called me wrong. I'm not wrong. I'm just the messenger.

And your site doesn't sell "OEM parts. They sell "genuine Mazda parts" They say so themselves. They just name themselves OEM for the idiots that don't know the difference. you have been told. You refuse to listen. Ignorant is curable. Stupid isn't.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Grishnakh]

You're the stupid one here. Go look at Wiktionary:

"3. All makers prior to initial retail sale, in contrast to aftermarket." In automotive circles, OEM just means it's the part installed at the factory, not an aftermarket part.

But of course, you refuse to listen, even though you've been told, because you're a fucking moronic ass.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[AK Marc]

Do you not know how to use a dictionary? The "lower" definitions are the least popular/accurate. You should have read #1.:

" 1. A company that produces parts to be sold under another company's brand."

But of course, you refuse to listen, even though you've been told, because you're a fucking moronic ass.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[Grishnakh]

Fuck you, you moron. All the definitions are correct, depending on context. You're a sack of shit. Go die in a fire.

Re:Another solution looking for a problem

[AK Marc]

You were the one calling me wrong. You bought Mazda parts not from a dealer. I bought Mazda parts from a dealer. You objected to me saying that there's a difference between OEM and Genuine. You learned something. That made you angry.

I'm all for advancement, but

[Urinal Pube]

one of the downsides of rear screens is that your eye has to change its focal distance. With a mirror, your eye is focusing at a true distance of the objects behind you. With a screen, you have to adjust to the distance of the screen. It's minor, but it can fatigue your eyes, and you lose all depth perception. Hopefully the enhanced field of view will outweigh the shortcomings.

Re:I'm all for advancement, but

[mark-t]

I was going to say something similar. With a video display, all benefits of binocular vision are lost. You know how far done thing is in a mirror not just by the distance that your opiticsl lens is focussed at (which is actually very weak, by the way) but much more information about distance is relayed to your brain based on differences between what the left eye and right eye are seeing. That information is useful even at distances of up to almost a quarter kilometre (although most practical at distances of less than a hundred meters or so), but is lost entirely using a 2d display instead of a mirror.

Re:I'm all for advancement, but

[drinkypoo]

Just shifting my focus to deal with the stupid passenger-side mirror in which objects may be closer than they appear is offensive. I can't imagine how bad it would be to have one video mirror. But if they were all video mirrors, it might not be bad. At least then I could check all the mirrors without refocusing much.

Re:I'm all for advancement, but

[badzilla]

What if you wear fixed-focal eyeglasses for driving? These will allow you to see the road just fine whether directly or through a mirror. You cannot see a video screen however unless you remove the glasses (and in my case put on a different pair.) Varifocal or bi-focal would fix this but they are not cheap.

Re:I'm all for advancement, but

[jasnw]

Just about to post this myself. We have a vehicle with a camera that engages when a right-turn is signalled, showing the image from the right-side mirror viewpoint on the console. Looking at this forces a change in focus which is highly distracting and, I would think, potentially dangerous. I'm looking for ways to disable this "feature" so as to avoid the distraction. Add in the "if it's mechanical/electrical it will break at the most worstest time" factor and I vote against this bad idea.

Re:I'm all for advancement, but

[Reziac]

Except you'd have to refocus when your eyes shifted back to looking at the road. Normal mirrors, since you focus at the perceived distance, keep your focus "long".

Re:I'm all for advancement, but

[fisted]

But cameras mess with depth perception, mirrors do not. I'd like to have some cameras in my car, but not for parking.

Re: My next project

[Anonymous Coward]

*last project

Re:From the same brilliant regulatory minds that O

[RightwingNutjob]

You also have a hard time understanding the technique of mocking one stupid decision by putting it in the same bin with another stupid decision.

wider

[bugs2squash]

so does that mean that cars can now be made wider by the dimension of 2 mirrors ?

Re:wider

[drinkypoo]

so does that mean that cars can now be made wider by the dimension of 2 mirrors ?

Vehicles can be wider than they are, they just aren't for aerodynamics reasons. The most important number is frontal area.

MPG savings

[fulldecent]

What is the actual fuel economy savings on a normal car over the course of a year with this new technology?

Re:MPG savings

[jmv]

Back of the envelope estimation here... the mirrors are probably 1% of the drag cross section of the car and the drag is maybe ~50% of the total energy loss in the car. So my guess would be around 0.5% reduction in fuel consumption. Over its life, your car might burn about 20,000 liters of gas, so you'd save about 100 liters, or about $100 (depending on exact prices). Of course, I'm likely to be off by more than a factor of two (but probably less than a factor of 10).

Re:MPG savings

[slew]

Back of the envelope estimation here... the mirrors are probably 1% of the drag cross section of the car and the drag is maybe ~50% of the total energy loss in the car. So my guess would be around 0.5% reduction in fuel consumption. Over its life, your car might burn about 20,000 liters of gas, so you'd save about 100 liters, or about $100 (depending on exact prices). Of course, I'm likely to be off by more than a factor of two (but probably less than a factor of 10).

Actually side view mirrors account for about 2-7% of the drag cross section for typical passenger cars (cars vary a lot in drag cross section), but only about 9-19%of the energy produced by burning gasoline makes is used to overcome drag (about 65% is lost in the engine itself). However, the rest of the typical passenger car is becoming more aerodynamic all the time so that 7% number is going up all the time.

As an example, there is a big win is for semi-trucks where their large side view mirrors can account for up to 10% of the drag cross section (after the rest of the truck is already streamlined) and every 2% reduction in drag results in a 1% increase in fuel economy. This is because over 50mph, drag becomes the most significant factor affecting fuel economy and truck spend much more of their time at speed than a typical passenger car.

There is a case for cameras to eventually replace mirrors in passenger cars, though. The cameras will likely be there already (for Advanced Driver Assist Systems required by the emerging New Car Assessment Program standards) and bulking up the various pillars (already required by the NHTSA for improved rollover crush resistance) is easier/cheaper if they widen them (unfortunately widening pillars creates larger blind spots which need to be accommodated by automotive architects), so if they just don't need to install mirrors, it is one less thing to install in the car and one less constraint on the automotive architects.

Re:MPG savings

[drinkypoo]

bulking up the various pillars (already required by the NHTSA for improved rollover crush resistance) is easier/cheaper if they widen them

It's easier/cheaper than a double-walled pillar, but still inferior, and you'll see both approaches used — especially as more cast members work their way into cars as more Aluminum gets in there.

Re:MPG savings

[Lumpy]

Sadly most car makers dont bother with real aerodyanmics on the mirror.

2007 civic - standard zero engineering mirror.
2007 BMW X3 - has real aerodynamics built in with air channels and even vortex generators to disrupt the flow at the trailing edge.

Yes BMW did it to reduce noise, but noise reduction is an improvement in aerodynamics and reduces energy lost.

And the mirrors are not 50% of the energy lost it's the freaking front end of the car and the grilles on the front that cause most of the losses. It's why hypermilers plug up and smooth the nose of the car and add kammaback fairings way WAY before they chop the mirrors off the car.

Not always the best solution.

[MeNeXT]

I very rarely have to clean my rear view mirror but frequently have to clean my rear view camera which is just used for parking. If I had to depend on my rear view camera I would not feel that comfortable. You need a way to keep them clean while driving.

Re:Not always the best solution.

[thegarbz]

Yes this has everything to do with the technology. Electricity just statically charges the camera lens and dust just magically attracts to it.

Or maybe what you're complaining about is nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the implementation.

Side view mirrors suck

[sjbe]

A "small amount of money to replace a broken sideview mirror"? Where is your body shop because I've never seen one that I would consider cheap and I've had to replace several of them. Cheapest one was $550 and that was 25 years ago.

Not to mention that side mirrors look terrible, suck fuel, don't perform super well, and can't see in all sorts of conditions not to mention the blind spots. It's amazing how many people think we should stop technological progress because we have something they are already used to in spite of the fact that it's flaws are legion.

Re:Side view mirrors suck

[phorm]

$200 or less for a powered mirror (no heat) that I replaced on my old car. All said it took under an hour to do, required unscrewing four bolts, and disconnecting/reconnecting a single cable.

Still, there's no reason a camera module shouldn't be similarly serviceable so long as it's in a removable housing.

Re:Side view mirrors suck

[drinkypoo]

A "small amount of money to replace a broken sideview mirror"? Where is your body shop because I've never seen one that I would consider cheap and I've had to replace several of them. Cheapest one was $550 and that was 25 years ago.

I've replaced side mirrors, but I was able to source replacements in the proper color in both cases - one for a 240SX and one for an Impreza. In each case I was able to go pull a replacement for forty bucks. Today, you can get replacement mirrors for many cars on eBay for about the same. Which reminds me, if my A8 comes out of the transmission shop working properly I'm going to have to order a British or Chinese right-side mirror for it. I have been spoiled by the non-convex mirror on the right side of my W126 300SD, and I want the same thing for my A8... which also has one of those atrophied mini-mirrors on the passenger side. So not only do you have to squint, but you have to squint more. I like it much better when that mirror is not curved. Having it shrunk for fuel economy purposes is not a good tradeoff IMO.

Depth perception?

[jklein]

Are these rear view cameras going to be 3D? Has anyone even considered the disadvantage of losing any depth perception to the flat, 2 dimensional presentation of a video screen? I have trouble imagining the difficulty this would present in a backing situation. With a mirror, you can get a sense of depth and perspective to judge distances. A camera would just give a flat, detached representation of what was there. And perspective would be dependent on the focal length of the lens, among other things.

Re:Power

[Anonymous Coward]

How often do you open the door with your ignition off?

Terrible solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirrors are great because we have an intuitive understanding of how it works. Need to look a little left of what the mirror is showing? You naturally know the direction to shift your head to bring it into the field of view. Flat mirrors also allow you to judge distance and speed intuitively from the reflected size of the object and binocular depth perception. A standard camera has a fixed field of view and destroys binocular vision. Wide view fisheye lenses make it hard to judge distances on the screen and are more prone to flaring due to sunlight being in the frame. Head tracking is not robust or low latency enough to try to do a field of view compensation for the driver's head motion either.

At best, cameras can augment the field of view for sections that are invisible to the driver, like blind spots and backup cams. Replacing the wing mirrors with them are a terrible idea. I seriously doubt the aerodynamic efficiency is worth the cost of the additional hardware and the additional risks of collisions caused by removing mirrors.

Re: Mirrors

[lgw]

"I am who I am" - the ultimate authority

"I am that I am" is a better translation of the Tetragrammaton.

Unless you were going for a different authority with "I yam what I yam".

Horrible in daylight

[Hans Lehmann]

I have a late model car with one of those back-up cameras, which is displayed on an LCD display mounted in the dash. On a bright sunny day, when I'm backing into, say, a shaded parking spot, the cameras display in completely useless. The glare from the dashboard, hood, etc., completely drowns out the wimpy LCD display. In those cases, there's no way in hell I'm going to want a car without mirrors.

Re:Horrible in daylight

[crow]

I've never had trouble with glare making my backup camera unviewable in my Tesla. I've seen some horrible screens on rentals, though.

The problems I have had are too many fingerprints on the screen and water drops on the camera. A heating element around the lens could quickly eliminate water drops, but they haven't incorporated that yet.

Re:Horrible in daylight

[cyn1c77]

I have a late model car with one of those back-up cameras, which is displayed on an LCD display mounted in the dash. On a bright sunny day, when I'm backing into, say, a shaded parking spot, the cameras display in completely useless. The glare from the dashboard, hood, etc., completely drowns out the wimpy LCD display. In those cases, there's no way in hell I'm going to want a car without mirrors.

This is why we need to get rid of windows too. They can also be replaced with LCDs!

Re:Horrible in daylight

[Grishnakh]

I have a Mazda3, which has the infotainment screen (which is used for the backup display when reversing) stuck right on top of the dash, looking like a tablet PC was just glued there. It can't get any less recessed than this.

I have zero problems seeing it during the daytime. I don't know what all these complaints about glare are about. Are other cars using really crappy and dim LCDs or something?

Re:Horrible in daylight

[BradleyUffner]

Mirrors also reflect the sun when it is low on the horizon and can potentially cause serious vision problems if / when it hits your eyes. LCD screens won't have that problem. Let's call it a draw between glare and reflections.

DRMed dealer only part

[Joe_Dragon]

DRMed dealer only part is what things like this may end up being.

Re:DRMed dealer only part

[phorm]

Yeah, that's the main concern. Hopefully the fact that it's a lot cheaper to product a standard signal/part will deter this (but seeing how car stereo's have gone, I won't hold my breath).

Re:DRMed dealer only part

[poetmatt]

Actually if we're talking a camera, why couldn't people replace it with their own?

Probably not all that complicated.

Re:What about snow?

[AK Marc]

The reversing cameras are easy enough to clean off. They are usually in a place that doesn't get full exposure to the elements, but it gets dirty and can get covered, but is obvious, and easier to clean than a side-mirror.

Re:Good for Aerodynamics, Bad for Human Driven Car

[AK Marc]

Bad for the driver though. Tech breaks all too often.

Electronic cameras will be more reliable than the mirrors. I see lots of broken mirrors on cars. And I don't know of anyone who has complained about a failed camera yet, and reversing cameras are quite popular now.

Re:Power

[AK Marc]

Have you not seen California drivers?

Cars are too expensive for many already.

[rnturn]

A recent story in the HuffPo listed cities where the average household income is way, way below what it takes to buy an average car that's now costing $33K-$34K. Yeah, by all means, let's make cars even more expensive to buy and repair.

Re:Power

[drinkypoo]

How often do you change lanes with your ignition off?

Every time my ignition cuts out while I'm not in an outer lane. Granted, I haven't had a loss of power on the highway in ages (knockonwood) but I have had it happen.

Not good for all driving conditions.

[Lumpy]

Mirrors have far FAR more contrast range than any camera and LCD made.
Mirrors go down to 0.000000000000000001lux for low light visibility.
Mirrors work when submerged
Mirrors have over 8K resolution
Mirrors work in a lot of conditions where even a $1500 video camera fails to get a useable image.

So unless our cars are coming with $4500 4K cameras with FLIR overlay ...

Now I do like the advantage of using some processing, cameras using the computer to do car and motorcycle recognition and alerts, cameras using IR at night to see further than we can, cameras blocking the headlights of the BRAH truck that is raised up 3 feet and has the BRUH blue headlights added that are aimed way too high.

Re:Not good for all driving conditions.

[drinkypoo]

Mirrors work when submerged

Okay there Mr. Bond, or should I say Mr. Pond? A car that's been submerged even once should be dragged out and thrown away.

You're right about the rest of this stuff, but they have got these things working in pretty much all light conditions now.

Re:Not good for all driving conditions.

[kimvette]

And yet your eyes will start failing to see even large objects in the mirror below 4-5lux, while a good CCD will be sensitive to .00003lux, and a good CMOS down to .0003lux (or lower if you're willing to deal with serious lag and blur). Resolution: Your eyes do not have >8K resolution outside of the fovea. Water resistance: the rearview cams would be IP68 rated, which is actually overkill because people generally do not drive while your vehicle is submerged.

Add in the fact that about 80% of American drivers are fucktards who aim both side mirrors to look behind the vehicle rather than aim them properly (which would eliminate blind spots), then you should let the facts sway you toward not having that idiotic opinion of mirrors vs. cameras.

Re:Not good for all driving conditions.

[kimvette]

Oh and to add to the human eye sensitivity thing - you won't be able to see anything at all in your mirrors at 5lux because your eyes will not have adjusted for night vision thanks to the dashboard lighting. I neglected to take that into account when making the above post.

So, FLIR is unnecessary. A halfway decent bullet camera will have a CCD or CMOS sensor that is far more light-sensitive than the human eye. Hell, even a cheap chinese CCTV camera will be more sensitive than your eye. A better choice would be a sensitive WDR/HDR CMOS with per-pixel DSP. Those generally wholesale for $600 on up, but economy of scale will drive the price way, way down when the cost of 3-4 cameras per vehicle are spread across several hundred vehicles per year. Want to add IR emitters? No problem - high-output IR LEDs wholesale for a few cents each at volume.

Re:Not good for all driving conditions.

[drinkypoo]

Oh and to add to the human eye sensitivity thing - you won't be able to see anything at all in your mirrors at 5lux because your eyes will not have adjusted for night vision thanks to the dashboard lighting.

My dashboard lighting has a dimmer, you insensitive clod! And, I imagine, so does yours. Saab made one or more vehicles with a "night mode" switch which dimmed all the interior lights at one touch, which was one of those flourishes which was supposed to convince you that the vehicle somehow had an aeronautic background, which of course it didn't. I typically dim my gauge cluster on the rare occasion that I'm on a dark road at night without any other drivers around. It's also universally red lighting, which interferes with night vision the least, unless a warning lamp is lit. Some of those come in other colors.

Re:Not good for all driving conditions.

[kimvette]

I have a Saab 9-3 and use the night mode regularly. However it still will prevent your eyes to fully adjusting for night vision. When driving at night you're looking at 1,800 to 6,000 lumens being sprayed out in front of your car, and even with "night mode" enabled on the Saab, you're still looking at, at minimum, 2/3 of an illuminated speedo cluster and your infotainment and HVAC buttons (although those can also be turned off if you turn your headlight switch off - pretty much the headlight switch's only function in US models that haven't been reprogrammed for ROW functionality).

You still will not have night vision unless you are driving with NO gauge illumination AND your headlamps are turned off.

Re:Not good for all driving conditions.

[Anubis IV]

While all of those may be true, in practice few if any of them matter, for two simple reasons:
- Humans are the bottleneck
- Mirrors can only reflect what's around them...both for better or worse

A pitch black reflection of pitch black surroundings isn't useful, regardless of how clear it is, but a night vision display is able to enhance our ability to perceive the world around us, making it immensely more useful. Likewise, in low contrast conditions mirrors have failed me on numerous occasions (e.g. seeing gray cars on the highway during a torrential downpour), whereas displays can be made to enhance the contrast of the surroundings or overlay a highlight on nearby objects.

Again and again as we go through the details you listed out, the limiting factor is the fact that humans are still involved. Our eyes aren't great and we're woefully error prone. I mean, the majority of people adjust their mirrors incorrectly, providing them with suboptimal views, but even among those who do it right, a casual bump by a passerby in a parking lot, a pothole in the road, or a second driver who uses the car can put their mirror into a failure mode requiring a reset by the user. Moreover, mirrors require looking entirely away from the road ahead, can't adapt easily to show you the best angles in different situations, and can only reflect what's visible around you, which sometimes isn't enough.

Which isn't to say that cameras and screens are the best choice in all situations. If you frequently submerge your vehicle, a mirror may very well be a better choice, in much the same way that you'd also want a snorkel for your air intake. But those sorts of conditions are atypical, so they don't serve as a solid basis for arguing that either snorkels or mirrors should be a standard feature on cars.

At the end of the day, for typical conditions (whether good and bad), we are more of a limiting factor than anything else we're talking about. In good conditions you don't stand to gain from any of the benefits you've enumerated, and in bad conditions you suffer from the fact that mirrors do nothing to enhance our abilities. They merely reflect the world around us, whereas a display can show you things you can't see.

Re:Not good for all driving conditions.

[Reziac]

That's a good point, how are these cameras going to deal with nighttime headlight glare?? I can change my head's angle vs my side mirrors to mitigate this. What does a camera do?

Re:Not good for all driving conditions.

[tingentleman]

A major benefit is that Mirrors are 3D - and a type of 3D which updates in real time without head gear

The future is coming

[Bristol_92]

The idea of using cameras as mirrors isn’t new. I heard about such modernizations in Lamborghini. But create a vehicle using any mirror look interesting. I entirely approbate any technological idea. But I have no doubt that maintenance costs would be higher, as electronic components fail over time. Maybe with time such cars will be available for ordinary people.

Best reason

[kimvette]

Best reason for ditching mirrors: it seems like 80% of drivers aim both side windows to look behind the car instead of aiming them at the blind spots.
Mirrors are super-easy to aim correctly, and the same method works for about 90% of automobiles and light trucks, and yet it seems that the vast majority of people aim the side mirrors to look behind the car. Why do they do this? There is this newfangled device INSIDE the car called a "rearview" mirror which shows you what is straight behind you. Why the FUCK do you imbeciles aim the two side mirrors to look at the same stuff your rearview mirror shows you?

Recorded Evidence

[gachunt]

Finally I'll have a recording of the police breaking my tail light.

Late to the party

[stabiesoft]

Cadillac is shipping this on their CT6 and I think a couple of other models. They managed to avoid regulatory delay by making the "rear view mirror" be both a mirror and a display. So you can make it just a plain rear view mirror, or throw a switch and the mirror becomes a high definition display. The only negative I have heard so far is with a mirror your eye focuses far, whereas with the camera image, it is focused close. I am wondering if the display could somehow have a far focus as well. I know the HUD systems for windshields use a far focus so the eye does not have to adjust focus when looking at the HUD display.

Re:Power

[Grishnakh]

You don't need power to steer or brake if the motor conks out in a modern car: at any speed, steering assist is minimal and any normal person should have enough strength to steer to the side of the road. And power brakes are vacuum-operated, so even if the engine dies, you still have one or two full brake applications available. Basically, it should be perfectly feasible for you to safely pull over to the side of the road and stop if your engine dies on any modern passenger vehicle while driving at speed, but that's about it. You can forget about any fancy maneuvers. But it's been like this for a very long time, and it's probably better than, say, the 70s when cars were huge and had clunky recirculating-ball steering systems.

What's a bit worrisome is they go to complete drive-by-wire systems with the steering and brakes completely decoupled mechanically from the driver controls.

Re:Power

[LiENUS]

I've never opened my door and use my side mirror to do so. I turn my head and look. Since my ignition is off that means I'm not driving my car. Since I'm not driving my car that means I can turn my head fully.

Re:Power

[LiENUS]

These vehicles generally have electronic power steering. If you think you're screwed when your mirror goes out wait till you see what it's like to suddenly have the full force of the steering wheel unexpectedly

Solution in search of a problem

[Rujiel]

"Rearview cameras are way better than rearview mirrors at avoiding accidents"

That's news to me--i have a backup camera in my car and have used it once in five years (when a dog was running around behind me). Oh no, blind spots? I'll quote you: "You have a fallback of looking over your shoulder", which the driver should be doung anyway. Having side-mirror cameras is simply needless.

Re:Good for Aerodynamics, Bad for Human Driven Car

[BradleyUffner]

So the worst case will be no worse off than we are now?

First It Was No Window Handles

[mschwanke97402]

Power windows, you don't need a manual handle. Now cameras and screens so you don't need actual mirrors. Hey soon enough full, real autonomous driving, you don't need this steering wheel.

I suppose it is just as well, none of us will apparently be going anywhere anyway with everything we need delivered by Amazon and the rest of life lived via VR

Re:Good for Aerodynamics, Bad for Human Driven Car

[danomac]

If you adjust your mirrors properly there won't be a blind spot. I did this years ago and haven't looked back.

Tip: If you can see your car in the side mirror it's not set right. That mirror is for seeing what's beside you, not what's behind you. That's what the rear view mirror is for. Of course this doesn't work with work vans.

If there's a car in my "blind" spot it's usually in both my side and rear view mirror. If the car is too far forward to be in the side mirror, it's right beside me!

Wow, all these great advantages

[recharged95]

cost, aerodynamics, assembly....

that don't address the main feature of a mirror--safety.

Mirrors works when off

[Toshito]

My car's mirrors still works when my car is not running.

So I know what's going on behind me even when I'm parked (like if I'm waiting for someone at the mall).

And depth perception works with mirrors, not with screens...

Re:Good for Aerodynamics, Bad for Human Driven Car

[AK Marc]

My observations are across my life, having lived in 5 states, 3 countries, and visited about 50 countries and every US state except Maine, VT, NH, RI, and CT. The rate per location didn't seem to vary greatly, other than higher in rural areas.

Re:Power

[Grishnakh]

It doesn't look like it. From Edmunds' review:

"All trims except the SRT gets standard electric-assist power steering (with adjustable effort)". Key word here is "electric-assist". It's surely just like all the other electric-assist systems in cars these days: there's a standard rack-and-pinion system with an electric motor bolted onto the steering shaft. There's a torque sensor which senses your input and then the system provides assist with the motor. There's a software-driven control module which is not trivial to implement, and probably runs some complex control algorithm. There've been complaints about some of these systems. The one in my 2015 Mazda however is excellent. As with anything, I'm sure it's quite possible to do it well or to do it lousily. I'm not too surprised that Chrysler would do a poor job with something like this.

rear view cameras

[brunnegd]

I have a car with a back up camera. It is next to useless, especially at night.

Re:What about snow?

[hucker75]

Yes when you see snow on the screen. What's your point?

Re:My next project

[hucker75]

That's already the case as so many drivers don't look in their mirrors.

Re:So no trailer are allowed!

[hucker75]

You put the camera on an extension on the back of the trailer, just like you do with the lights.

Why the fuss?

[hucker75]

Why weren't cameras already automatically legal? They provide precisely the same function as a mirror. We don't need more legislation to say "yes you can do the same thing slightly differently". Lawyers making work for themselves as per usual.

Fail-safe

[DrYak]

Hopefully the things are designed to 'fail safe': that is, the system always says "danger" unless there's an all-clear signal. No signal, not safe.

Yup. The thing is exactly designed this way.
If the camera gets blind (e.g.: because the sun is directly shining into it and it can't see much, or if the camera len is dirty) the warning start to blink fast constantly
(until, e.g.: you clean up the dirty len).

This way if the sensor goes away you're forced to always check.

You *ARE* always forced to check by driving laws.
The system here is present as a security in case the driver forgets (no human is 100% infallible)

Different purpose

[DrYak]

Each solution has a different purpose.

The small mirror relies on being perfectly aligned so no blind spot is left between normal field of view, main mirror's image and mini-mirror's image.
It could fail. But it could be also a reminder to the driver to turn their head if the image isn't clear.

Turning the head works perfectly, as long as the driver remember to do it.

BLIS is an extra safety net in case the driver forgot to turn the head (it's mandatory in law, but no human is infallible), by blinking a "you're missing something!" warning.

Nope.

[DrYak]

because the blind spots are covered by the mirrors when they are properly aimed.

WRONG!!!

The better you aim your mirror the more you *reduce* the blind spot.
But there's no guarantee that you'll eliminate them. There might still be missing spots.

That why turning the head is still mandatory in driving codes across most jurisdiction.

That's why thing like BLIS camera, sideway pointing sonars, etc. are nice safety nets in case the human driver missed something or forgot to turn the head altogether.

Re:Power

[toddestan]

I drive a Chevy Cobalt you insensitive clod!