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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

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

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: backup!

[pixelpusher220]

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

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.

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: My next project

[Anonymous Coward]

*last project

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

[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: 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.

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.

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:$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.

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.

[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.