Slashdot Mirror


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

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

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

115 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. same old problem by cellocgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:same old problem by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Not if you have eye-tracking. You can track the users eyes/head and adjust the image. Like this was done with off the shelf gaming hardware a decade ago.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:same old problem by PPH · · Score: 1

      The vehicle driver is focused at Infinity when looking forwards.

      It was a Lexus.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:same old problem by spire3661 · · Score: 1
      --
      Good-bye
  2. What problem is being solved...? by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:What problem is being solved...? by TWX · · Score: 2

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

      The only thing I would see being potentially useful would be figuring out how to aim the mirrors for a given driver without that driver having to do much beyond taking a seat. That would probably be a matter of figuring out where the driver's face is in three dimensions, and then adjusting the mirrors as appropriate. Only issue here is that most people seem to want to see the door handles in the side mirrors, while aiming wider than that is better practice for reducing blind-spots. Such a system might need to be tweakable so that the driver gets the mirrors as wide or narrow as wanted. Since some vehicles have memory to set the power mirrors while they set the power seat to the driver template preference this might not be that difficult to achieve.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:What problem is being solved...? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

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

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

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

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    3. Re:What problem is being solved...? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

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

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

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:What problem is being solved...? by skids · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:What problem is being solved...? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    6. Re:What problem is being solved...? by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    7. Re:What problem is being solved...? by chispito · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    8. Re:What problem is being solved...? by chispito · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    9. Re:What problem is being solved...? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'd be most concerned about salt on the cameras.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:What problem is being solved...? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Eat the rich.
    11. Re:What problem is being solved...? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

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

    12. Re:What problem is being solved...? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

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

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    13. Re:What problem is being solved...? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      6. A mirror is another surface that increases the profile of the car. If you just barely hit a car or a person on one side of the car, you'll hit them with the mirror.
      7. Mirrors fog up, frost over, and get covered by snow. A camera lens can also be blocked, but camera lenses are smaller and the camera already has power available to defrost the lens.
      8. Cameras can be used to record video.
      9. Rear view mirror vision can be blocked by passengers or cargo.
      10. Rear windows are partially designed for driver vision through the rear view mirror. Using a camera eliminates this requirement for rear window design.
      11. Mirrors need to be adjusted for taller or shorter drivers. Displays work at more angles.

    14. Re:What problem is being solved...? by TWX · · Score: 2

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

      Not quite.

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

      That $100 side mirror assembly is probably a quarter that cost when factored over millions and millions of units across multiple vehicles from a given manufacturer for many model years of production. When an automaker is talking, those kinds of numbers are the ones to consider, not the replacement-cost numbers.

      2. Mirrors have blind spots. Cameras don't.

      If that's so then why does every backup-camera system and every owner's manual insist that the driver look around and not trust the camera's view?

      Besides, I've had daily drivers as old as model-year 1978 and as new as model-year 2015. In every case the older vehicles were easier to see out of even with little mirrors that were mounted further back on the doors compared to modern vehicles with forward-mounted mirrors right at the A-pillars plus massive A-pillars to boot.

      3. Side mirrors create drag, increasing fuel consumption.

      How much drag? Is the drag caused by the inclusion of side mirrors greater than the drag caused by the basic automotive body styling? 'cause when I look at that Chevy Silverado, of course it's not the brick-shape but the little side mirrors that are really slowing the vehicle down.

      4. Side mirrors limit car-to-car parking distance for self-parking cars.

      That aforementioned car from 1978 had bodywork that was wider than the side mirrors stuck out. The widest part of the body was wider than the side mirrors.

      Besides, how close do you want to trust these cars parking together? What happens if there's a flat tire and the vehicle leans over a little bit? Are you going to advocate for adding vehicle suspension stabilization too?

      5. Rear view cameras and displays are already mandatory on all new cars, so the mirrors are redundant.

      Rear view cameras are only necessary because trunk lids are half-again taller than they used to be on coupes and sedans, and the rear lower-window height is taller than it used to be on minivans and other wagon-bodied vehicles like SUVs, and because trucks all ride at 4x4 height even when they're only two wheel drive. Modern automotive design sucks when it comes to driver view. A-pillars and B-pillars are huge and create significant blind spots. Mirrors are poorly designed such that looking at the side mirror results in seeing the frame of that mirror in the reflection, losing on viewing angle. Windows are small and high so that drivers get poor lower visibility to the ground in front of them.

      When vehicles are designed with giving the driver as much view as possible then active camera systems are unnecessary, but automotive designers have gotten lazy and are giving us crap when it comes to the actual driving experience itself.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    15. Re:What problem is being solved...? by m00sh · · Score: 1

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

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

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

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

    16. Re:What problem is being solved...? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

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

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

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

      --
      Eat the rich.
    17. Re:What problem is being solved...? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

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

    18. Re:What problem is being solved...? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

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

    19. Re:What problem is being solved...? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

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

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

    20. Re:What problem is being solved...? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The aero dynamic drag is mostly caused by the size of the front cross section of the car.
      That includes the side mirrors obviously.
      Assuming that the side mirrors cover that cross section by 7% is absurd for most cars.
      Perhaps you think about big trucks or busses that have gigantic mirrors?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:What problem is being solved...? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      And how much drag is caused by the rear-view mirror, which is inside the car, and is the one that gets the most use?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    22. Re:What problem is being solved...? by paiute · · Score: 1

      Is this some new self-parking car where everyone's supposed to get out of the car and, presumably, then standing around to watch in awe while the car parks itself after pushing a "Park" button on the key fob?

      I think that's exactly how it is supposed to work, actually.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    23. Re:What problem is being solved...? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You should maybe pay more attention while walking through carparks.

    24. Re:What problem is being solved...? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      That's because it isn't. It's a solution looking for a problem. I'll take plain old mirrors, thanks anyway.

    25. Re:What problem is being solved...? by beckett · · Score: 1

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

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

      Equally important to consider is the redundancies each system furnishes; with most cars i can shoulder check and look around my glass-enclosed cabinif my mirrors are fogged or blocked by snow. otoh, if they start designing the cabin, side and rear visibility around a camera, i no longer have this backup visual system to rely on as the all-seeing camera (when it's working at least) doesn't care about 10% tint, huge B and C pillars, and tiny portholes for windows.

    26. Re:What problem is being solved...? by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

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

      The (demo) car was smart enough to:
      automatically open the door as I approached (from a particular angle), with path lighting;
      automatically adjust the seat and rear-view mirror so that I could see all the HUD's, the rear view, and the other instruments - it may also have adjusted the steering wheel and pedals, I don't remember for sure;
      determine whether I was ready to assume manual control, using three factors (facing forward, eyes open, and hands on wheel);
      show an AR overlay of the "street" (like the old "Night Driver" game), including the edge of the road and lane markers;
      show an AR overlay on the side-mirror displays, highlighting oncoming vehicles; and
      show a very usable map in the instrument cluster, kind of "under" the instruments and with excellent perspective.

      I'm sure there's more that it did. As I said, I was very impressed. I don't generally care about "advancements" like having an app to control your car from your smartphone. This stuff actually looked like it will be very useful.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    27. Re:What problem is being solved...? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Everything depends on where the screen is, the view you see. I have a reversing camera, when I reverse when the sun is setting I can not see a fucking thing on the screen, because glare. I use the mirror. The more stuff you have, the more that will break and the more you need to service. If my reversing camera dies at the moment, meh, some convenience lost. If rear view equipment dies, well guess what, that's a tow away because you can still drive with a side mirror gone using the main mirror (legally it would have to be a tow away because you can not drive safely with zero rear view). Same with a self driving vehicle with no manual option, once any part of the detection and control system fails, it should stop and automatically request a tow from the manufacturer (forwarding you credit card details at the same time, with stop payment on it for say something like $1,000), where ever it is, not even sure if it should try to pull over or just brake in a straight line, interesting problem. KISS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Of course if it is not about getting people from point A to B but about getting money from your bank account to the corporate bank account, then sure, make it all as complicated as possible and require locked in maintenance with set massive fees and a really short design life, hell program the car to self destruct at the end of warranty, or upload the Apple style slow down program, perhaps a run really rough program etc. etc.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:What problem is being solved...? by Kohath · · Score: 1

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

    29. Re:What problem is being solved...? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The mirrors are hooded to protect them from the elements, with the result that you are able to get useful information from them in more weather conditions.

      Windows are small and high so that drivers get poor lower visibility to the ground in front of them.

      You said that already. Again, that was for side impact safety.

      When vehicles are designed with giving the driver as much view as possible then active camera systems are unnecessary, but automotive designers have gotten lazy and are giving us crap when it comes to the actual driving experience itself.

      Automotive designers are doing their best to provide the best view possible, as ever. However, they have to work within economic and legal realities which have compromised the driving experience. However, they have greatly improved the crashing experience. If you don't care about the latter, and want to prioritize the former, it's perfectly legal to swap a modern powertrain into an older vehicle and have the "best" of all possible worlds.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:What problem is being solved...? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:What problem is being solved...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The real problem is the rear camera display is on the dash, when it should be just below the rear window. That way you can use the windows and the backup camera.

    32. Re:What problem is being solved...? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Is this some new self-parking car where everyone's supposed to get out of the car and, presumably, then standing around to watch in awe while the car parks itself after pushing a "Park" button on the key fob?

      Yes. Driverless self-parking already exists in some cars. It works exactly as you describe, except you can use a smartphone or smartwatch rather than a key fob. Self-park will be standard in a few years.

      The rear cameras are still optional features on a lot of new cars.

      Not in America. They have been mandatory in all new cars manufactured and sold in America since January 1st, 2018. If cameraless cars were manufactured before Jan 1st, dealers have up to May 1st to clear their inventory. After that, you will no longer be able to legally buy a new car without a backup camera.

      The cost benefit of the backup cameras, in reduced injuries, fender-bender repairs, and less congestion in parking lots, far outweighs the cost of the cameras and displays (~ $200 / car), so this is a sensible requirement.

    33. Re:What problem is being solved...? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

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

    34. Re:What problem is being solved...? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

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

    35. Re:What problem is being solved...? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately wrong.

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

      No idea why you believe otherwise.

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

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    36. Re:What problem is being solved...? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Notice how many people drive around indefinitely with burned out turn signal fuses because they can't be bothered to understand and/or change. When you see a one blinking really fast, that's a dead giveaway. I fear that we'll see a nontrivial number of drivers without awareness of what's behind them from simple fuse failures.

  3. BMW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think most BMW drivers think they've had this for years.

    1. Re:BMW by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      But if most BMW drivers get side swiped from their own fault, they will have enough insurance to cover the bills.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. Power loss? by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

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

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

    1. Re:Power loss? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      Thats ok, because by then the steering and brakes will be drive-by-wire as well. The fail safe will be for the brakes to auto-apply without power, but I guess you are sort of stuck with the steering wherever it is when the power fails. yep, this is all for the better good.

    2. Re:Power loss? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Without Power, your car will be rather dead in the water. The mirror will only serve you in knowing that you are inf act about to die, vs. hoping people will see your car had unexpectedly stopped in the highway.

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

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Power loss? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

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

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

    4. Re:Power loss? by chispito · · Score: 1

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

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

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

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    5. Re:Power loss? by bws111 · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:Power loss? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      I'm sure heavy braking unexpectedly on the freeway is not only safer than costing like a traditional car, but when the resulting wreck results in a lawsuit, blame will be fully on the driver instead of the automaker. Cars have only commonly had a connection to wireless data for around 8-10 years, even now there are still some dumb cars. Give it another 10 years and I'll be more confident some disgruntled teenager from istonia won't kill a thousand people by hacking thier cars. There already have been recalls for this kind of thing and auto companies keep not understanding system security.

  5. That makes zero sense by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The vehicle driver is focussed at infinity when looking forwards.

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

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

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

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That makes zero sense by skids · · Score: 2

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

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

    2. Re:That makes zero sense by beelsebob · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're doin it rong then.

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

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

    3. Re:That makes zero sense by jklein · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anything beyond about 20 feet is essentially at infinity focus. What is lacking in cameras is depth perception. Try driving, or backing up, with one eye covered (caution). It's surprisingly difficult to do confidently. Until they figure out how to do 3D cameras and displays in cars, they won't replace mirrors in functionality.

    4. Re:That makes zero sense by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      The vehicle driver is focussed at infinity when looking forwards.

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

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

    5. Re:That makes zero sense by bws111 · · Score: 2

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

    6. Re:That makes zero sense by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 1

      >I'm not looking at some mountains 10 miles awaylooking at traffic

      >around me, and at upcoming signals which I assure you are not at infinity...

      Eyes consider 20 feet to be infinity

    7. Re:That makes zero sense by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

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

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

    8. Re:That makes zero sense by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

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

    9. Re:That makes zero sense by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      You are both correct.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    10. Re:That makes zero sense by jtara · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    11. Re:That makes zero sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

    12. Re:That makes zero sense by cpotoso · · Score: 1
      Oh, gee... not looking at mountains 10 miles away? You know that 1m is as close to infinity as 10 miles?

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

      Do you understand now?

    13. Re:That makes zero sense by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:That makes zero sense by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You are both correct.

      I spend more time looking at the drivers in the cars around me than I do looking at what's far away. I can tell at a glance if things are changing on the freeway ahead. Sometimes it takes a little longer to figure out if a driver is bopping his head to the music, nodding to his passenger, or looking in his mirror to see if he can merge.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:That makes zero sense by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      not always. When in traffic you should be monitoring the cars in front of you (preferably 2 -3 cars in front) so you can anticipate braking etc

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    16. Re:That makes zero sense by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      or looking at his phone or writing a text on one....

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re: That makes zero sense by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I am in my mid 70s . On an open road I have the cruise set to 65mph and I tend to stay in the right lane, except when approaching a ramp entrance when I swing to center.

          I drive defensively, and considerately. What we need to eliminate mirrors is anticipation logic coupled with road condition logic. Iced roads and potential to skid detection system is a prerequisite.

      I'll stick to using a physical mirror system that I use and which will not break down.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  6. Can I have my GitS cars already? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

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

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

  7. Re: forget mirrors... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Move to the quite country.

    I am only saying this, because there are too many City Dwellers when listening to the issues that a Country Folk have being remote, their goto response is move to the city, Like it is the only choice, anything counter to that is just being a bad person.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. Re: forget mirrors... by Calydor · · Score: 1

    Five years later:

    "My precious snowflake was run over by a truck in reverse! Those big monstrosities are way too big to be so silent when backing up! DO SOMETHING!"

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  9. Behind you or in front of you? by mykepredko · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    If the technology described here could avoid these types of hazards in front of the vehicle (including kids running out into the road), I can see it's value.

    For things behind the car, where a simple mirror works very well, not so much.

  10. How does it get harder to move to the shoulder? by mykepredko · · Score: 1

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

    I'm not sure how familiar you are with the technology used in contemporary cars; power steering uses hydraulics and power brakes uses vacuum. Without electrical power, your ignition's dead so you're coming to a stop no matter what. Over the years, I've driven several cars with dead batteries and dead alternators to get them to a mechanic and avoid the towing chargers.

    In the future, there may be more electrical/electronic actuators but for basic steering and braking power assist, hydraulics and vacuum will probably be around for decades to come - the technology is known, cheap and reliable.

    1. Re:How does it get harder to move to the shoulder? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:How does it get harder to move to the shoulder? by bws111 · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:How does it get harder to move to the shoulder? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Wrong, look under the hood. There is no electric power steering pump. I agree it is not drive by wire, but the assist is purely electric motor. And no it is certainly not the same exact feel.

  11. I don't know if removing mirrors is worth it by mykepredko · · Score: 2

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

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

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

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

    Even using the 7% figure in the parent post, the calculation becomes (50,000miles / (25miles/gal & 1.07)) * 2.50 = $4,672.90

    While I do understand that any single digit percentage improvement in fuel economy is a big thing for car manufacturers, I'm not sure if the technology can be made cheap enough (even with removing the costs of the mirrors) to be viable and result in an overall reduction in costs for the owner.

    Adding technology costs to the basic cost of a vehicle (even though it saves on fuel and other costs) generally does not get car owners excited about the technology.

    1. Re:I don't know if removing mirrors is worth it by Njovich · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    2. Re:I don't know if removing mirrors is worth it by beelsebob · · Score: 1

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

      That's why Teslas are the shape they are - because they're shaped for optimal aerodynamic drag. That's also why Tesla tried to ditch wing mirrors (but hit regulatory hurdles in doing so).

      This is also why pretty much all super cars have a similar top speed around 220mph - they're limited pretty much entirely by the enormous wall of quadratic power increases needed to go faster. 70 horse power vehicles can get up to top speeds around 80mph, with pretty crapily shaped bodies. 150-200hp vehicles tend to get up to around 100-120mph. 400hp ones tend to get to around 150mph. 600hp ones with very low drag bodies tend to get to just beyond 200mph. To get up to 280 mph the Koeningsegg Regeira needs nearly 1200hp. To get to 1000mph, bloodhound will need 135,000hp.

      Long story short - no, aerodynamic drag is *not* insignificant. At highway speeds it's the dominant force acting against the engine.

    3. Re:I don't know if removing mirrors is worth it by hankwang · · Score: 1

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

      I find the numbers dubious; I don't think a car (gasoline) engine has as much as 38% thermodynamic efficiency. Also: at motorway speed (120 km/h) and a typical drag area of 0.7 m2, the air resistance is responsible for 15 kW of mechanical power, which is about 25% of the energy of combustion of a car with 7.5 l/100 km fuel economy, or pretty close to 100% of the mechanical output of the engine.

    4. Re:I don't know if removing mirrors is worth it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

      Let's assume that it's 3%,

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

      These days, automakers are commonly molding vortex generators into the headlights to break up the air flowing over the rear view mirrors. This reduces their drag substantially. But automakers would still like to remove the mirrors because they are heavy and expensive. A camera can actually be cheaper! Remember, the mirror has moving parts, and it has a legally mandated pedestrian safety requirement that has to be tested.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:I don't know if removing mirrors is worth it by Njovich · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:I don't know if removing mirrors is worth it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You are attempting to say that a camera does not need to be adjusted,

      True

      nor does the display screen

      Only as part of the production process

      and that they do not need to be tested.

      No, no I am not. If they don't stick out, they don't have to be tested to see whether they fold in when they hit a pedestrian. They only need the usual kind of testing; during production, and then a quick "is an image displayed" test during final assembly, and again at the end of final assembly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Eliminate Blindness from Hi-Beam Drivers by mykepredko · · Score: 1

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

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

    1. Re:Eliminate Blindness from Hi-Beam Drivers by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Spash some mud/road grime on a mirror and on a camera and see which one still works better.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  13. Ice and mud? by movdqa · · Score: 1

    What happens when you have 1/2 inch of ice on your sensors or they get covered with mud or bird droppings? At least I can get heated mirrors or clean them off with a scraper.

    1. Re:Ice and mud? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      It's likely the car won't even work given auto maker attitudes. You would probably be stranded in the middle of a weather disaster instead of simply being able to drive to safety safely.

    2. Re:Ice and mud? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Same thing, but less area to clean? Mirrors don't work well if they're covered with frost or mud. Neither do camera lenses. Solutions are the same.

    3. Re:Ice and mud? by movdqa · · Score: 1

      I know where my mirrors are. I don't know where my camera sensors are. I have a rear-mounted backup camera. When it's cold or foggy or wet, the image is quite fuzzy. The mirror has far more surface area and I only need to clear off a quarter for them to be usable. I suppose that car makers could set up heated cameras but this does make things more complicated.

    4. Re:Ice and mud? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that seems like a pretty marginal objection. I'm sure you could find the cameras with a five minute walk around of your car. Or crack the manual. Or ask the dealer. Or Google it.

      The actual cleaning you could accomplish with a fingertip. I don't know where you live, but where I am cleaning off a non-heated mirror involves locating an ice scraper that can reach into the mounting to the mirror. Thank god for heated ones. Having said that, a camera lens could be cleared very effectively using a single loop of wire around it.

      I'm not sure what this system adds over a mirror either. It seems like a whiz bang look what we can do with deep learning project without much though to the actual utility. But "OMG clearing frost off fingernail sized camera lenses!" strikes me as being equally silly.

    5. Re:Ice and mud? by movdqa · · Score: 1

      > I'm not sure what this system adds over a mirror either. It seems like a whiz bang look what we can do with deep learning project without > much though to the actual utility. But "OMG clearing frost off fingernail sized camera lenses!" strikes me as being equally silly. I'm on Oxaliplatin. Touching cold things is rather painful.

    6. Re:Ice and mud? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the definition of "could" (as in you *could* clean it off with a fingertip) is also something you might want to Google?

    7. Re:Ice and mud? by movdqa · · Score: 1

      If you don't know what Oxaliplatin is, consider yourself fortunate.

  14. Are mirrors even used? by RabidDawg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me nowadays, that mirror use is optional....

  15. Does no-one read instruments? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Does no-one read instruments? by geekmux · · Score: 1

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

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

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

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

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

    2. Re:Does no-one read instruments? by bws111 · · Score: 1

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

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

    3. Re:Does no-one read instruments? by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 1

      A lot of us old time programmers DO NOT FOCUS. We've had cataract surgery, we don't have focusable lenses any more. Funny thing, we can see instrument and screens pretty well, with eyes focused at 'infinity' (20 feet)

  16. Can't wait by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    At least _somebody_ is watching it, the drivers sure do not.
    Now an AI for indicating the directions the driver is going to use and we're good to go.

  17. Fail by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Vehicle mirrors are quite useful when the vehicle is off yet you want unobstructed vision. Unless you are going full bore driverless and lose everything including all controls, I would be far more concerned these types of systems just drive up the price, lower reliability over passive components (like a real mirror) and don't add any useful function current cheaper systems already provide.

  18. Cameras and Mirrors by tquasar · · Score: 1

    I rented a car with a back up camera that was great for showing what was behind me but not the car going 50 through the parking lot that would have hit me had I moved. You gotta turn your head and LOOK.

  19. Cruise control is usable how often exactly? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Cruise control is usable how often exactly? by SamTombs · · Score: 1

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

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

      You skipped the part about "enhanced cruise control solutions", AKA adaptive cruise control. This is a system which uses radar to keep track of the car in front of you, and match your speed to theirs in order to maintain a predefined following distance.

      Not so hot in stop and go city traffic, but has a terrific potential for smoothing out traffic flow in almost any other scenario.

      BTW, do you have cites on claiming that most driving is city driving? I thought that that was where mass transit was most effective.

  20. Why is annotated rear view any different by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

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

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

    which is FAR different from having to read text.

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

    Why do you think race cars have those nice, big, analog gauges

    You've been watching too many cartoons Speed Racer. Real instrument clusters for race cars are not that large, I have a number of friends into racing enough to install custom instrumentation...

    Also it's pretty absurd to bring up race car drivers which have to pay attention to instruments for very different reasons than street car drivers.

    Not to mention that *actual* race car drivers are going digital too

    Like I told the other responder, I'm out of the conversion now as y'all are just getting more and more absurd on these points and refuse to recognize how real people drive cars all because you are too stubborn to admit when you are plainly wrong.

    I guess it's plain to see that many other drivers are scarily not actually looking around while driving. Yowza. Self driving cars cannot come fast enough to get these yahoos off the road.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. You don't understand eyes by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The signals, etc, certainly are at infinity

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

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

    Its a shame that so many people's limited understanding of photography has completely misled them as to how eyes actually work. You should really study them sometime, as they are truly amazing...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. What about a system freeze.... by fuzzyf · · Score: 2

    I'm more concerned that the system freezes and lures the driver to think the area is free and clear when it's not.

  23. Miirors by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    Don't lose power or crash because of bad software.

  24. Cameras by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I hope they select the location of the cameras very carefully. The backup camera on my vehicle needs to be cleaned almost every time I use it in the winter. I can just look behind me for the amount of time that I'm backing up, but it would be awful annoying to have to clean 'mirror cameras'. The mirrors on the other hand can get dirt on them and they work just fine.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  25. Re: forget mirrors... by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Are you shitting me?

    It's 3am, why haven't my cats already murdered those bastard songbirds?
    It's 4am, will someone strangle that fucking chicken.
    It's 5am, who's going to shoot those bloody sheep.
    It's 6am, can you milk those shitty cows already.

    Disclaimer: I live in the countryside.

  26. Jeez, People by jimbrooking · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one in the world that uses the side mirrors to back into my garage? As my car slides through the open door I disregard all the complaints from the car's existing sensors because I can see that I have a couple of inches on both sides so I'm good. Don't take away my side-view mirrors!

  27. Replacing something simple and reliable by gweihir · · Score: 1

    With something extremely complex. The utter failure of all engineering skill and insight.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  28. Externalized cost by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It's 3% because much of the cost has been externalized in the form of oil subsidies, wars and ignoring environmental damage. As a result shaving 3% off the amount of gas used has a disproportionate impact on the entire global situation let alone any single country's economy, than just the base 3% savings.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  29. Um, right - that's repla$ing mirror$$$ by whitroth · · Score: 1

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

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

    Let's not even talk about when someone hacks your car, and screws with the AI.....

  30. Electricity = Drag by kackle · · Score: 1

    Please let's not forget that these electronic mirrors will require support electronics, wiring and viewing screens. All of these things use electricity, not free sunlight, for the life of the car. And this electricity detracts from the power of the engine of the car, as does the added weight of the these components.

    'Doesn't sound like much savings to me, especially considering that these components WILL BREAK in time. When my $250+ auto-dimming mirror broke after being ~12 years old, I replaced it with a $5 mirror from the junkyard of a car that did not have the pointless, auto-dimming feature.

    1. Re:Electricity = Drag by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm also reminded that fancy-ass components tend to break when you may most need them (what? you didn't notice the rearview camera had died until you backed into something?), while the clunky old-fashioned kind has nothing to break short of using a hammer on it.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?