Even that has a full-width bumper that would work for a mounting place for cameras. But yes, I omitted that one when thinking about cars that taper. I thought he'd mention the Firebird or such, with a huge plastic cone on the front to look aggressive (but still wide enough in front of the wheels to work for mounting).
I do that a lot. As someone else pointed out, the proper alignment of mirrors changes whether you have an inside rear-view mirror. So when there's a big truck behind me, blocking my view behind, I can't see if there's a lane-splitting motorbike coming towards me. So, if I'm considering changing lanes, I move my mirrors. It's easy, and I never take my eyes from the road to do it. The control is just above the windows.
How about this question, have you ever put a window up or down while driving? A competent person should be able to adjust a mirror about as easily as an average person does a window.
Works fine. The only problem is that the camera is built for viewing the blind spot (the area you *can't* see from the driver's seat turned head, mirrors included), so it's not aimed for driving with. But the imaging quality works fine, and you get depth perception through it.
Have you tried it? What was the problem? What was the car you used? Last I reversed with a camera was in a 2013 CX-9.
The rear view mirror is your best view out of the back of the car.
And is such a worthless view that it isn't even mandatory (yes, you'll miss sarcasm because you are dumb). Most large trucks (and many small ones) don't have one. If it was so good, why are they not required more?
You also get depth perception when looking through it.
Ah, human factors lecture from someone who is a complete idiot. So, how much does binocular vision matter after 20+ feet? It's mostly monocular cues at those ranges. So a screen showing the area behind you would give as much useful information as you'd ever get from a mirror, and without the headrests and pillars in the way, so the screen is superior.
The side mirrors shake at speed in most cars, and always shake more than the interior rear view mirror. Replacing them with cameras will be less harmful than replacing the primary rear view.
I don't know what cars you buy, but none of the cars I've had have ever had that problem.
Replacing them with cameras will be less harmful than replacing the primary rear view.
The real problem is that people don't like change, so any change will be resisted, no matter how beneficial.
I wasn't overly specific with the head movements, as I don't care how you adjust your mirrors. You can do it poorly and be safe, or do it well and be unsafe. And I've seen little correlation between mirror placement and driver safety. So the discussion on how you arange them is moot. Cover the car in cameras and put the resulting image across the top of the windscreen or the bottom of the windscreen, projected at infinity (so you don't have to focus close for it), and with reference markers to help spacial awareness, and you'll have something that replaces current mirrors and works better. Lane change warnings would also be nice.
But I think the easiest to use solution will be a wrap around mirror-like image in an area close to the current rear-view mirror.
Not true. I've seen uncertified cameras mounted in small (certified) aircraft all the time. They aren't "used" in flight, but are "installed" with a permanent mount.
I see about 1/100 cars without side mirrors today (maybe it's 1/1000, but they stand out so much it seems like more). It's not like a failed side mirror is immenitely fatal. I know people who packed a car for a trip or move that couldn't see out the passenger side, mirror or windows. They made it to their final destination without issue.
I'm not claiming it's safe to thave restricted view, but that it isn't something that will cause immediate and fatal consequences.
A lot of cars taper in front, meaning there isn't a mount point for such a camera.
No, almost no cars taper in the front. There isn't a modern car that exposes the tires to the air, so at "worst" the camera could be in front of the front tires, which is a good distance forward of the "standard" placement for most cars.
Those have smaller blind spots because the better angle. That would be a better place to put the camera than by the door. But it was placed by the door because people "feel" better when they see more, even if what they see is less useful.
If I think there might be something just out of my field of view in a mirror, I can lean slightly to change the angle
And with the cameras, you could move them, rather than moving your head.
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
But swinging your head wildly because your mirrors are poorly set is a good thing? They could make the camera screens mimic mirrors, but that would add complexity and cost for a few people who can't be bothered to adjust a camera if they want to see where it isn't pointed.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car, like a convex rearview mirror, but without pillar reflections and such in the way. That's the closest to today's operation that makes sense to me. And with that, you'll *never* have something you need to move your head for.
The bible is a fun read. The rules in Deuteronomy are good for a chuckle "Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them" You aren't allowed to hide from your brother's ox or sheep. I'm still not sure about goats. And I'm a sinner. I'm not going to catch my brother's cats and return them.
I know there are some such sayings, but none are from Jesus. You didn't contradict me, but agreed with me in a very disagreeable and condescending manner. Are you trolling me, or really too stupid to understand what I said?
When I was that young, I was almost diagnosed. I was told that I did have "something" but that identifying it would be, under the rules at the time, be listed as a mental illness. As that is a life-hampering thing, I was told to don't get diagnosed unless I was unable to cope. Being in the top 99%, I could pass for top 50% at my worst, so there was no reason to get confirmed. Since then, the concept of a "learning disorder" was considered, with the disorder not being a mental illness.
I did google, Jesus never condenmend homosexuality or homosexual acts. If you wipe out "old laws", then Biblically speaking, it looks like homosexuality is not banned. And google didn't reveal anything on mixed animals of fibers being a metaphor. "God Said" comes back as a metaphor, but that wasn't relevant to the discussion over what the content of them could be, if a metaphor.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is when someone throws you a lead weight, claiming it's a life preserver.
Even that has a full-width bumper that would work for a mounting place for cameras. But yes, I omitted that one when thinking about cars that taper. I thought he'd mention the Firebird or such, with a huge plastic cone on the front to look aggressive (but still wide enough in front of the wheels to work for mounting).
And they *never* have what I'm looking for. I can get a Ford mirror on my Honda, but I don't wish to drive a frankencar, like you.
I do that a lot. As someone else pointed out, the proper alignment of mirrors changes whether you have an inside rear-view mirror. So when there's a big truck behind me, blocking my view behind, I can't see if there's a lane-splitting motorbike coming towards me. So, if I'm considering changing lanes, I move my mirrors. It's easy, and I never take my eyes from the road to do it. The control is just above the windows.
How about this question, have you ever put a window up or down while driving? A competent person should be able to adjust a mirror about as easily as an average person does a window.
Works fine. The only problem is that the camera is built for viewing the blind spot (the area you *can't* see from the driver's seat turned head, mirrors included), so it's not aimed for driving with. But the imaging quality works fine, and you get depth perception through it.
Have you tried it? What was the problem? What was the car you used? Last I reversed with a camera was in a 2013 CX-9.
The rear view mirror is your best view out of the back of the car.
And is such a worthless view that it isn't even mandatory (yes, you'll miss sarcasm because you are dumb). Most large trucks (and many small ones) don't have one. If it was so good, why are they not required more?
You also get depth perception when looking through it.
Ah, human factors lecture from someone who is a complete idiot. So, how much does binocular vision matter after 20+ feet? It's mostly monocular cues at those ranges. So a screen showing the area behind you would give as much useful information as you'd ever get from a mirror, and without the headrests and pillars in the way, so the screen is superior.
The side mirrors shake at speed in most cars, and always shake more than the interior rear view mirror. Replacing them with cameras will be less harmful than replacing the primary rear view.
I don't know what cars you buy, but none of the cars I've had have ever had that problem.
Replacing them with cameras will be less harmful than replacing the primary rear view.
The real problem is that people don't like change, so any change will be resisted, no matter how beneficial.
Sears pulled it off. It may not have been successful for Sears, but the card itself was successful.
We don't believe the retailers will give back more than Visa does, so we'll take our 1%.
you do understand that purchasing things with a little piece of plastic is not a right right
Yes, and you understand that monopolistic price fixing is illegal, right?
Visa is not a cartel, anybody can use their services.
You should look up the definition of "cartel".
I wasn't overly specific with the head movements, as I don't care how you adjust your mirrors. You can do it poorly and be safe, or do it well and be unsafe. And I've seen little correlation between mirror placement and driver safety. So the discussion on how you arange them is moot. Cover the car in cameras and put the resulting image across the top of the windscreen or the bottom of the windscreen, projected at infinity (so you don't have to focus close for it), and with reference markers to help spacial awareness, and you'll have something that replaces current mirrors and works better. Lane change warnings would also be nice.
But I think the easiest to use solution will be a wrap around mirror-like image in an area close to the current rear-view mirror.
6. Chrysler will sell the Neon as a "truck" for $2000 savings on CAFE and $3000 savings on cameras (the Neon truck is called PT Cruiser).
Not true. I've seen uncertified cameras mounted in small (certified) aircraft all the time. They aren't "used" in flight, but are "installed" with a permanent mount.
I see about 1/100 cars without side mirrors today (maybe it's 1/1000, but they stand out so much it seems like more). It's not like a failed side mirror is immenitely fatal. I know people who packed a car for a trip or move that couldn't see out the passenger side, mirror or windows. They made it to their final destination without issue.
I'm not claiming it's safe to thave restricted view, but that it isn't something that will cause immediate and fatal consequences.
A lot of cars taper in front, meaning there isn't a mount point for such a camera.
No, almost no cars taper in the front. There isn't a modern car that exposes the tires to the air, so at "worst" the camera could be in front of the front tires, which is a good distance forward of the "standard" placement for most cars.
There was a fad for a while to move the mirrors as far forward as possible such as http://images.johnnycupcakes.c...
Those have smaller blind spots because the better angle. That would be a better place to put the camera than by the door. But it was placed by the door because people "feel" better when they see more, even if what they see is less useful.
Then you get a ticket for being a bad driver.
Replacing the screen in my car (for a rearview camera) is cheaper than replacing a side mirror.
Yes. And I have had more than one car with a broken rear-view mirror. So "simplicity" isn't as simple as you imply.
If I think there might be something just out of my field of view in a mirror, I can lean slightly to change the angle
And with the cameras, you could move them, rather than moving your head.
I absolutely do not want to hit any buttons to pan the camera while driving.
But swinging your head wildly because your mirrors are poorly set is a good thing? They could make the camera screens mimic mirrors, but that would add complexity and cost for a few people who can't be bothered to adjust a camera if they want to see where it isn't pointed.
I think they should replace the rear-view mirror with a 180 degree "mirror" that's a real-time composite of around the car, like a convex rearview mirror, but without pillar reflections and such in the way. That's the closest to today's operation that makes sense to me. And with that, you'll *never* have something you need to move your head for.
The proposal is to have cameras in place of the side mirrors, not to use the rearview in place of side mirrors.
Deuteronomy 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of mixed fibers
The bible is a fun read. The rules in Deuteronomy are good for a chuckle "Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them" You aren't allowed to hide from your brother's ox or sheep. I'm still not sure about goats. And I'm a sinner. I'm not going to catch my brother's cats and return them.
Only under threat of arrest.
I know there are some such sayings, but none are from Jesus. You didn't contradict me, but agreed with me in a very disagreeable and condescending manner. Are you trolling me, or really too stupid to understand what I said?
When I was that young, I was almost diagnosed. I was told that I did have "something" but that identifying it would be, under the rules at the time, be listed as a mental illness. As that is a life-hampering thing, I was told to don't get diagnosed unless I was unable to cope. Being in the top 99%, I could pass for top 50% at my worst, so there was no reason to get confirmed. Since then, the concept of a "learning disorder" was considered, with the disorder not being a mental illness.
I did google, Jesus never condenmend homosexuality or homosexual acts. If you wipe out "old laws", then Biblically speaking, it looks like homosexuality is not banned. And google didn't reveal anything on mixed animals of fibers being a metaphor. "God Said" comes back as a metaphor, but that wasn't relevant to the discussion over what the content of them could be, if a metaphor.