Cars in the US could soon get cameras to replace side mirrors

[Bp968]

What's crazy? The government has given more attention to this than autonomous cars. I guess these people didn't grease the lawmaker's hands as done with autonomy. At least these camera side mirrors won't be killing people needlessly (yet to be determined as an indirect cause, versus directly caused by autonomy).

This is an example of thinking "could we" versus "should we". Probably another excuse to raise the cost/profit of vehicles, and significantly more, repair ripoff fees. Example? People don't even replace shattered side mirrors because they cost too much, or they get stolen. Do you think people are going to replace these?

What are some benefits I can think of? Less wind resistance and less chance to hit another vehicle. I'm sure we could get an extra .01 mpg... That's worth spending that extra $1500+ for a camera system...? Also, I see a benefit that you (shouldn't) need to look over your shoulder, which allows you to stay focused ahead and not lose sight of the windshield.

Well thats a depressing outlook on life.

And it shouldn't cost anywhere near 1500$, its pennies worth of silicon and off the shelf parts.

Main advantages? Night vision mode giving much better situational awareness, your "mirror" display could be on your centerline so your not forced to take your eyes way off the road to check them. Multiple cameras could be installed along with proximity sensors so you always know where other cars are (many imports already offer this in "lane sensors" and their great for blind spots). The cameras could be mounted much higher, up on the roof, giving you a much larger and wider field of view. The display could provide extra information: for example it could put a colored box around the vehicle's to notify the driver of a vehicle's distance from your car.

So many useful things can be done. It's annoying to me that most modern cars don't allow you to enable the backup camera while driving forward. Being able to see directly behind you while driving would be great (the camera sees a lot more than your rearview mirror).

Another positive is you won't be constantly blinded by the headlights of the vehicles behind you.

 

[Draconian]

people can't drive cars without a stick

I'm not sure I follow. People can't drive automatic transmissions?

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]....Lee Iacocca vehemently argued against air bags as being worse than the problem, however, when they were mandated he turned the polar opposite, put them in Chrysler cars and created a marketing campaign touting air bags in Chrysler cars.

And there was also a massive air bag recall, due to the fact the airbags themselves were injuring people. Not to mention the airbags which were installed from the recall, are also starting to be recalled. You're right, that's progress!.

The Takata airbag recall has affected virtually all major automakers and forced the Japanese company into bankruptcy in July 2017. The airbags were made with the chemical ammonium nitrate and were prone to exploding upon deployment, potentially hurling fiery shrapnel into passengers.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/takata-recall-spotlight

If you're going to champion some "solution", at least pick one that works correctly.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]...I’m highly in favor of requiring a blinker press to enable a side view camera; it would actually force people to use their blinkers finally. That’s the only real reason I see backlash for this.

If the side view cameras are only going ro work when you put on "the blinkers", (Which BTW, are also known as "turn signals"), wouldn't that require you to have mirrors in addition to the cameras?

(The question mark at the end of that sentence was strictly rhetorical).

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]....Another positive is you won't be constantly blinded by the headlights of the vehicles behind you.

Actually, being blinded by the oncoming douches who drive around with their high beams on all night is a much more severe problem, and all the crap you just outlined won't do a damned thing about it.

BTW, there is usually a flip lever to enable (night vision) on a car's center line rear view mirror, which effectively cancels the glare from high beam headlights approaching from the rear.

In fact, those switches have been there for at least 6 decades that I'm aware of. Why don't you try and look for it on your car, assuming you own one?

 

[captaincranky]

My buddy's Honda has this, pretty cool tech, all cars should have this as a safety measure. They should also have collision prevention, lane assist, lane departure warning, HUD with speed and navigation assist, back up camera, rear collision detection, etc.

These should be mandatory features for all vehicles, not expensive options.

Since the manufacturers would simply cost these "options" back into the base price of the car, (which would obviously go up), the idea that you would be getting them free is, for want of a better term, stupid...

 

[nismo91]

A mirror works 100% of the time. not 99.99%. that's the difference. if for any reason the monitor stopped working, you're pretty much screwed.

that being said. I've installed all our cars backup camera myself. and those things hardly stopped working even if they're cheap. as long as there are affordable 3rd party replacements for both the camera and the monitor, I'm okay with it.

 

[ShagnWagn]

I didn't realize wanting cars being safer was "leftist". Then again I'm sure the same kind of arguments were posed against drinking and driving laws when they were first introduced. Personal "freedom" vs the safety of everyone. Many of the features he listed aren't even an infringement of personal freedom. No idea how collision detection could be considered bad by anyone. It saves lives.

Leftist liberals want to force their ideals on everyone. Forcing people to use these harassing and distracting features is leftist, which just means bigger government and control over citizens.

If you read what I typed, you would see the key word "false". They are falsely warning people where there is no problem. Not to just their own driver, but those around them with the false turn signal light in the side mirror. It can cause people to swerve into other lanes of traffic. Self-wrecking cars would detect a false positive and run into things, just as one did - right into the side of a bus. LOL, epic fail.

 

[ShagnWagn]

Are backup cameras currently being stolen? Or broken? I haven’t heard of this happening. With a large enough screen they’re way better than a rearview mirror. Of course neither of those can be replaced by looking for perpendicular traffic, but the same idea applies here.

I’m highly in favor of requiring a blinker press to enable a side view camera; it would actually force people to use their blinkers finally. That’s the only real reason I see backlash for this.

I constantly use my side mirrors to monitor traffic around me at all times. Requiring a turn signal to activate one would seriously hinder my situational awareness. The ones that don't use their turn signals just turn or change lanes without even looking. I know as I have had several try to hit my on my motorcycle.

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

I can really only see this being nice for reversing and parking... for driving your eyes would have to change focus to look at the display, and then change back to look ahead. I don't need to create more eyestrain while driving, have enough issues just trying to keep track of everyone and squinting because of *****s running HID/LED lights in their halogen reflector headlights or FORD pickups, which about 90% of them where I live have their lights aimed too high from the factory.

So I say no thanks to this.

 

[cliffordcooley]

for driving your eyes would have to change focus to look at the display, and then change back to look ahead.

As a driver that monitors the gauges and side view mirrors, my eyes do that anyway. I fail to see how adding monitors would change things.

 

[captaincranky]

As a driver that monitors the gauges and side view mirrors, my eyes do that anyway. I fail to see how adding monitors would change things.

We need HUDs (head's up displays), in our cars and trucks, just like an F-16.

That way, we'd be better informed about our surroundings, while nurturing our innermost, "paranoid delusions of fighter pilot-hood".

 

[cliffordcooley]

We need HUDs (head's up displays), in our cars and trucks, just like an F-16.

That way, we'd be better informed about our surroundings, while nurturing our innermost, "paranoid delusions of fighter pilot-hood".

So what has that got to do with someone saying, changing their eye focus while driving causes eye strain? When I find it impossible (not nearly impossible, impossible) to drive without doing so.

 

[captaincranky]

....[ ]...or FORD pickups, which about 90% of them where I live have their lights aimed too high from the factory.

So I say no thanks to this.

Another prime offender in this category is Chrysler's "Jeep" lineup. Their SUV's headlights practically have blisters in the fenders to raise them further off the ground. Here's a 2010 model. Notice how the headlights are level with the car's hood. (This on a vehicle with already quite high ground clearance and body profile).

As for Ford trucks, or any other vehicle intended for cargo capacity, the lights may be aimed correctly from the factory, but they are aimed with the vehicle empty. As soon a you start dumping lawn tractors in the truck's bed, or old fat grannies in the SUV's backseat, all that goes out the window. (Or more correctly out of those damned headlights).

 

[captaincranky]

So what has that got to do with someone saying, changing their eye focus while driving causes eye strain? When I find it impossible (not nearly impossible, impossible) to drive without doing so.

Again Cliff, your dislike of me has taken you off your game. That was a joke. "Paranoid delusions of fighter pilot-hood", really?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Again Cliff, your dislike of me has taken you off your game. That was a joke. "Paranoid delusions of fighter pilot-hood", really?

Lets just say that went over my head then. I still don't get it.

 

[captaincranky]

Lets just say that went over my head then. I still don't get it.

How about if we say that "Paranoid delusions of fighter pilot-hood", is a takeoff on this mental condition often present in schizophrenia:

A delusion of grandeur is a false or unusual belief about one's greatness. A person may believe, for instance, that they are famous, can end world wars, or that they are immortal. Delusions of grandeur, also called grandiose delusions, often accompany other mental health symptoms, including other delusions...

Accordingly, a person could have, "paranoid delusions of....>(insert punchline here)<.

And here's a video of the HUD in an F-16:

Although I have to admit, even a HUD in a fighter aircraft, won't tell you if your wingman is tailgating you with his high beams on.....or will it?

But thanks for you support on this one Cliff, we're long past funny, or even mildly whimsical on this effort.. Mission accomplished.

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

Although I have to admit, even a HUD in a fighter aircraft, won't tell you if your wingman is tailgating you with his high beams on.....or will it?

No but your rear view mirrors will! ...and some figher aircraft do indeed have rear view mirrors.

 

[captaincranky]

No but your rear view mirrors will! ...and some fighter aircraft do indeed have rear view mirrors.

Which makes the idea of replacing side mounted rear view mirrors on automobiles even stupider yet