SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
Fnord666
on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:15AM
from the What-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.
from the What-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.
Mirrors have been an integral part of motor vehicles for over a century. The low tech solution has solved the major visibility issues involved with driving and now car makers think they can do one better using cameras instead of mirrors. This may be an improvement in large trucks where visibility using mirrors can be poor to the point that obstacles directly in front and behind the vehicle cannot be seen but for cars it may prove to be a theft opportunity.
Best not to mount a mirror, or indeed a camera, directly in the line of fire of a neighboring car door in the parking lot. Maybe someone should tell them about the practicalities of life?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Cameras to Replace Mirrors on Cars and Trucks
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 58 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
The only certainty is that nothing is certain.
-- Pliny the Elder
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:30AM (11 children)
Less drag, better control over positioning, less prone to (physically) break, less area to heat. So long as the electronics are working, they're pretty much just better.
The drawback is needing to mount the display somewhere - which is potentially a big drawback. Normally if you are looking in the mirror you should also look out the side window to see other possible collision hazards. If the display isn't in a position where it's natural to see along with the side window, drivers could easily overlook one or the other.
For commercial vehicles, which have serious blind spots, the advantage isn't necessarily the positioning of the camera but the ability to have *more* cameras. There's no real reason a commercial vehicle couldn't have one camera on the front fender (that could face both front and back), another (or a regular mirror) in the traditional side view position, and a third on the corner of the trailer. Commercial drivers would be happy for any additional visibility they can get.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:44AM (2 children)
Less drag, better control over positioning, less prone to (physically) break, less area to heat. So long as the electronics are working, they're pretty much just better.
The drawback is needing to mount the display somewhere [...]
[...] and less room inside and less visibility to the back and quarters and so on.
The other drawback is that these cameras are connected to more or less always-on systems based on infrequently updated, non-user serviceable firmware which is connected to the net in multiple ways. That drawback is on top of whatever else may be written into both the EULA or mandatory support contract. Thus it is a big problem for privacy.
Privacy aside, it is just another way for them to increase the cost of the cars, restrict servicing to the (paid) authorized dealers, and shorten the life of the car to the support period for the firmware. That last poing has big follow-on effects: Many countries in Africa depend on used cars from Western Europe, and many of the rest of the African countries depend on very, very used cars from Western Europe via those original importers. With the stream of used cars drying up, they'll be forced to buy the cheapest ones directly from China. Many countries there are already in hock to China so forcing that arrangement will be relatively easy for China. That will be a problem in many ways for both Western Europe and the western car producers. Like the vile politician Bill Gates has said about operating systems, "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade [archive.is]", except instead of stealing we are talking about importing very used cars. Politically, for Western Europe and the US, it is better for Africa to have used western cars than have more to do with China.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @03:25PM
If you shift your eye from the windshield to a mirror, your focal point is still at (approximately) infinity. If you shift your eye from the windshield to a video monitor, your focal point shifts from infinity to a meter or so. This is a significant matter, especially for our increasingly aging population.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 02 2020, @06:57PM
In a sane world, when that day came you'd rip out that crap and fit some aftermarket mirrors. In an insane world that'll be illegal and will invalidate your insurance. Which world do we live in?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by julian on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:49AM
VW made a concept car called the XL1 [wikipedia.org] meant to be able to travel 100km on 1 liter of (diesel) fuel. They had to do everything possible to make it as aerodynamic as possible. So the side mirrors had to go. The screens for the mirrors are placed in the doors, forward of the arm rests. Tesla already has cameras that are flushmounted so there's nothing to break off. They could take off the side mirrors at any time and start putting side screens in, or just have the video feed in the center display show the side view feeds. That might be weird to get used to but I think it would probably work if they could get it approved by regulators.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @07:58AM
From the article: "contributing about 2.5 kilometres to its 436 kilometre".
I'd say this is more important than increasing range by 0.6%:
Other stuff will probably swamp that tiny range increase - like driving style, how much air conditioning or heating is used in the car, tyre inflation levels[1] and tyre alignment.
[1] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.jsp [fueleconomy.gov]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:10AM (3 children)
Why do you need to look out the side window if you have no blind spots any more?
The end game is to have cameras all over the car, projected over the inside surface so that you can see through all of the car from the inside. You can theoretically provide strictly superior visibility. The question is whether it can be implemented reliably and cheaply, and can people get used to driving with it.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:43AM (1 child)
So car interiors will be bare spheres painted matt white? That sounds cosy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:44PM
That's unlikely, you'd still want to have windows that you can look through in case the camera system breaks while driving. Even with AI control over the car, you'd still want to be able to see what's around you in case you need to operate manually. It's one of the reasons why jets still have pilot controls despite them being capable of handling the entire flight without manual intervention of the pilot. You still want to be able to override the computer if there's a problem with the system in the rare case where the system sensors are broken in a way that the pilot's physical senses aren't.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday January 06 2020, @04:30PM
Because electronics break.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:13PM (1 child)
Citation Needed.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:06PM
Cameras don't need to stick out at the doors becoming a spot that's easier to hit. If you're going to break a camera by smashing into it with your car, you're also going to break the rest of the car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:37AM (14 children)
When cameras fail, and they will, I want mirror backup.
On the other hand, people used to camera image on the center console wouldn't know to use the mirrors.
Oh well.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:37AM (10 children)
So what's the backup today when your mirror's fail, i.e. get's shattered for whatever reason, i.e. accidents, vandalism, etc.?
Do you Ace Ventura it? Well why can't you use the same backup when your cameras fail?
We should probably keep internal rear view mirrors, but side external ones should really go away and the cameras should be closed circuit not wifi ones..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @06:20AM
So... what did you drink?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 02 2020, @06:35AM (3 children)
Mirrors break in exactly one way. Since that way would also break a camera and cameras can break in numerous other ways, cameras are objectively inferior in reliability. So, the question is, how often do you want to have to pay to have your car fixed?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:48PM (2 children)
Why would the camera also break? The camera wouldn't need to be sticking out as far as the camera and the camera wouldn't need to be repositionable the way that a mirror would because it would be feeding into a monitor, not reflecting back to a driver's eyes that may be positioned as much as a foot off from standard positioning.
Place the camera in a nice steal frame and the likelihood of it being damaged, even in a rollover crash, is minimal. A camera is pretty much only going to break if you fire lasers at it or it fails due to age. But, considering the number of dashcams that have been on the road for years, there should be plenty of data about how long the cameras will last and at what point they need to be replaced. Chances are the cameras themselves will outlive the car they're attached to in most cases. And by the time they need replacing, the procedure will be pretty cheap. The action camera I've got was like $80 and the camera for the mirror replacement would likely be less than that. Probably no more than $200 in total between parts and labor to replace.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:02PM
The camera itself is one area of failure. The related systems to the camera can fail rendering the camera as good as broken. Anywhere along the line, the electrical system is an area of failure. The camera output display would be another area of failure. There is also the possibility of software failure but I make the assumption that camera software is so reliable that we can rely on them to be reliable, I could very well be wrong in this particular assumption.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 04 2020, @07:29AM
Because that one way is physically smashing the device and those cameras are every bit as susceptible to such as mirrors are. As for the other ways a camera can break, AC already enumerated several and I don't really feel like debugging idiocy so I'll just drop the obvious "malicious software fuckery that you have no way of detecting" and go have a cigarette.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday January 02 2020, @12:40PM (1 child)
Usually you get one mirror breaking: what happens when the entire camera system goes down?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday January 04 2020, @01:00AM
Exactly. You can stop at the first parts store or junkyard to get another mirror and install it by yourself. If the camera system goes down the repair will likely require a professional fix and a much more significant cost and time.
While we're at it let's bring back bench seats and manual roll up or down windows! And simple flat keys! I used to be able to keep a trunk key in my wallet and a full spare set of keys in my car trunk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @03:19PM (2 children)
Mirrors don't have bugs. They don't have failed firmware updates. They work in the pouring rain, freezing cold, they don't get instantly and completely obscured by splashing mud or corroded and destroyed by road salts, they don't require electricity. Even broken, they still offer partial functionnality. And they offer a 3D image.
If cameras and screens are the solution for all problems, why even keep windows ? Get rid of them, make cars continuous metal shells covered with cameras and full of screens.
You want to use technology in an actually usefull way ? Use it for augmented reality. Keep the mirrors and windshield, but overlay usefull information on them: road maps, navigation info, road hazard warnings, infrared night vision, animal avoidance systems, etc etc.
And when it all crashes (and it will crash, it always does), then you can still look out through the technologically primitive windshield, at the road lit up by the technologically primitive headlights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:52PM
Mirrors have a lot of issues, for example, positioning them can be a problem, if you're slouching down to be comfortable, versus sitting upright at attention, that can require the mirrors to be re-positioned. They're also susceptible to being broken by cars driving by on narrow lanes, something that the cameras would have far less issues with as they'd likely be tighter to the side of the car. You'd likely have a minimum of 3 cameras, one for the left, one for the right and one for directly behind you and between the 3 of them, you'd likely have 100% coverage of what's not visible in front of you. You could have more cameras if needed, 5 or 6 wouldn't be a problem as stitching them together in real time is well within the capabilities of modern computer systems.
The main issue is handling situations where the system suddenly fails. But, given the number of cameras that are in use, the likelihood of that happening is relatively small and with more cameras, you're not likely to lose enough of them to be a problem while you make your way to a service station.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday January 02 2020, @06:54PM
Crawling all over them...
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:10AM (2 children)
True, but skewed. They'll "know", but they won't use it, because muscle memory, reflex, training, etc.
True story: After having driven truck for a few years, I was given a truck with a half dozen "extra" mirrors on it. Those big stupid chrome things mounted on the leading edges of the front fenders, which supposedly give a view of the pavement right in front of the truck? Useless during travel, they only offer any advantage at very slow speed, maneuvering in parking lots and such. I "knew" that those mirrors were there, but they became invisible. Or worse, they got in the way of my way of looking out at the world.
Likewise with those little bitty windows in the doors, where the passenger's feet would go, if you have a passenger. Again, the only time it might provide any value, is in slow speed maneuvering, trying to back into a difficult dock. Except, it never did provide any value, TBH.
Electronic displays, mounted in random areas that some engineer thought was cool? Those displays really need to be in the same places that grand father drivers expect to find those displays. Put them directly in line with those spots where mirrors used to be. That means using part of the side windows, or the door post where those mirrors used to be. And, THAT is where the engineers will have to use their heads: these new displays can't obstruct the view out of those same windows!!
Alternatively, displays should be mounted above the windows. Something like 270 to 300 degree display above the windows, with the remainder on the windshield, where rear-view mirrors used to be. I could probably get used to that pretty quickly.
But, honestly, I think I'll just be using mirrors for the rest of my life. It's what I'm used to. I can always go buy a frigging mirror, and mount it where I think it should be if I get a car with no mirrors.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:28AM (1 child)
Those little bitty windows in the doors, where the passenger's feet would go, if you have a passenger. Again, the only time it might provide any value, is in slow speed maneuvering, trying to back into a difficult dock.
No
The reason they are there is so you can be blamed for crushing shit-head cyclists who are stupid enough to creep up on your inside while you are waiting at junctions.
Hint: if you are a cyclist keep away from 44 ton metal objects which might fail to see you, ESPECIALLY if you have no idea at all about the problems the driver faces with mental and physical workload, while are unwilling to give any clear and meaningful indication of your intentions - and indeed might not have the ability to have intentions. We as truck drivers know full well that, as riders of two wheeled objects, you have the right to be bat-shit crazy and are likely to exercise that right at any time and without warning.
School children should be taught that trucks are more dangerous than angry dragons and cannot easily be bought off with nubile virgins (but its always worth a try ;-)
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:57PM
Virgins are over-rated. Just saying. 😊
--
I wouldn't do anything for a Klondyke bar,
but I'd do some sketchy stuff for pizza.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:50AM (6 children)
The sensor and the lens cost just a few dollars [adafruit.com], and the resale value is all but zero. A typical glass mirror is sold for about the same money [carparts.com] - between $25 and $50 new. It's just not profitable to steal mirrors, and you can't easily detach one either.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @06:32AM (4 children)
Official part will be many hundreds, and protected with DRM, so replacing it with the $2.00 part will be a DMCA violation.
I'm kinda surprised automakers haven't already gone full John Deer, and made things like alternators, starters and spark plugs have to perform a DRM handshake before working, but _new_ things are a perfect time to introduce these "protections"-- for your safety, of course.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @08:23AM (3 children)
Last time I replaced my battery, the car bricked itself. I had to have a mechanic come out with a $1000 professional-level scan tool and a procedure he printed off of Alldata to completely reset the car's computer. I thought I ruined the computer or something with a short, but he said that the entire generation and later of my car model is like that. Thank goodness he did it for free because I've gone there for years and he lived nearby, or that job would have cost me more than the AGM battery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @03:30PM (2 children)
Make and model?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:55PM
This is a common problem, the memory requires power to store anything. If you're going to do work like this, typically, you'll need a special tool to keep that circuitry powered while you do the replacement. I'm a bit skeptical that it outright bricked itself, but in some cars, they will make minor adjustments based upon sensor readings and may have to relearn what those readings should be by driving around.
Plugging what is essentially a UPS into the appropriate port will prevent that from happening. They're not even particularly expensive as all they do is keep the appropriate parts powered on while you change the battery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 04 2020, @07:53PM
Sorry it took so long to get back. It's a Mercedes C-class, which probably goes a way to explain it. But my mechanic did say other cars have similar things that need reset when the battery changes, usually involving the anti-theft protection or keyless systems.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:47AM
FTFY
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:17AM (5 children)
Seriously, with every new car development, it's turning into another over-complicated piece of crap.
I'd rather have a well-made, simple system that can be maintained with a roll of tools and a can of grease.
Maintainability matters - just ask all those farmers getting nailed by Caterpillar and John Deere.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by damnbunni on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:10AM (1 child)
I'd rather have a really reliable piece of overengineered crap that simply doesn't need to be maintained much.
Yeah, I can't rebuild my VW's engine in my driveway the way I could my 1978 Marquis.
But in 12 years and 200,000 miles, I've never NEEDED to, either.
Hell, I've only had two things on it break that weren't normal maintenance items, and one of those was covered under warranty. The other was a suspension bit after hitting a bigass pothole at 160,000 miles.
Oh wait, the 'low tech' headliner fell, too.
The fact of the matter is even the crappiest new car you can buy in the US these days is pretty damn reliable.
I'm actually replacing my car this week, but more because 'I have had this a long time and I'm tired of it' than 'this is broken and fixing it is too expensive' which is usually when I buy another car. Shopping without the pressure of 'I need a car to get to work this week!' is novel, lemme tell ya.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Thursday January 02 2020, @03:18PM
You have been lucky. In December, I had to replace my car's anti-lock brake actuator assembly at the dealership and it cost me over $2,000. This was after it failed in a panic stop when some asshole tried to turn left in front of me when he failed to look before he acted. Since it's a complicated hybrid, none of the regular repair shops wanted anything to do with it.
(Score: 1) by noelhenson on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:52AM (1 child)
Creating a more complicated, technical solution to a problem already solved has rarely worked out, ever.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:59PM
And yet cars today are so much more reliable than they were 50 years ago. Not just that, but ABS and ESC have greatly reduced the risks associated with minor driving mistakes. Yes, they're more expensive to repair when they break, but they also break a lot less often and will frequently warn you when they're likely to break down or are in need of a tune up.
The problem here is that the problem wasn't solved. The status quo is that you check the mirrors and then have to do a head check, during which time the car is liable to pull in the direction you're looking while you're not looking where the car is going. This isn't safe, people learn how to minimize the risk, but it's an inherently unsafe thing to be doing.
The cameras would allow for the check to be much faster, and not make the car want to veer out of it's lane as you'd be looking down, and just with your head/eyes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @12:47PM
Seen any interesting hubcaps lately? The Seven has got to be lower than my '67 Elan. Simple yes, reliable no.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:55AM (7 children)
Unless some, as yet unrevealed, advance in camera sensor tech. has occurred without anyone noticing, the dynamic range of cameras is still several orders of magnitude less than the eye's dynamic range. So at night, be prepared for no image to the rear from the camera setup when, with a mirror, you'd have at least some visible image from your eyes.
Also, on bright days, we are either going to have the highlights blown out so that shadowed areas are visible, or have the shadowed areas turned to pure black so the highlights are not blown out. Your eye, however, will have had no problem resolving both the highlight and the shadowed area in a mirror.
A display screen in the car is going to have a different focal length than a mirror. Right now, I can glance in the mirrors and my eyes do not need to change focus from looking out the windshield. With a screen, my eyes will have to change focus to see the image on the screen, then change focus back to looking out the windshield. That is a slight delay that at highway speeds could mean a problem. And even if not a problem from the latency, the constant focal length changes will simply making driving an even more tiring experience.
Next, unless some major advances have happened in LCD display tech., these displays are going to be no match for the sun at noon on a cloudless day. With a mirror, the brightness level of the sun between cloudy and full makes no difference to the image visibility. But with an LCD panel, cloudless days are simply going to result in completely washed out display screens.
And, after dark, mirrors do not themselves emit light, they only reflect what little is present. These screens will have to continue to emit light, even after dark, to provide some form of poor quality picture, which means yet one more source of light inside the cabin to make visibility out of the glass windows even more difficult. To say nothing of the eye exposure changes necessary to shift from looking out the windshield to looking at a light emitting screen after dark, which is yet another instance where this tech. will just add undue eye strain to driving.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @07:26AM
It's true that the cameras have less dynamic range. But that doesn't mean they don't work in darkness. Lots of cameras produce better images than the human eye does in the dark, even if the result is a little grainy. Most of the time, if it's night, you're looking for "headlights or no headlights" and even a poor camera will manage that. If you're parking at night, you need the illumination from your backup lights to see; the cameras should produce an image equivalent to a backup camera in these conditions, which is perfectly adequate.
True. However, you will not be subject to being blinded by the idiot behind you driving around with their brights on. And I'm not sure just how much eyestrain this will cause. I probably look at the panel at least as often as I look in the side mirrors, and there's no problem now. (This also applies to the brightness of the screens at night).
Depends on how well the display is shaded from sunlight, really. But yes, potentially this is a problem. But if your point of comparison is phone backlights, they're at least as interested in conserving power than in achieving maximum brightness. Better comparison is the brightness of a TV or computer monitor - most are quite capable of achieving sufficient brightness for use even in sunlight.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Unixnut on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:54AM (5 children)
Another thing often missed is that with mirrors, you get a sense of depth perception. Many people don't notice because it is subconscious, but when they look in the rear view/side mirrors they do not keep their head fixed. They move their head about. This helps you get a 3D image with depth perception.
That is very useful when driving, however it is completely lost with cameras/screens. The screen can only show you a 2D image, so you lose depth perception completely.
Also, I can alter what I look at by changing my head position relative to the mirror. If I lean over more, I can see more to one side, if I lift my head up, I can see the tarmac, etc... All this goes out the window with cameras, because if you want to do that, you have to move the camera itself, most likely with complex, failure prone electronics and by taking a hand off the wheel to fiddle with some joystick (or more likely nowadays, some poorly designed touchscreen interface, requiring you to take your eyes off the road as well).
Honestly, this "lets replace the mirrors with cameras and displays" crap seems to do the rounds every 5-10 years. I remember it being "a thing" in the late 90s and early 2000's, then again in the early 2010s, and here we are again.
Truly a solution in search of a problem if there ever was one, and mostly done to make modern cars even more crap/unreliable and expensive than they already are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @06:04PM (4 children)
You don't get good depth perception like that, hence the warning that objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear. That's because mirrors aren't flat, they distort the image in order to give more angle of view.
In terms of perspective, I take it you haven't used one of those new cars with the back up cameras. The one I've seen has lines on it to give a sense of perspective to the viewer. They show slanted lines for directly behind as well as secondary lines to show where the car is going to go if you straighten up the wheel and drive straight back. I see no reason why side view mirrors couldn't have some similar adjustment to help the driver understand that.
Also, keep in mind that most cars are coming with secondary sensors to warn about when the car is going to collide with something behind it. If you've got that, which is likely more accurate than your personal depth perception anyways, why would you need the extra layer of security?
I've been parallel parking behind a car that was parked too close for the last few weeks and it's really tough to know how close you can get with the current set up of mirrors as I couldn't actually see the car when I was getting close, I'd have a couple more feet than it seemed. With cameras, I wouldn't have that problem as I'd be able to see the car until just before I'd hit.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday January 02 2020, @07:17PM (3 children)
> You don't get good depth perception like that, hence the warning that objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear. That's because mirrors aren't flat, they distort the image in order to give more angle of view.
Sorry, but I don't agree. For one, mirrors are by and large flat. In fact I checked the wing mirrors on all my cars just now, and they are mostly flat(*), just tapering off at the corner (the rear view mirrors are completely flat). I also don't have any warnings about "objects may be closer than they appear". Even so, it is not the flatness that gives you depth perception, but the shifting of the image by bopping your head around. Even if the mirror is distorted, you can still compensate. Indeed I never even noticed that the mirrors were not flat. Just now, I had to actually hold up a thin stick against the mirrors and move it across to even notice some curvature.
(*)One does have a strongly curved bit on the bottom right of one of the wing mirrors, but that was an aftermarket part fitted by a previous owner, because the car has the steering on the wrong side for my country, so the wider view helps when pulling out of spots, and yes being able to judge distance on that little mirror is nigh on impossible. Thankfully I got the rest of the wing mirror to aid me there.
> In terms of perspective, I take it you haven't used one of those new cars with the back up cameras. The one I've seen has lines on it to give a sense of perspective to the viewer. They show slanted lines for directly behind as well as secondary lines to show where the car is going to go if you straighten up the wheel and drive straight back. I see no reason why side view mirrors couldn't have some similar adjustment to help the driver understand that.
Yes I have used them, and I find it is a poor replacement to the rear view mirrors or, turning your head when you are reversing (which is how I was taught to reverse, that you should face whichever direction the car is going).
For one thing you can only see what the camera sees, so if there is something out of the cameras field of view, you can't see it unless you turn your head round. I once had the shock of my life when a kid ran behind the car as I was reversing, had I been able to use the rear view mirror I would have noticed the kid on the edge. This way until the kid was already in view of a camera I could not see him. The only reason I managed to stop in time is because the car still had normal wing mirrors, so I caught a glance of movement before the kid reached the rear.
Secondly I have had the camera get coated in mud/dirt and be effectively useless, or have bright sun wash out most of the view, to the point where you are reversing blind and waiting for the ultrasound sensors to tell you when you are about to hit something (and I have had them not alert me, resulting in a me hitting a pole).
I can list other problems with it, but in may ways it is an excellent example of overcomplicating. Even if the reversing camera was as good as a mirror, it is still the worse choice, because you have replaced a simple piece of silvered glass with rear view cameras, multiple ultrasound detectors, LCDs and all the computers + software/firmware to do the same job, each of which has far more potential failure modes or error conditions.
Yes, if it was a magnitude of an improvement over the mirror it might be worth it, but as it stands it is the same to worse than what it replaced. There is no benefit to overcomplicating things. Simple and elegant to do the job wins the day, it is the keystone of good engineering.
> Also, keep in mind that most cars are coming with secondary sensors to warn about when the car is going to collide with something behind it. If you've got that, which is likely more accurate than your personal depth perception anyways, why would you need the extra layer of security?
(a) extra layers of security are always a good idea, especially if they are cheap to implement and not prone to failure, (b) like I have mentioned above, I have had the sensors not tell me about obstacles behind me, resulting in bumper damage. The problem is that the sensors didn't fail (which would have alerted me on the dash), they just did not register the object, and I trusted them. I have never had that happen with mirrors, or just looking behind me, and (c) so far my depth perception seems to be better than they are. The sensors usually start saying I am going to hit the object while there is a good 30cm left of space. I can generally get much closer to objects when I don't rely on the sensors.
That is not to say they are a bad thing. That is an example of not too much complication. Relatively simple, cheap/easy to maintain, generally work even if dusty/dirty and are only an aid, not a replacement to the mirrors.
> I've been parallel parking behind a car that was parked too close for the last few weeks and it's really tough to know how close you can get with the current set up of mirrors as I couldn't actually see the car when I was getting close, I'd have a couple more feet than it seemed. With cameras, I wouldn't have that problem as I'd be able to see the car until just before I'd hit.
I don't know what to say about this, except that maybe you need more parking practice? If your mirrors are curved to the point where you can't judge depth properly that would make your life harder. Can you get flat mirrors for your car? Secondly have you tried turning your head round to reverse? With practice that may help you. I learned to drive/park in a dense urban environment, where having 15cm of gap to squeeze your car in was the norm. Having a few feet out sounds like luxury :-)
Saying that, mirrors are used for a lot more than just reversing/parking. They are excellent for checking behind you before you brake, as they are for checking oncoming traffic when pulling out or overtaking. The ability to move my head and see different views in an instant has saved the lives of a few (motor)cyclists barreling behind me when I am about to pull out. From time to time they manage to be in my blind spot, which I can only see if I lean forward, shifting the mirror view to the blind spot area.
In these situations sensors don't help, because by the time the object gets close enough for them to register, get processed, alerted on the screen, and for the driver to see/parse/act on the warning, an accident would already have occurred. Cameras would not be able to be altered in such a way by learning forward to check blind spots or places not already in the cameras field of view.
In fact, as more and more people are cycling, the mirrors become more and more important, which is why as part of everyones driving lessons, is the concept of "mirror-signal-maneufver", checking mirrors should be unconscious and automatic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @08:23PM (2 children)
You're an idiot. Yes, side mirrors often times are curved so that they can show more than what you'd see with flat mirrors. Bobbing your head works to an extent, but bobbing your head distracts from actually operating the vehicle. Yours may not be, but that doesn't mean that they all are. As far as parallel parking goes, you are a fucking moron. You cannot see what's directly behind you. You try parking in front of a car with a short front end that's blocked by the rear of the car and see how well you do. I happen to be great at parallel parking, but at a certain point you need to see the fucking car behind you in order to park in a tight spot. There is no arrangement of mirrors that is going to make that magically work. A camera system makes that child's play by default as you can see the car. Curve or no curve, mirrors don't always work out.
As far as the glare goes, is that really that much better than looking? I've regularly had issues with visibility due to the angle of the sun. Especially during the winter when half the time the sun is up, it's so low in the sky that it's coming in practically flat. Meaning that, it will be directly in the mirrors anyways. Camera or no camera, it's going to be an issue. Mud is a potential problem, but by the same token, if it's getting all over the camera, you've got it installed incorrectly. It's supposed to be somewhere behind the wheels, not in front of them where the mud is splattering all over it.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday January 03 2020, @02:39AM (1 child)
> You're an idiot.
Aaah, the "ad-hominem" attack. The last refuge of the weak minded, who, when they realise they lost an argument and cannot accept it, will resort to personal insults in lieu of intellectual discourse.
Alas, I don't waste my time with such people, and as such I did not read your message beyond the quoted three words, and nor will I read any further messages you send on this topic. Thanks for playing, and next time either provide a reasoned argument in a civil manner, or don't respond at all. Either option is better than the above.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @02:46PM
That's not an ad hominem, it's an insult. Please, don't use terms that you don't understand. An ad hominem is something like, your opinion on abortion doesn't count because you're a priest.
And the feeling is mutual, you said some incredibly stupid things in your post. They are inherently stupid, there is no ad hominem argumentation in the post. But, you're too fucking stupid to recognize it. This is the internet, get over yourself pussy.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @05:59AM (2 children)
Bets on how long it takes someone to port Doom to play on the extra displays?
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:10AM (1 child)
I understand that navigation would be by car movement. The gear would determine the weapon, but how to fire? And how to enter the cheat codes?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Dr Spin on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:31AM
how to fire?
Why do you think there is a horn button in the middle of the steering wheel?
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @06:08AM (1 child)
How well do in-car displays work at and below -40? I don't imagine the liquid crystals in the displays do too well. My dash-cam starts having problems even booting up when the temperature is in sub-minus-30 territory. I find it hard to believe the car makers, with their growing insistence on using touchscreens for so much, have given much thought to markets too far removed from the equator.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 02 2020, @06:39AM
The parts where it is warm have their own problems. Humidity in TN makes backup cameras useless until well after noon. Dust from dirt roads in OK (extremely common) soon makes them worthless until you get out and clean them, which nobody who has to drive on dirt roads regularly ever does.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:07AM (1 child)
What would you go rather for?
(1) Physical car mirrors + systemd-free Linux
(2) Car cameras + systemd-free Linux
(3) Physical car mirrors + systemd based Linux
(4) Car cameras + systemd basedLinux
(5) Wild mixture of back/side view options (physical, camera, neck-craining) + seperate start-up system for every service
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @12:54PM
Number [5] Alex. What is Windows 10?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Quicksilver on Thursday January 02 2020, @02:14PM (1 child)
How is your depth perception when you look at the camera's display?
Have you ever moved your head to change your field of view in the mirror? How does moving your head work when you are looking at a display?
A rear display works great for trailers where you can't look but you have about half a billion years of evolution that has made how you use your eyes pretty efficient. Ignoring binocular vision and the simple reality of being able to move your view point is amazingly oblivious.
People get all wound up about tech and use that as an excuse to forget about everything that has proven to worke before.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:37PM
This is grossly overrated. I have one usable eye; I do just fine. It's not like anyone is going to come cruising up in a 3' semitrailer, or a 100' sedan. It's very easy to look and know exactly what you're seeing, and what that means to your driving strategy. With two working eyes, it was even easier, and not because "there were mirrors" but because my damned nose is now in the way of some peripheral input I'd prefer to still have. But then, enter cameras: problem addressed.
A typical camera for this role has a far wider field of view than does any mirror. There's no need to be moving your head around; you can see perfectly well without waggling about. Cameras can also be mounted in places where you'd have no angle of view at all — for instance, at the upper trunkline or roofline, looking down to see exactly what the gap is between your vehicle and the one you're backing up towards in a tight parking space. Or looking down at the curb on the side to give you knowledge of just how close you actually are to the curb. Etc. They can be a lot better protected than mirrors as well.
You can have also have quite a few cameras. I have seven on my pickup (front- and rear-facing at license plate level, front, left, right and back down-facing, and one down-facing on the pickup cab into the pickup's cargo bed), and pushbutton video switching on the dash. I can see very well indeed; and I can switch to whatever one I want to depending on what I'm doing. When I drive, I usually leave it on rearview. When I park, I use the down-pointing side, front and back cameras to make sure I'm exactly where I want to be and to completely avoid misestimating closure. All the cameras have IR emitters, and can see just fine in the dark. The rear view one is far less prone to glare than a mirror is; it only gets just so bright, then stops. And in that state, it's not blinded, either.
I set up my SO's car similarly; six cameras. she loves it. Of course. Because it's awesome. 😊
We have a blind driveway that exits into an alley; I have a pair of cameras on the back of a shed that broadcast a split frame so you can see both ways down the ally. We just switch inputs to our video receiver, and bam, we can reliably avoid being t-boned. Or t-boning someone else.
The one serious downside to all of this, as pointed out above several times, is that the entire system can succumb to single points of failure: both the monitor (if you only have one) and video switcher. But this is also true of the GPS and other monitor-dependent systems in the vehicle. Modern vehicles are indeed more complex, but the vast majority of the time, this is a very good thing, because they are way better than their predecessors.
Finally, I've had this stuff going for almost ten years now, moving from NTSC video to HD (analog) video when it became reasonably practical, and I've never actually had a failure. I admit up front that if and when I do, it's (a) going to be really annoying, and (b) going to get fixed ASAP. Which will be very quickly, inasmuch as I designed and installed the system and have spare everything on the shelf.
--
Want about to a race conditions? hear joke
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 06 2020, @04:39PM
My car has a 6 CD changer in the dash.
There are 6 buttons for choosing which CD to load and play.
Sometimes, Button 1 loads CD2, B2 == CD3, B3 == CD4 etc.
Pressing B6 loads CD6 and "fixes" the glitch.
And people wonder why I am not excited about self-driving cars (or car manufacturers replacing physical things like mirrors, with electronic gadgets like cameras and monitors).