15 ms·
Cameras Could Replace Car Mirrors?
- josh_fyi 7y agoThese will break more often, and be expensive to fix; the result will be that lots of cars will be on the road without a rear-view.
- av500 7y agoremember, with a broken camera mirror, you car won't even start ;)
- chii 7y agoI'm getting juicero flashbacks
- HeavenFox 7y agoIf the automakers manage to put the camera inside the car body, it probably would be a lot less likely to break. It might even be cheaper to fix - a rear mirror assembly has quite some moving parts and need to be painted to match the car
- dajohnson89 7y agodigital cameras have far more moving parts than a rear view mirror assembly.
- nobodyshere 7y agoHow so? A fixed wide focus camera doesn't really have any moving parts at all afaik.
- chii 7y agoAny small old bump might knock a wire loose. You'd have to have a pretty large jolt to knock a mirror off its housing or mount.
- nobodyshere 7y agoSmall old bump will never "knock a wire loose". This is serious industrial level equipment that must handle rain, snow and other shitty conditions including vibrations of a wide frequency range. And all that at least for the warranty period of a vehicle.
- saiya-jin 7y ago> And all that at least for the warranty period of a vehicle. You got me till this point, and you prove we should be cautious about such tech. I live in one of the richest cities in the world (certainly one of most expensive), and the amount of 10+ year old cars is huge. Go to country side, and they become majority, with many clocking 15+ years. For physical mirror to fail, you need to break it or completely lose it, and then its obvious whats the situation. Electronics have more components that can fail, and as an IT guy, I know what can will eventually fail (ie how many digital cameras work flawlessly after 10 years of daily use?). Last thing I need is to have an potentially unreliable critical safety feature in the car.
- nobodyshere 7y agoIf health check of such systems is included in periodic maintenance events, there shouldn't be a problem at all. I'm also not quite sure that good old mechanical cars fail less than modern vehicles supplied with lots of complicated electronic stuff.
- Johnny555 7y agoI used to drive an old 1979 - that car had few electronic conveniences, but left me sitting on the side of the road more than once. It had also developed a problem where it couldn't idle for more than a few minutes because the engine would stall (mixture to rich, maybe?). My current oldest car is a 2003, it has electronic fuel injection, as well as a number of other electric conveniences - remote control mirror, power seat, cd changer, etc. I've only done routine maintenance and replaced a leaking engine seal, and that car has been 100% reliable and has never left me sit. My much newer 2007 car has a lot more electronics (more airbags, automatic breaking, adaptive cruise control), but so far, still has had no problem, but it's only 3 years old (bought in 2016), so time will tell.
- Johnny555 7y agoI spent about $400 to replace a side-view mirror that had stopped working, it was no longer adjustable. The rear-view camera on our car is 3 years old and hasn't broken yet, but it took 7 years for the side mirror to stop working on the other car, so I guess time will tell, but the camera seems much simpler (and the camera doesn't need to stick out from the car like a traditional mirror so should be less prone to accidental breakage)
- WilliamEdward 7y agoplease stop turning cars into smartphones.
- deevious 7y agoI'd say no to that, aside from the reliability and KISS aspects of this, there is one thing cameras won't be able to do properly: parallax. In tight parking spaces or near curbs I will often move around in the car so that I can see obstacles without having to adjust the mirrors.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoThey could parallax though, so that doesn't seem like the best argument. They could also use complex optics like "plain lens" with a "fish-eye border", or highlight obstacles by boosting colour contrast or adding in non-visual sensor data. If cameras are that much better we should be getting vehicles that use both (which we do for rear-view but not side-mirrors AFAIK).
- catalogia 7y ago> They could parallax though, so that doesn't seem like the best argument. I've never seen parallax emulated with head tracking that didn't have piss-poor latency issues. Not to mention poorly configured kalman filters that seem to always do too little or too much smoothing. These systems are fine for cute tech demos but don't belong in safety-critical applications involving multiple tons of steel moving at 100+km/h. Before replacing mirrors in cars, why not start with making a TV "window" that actually works. Prove the technology in a real world application that isn't safety critical, then we can talk. If it's ready for use on highways, then it should be easy to mount a TV on a wall and provide a convincing experience of actually looking out a window.
- dandelany 7y agoThis. A “transparent” A-pillar (the bit separating your windshield from driver’s side window) would be a good start, and if it worked well, it’s a feature I’d pay extra for.
- scrumper 7y agoAbsolutely. Big thick A pillars have increased survivability in crashes (embedded airbags, stronger structure) but that doesn't come for free - they cause some accidents (hiding bikers, also cars when pulling out of junctions). I'd love to see a transparent A pillar but I can imagine the parallax issues (talked about in other comments here) would make them a bit weird.
- baybal2 7y agoBigger glass standoffs, hydrophobic coatings, heating, and positive air pressure curtains. All that worked well enough on airplanes.
- _Nat_ 7y agoThis seems like one of those things that'd be easier to reason about if the bigger picture weren't about to change (in this case, due to self-driving cars). I mean, if not for self-driving cars, then we could reason that camera technology will ultimately progress to the point where it'd be vastly superior to traditional mirrors and culturally adopted, reducing this to a question of when/how to do the transition. But with self-driving cars on the horizon, it's harder to justify revamping human driving techniques since the payoff period would be pretty short. Which isn't to shoot down the idea; I mean, it sounds neat. Just, it's not as obviously justified as it would've been if we could've reasonably assumed that human-driven cars would still be a thing in 100 years from now.
- gruturo 7y agoFalse dichotomy - autonomous cars need cameras too, some of them with the same point of view of existing mirrors.
- _Nat_ 7y agoYeah, we could make an argument for a hybrid system that provides cameras for human-drivers that might be later repurposed for autonomous-drivers. I dunno how practical that might be, though. I mean, while I agree that mature self-driving technologies should be able to work with semi-arbitrary sensors, early self-driving systems -- the sort that'll tend to co-exist with human drivers -- would seem to benefit from purpose-specific camera systems, optimized for the benefit of the self-driving system without compromises/complexity to enable dual-use.
- lozf 7y agoBased on the current trend of corporations trying to log and monetize everything, it's not a far stretch to suppose that data from the cameras (and metadata e.g. GPS location) could end up being used for all sorts of things from affecting Insurance - both premiums and payouts, issuing fines for speeding, or parking in prohibited zones or for too long, or even targeted advertising because you happen to visit a particular store, restaurant or other attraction with any regularity. Some Insurance companies already offer subsidies for "safe drivers" who consent to being tracked [0]... the rest is just natural progression. [0]: https://www.rac.co.uk/insurance/black-box-insurance https://www.rac.co.uk/insurance/black-box-insurance
- sandrobfc 7y agoMy only question is: why? I mean, those are going to be so much more expensive to produce, less reliable and harder to replace. There are some upsides regarding overall visibility, but I think that it's one of those cases in which the ups don't make up for the downs.
- paxys 7y agoImproved fuel economy, improved visibility (especially at night), blind spot coverage, better visual warnings. It isn't really going to be too much more expensive considering cars nowadays already have rear view cameras/screens and all sorts of sensors.
- sandrobfc 7y agoI'm not against all those cameras, nor am I rejecting evolution. I just think that traditional mirrors are doing the job well enough for this to be a question now.
- paxys 7y agoLooking at the number of preventable accidents that happen daily, I don't think we are anywhere close to "well enough".
- beobab 7y agoIs it safe to assume that you've never used a car with cameras? I'd be very interested in a camera feed from my front bumper when I'm pulling out on a difficult bend, for example.
- sandrobfc 7y agoI've never driven one without regular mirrors, which is the point here. I'm not saying that it's not a nice extra to have, but it shouldn't replace anything.
- bena 7y agoCosts are already roughly the same for side mirrors and cameras. It's almost all upside to replace side mirrors with cameras at this point.
- mch82 7y agoOn trucks/vans rented at Home Depot cameras have already replaced rear view mirrors. The video screen was mounted in the standard rear view mirror position. Personally, I loved the cameras. Similarly, I’m able to park faster when I rent cars with cameras. Over the past few years, I’ve perceived that contemporary cars are designed with visual sight lines & ability to see the end of the trunk greatly reduced. Cars almost seem to assume a camera will be available. Cameras are tremendously better at night, if night vision is available.
- JshWright 7y agoWe recently got a van with a "360 camera" (the screen in the center console can display an image that appears to be coming from a camera 10ft/3m above the van). When I first heard it described I figured it was a gimmick I'd never use, but I've been very wrong about that. I'm able to park much more smoothly thanks to cameras (even something at simple as centering the vehicle in spot becomes much faster when you can look in one place, rather than back and forth between mirrors).
- Animats 7y agoOh, that finally shipped! I saw the Fujitsu chip set for that offered a few years ago.
- stagger87 7y agoThere are many manufacturers of 360 degree car camera systems. They have been in vehicles for over a decade now.
- coolspot 7y agoInfinity Q45 had it in 2010.
- kube-system 7y agoIt has been available on a ton of cars over the past half-decade. It's starting to become a standard feature now. Even the sub $16K Nissan Versa Note has it standard.
- xellisx 7y agoThere is one thing missing. I have a child mirror on my back seat that I can see from my rear-view mirror. Kind of hard see that when the camera is pretty much looking at the outside.
- mannykannot 7y agoWhen you are driving, you should be looking outside.
- xellisx 7y agoWhile that is correct, removing the ability to easily look at what is going on in rear seat will make some people uneasy.
- CamperBob2 7y agoAwareness of what's going on inside your vehicle is also of some importance.
- war1025 7y agoAs a parent, it is in my experience much safer to be able to flip the rear view mirror into "night mode" and have a view of what the kids are arguing about than to have to turn back even momentarily to interact with them.
- 0xfeba 7y agoWhen you have a kid, they try to choke on their own fingers/toys/food, throw their drink/toys, or just generally be annoying.
- post_break 7y agoSome vehicles have a camera pointed at the back seat for this reason.
- xellisx 7y agoSounds like something out of price range, unless I DIY it.
- thrower123 7y agoNo. Absolutely not. Technology fails, and tends to fail at the worst possible moments. Dumb, analog stuff has a lot of advantages. If you want to supplement actual mirrors, fine. But replacing them entirely is stupid.
- de_watcher 7y agoAnalog? We could probably drag optical fiber...
- krm01 7y agoSelf driving cars are the future. However, it may be a lot better transition (both to gain public trust and to improve the technology) to gradually make cars do more things and evolve the vehicle through incremental steps. This definitely is a logical next step.
- reportgunner 7y agoImagine waiting for a firmware update just so you can use the rearview mirror. edit: also the title says "could", so it means they won't
- donkeyd 7y agoOne thing I've seen in reviews of the system being sold in the Auto eTron is that it's much harder to get a good idea of speed and depth on the rear view camera screens. I really wonder whether this can really be overcome. It'll be interesting to see whether this will become as common as touch screens have become.
- corbet 7y agoMy Bolt has a camera rear-view mirror that can be turned on or left off in favor of the traditional mirror. We never use it. Turning the mirror into a screen means you have to focus on the screen rather than the distance when using it; that makes it slower and more uncomfortable to switch between looking forward and back. At least for geezers with older eyes like mine...
- bobthemover 7y agoCame here to say that. We Just bought a RAV4 with a camera as a central console rear view mirror witch you can flip on or off. It sounds like a great idea but the amount of time it takes your eyes to refocus when moving from the road to the camera makes it a safety hazard. And painful on the eyes. Nice concept. Fundamentally unusable.
- neuromancer2600 7y agoI am very much concerned about focal accommodation. This becomes particularly important when driving at higher speeds. The sheer fact that my eyes do not need to adjust focus when looking into rear view mirrors (in comparison to cameras/screens) saves me critical milliseconds when overtaking a car or before making a turn. Of course, this becomes irrelevant when we are talking about parking.
- mannykannot 7y agoAnd, in addition, one can use one's stereoscopic vision with a mirror. Even if that does not provide much information about vehicle distance and speed (though it feels to me as though it does), a screen gives false stereoscopic information.
- de_watcher 7y agoCameras all around and a VR helmet. I'm driving my invisible car.
- neonate 7y agohttps://outline.com/CewLqN https://outline.com/CewLqN
- WhompingWindows 7y agoWhat is the trade-off between safety/functionality and aerodynamics? How would replacing car mirrors affect mileage in a typical vehicle, say a Honda Accord?
- unnouinceput 7y agoThis is one of those safety features with redundancy on mind that we could actually double down on it. Instead of replacing side mirrors with cameras how about we have cameras embedded in each mirror, let's say infrared/normal and night-vision so you could chose which camera to look at on screen or outside at the mirror for best assessment of your surroundings.
- tibbydudeza 7y agoMy Tucson has a rear parking camera ... what an awesome piece of kit ... would kill for an auto park feature as well.
- SN76477 7y agoI love the rear parking cameras. I do not like the idea of replacing a simple working system with more technology.
- ineedasername 7y agoI'd be really concerned about failure modes here. Like with rear-view cameras, it's not uncommon in heavy snow for it to be obscured. That's not much of an issue when you still have traditional read-view & side-view mirrors to rely on. So I can imagine cameras further supplementing mirrors, but not replacing them. At least not for human-driven cars. Self-driving cars are another issue, but I'm also willing to bet there's robust failure detection among sensors, lidar, and cameras, and the car would safely shutdown in the presence of an issue.
- CDRdude 7y ago> Like with rear-view cameras, it's not uncommon in heavy snow for it to be obscured. In heavy snow, this can also happen to mirrors and your rear window. Usually you open the driver door so you can look behind you.
- organsnyder 7y agoOne of our cars doesn't have heated mirrors. It's not uncommon for the mirrors to be unusable during the winter, especially in the morning and after any amount of ice accumulation.
- behringer 7y agoI use my scraper on them. It's very dangerous to drive without mirrors.
- cannonedhamster 7y agoWe can barely get people to clean the snow off their cars before driving on highways. Not sure the tech is the real problem with snow rain, and other weather.
- organsnyder 7y agoWhen the ice is really glazed on, it's difficult to scrape it all off; and I'm nervous about damaging the linkage in the adjusting mechanism. Thankfully, I finally have space in the garage that this winter it won't be an issue.
- goldforever 7y agoSupplement, YES. Replace, NO.
- nobleach 7y agoI feel like this is one of those "...and the Soviets just took a pencil" type moments. (even though that story of Americans paying millions to develop a space pen story is more nuanced: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-n...) But given the number of times during snow season, where my backup camera is completely covered or requires me to clean it. I'd trust the mirrors quite a bit more. That said, I wouldn't mind both.
- mffnbs 7y agoI have the opposite problem in that the backup camera is perfectly visible even when partially obscured and the mirrors become almost useless with ice particles, fog, and water droplets scattering my perception through them.
- smacktoward 7y agoI'm waiting for someone to propose pointing cameras in all directions and replacing the windshield and windows with screens. It'd let them cut the amount of glass in the vehicle down dramatically, which could have both cost and safety benefits. And it would enable them to remove longstanding visibility issues like blind spots caused by structurally necessary pillars; if the view outside is synthetic, no reason why it couldn't be synthesized in such a way as to provide complete 360-degree visibility. (Of course, the fight to prove that a car which is essentially a closed container is safe to operate would make the fight to just remove the side mirrors look like a schoolyard scrap.)
- Merrill 7y agoInteresting concept. When combined with a self-driving car, you could drive through a particularly unpleasant neighborhood and instead look at views of whatever scenic trip you fancy.
- saagarjha 7y ago> When combined with a self-driving car, you could drive through a particularly unpleasant neighborhood and instead look at views of whatever scenic trip you fancy. This sounds awfully dystopian…
- mattkrause 7y agoNot to mention nauseating—-you’d need some clever tricks to make the images match up with the car’s motion.
- omeid2 7y agoThat is a cool idea, and the recent Mercedes-Benz S-class and others with what they call "360 camera" pretty much has more than enough camera to make this possible however in practice driving around with cameras is pretty awkward, even for parking despite the very cool "3d" effect, I found using mirrors for parking much more practical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgnR4i_umhE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgnR4i_umhE
- marcos123 7y agoWhat could go wrong?
- quanticle 7y agoOn certain high-end sports cars, such as the McLaren Speedtail, haven't cameras already replaced side-view mirrors?
- m463 7y agoWhy don't we ADD cameras where mirrors don't see before we start pulling out the mirrors that are working fine? We should have around-view cameras for all cars by now, parking should be simple and we should never ever curb a rim. I will say that mirrors are super high resolution, work in a variety of lighting conditions and have a big enough surface that a little dirt doesn't obscure everything.
- dmix 7y agoThat's what Cadillac is doing. I don't see why not, the mirrors are really cheap and you could easily make them slide down over the screen if needed.
- peeters 7y agoWell, the motivation as identified in the article is aerodynamics. Side mirrors mess with that. So they would argue that side mirrors aren't "working fine", or rather there's an advantage to removing them.
- m463 7y agoYour argument seems to put aerodynamics and vision at equal priority, but I don't agree with that. But I've been proven wrong. I thought people wouldn't buy a car without a dashboard in their line of sight and the model 3 is a top seller in spite of that.
- peeters 7y agoI'm not making an argument. I was saying that they don't agree with your premise, that mirrors are working fine.
- bborud 7y agoCameras already do on some cars. I think it might be some Volvo SUV's that no longer have mirrors, but cameras in their place. (I'm not into SUVs so I didn't pay attention to the brand, but I've seen several at the airport when I put my car in the long term parking lot)
- rconti 7y agoMeanwhile, this same incompetent agency still does not allow manufacturers to use convex glass in lieu of flat glass for the driver's side mirror. https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/in-defense-of-convex-drivers-side-mirrors/ https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/in-defense-of-co...
- saagarjha 7y agoCan you legally install your own?
- aidenn0 7y agoThat will depend on state law (I don't know what the answer is for any state though). FWIW, Virginia and California's mirror laws are very different in various ways.
- rconti 7y agoProbably! I mean, you can't get a ticket driving 100mph with no license plates in CA, so I'm not exactly worried about CHP whipping out a plane and measuring the curvature of my mirrors. I haven't been able to source OEM euro driver's side mirrors for the Tesla, but I had them on my VW and have them on my BMWs.
- cpitman 7y agoI hope this can fix one of my biggest problems driving at night, car beams reflecting off of the side mirrors and right into my eyes. Dimmable rear view mirrors are standard, but the side mirrors are still enough to tire out my eyes and make driving long hours at night much harder.
- OrgNet 7y agoWe will need that for the computer driver... so it is probably good to beta test on humans first.
- nitwit005 7y agoThe brightness issue is pretty big at night. Some people get headaches from headlights and other bright lights at night. I don't see a bunch of glowing displays working for them.
- ianbooker 7y agoHad that car last week for a test drive and I really wondered when the cost of less air drag (while using more energy for display and processing) will break even. The camera mount is quite big..
- AcerbicZero 7y agoThis is almost certainly the direction we're heading, for better or worse. "Safety" equipment has been driving a reduction in viability (along with many other factors) for awhile, and integrating more cameras around the car seems to be a simple/easy step forward. Ideally they'll do this in a logical manner, which doesn't try to replace mirrors (at first anyway) and instead just integrates into them, to provide a more complete field of view. The current trend of "blind spot" monitoring systems seems to be following this kind of idea, and so far I haven't seen much to complain about there.
- DocG 7y agoI had the pleasure of trying new all electric Q3 or something. It had cameras instead of windows and I did not like them at all I felt that first the screen location was wrong. Outside the car is more where I am supposed to look anyway, instead of akward down from windows. I will have to concentrate more when looking at the screen, for my brain to register what is happening, instead of glance at the mirrow. Maybe it's to do with focal points, maybe it's still a screen. My eyes work better registering movement in the corner of my eyes on mirrows than on screens.
- basicallydan 7y agoSorry, but can you please clarify what you mean by "It had cameras instead of windows"? Do you mean the actual windows of the car were screens displaying camera feeds? That doesn't seem like a good idea. Googling doesn't bring up much for me here!
- dev_dull 7y agoA wonderful idea! I actually find the icon that says "somebody is in your blind spot" is even more useful. I check that instinctively first now before looking at my mirror when merging.
- textech 7y agoLove the side mirror camera on my Honda Civic (It's only on the right side but incredibly useful when changing lanes). I probably wouldn't completely replace the side mirrors with cameras yet though.
- jeromebaek 7y agoThese cameras will be connected to the internet to drive profit. They will be used for mass surveillance and they will be mass hacked.
- ars 7y agoSeems like a number of people here don't think cameras will be reliable enough (I am among them). Yes, lots of people think self driving cars are a possibility. I don't. Humans currently have 7 nine's of reliability when driving. Are computers that reliable?
- flowerlad 7y agoEven moderately expensive cameras don’t have the dynamic range of the human eye. I almost had an accident because the backup camera on my car can’t see clearly when it is extremely bright even though it can see well when it is relatively dark. Current gen of cameras are no replacement for the human eye.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoThis is an awesome idea but I got a better one. Replace steering wheels with a touch screen!
- 4ntonius8lock 7y agoI'm not sure why there's so much negativity in the comments. Other than a lot of people commenting on the concept of cameras instead of what the FA is about: whether they should be allowed at all legally. I really can't see why not. Personally, I don't want it. Personally I think the reduced aerodynamic drag mentioned in other comments isn't a big deal. The highest number I saw on savings is $2000 on 200,000 miles. I'd think those cameras would probably need maintenance and replacement over that time which will come to a similar cost as the energy savings. But even if there was the full $2k in savings over 200,000 miles, I'd still not want it due to reliability and complexity of maintenance concerns. The other comments against the tech mention challenging conditions for cameras, but these seem to forget those conditions can affect mirrors and windows too. It's all about the details of implementation (i.e. badly installed cameras are an issue, badly installed mirrors/windows/blindspots are an issue) Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I think others shouldn't be able to prefer it that way. So I support legalizing this technology. I mean, it might even turn out better than a curmudgeon like me would anticipate. That's the beauty of freedom, ideas get to stand on their own merit. Overall, the meat of the article IMO was this part: "NHTSA’s 2017 tests of a prototype camera monitoring system found it was “generally usable” in most situations, and produced better-quality images than mirrors at dusk and dawn. It also found potential flaws, including displays that were too bright at night, distorted images and camera lenses that would become obscured by raindrops."
- spectramax 7y agoNo. We've seen touchscreens replacing knobs, marketed as the cool new thing but really it is done for cost reasons - touchscreens are getting incredibly cheaper and automotive grade rotary encoders, buttons, switches are getting more expensive as the demand is falling. It is sad to see how adding more features is degrading cars. Stop fucking with things that work. I hate touchscreens except for my phone. That's the only place where it makes sense and it has worked well. I hate using an iPad and I hate literally anything that has a touchscreen. Old ATMs were so much better than this touchscreen bullshit. Cameras instead of mirrors is how upper management wants to do cool things for the sake of doing cool things - aerodynamic efficiency takes a back seat where I have a risk of not being able to see things clearly, or if the camera breaks or if parallax becomes a problem.
- robomartin 7y agoTouch screens are terrible for what I will generalize as "machine control". Dangerous, really. It's a two part problem, first there's the touch screen itself and then the UI software. When I was getting started in engineering I did a stint writing process management software where I worked. I was quite proud when I completed the project I was assigned by the VP of engineering. I had him come over to show off the completed project. I showed him all the features. Everything worked. I completed it on time and exactly per the specifications he gave me. And then he took his hand and swiped across the computer keyboard back and forth like he was playing every note on a piano by pressing down and moving his hand all the way to the left and then all the way to the right. He looked at me, smiled, and walked away. Didn't have to say a thing. I won't describe what happened. Let's just say it broke. Had this been a controlling a real process --rather than a simulator-- it would have been a horrible mess. It took me twice as long to redo the thing and make it fault tolerant, not just to user mishaps (drop a coffee cup, wrench, notebook or trip and press down with your entire hand on the keyboard) but also to sensor failures. With one simple demonstration he taught me what school never did about software, hardware and the real world. Touch screens are great tools, but you really have to think things through very carefully before using them as the only UI device. Bottom line: You should be able to close your eyes, place your hands on the touch screen and play it like a piano without anything bad happening. Having designed lots of physical user interface control panels (knobs, buttons, etc.) I know exactly why people resort to touch screens: Designing control panels is very, very hard. You also have to think things through and do a lot of testing in order to be able to both deal with ergonomics, usage patterns, function availability and user cognitive load. With touch screens you design the control panel and then let the software gods sort it out. The process allows one to get to final hardware quicker while delaying all the hard UI work as much as possible. I won't even get into the issue of touch screens creating greater cognitive load as well as requiring finer motor control, both things that are undesirable while driving or operating equipment that could cause physical harm or property damage.
- greggeter 7y agoI think there will be fatigue over time focusing on the closer distance. With traditional mirrors, your focus is far away all the time whether looking out the windshield or mirror. If looking at screen instead, must focus to closer distance.
- thehappypm 7y agoAmazing to see so many Luddites here on HN. Backup cameras have become standard and incredibly reliable on all new cars. Sure, snow can cover a camera, but as someone who has spent lots of time scraping ice off a side view mirror, a camera seems a lot simpler to clear debris from. Mirrors win from KISS, but KISS is not what sells cars. Safety, reliability, and performance do. If the automotive industry can make cameras as safe, reliable, and performant as mirrors, then the benefits will be obvious and the feature will win.
- Piskvorrr 7y agoThat's a lot of "if"s - there's the actual complaint, not "everyone who doesn't get on the bleeding edge of tech NOW is a Luddite!!!"