I'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: wh

I'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."