
Math professor's side mirror that eliminates 'blind spot' receives US patent - yogrish
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-math-professor-side-mirror-patent.html
======
gjm11
Blogspam.

Original press release from Drexel University:
[http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-
media/releases/archive/2012/J...](http://www.drexel.edu/now/news-
media/releases/archive/2012/June/Drivers-Side-Mirror-With-No-Blind-Spot-
Receives-US-Patent/) Added value in PhysOrg article: zero.

Please, everyone, _stop submitting links from PhysOrg and ScienceDaily_. I
have never ever ever seen anything on those sites that isn't either (1)
bullshit or (2) a recycled press release with zero (or often negative) added
value. (Sometimes it's both at once.) It only takes ten seconds' googling to
find the original source.

~~~
dhimes
I think you are a little harsh in bashing the sources. Their value is that
they serve as a distribution of press releases from many sources. That is
exactly how a press release is supposed to be used. And I can go to a press-
release redistribution site and see press releases from various organizations
in a related field instead of having to check each organization individually.

Yes, please filter the bullshit. But submitting from press-release
redistribution sites is ok. If it's of further interest, submit the original
paper. In this case, the paper (scientific news) is old- it's the step in the
business direction that is being disclosed.

~~~
sp332
While I agree that the sites are useful, HN guidelines request that you submit
the original article. That reduces the number of duplicate submissions.

~~~
dhimes
Reducing duplicate submissions is an excellent point. I took the guideline to
be more along the lines of "don't link articles like 'geez guys look at this
cool article I found on wavepackets. Works for me!'" But I can certainly see
the value of submitting the original PR if the site simply mirrors it.

------
boredguy8
Why do you have blind spots in the first place?

[http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-
mirr...](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-adjust-your-mirrors-to-
avoid-blind-spots)

"The paper advocates adjusting the mirrors so far outward that the viewing
angle of the side mirrors just overlaps that of the cabin’s rearview mirror."
I've been driving this way for a long time, and it's great. You can already
see behind you: you don't need 2 more mirrors showing you the same thing.

~~~
CodeMage
I don't know about others, but here's an extract from the article you linked
that explains why I have blind spots:

 _Those who have switched to the SAE's approach swear by it, however, some
drivers can't adjust to not using the outside mirrors to see directly behind
the car and miss being able to see their own car in the side mirrors._

The reason I need to see a bit of my car in the side mirror is because I need
to know not only _what_ is behind me, but also _where_ it is in relation to my
car.

~~~
ramLlama
True, but as you get used to seeing the vehicle cross from your center mirror
to your side mirror, you get a sense of where it is. Your point of reference
just changes from your car in the side mirror to the combination of the
location of the vehicle in the side mirror and the center mirror. You really
just have to get used to it. I swear by this technique now.

------
stephengillie
_In the United States, regulations dictate that cars coming off of the
assembly line must have a flat mirror on the driver's side. Curved mirrors are
allowed for cars' passenger-side mirrors only if they include the phrase
"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Because of these regulations, Hicks's mirrors will not be installed on new
cars sold in the U.S. any time soon. The mirror may be manufactured and sold
as an aftermarket product that drivers and mechanics can install on cars after
purchase. Some countries in Europe and Asia do allow slightly curved mirrors
on new cars. Hicks has received interest from investors and manufacturers who
may pursue opportunities to license and produce the mirror._

~~~
aresant
I am an easy sell to jump to conclusions about gov't idiocy but this one is so
audacious it seems like there must a relevant reason - so why can't I have a
curved mirror that is more efficient?

~~~
archangel_one
Curved mirrors are more efficient in one sense but tends to lead people to
misjudge distances. Presumably the government think that showing a misleading
picture may be worse than not showing one at all, which is not complete
idiocy. This mirror apparently doesn't really suffer from that problem, but
the legislation didn't anticipate it - which isn't really surprising, it's
hardly realistic to expect them to foresee this development.

~~~
Confusion
_Any_ mirror tends to lead people to misjudge distances and speeds. Mirrors
are not things we naturally understand and you have to get used to judging how
far _behind_ you something is, while looking _in front_ of you. If you're
looking in a mirror and something comes in your direction very fast, you tend
to step back... directly into the thing coming at you.

Curved mirrors also take getting used to, but I doubt it has ever been shown
that the number of errors people make because of using curved mirrors is
larger than the number of errors people make while using regular mirrors.

These kinds of rules get introduced because someone thinks "this makes sense",
other people reading it think "this makes sense" and nobody with enough actual
knowledge about the subject, who cares enough and has enough lobbying power,
goes "now wait a second, this is not right".

~~~
hahainternet
You seem to be doing exactly what you're condemning them for. Just because
your opinion differs from theirs is no reason to assume they are incorrect or
that there are no studies involved.

~~~
Confusion
I was explaining that the common argument (curved mirrors cause mistakes)
doesn't make any sense (because other mirrors also cause mistakes) and how
that argument could lead to a law anyway (because people are very used to
regular mirrors and the mistakes they cause). You're reading a judgment into
that, but I don't think I wrote one.

I don't condemn anyone for taking decisions based on what seems to make sense,
when the stakes aren't very high and in the absence of anyone telling them
otherwise. We can't expect decisionmakers to be experts in everything and we
can't expect them to hire experts for every little detail. As long as things
get changed when the facts are presented, I'm not complaining.

------
nicholaides
He was my math prof. Here's a gallery of his crazy mirrors:
[http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16585-amazing-
mirrors/...](http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16585-amazing-mirrors/3)

When I saw the article title, I immediately knew it was Dr. Hicks because he
would talk about his work occasionally in class when it was related to what we
were studying.

Also, if you're at Drexel, you should take his math courses. He's easily the
best math teacher I've ever had, and I didn't know it until after I graduated.
All his classes seemed really easy, but in the last course I took he said
something that made me realize how good he was. He said, "Before we get into
the math, I want to give you an intuition of how this works." Later I realized
that his courses like cryptography and multivariate calculus were so easy is
because he knew how to give you that intuition and the mathematics came almost
naturally after that.

------
kschua
This is just beautiful. Practical application of maths. I would love to get my
hands on one of these when it is done.

Glad that he has a patent for that. He should be justly rewarded for coming
out with this road safety feature.

To those that believe that there is prior art, do note that the patent granted
is for "Wide angle substantially non-distorting mirror". It is not just any
curve mirror, it is unlike normal curve mirror which distorts the image, from
the picture, you can see that there doesn't appear to be any distortion, which
is what makes his mirror unique

~~~
bermanoid
I can't access the actual article, but this doesn't sound like a very
substantial bit of work. On its face, it's the type of thing I'd probably
expect a decently bright college kid to solve quite well as a week-long
project, nothing more.

Even if it was, we don't typically give out patents for mere solutions to
novel math problems. Why should this be any different?

~~~
anamax
> Even if it was, we don't typically give out patents for mere solutions to
> novel math problems.

Actually, we do give out patents for solutions to problems that involve math
(the soluions involving math). Those patents do not cover using the same math
for other problems.

------
wyclif
A lot of new cars I've seen have partial curve to alleviate the blind spot.

But what often goes unmentioned is adjusting an older, flat mirror correctly
in the first place. I used to adjust mine so that a tiny portion of my car was
in the lower right hand corner of the mirror. After a few years, I realised
that adjusting the mirror out, further away from the car, gave me the widest
and most practical view for driving of the lane to the left of me.

------
kevinsd
You know, receiving US patent does not mean much..

------
jtreminio
I can't believe this is something that someone needed to "invent".

I bought a $5 concave mirror that I attached to the outer edge of my wife's
mirrors, and they work better than this!

------
Jacqued
I already had a side mirror that eliminates blind spot a few years ago on my
Peugeot 207 (I live in Europe) although it didn't have such an angle of
vision.

Even though it's a neat invention, I still have to vomit every time I read the
word "patent". And to say crooks are working hard to bring these to Europe

~~~
Muzza
There have been patents in Europe for quite some time now.

~~~
Jacqued
Yeah, I was talking about idea patents.

Being able to patent an actual implementation is somewhat ok, but being able
to patent ideas is plain stupid, and they are in the prrocess of importing it
to the EU

~~~
daeken
There are no non-"idea" patents. By their very nature, patents are there to
provide a monopoly on novel ideas. If I come up with the design for a new
gearing system and patent it, then you have an idea for a substantially
similar system and build it, you're violating my patent. It's all about ideas.

------
shin_lao
Curved mirrors dont eliminate the blind spot, they reduce it. Perhaps this
curved mirror reduce the blind spot to a very small area, but I submit a
bicycle or pedestrian could still fit in it.

------
confluence
Relevant: [http://www.quora.com/Why-haven-t-cars-yet-solved-the-
problem...](http://www.quora.com/Why-haven-t-cars-yet-solved-the-problem-of-
the-blind-spot-in-wing-mirrors)

Apparently most people set up their mirrors incorrectly by overlapping view
paths, when it would in fact be better if things moved between mirrors without
any overlap (e.g. rear view mirror covers the back whilst the side mirrors
cover blind spots - no overlap in between).

I've tried it out and it feels rather weird, but I must say I've found it
quite effective. I still do head checks, but mostly just out of habit, and
it's a good extra check to use just before you change lanes.

~~~
naner
I have had my side view mirrors setup like this for years and it isn't always
better.

The first problem is that you cannot see your car in the side view mirror.
This doesn't seem like a big deal, but it can be difficult to judge where
everything in the mirror is positioned if you don't have a reference point.
You get used to this.

The second issue is that if you have a big straight long line of cars behind
that are close together (e.g. traffic on the interstate is at a crawl), you
can not see far back on either side of your lane since your mirrors are
pointed out and your center mirror is mostly consumed by the vehicle behind
you. This makes it difficult to safely merge out of your lane in this
situation.

~~~
confluence
You're right about that, but I don't usually find myself in such situations
too often, and when I do I just move my head to get a better view straight
back (either side/rear). I find blind spots much more dangerous :D.

------
franzus
Suddenly patents are OK?

