
Cameras Could Replace Car Mirrors? - gscott
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/should-cameras-replace-car-mirrors-u-s-regulators-want-to-know
======
deevious
I'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.

~~~
pfortuny
I say it is time for a forward sideways-looking camera for exiting corners or
sharp crossings. I do not know if this exists but I have missed it a number of
times.

~~~
xuki
Audi A8 has it:
[https://youtu.be/TchqhDUbP8w?t=342](https://youtu.be/TchqhDUbP8w?t=342)

It's gonna be a long time before mainstream car adopt this though.

~~~
wumms
For my eye, Bose's suspension seemed smoother:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KPYIaks1UY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KPYIaks1UY)

And it had Turbo-Boost (same video with cue-in):
[https://youtu.be/3KPYIaks1UY?t=81](https://youtu.be/3KPYIaks1UY?t=81)

------
ineedasername
I'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.

~~~
godelski
> I'd be really concerned about failure modes here.

I'm so happy failure is being addressed. Because to me (as a former engineer)
this is one of the most important factors. In addition to failure due to snow,
what about it just breaking? A small rock or crack is not going to greatly
obscure a mirror's view. More annoying, but you can still get most
information. A smaller lens does have the advantage of a smaller target area
but more potential for complete failure. It is also more complex and with more
complexity there are more modes of failure.

For example: I used to drive an old truck. The mirror adjustments just did not
work, but I could manually move them. Dead simple and the purpose of the
device is still achieved even when something broke in the device's chain. With
a camera you have the screen (which can seriously affect your night vision!
I'm EXTREMELY annoyed about this in my current car), every point of connection
from screen to camera (software and hardware), the camera, and the lens. I'm
under the impression that not much can go wrong here in the product chain and
you still have a functioning device.

BUT the camera does have clear advantages! You can use IR so you can see at
night. No glare. Better angles. Software that can do object detection and help
you avoid accidents. It is a matter of trade off. Typically in machines that
can easily lead to fatality we tend to me more risk adverse.

~~~
plopz
I see people driving around constantly with fogged up mirrors or have a broken
mirror hanging off the side of their car, or snow packed around every window
with only a small area cleared out on the windshield. So I'm not super
convinced that failure modes are all that important, at least to your average
driver.

------
smacktoward
I'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.)

~~~
omeid2
That 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)

~~~
drdaeman
I'm thinking about installing a 360° aftermarket camera in my car. That's
because I can't see where my front (esp. the front right side) is with any
mirrors. Nose's too low to see the corners.

I've already brushed against other person's car in the dark and lost some
sleep over that, waiting for them to contact me (thankfully, they weren't too
much upset over it). A 360 camera is certainly not a replacement for mirrors,
but looks like an awesome ability to have additional vision.

BTW, I wonder why no one places parking camera display in a way that requires
driver to physically turn backwards and see the window as well. Even mirrors
don't really provide a proper view, and it's inconvenient (if not unsafe) to
turn back and forth.

------
mch82
On 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
We 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
Oh, that finally shipped! I saw the Fujitsu chip set for that offered a few
years ago.

~~~
stagger87
There are many manufacturers of 360 degree car camera systems. They have been
in vehicles for over a decade now.

------
josh_fyi
These 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.

~~~
HeavenFox
If 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
digital cameras have far more moving parts than a rear view mirror assembly.

~~~
nobodyshere
How so? A fixed wide focus camera doesn't really have any moving parts at all
afaik.

~~~
chii
Any 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
Small 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
> 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
If 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
I 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.

------
neuromancer2600
I 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
And, 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.

------
nobleach
I 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-n...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-nasa-
spen/))

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
I 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.

------
m463
Why 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.

~~~
peeters
Well, 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
Your 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
I'm not making an argument. I was saying that they don't agree with your
premise, that mirrors are working fine.

------
corbet
My 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
Came 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.

------
spectramax
No. 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
Touch 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.

------
sandrobfc
My 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
Improved 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
I'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
Looking at the number of preventable accidents that happen daily, I don't
think we are anywhere close to "well enough".

------
rconti
Meanwhile, 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-
co...](https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/in-defense-of-convex-
drivers-side-mirrors/)

~~~
saagarjha
Can you legally install your own?

~~~
aidenn0
That 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.

------
unnouinceput
This 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.

------
donkeyd
One 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.

------
xellisx
There 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
When you are driving, you should be looking outside.

~~~
CamperBob2
Awareness of what's going on inside your vehicle is also of some importance.

------
AcerbicZero
This 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
I 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
Sorry, 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!

------
4ntonius8lock
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."

------
_Nat_
This 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
False dichotomy - autonomous cars need cameras too, some of them with the same
point of view of existing mirrors.

~~~
_Nat_
Yeah, 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.

------
cpitman
I 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.

------
thehappypm
Amazing 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
That'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!!!"

------
ianbooker
Had 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..

------
jeromebaek
These cameras _will_ be connected to the internet to drive profit. They _will_
be used for mass surveillance and they _will_ be mass hacked.

------
reportgunner
Imagine 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

------
flowerlad
Even 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.

------
bborud
Cameras 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)

------
krm01
Self 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.

------
ars
Seems 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?

------
textech
Love 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.

------
dev_dull
A 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.

------
de_watcher
Cameras all around and a VR helmet. I'm driving my invisible car.

------
nitwit005
The 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.

------
WhompingWindows
What is the trade-off between safety/functionality and aerodynamics? How would
replacing car mirrors affect mileage in a typical vehicle, say a Honda Accord?

------
baybal2
Bigger glass standoffs, hydrophobic coatings, heating, and positive air
pressure curtains. All that worked well enough on airplanes.

------
quanticle
On certain high-end sports cars, such as the McLaren Speedtail, haven't
cameras already replaced side-view mirrors?

------
tibbydudeza
My Tucson has a rear parking camera ... what an awesome piece of kit ... would
kill for an auto park feature as well.

~~~
SN76477
I love the rear parking cameras. I do not like the idea of replacing a simple
working system with more technology.

------
neonate
[https://outline.com/CewLqN](https://outline.com/CewLqN)

------
OrgNet
We will need that for the computer driver... so it is probably good to beta
test on humans first.

------
crimsonalucard
This is an awesome idea but I got a better one. Replace steering wheels with a
touch screen!

------
thrower123
No. 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
Analog? We could probably drag optical fiber...

------
marcos123
What could go wrong?

------
WilliamEdward
please stop turning cars into smartphones.

