- First Name
- Nov 30, 2019
- Reaction score
- Vancouver WA
- Toyota Yaris
comment submittedSubmit a formal comment to the NHTSA on the use of cameras instead of mirrors. Deadline ends today.
Submit a formal comment to the NHTSA on the use of cameras instead of mirrors. Deadline ends today.
Done. Thanks for posting.Submit a formal comment to the NHTSA on the use of cameras instead of mirrors. Deadline ends today.
Cool. Thank you.
The original I implementation of rear view mirrors was to go faster and subsequent applied to vehicles to look for police.Many of you will probably not like this, not only because it is a little long, but because of truth factors relevant here which many hesitate to objectively discuss. But truth is truth, so here goes:
Regardless of quality in a camera driven panel display substituting for a mirror, fundamental differences must be considered and tested thoroughly to determine weighted factors of these differences for safety. I'll note these differences:
Mirrors provide depth perception via seamless stereo vision reflection to both human eyes, but a flat panel reproduced image can not provide immediate depth perception. Mirrors provide through focus to the reflected object and scene to the rear, so reaction time integrating re-focus through a mirror from forward windshield to the rear view in a mirror is minimally affected, because drivers don't have to re-focus to a different distance when checking their rear view mirror and then looking forward again. For a reproduced image in a display acting as a pseudo-mirror, drivers must re-focus from the distant front drivers view, to a very close near sighted view to look at and process the image in this display. Then, drivers must re-focus again when looking away from the interior display and resuming view out the front windshield. This is an inherent additional delay that will increase reaction time in sudden critical situations.
Without stereo vision depth perception, pseudo-mirror panel displays will require more concentration, thus distraction and time lag away from forward and other driver views. Unless displays can be implemented with distant focal lengths just as a traditional mirror does, such a display will be inferior to a mirror and less safe. Even 1/20 of a second lost in reaction time can easily be the difference between avoiding an accident at highway speeds. This not only applies to vehicles in the rear view, but also vehicles ahead because prolonged distraction of analyzing rear view content can delay attention toward the front and divert attention from a potential crash.
I own a Tesla Model 3 but I try to maintain a realistic perspective when evaluating new or proposed technology honestly comparing the full spectrum of relative functionality, pros, and cons. I feel that NHTSA should test Camera-Based Rear Visibility systems much more thoroughly for at least two or so years before making fast decisions to approve them for widespread public use.
Having said all that, Camera-Based Rear Visibility Systems do of course offer some unique benefits because they do not need 'Line-of-Sight' access, and therefore can be implemented in configurations to provide visibility where where traditional mirrors cannot view, such as rear corners of trailers, and even the side repeater cameras on Tesla cars for example. But I think whenever possible, these displays should be used to augment a traditional mirror for rear visibility, but maintain the use of a traditional rear view mirror as long as line-of-sight access for it is available.
So, in my opinion, the interior rear view mirror for Cybertruck should be a hybrid traditional mirror with both a display behind the glass and traditional mirror reflection (like the backup camera display integrated in some Toyota Tacoma truck rear view mirrors) which could be activated whenever the rear line-of-sight is not directly viewable, for example when the rear tonneao cover is closed, etc. But, I think traditional side mirrors having line-of-sight rear visibility access, should be mandated on the Cybertruck until such additional thorough testing or refined technology can be implemented providing depth perception and through-focus as discussed above.
Most side mirrors housings are designed to induce very little additional drag, and no one here has posted any concise thorough wide sampling studies to even indicate what percentage of range is reduced or what additional drag side mirrors may induce. Keep in mind, many of you are selective in your concern where you think its ok to have all kinds of external mods such as campers, roof racks, and many will pull trailers too - so with all these factors any possible drag induced by side mirrors is going to be quite negligible in comparison.
Many here are also concerned about 'widespread EV adoption', which is good. But, isn't it better to get a lot of Cybertrucks manufactured and sold into the mainstream first? - where the public can assimilate, feel and truly realize all of the other great EV benefits of the CT, and then if technological substitutes for traditional mirrors indeed prove beneficial and viable after a couple years many more will be open to it. Trying to 'jump the gun' with early implementation of tech that obviously could still be refined, by adding more radical changes to features one would expect - may be the 'deal-breaker' that turns many would-be early adopters off, and give the nay-sayers something more to squawk about. The CT doesn't 'need' by any measure the feature of a camera driven psuedo-mirror display in order to succeed. With regular side mirrors it will do just fine.
Insisting on radical publicly untested features will serve to make EV adoption a wider 'leap' for many, so those of you pushing this type of implementation at this early stage - you are actually Hurting the Cause and are actually Slowing Adoption. You should be willing to wait and allow the public to assimilate what's already great in the Cybertruck and EVs for a while, and then the 'sell' will be much easier. Pushing too much radical change at early stages only incites controversy and division, and will actually serve to polarize the public more on such features and EVs in general. Seriously, what's the big rush? The technology isn't going anywhere - and it's only going to get better; and unlike FSD it doesn't need to be publicly deployed to get better either - there is a lot of room for prototyping improvement of this tech at the research and development scale.
Why do you have to 'have it right now'?? Traditional side mirrors won't impede the success of the Cybertruck one bit - but taking them off at this early stage will most certainly turn some would-be early adopters off. So what is it you're really wanting with this change? Without thorough and concise studies you have no verified or consistent range improvements or differences to cite. You're just guessing emotionally at this point. And no one is saying anything about the drag increases caused by all the proposed roof rack mods and camper ideas. So what is the Real reason many are 'hung up' on side mirrors for the CT? No one has made a definitive concise and supported case to date - only shallow sound-bytes. Public safety deserves better.
That’s great!I listed off the advantages and said that they warranted allowing them so that we can get real-world data with real-world drivers, and the millions of miles of driving needed to actually prove their safety.