Do you plan to remove your side mirrors?

[Outdoors]

Maybe in a year or so I might go with removal. Right now it is a great opportunity for a traffic stop. Just because of the new nature of the design of truck. We call them looky loo's. Even LE officers are acceptable to use it just for a look.

Warnings depend on many things. Where one is pulled over. Financial needs of community. Based on how you act and look.

Closer to home it is a fix it ticket. Out of town. Prepare to pay the piper unless you have a wonderful interaction with the LEO, or can claim you just got off an off road adventure requiring removal. Even then one could have a less than positive experience.

Sponsored

 

[ÆCIII]

I guarantee there will be those who keep specific statistics of accidents with vehicles that have side mirrors removed versus those with side mirrors kept installed. Time and data will tell on that.

There is limited rear visibility in the Cybertruck to begin with due to the design and tonneau cover closed at times. Trucks are often used to haul stuff so any drag efficiency gains from side mirror removal will be negated as soon as anything hauled is large enough to require the tonneau cover to stay open. Removing the side mirrors for minimal efficiency gains while violating many state laws, IMO is a dangerous and unnecessary risk to the driver, passengers, and to others.

Removing side mirrors may also give insurance companies technical leverage to increase rates and or simply cancel or refuse coverage, if they discover a covered vehicle has been intentionally altered in a way that compromises safety or violates state laws.

There are also other practical reasons for side mirrors, as removal of side mirrors eliminates the ability to tow safely and increases risk to pets and children in near proximity of a Cybertruck backing up, because the back of the Cybertruck is relatively high blocking much visibility and sound, with the tailgate camera not able to view anything between the back corners and near/underneath the rear tires while the Cybertruck is backing up.

Side mirrors could save the life of a pet or child playing inattentively around the back of a quiet moving Cybertruck with drivers still able to see them, whereas without side mirrors those areas can't be seen easily from inside the cab and a fast moving pet or child might get ran over. Without side mirrors there is no way a driver can see what's directly behind the passenger rear tire while backing, and you're never going to have drivers using a spotter 100 percent of the time while backing.

There are not relatively that many Cybertrucks out in the wild yet, but when there are such safety vulnerabilities will be created, ignored, and eventually cause harm or worse due to human behavior and the bell curve.

Anyone removing or assisting removal of side mirrors, should be willing to accept all risk and responsibility for any future accidents caused by the resulting lack of visibility if accident scene video proves that leaving side mirrors installed could've prevented such an accident.

This particular post is in the interest of safety and so has been worded not to directly point fingers or debate anyone's interpretation of efficiency or style. I've saved a copy of this only posted here for now, but may also post it in other platforms if I see a need to.

It's not like everyone is driving perfectly these days and there are enough bad drivers to watch out for as it is, without further reducing our visibility. Unless I've been dreaming the whole time I've ever watched TeslaCam footage ...

Cybertruck owners should check their state laws and abide by them in the interest of safety for themselves and others. Tesla already has NHTSA viewing them under a microscope. Owners choosing to compromise safety by altering their vehicles in violation of laws, not only puts themselves, passengers, and other at risk, but also increases risk of reputation damage to Tesla.

Side mirror removal is a lot of serious risk without that much reward.

- ÆCIII

 

[Gigahorse]

I was going to remove them back when we thought it would add 10miles or so of range, it adds maybe 1 so leaving them on.

 

[Cybergirl]

I guarantee there will be those who keep specific statistics of accidents with vehicles that have side mirrors removed versus those with side mirrors kept installed. Time and data will tell on that.

There is limited rear visibility in the Cybertruck to begin with due to the design and tonneau cover closed at times. Trucks are often used to haul stuff so any drag efficiency gains from side mirror removal will be negated as soon as anything hauled is large enough to require the tonneau cover to stay open. Removing the side mirrors for minimal efficiency gains while violating many state laws, IMO is a dangerous and unnecessary risk to the driver, passengers, and to others.

Removing side mirrors may also give insurance companies technical leverage to increase rates and or simply cancel or refuse coverage, if they discover a covered vehicle has been intentionally altered in a way that compromises safety or violates state laws.

There are also other practical reasons for side mirrors, as removal of side mirrors eliminates the ability to tow safely and increases risk to pets and children in near proximity of a Cybertruck backing up, because the back of the Cybertruck is relatively high blocking much visibility and sound, with the tailgate camera not able to view anything between the back corners and near/underneath the rear tires while the Cybertruck is backing up.

Side mirrors could save the life of a pet or child playing inattentively around the back of a quiet moving Cybertruck with drivers still able to see them, whereas without side mirrors those areas can't be seen easily from inside the cab and a fast moving pet or child might get ran over. Without side mirrors there is no way a driver can see what's directly behind the passenger rear tire while backing, and you're never going to have drivers using a spotter 100 percent of the time while backing.

There are not relatively that many Cybertrucks out in the wild yet, but when there are such safety vulnerabilities will be created, ignored, and eventually cause harm or worse due to human behavior and the bell curve.

Anyone removing or assisting removal of side mirrors, should be willing to accept all risk and responsibility for any future accidents caused by the resulting lack of visibility if accident scene video proves that leaving side mirrors installed could've prevented such an accident.

This particular post is in the interest of safety and so has been worded not to directly point fingers or debate anyone's interpretation of efficiency or style. I've saved a copy of this only posted here for now, but may also post it in other platforms if I see a need to.

It's not like everyone is driving perfectly these days and there are enough bad drivers to watch out for as it is, without further reducing our visibility. Unless I've been dreaming the whole time I've ever watched TeslaCam footage ...

Cybertruck owners should check their state laws and abide by them in the interest of safety for themselves and others. Tesla already has NHTSA viewing them under a microscope. Owners choosing to compromise safety by altering their vehicles in violation of laws, not only puts themselves, passengers, and other at risk, but also increases risk of reputation damage to Tesla.

Side mirror removal is a lot of serious risk without that much reward.

- ÆCIII

Have you driven a Cybertruck? I have for two weeks now, and I have to take issue with some of what you are saying.

The rear camera on the Cybertruck is wide angle. I'm able to see cars approaching from the rear on either side right up to the point that the red blindspot LED lights up. This digital rear few mirror is far superior to a traditional mirror once you adjust to the distance distortion (car looks to be further behind than they really are). It comes with experience.

The side camera displays that pop up on the screen when signaling a lane change provide a much better view of the lane on either side of the vehicle than traditional side view mirrors. I've been intentionally not looking at the side mirrors to see if they are necessary. They're not, but it's hard to break the subconscious habit of looking at them. With practice I've been able develop the practice of looking at the digital displays naturally. It helps to adjust the side mirrors from optimal positioning making them less effective.

One advantage of digital rear displays is that they can be viewed by anyone in the car, not just the driver. For some people this is a reassuring feature.

I believe that digital 'mirrors' are superior to traditional mirrors and will at some point be approved by NHTSA as substitutes for reflective glass mirrors. Of course, every state in the union will have to update their mirror laws as well. Today, IIRC, there are 27 states that don't require side view mirrors.

 

[ÆCIII]

Have you driven a Cybertruck? I have for two weeks now, and I have to take issue with some of what you are saying.

The rear camera on the Cybertruck is wide angle. I'm able to see cars approaching from the rear on either side right up to the point that the red blindspot LED lights up. This digital rear few mirror is far superior to a traditional mirror once you adjust to the distance distortion (car looks to be further behind than they really are). It comes with experience.

The side camera displays that pop up on the screen when signaling a lane change provide a much better view of the lane on either side of the vehicle than traditional side view mirrors. I've been intentionally not looking at the side mirrors to see if they are necessary. They're not, but it's hard to break the subconscious habit of looking at them. With practice I've been able develop the practice of looking at the digital displays naturally. It helps to adjust the side mirrors from optimal positioning making them less effective.

One advantage of digital rear displays is that they can be viewed by anyone in the car, not just the driver. For some people this is a reassuring feature.

I believe that digital 'mirrors' are superior to traditional mirrors and will at some point be approved by NHTSA as substitutes for reflective glass mirrors. Of course, every state in the union will have to update their mirror laws as well. Today, IIRC, there are 27 states that don't require side view mirrors.

I don't disagree with the value of camera solutions to augment mirrors but much more extensive larger scale testing is needed before we can know if they are viable substitutes to replace mirrors completely. Cameras and screens do not provide the detail, light sensitivity adjustment, or depth perception that human eyes can discern through a mirror, and humans with sharp 20/20 vision can definitely perceive this difference.

Then you have the issues of making sure cameras are not obstructed or dirty, compared to eyelids constantly cleaning human eyes. Cameras are small compared to mirrors so it takes a lot less dirt to seriously obstruct them compared to how much dirt it takes to seriously obstruct a mirror. Side mirrors are within easy reach to wipe off, whereas cameras are not, so automated cleaning solutions have always been needed. All my side cameras get obstruction or occlusion errors indicated on the screen at times especially in rain or areas with road splatter. Tesla has not yet refined camera cleaning solutions at scale for all cameras yet, but I don't blame them for starting with the Cybertruck lower front camera implementing a washer first, to see how the performance and visual data remains clear of obstructions over time before adding a cleaning feature to additional cameras.

Then you have the light sensitivity of cameras and their current lack of dynamic range. I am constantly getting errors that my side cameras are 'blocked, blinded, or occluded' whenever I drive down a dark road at night, yet I can see any lights in my side or rear view mirrors just fine. Human eyes can quickly adjust to varying levels of light whether looking through mirrors or not, but camera sensors limit the dynamic range of light perceived. Maybe these camera occlusion errors have been resolved in the Cybertruck, but certainly not in the HW3 cameras of Model 3 and Y cars. But that's going to need some testing and verification as well.

Obviously, we are still in the early stages of refining camera solutions to provide detail, dynamic range, and depth perception that human eyes can discern through a mirror. Screen and video frame refresh rates are also just barely within standards of being safely viable for reaction time as well.

I do believe that within a few years camera and screen solutions will be able to perform as a much closer viable alternative to mirrors, but I don't think we're there yet.

Regardless of beliefs and aspirations of the technical aspects, there is nothing wrong with redundancy to keep side mirrors until much more data is collected. Tesla's own interior cabin camera can collect such data of what the driver eyes were focused on, to verify how much usage of the side mirrors occurs versus looking at interior screens using the camera solutions instead. Tesla may already have a lot of such data from many of its cars, whether queried/extracted or not, but this would also need to be examined. I have not seen any evidence of such data being examined at scale or being provided to NHTSA yet though.

There is also the need for side mirrors when towing as the current repeater cameras are nowhere near adequate for maneuvering trailers.

Ultimately drivers should comply with their state laws. State laws should not be changed on a whim either, but only after careful thorough large-scale testing, with peer review processes, and overwhelming data to support inclusion of certified cameras as a viable alternative to mirrors.

If we genuinely believe at some point camera solutions can replace side mirrors, then why not help with the support initiatives by being safe and setting a good example, instead of acting like 'we know safety better' than NHTSA and violating our current state laws? I believe the correct path is to do whatever testing and data is required to first get the state laws changed, instead of impatiently violating the state laws.

Current owners violating state laws to remove their side mirrors are only going be counter-productive to such development and initiatives, because they will be an example of a Tesla driver disregarding safety instead of being an example of credibility. I don't want to see any more attempts at Tesla reputation damage as competing corporate interests are already targeting Tesla as it is. We don't need Tesla owners acting on their emotional whims to be helping to amplify the anti-Tesla rhetoric and attempts at reputation damage, whether it's circumventing FSD safety features, removing side mirrors, or otherwise.

If Tesla owners remove side mirrors against their state laws and are involved in an accident, their legal case could get very messy regardless of how well cameras provided visual perception, because they've put themselves in a position of compromised credibility by violating state laws.

I can look at a rendering of a Cybertruck with side mirrors removed and get the same emotional benefit as if I'd actually removed my own side mirrors, while instead leaving my approved side mirrors on and being much safer.

- ÆCIII

 

[SlegMD]

I'm removing the side mirrors but replacing the middle mirror with an aftermarket digital mirror... the camera will be mounted on the trim piece just above the tonneau!

I’m interested in this adaptation as well, I imagine it could be done to limit obstruction to the camera.

 

[Cybergirl]

I don't disagree with the value of camera solutions to augment mirrors but much more extensive larger scale testing is needed before we can know if they are viable substitutes to replace mirrors completely. Cameras and screens do not provide the detail, light sensitivity adjustment, or depth perception that human eyes can discern through a mirror, and humans with sharp 20/20 vision can definitely perceive this difference.

Then you have the issues of making sure cameras are not obstructed or dirty, compared to eyelids constantly cleaning human eyes. Cameras are small compared to mirrors so it takes a lot less dirt to seriously obstruct them compared to how much dirt it takes to seriously obstruct a mirror. Side mirrors are within easy reach to wipe off, whereas cameras are not, so automated cleaning solutions have always been needed. All my side cameras get obstruction or occlusion errors indicated on the screen at times especially in rain or areas with road splatter. Tesla has not yet refined camera cleaning solutions at scale for all cameras yet, but I don't blame them for starting with the Cybertruck lower front camera implementing a washer first, to see how the performance and visual data remains clear of obstructions over time before adding a cleaning feature to additional cameras.

Then you have the light sensitivity of cameras and their current lack of dynamic range. I am constantly getting errors that my side cameras are 'blocked, blinded, or occluded' whenever I drive down a dark road at night, yet I can see any lights in my side or rear view mirrors just fine. Human eyes can quickly adjust to varying levels of light whether looking through mirrors or not, but camera sensors limit the dynamic range of light perceived. Maybe these camera occlusion errors have been resolved in the Cybertruck, but certainly not in the HW3 cameras of Model 3 and Y cars. But that's going to need some testing and verification as well.

Obviously, we are still in the early stages of refining camera solutions to provide detail, dynamic range, and depth perception that human eyes can discern through a mirror. Screen and video frame refresh rates are also just barely within standards of being safely viable for reaction time as well.

I do believe that within a few years camera and screen solutions will be able to perform as a much closer viable alternative to mirrors, but I don't think we're there yet.

Regardless of beliefs and aspirations of the technical aspects, there is nothing wrong with redundancy to keep side mirrors until much more data is collected. Tesla's own interior cabin camera can collect such data of what the driver eyes were focused on, to verify how much usage of the side mirrors occurs versus looking at interior screens using the camera solutions instead. Tesla may already have a lot of such data from many of its cars, whether queried/extracted or not, but this would also need to be examined. I have not seen any evidence of such data being examined at scale or being provided to NHTSA yet though.

There is also the need for side mirrors when towing as the current repeater cameras are nowhere near adequate for maneuvering trailers.

Ultimately drivers should comply with their state laws. State laws should not be changed on a whim either, but only after careful thorough large-scale testing, with peer review processes, and overwhelming data to support inclusion of certified cameras as a viable alternative to mirrors.

If we genuinely believe at some point camera solutions can replace side mirrors, then why not help with the support initiatives by being safe and setting a good example, instead of acting like 'we know safety better' than NHTSA and violating our current state laws? I believe the correct path is to do whatever testing and data is required to first get the state laws changed, instead of impatiently violating the state laws.

Current owners violating state laws to remove their side mirrors are only going be counter-productive to such development and initiatives, because they will be an example of a Tesla driver disregarding safety instead of being an example of credibility. I don't want to see any more attempts at Tesla reputation damage as competing corporate interests are already targeting Tesla as it is. We don't need Tesla owners acting on their emotional whims to be helping to amplify the anti-Tesla rhetoric and attempts at reputation damage, whether it's circumventing FSD safety features, removing side mirrors, or otherwise.

If Tesla owners remove side mirrors against their state laws and are involved in an accident, their legal case could get very messy regardless of how well cameras provided visual perception, because they've put themselves in a position of compromised credibility by violating state laws.

I can look at a rendering of a Cybertruck with side mirrors removed and get the same emotional benefit as if I'd actually removed my own side mirrors, while instead leaving my approved side mirrors on and being much safer.

- ÆCIII

The EU has already done the evaluation and testing of the efficacy of cameras substituting for side mirrors on vehicles, and since 2020 side mirrors are no longer obligatory. NHTSA is being unnecessarily slow in approving them here in the U.S.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42014X0808(02)

 

[ÆCIII]

The EU has already done the evaluation and testing of the efficacy of cameras substituting for side mirrors on vehicles, and since 2020 side mirrors are no longer obligatory. NHTSA is being unnecessarily slow in approving them here in the U.S.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42014X0808(02)

Just because another country or region might've approved something doesn't mean we should presume it's ok for us too, while carelessly taking only a cursory look at something face value. I certainly don't have blind loyalty or faith in NHTSA either, as I've been critical of them too on this very platform. But that doesn't mean I would totally distrust them because they're 'slow' to approve something I might like.

The numerous instances of people having errors indicated with the side cameras not being able to discern visually at night or in low light, warning that FSD perception is degraded - that alone tells us the cameras are nowhere near the capability of being a replacement for our eyes through mirrors, especially at night - regardless of what any other country or region might 'approve'. We definitely need to assure this problem is eliminated in HW4 cameras before any further consideration.

Let alone the fact that pickup trucks towing trailers are a lot more common in the U.S. Repeater cameras currently on the Cybertruck are simply not an adequate substitute for side mirrors, falling short both in visual acuity and also in perspective due to their position. Extended side mirrors on trucks with trailers are extended outward for a reason, to provide better blind spot coverage as well as adequate view of the trailer while turning and backing it to maneuver.

- ÆCIII

Sponsored