Tesla wants to lock you in your car until it’s safe to exit

"DCCARGEEK" (dccargeek)
12/07/2013 at 15:43 • Filed to: Tesla, NHTSA

Earlier this year, before all the fire drama, Tesla wrote to NHTSA in support of a decision on backup cameras saying that cameras were a “vital building block for additional crash avoidance technologies.”

In the response Tesla took the opportunity to highlight not only why rearview cameras should be mandatory, but also why cameras writ large should replace all mirrors.

1 – In reverse cameras allow you to see behind the car

This is pretty straightforward and nothing worth discussing.

2 – Mirrors are to blame for dangerous blind spots

Tesla says that mirrors have physical limits in how much they can show the driver and that when a driver looks into his blind spot it “takes approximately 1.8 seconds which allows a vehicle traveling at 65 miles per hour to travel 171 feet, during which time the driver’s attention is completely misdirected from what is happening in front of him.”

If your first inclination is ‘adjust your mirrors properly’ I agree with you, but even then some modern designs are just prone to blind spots.

The second option, blind spot detection. While a helpful technology, can still be dangerous.

In reading over a briefing given to NHTSA in 2009 by Ford one of the biggest dangers discussed with blind spot detection was a reliance by consumers on the system. People would assume that no indicator meant they were in the clear and merge over without visually confirming in the mirrors let alone turning around.

Tesla’s argument is that you need to take the widest field of view possible and place it into the car so that people can see what is behind/beside them without ever having to look away from the road ahead of them.

3 – Exiting your vehicle is dangerous.

In the letter Tesla explains that because you aren’t looking at your mirrors when you step out of your vehicle that it can be dangerous. They say they would develop a system that would “ensure door exit is only achievable when the road is clear and egress may be done safely.”

Basically if the car thought you were in danger of being hurt, it would lock you inside until all is clear. They did state that such a system would come with an emergency override for cases where your car thinks the meter next to it was a death-dealing cyclist.

4 – Camera lens is more advanced than the human eyeball

Humans can’t see in the dark and are unable to filter blinding glare. For these reasons Tesla say cameras are a better than human eyeballs.

I tend to agree with the automaker here.If I can switch my rear view camera screen to night vision, why isn’t that better than me trying to see through a tinted back window at night with crappy eyes?

5. Mirrors are ears of inefficiency

The easier a car can move through the air the less power (read fuel) it requires. Tesla says being allowed to remove the side view mirrors of a car can reduce drag "between 0.021 to 0.037 CDA" and save fuel.

I emailed Tesla’s regulatory guru, Jim Chen, to see if the automaker had or intended to petition for a waiver from the Federal Motors Vehicle Safety Standard, but this was the same day NHTSA announced they were looking at Tesla's vehicle fires and Tesla announced they asked NHTSA to look at their vehicle fires.

What does all this mean for the future?

Tesla makes valid points in their observations, but I assume any change or consideration to allow cameras to replace mirrors would come with a long rulemaking period and countless studies.

At the very core of the issue is Field of View (FOV).

The standard requires drivers be provided various unobstructed and specified fields of view. If a camera could perform this task better than a mirror then why not let automakers use cameras?

Simple, because the standard says mirrors, not cameras. Even if cameras are better at showing drivers a clear FOV the regulatory system likely wouldn’t a large decision to be made without significant consideration (i.e. long drawn out studies and congressional involvement).

Secondly, you need to consider the human interface factors. How would drivers adapt to a vehicle with no mirrors?

While it still remains unclear if Tesla will formally ask to go sans-mirror should they build the Model X as intended. If they do petition NHTSA and in some twist of fate NHTSA, likely still pissed at the automaker for their 5.4 Star Rating and other media statements, decides to grant their petition, it could mean that we start to rethink not only the mirrors but the rear glass and other components of the vehicle that are impacted by the requirement for a FOV.

Slideshare of PDF for easier viewing:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (100)

HammerheadFistpunch > DCCARGEEK
12/07/2013 at 15:50

Argument against camera mirrors:

Mirrors always work. Unless physical damage is sustained; The type that would also disable a camera mirror.

cameras don't work well if its too cold, or too hot, or if there is water ingress, or if they just were build badly and decide to pack it up one day. too many problems for too little payoff. I agree that cameras should be able to replace mirrors if the manufacture wants, but mandatory? c'mon. Seriously?

JR1 > DCCARGEEK
12/07/2013 at 15:52

In a lot of ways I agree with this article except for two key points:

1- Side mirror I think stylistically are needed on a car or they just look funny.

2- Rearview cameras add weight and money both of which is a bad thing.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > DCCARGEEK
12/07/2013 at 15:54

As always excellent use of regs.gov. Seems to me that this is a no brainer. NHTSA should let them get rid of the mirrors if they want.

However, I still think Tesla is Douchey for advocating for back up cameras which make little to no sense cost-benefit wise. I can easily see Tesla trying to lobby NHTSA to mandate side view cameras instead simply obtaining a waiver from the current mirror standard.

DCCARGEEK > HammerheadFistpunch
12/07/2013 at 15:54

Mandatory back up cameras are already (basically) happening even though NHTSA still hasn't decided on if they add any value in reducing deaths. This review has been ongoing since Congress passed the law in 2011. The problem, I think, is they can't justify making them mandatory so they continue to delay the rulemaking.

As for this use of cameras, to replace L&R mirrors, Tesla would just as happy to be allowed to replace the mirrors with cameras.

DCCARGEEK > FJ80WaitinForaLSV8
12/07/2013 at 15:57

I just posted in another commenters response as to the whole debacle that is the mandatory backup camera. My thoughts, they don't have the data to back up the cost to make them mandatory.

IIRC there were 60-70 children backover deaths in 2010. If you make the rearview cameras mandatory for say 16 million vehicles a year to save 60 children - how does that makes sense when you still have almost 600-700 a dear die in drowning accidents? Why are we talking about installing cameras on swimming pools?

DCCARGEEK > JR1
12/07/2013 at 15:59

Weight, and power consumption, Tesla says is offset by reduced drag (they've done the math). As for cost, this is a luxury vehicle so luxury buyers will eat it and be happy doing so.

To your first point - style. I agree. It would be like getting used to people without ears.

FJ80WaitinForaLSV8 > DCCARGEEK
12/07/2013 at 16:13

Yup its totally ludicrous. Unlike the fuel economy regs its a lot harder to BS the cost estimate analysis on back up cameras. Now they just have to sit on their hands until the technology gets a lot cheaper.

bhardoin > JR1
12/07/2013 at 16:19

I'll agree that it looks weird at first to see a car without a mirror, but you get used to it really quick - or at least that's been my experience with my driver's-mirror-only car.

Ari Schwartz: Dark Lord of the Snark > DCCARGEEK
12/07/2013 at 16:20

As someone who very frequently looks over his shoulder to look for motorcycles in any blind spots (I rode a bike for years and learned the hard way that people don't look), I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, enthusiasts often forget that most people are barely awake at the wheel to begin with, and having an entirely mechanical car doesn't change that.

The fewer opportunities for the barely-trained drivers on American roads to do stupid shit, the better.

HammerheadFistpunch > DCCARGEEK
12/07/2013 at 17:01

My comment was directed at side view mirrors

I_AmDeath > DCCARGEEK
12/07/2013 at 17:09

Maybe we need forward cameras as well. I've almost been hit by 4 people lurching forward while not paying attention this year while on foot.

JR1 > bhardoin
12/07/2013 at 17:11

See I have seen a couple of those cars in person and it looks really asymmetrical to me, but I am sure it does grow on you

bhardoin > JR1
12/07/2013 at 17:18

Exactly. I dunno if I'm just a weird case, but I got so used to it that mirrorless cars don't even bug me any more.

DCCARGEEK > I_AmDeath
12/07/2013 at 17:18

Start doing box jumps. Then one-hop onto hoods.

JayHova > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 09:15

They say they would develop a system that would “ensure door exit is only achievable when the road is clear and egress may be done safely.

Enter the AMC Pacer, where the curb-side door was 4 inches longer, than the one facing towards the road in order to encourage people to exit the car towards the curb-side.

Garland - Last Top Comment on Splinter > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 09:19

*sigh*

Go fuck yourself, Tesla.

timgray > HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2013 at 09:22

But it only costs $25.00 to replace a broken side mirror and it can be done anywhere.

Side cameras will cost $350-$550 to replace and will ONLY be available at the Dealer or Manufacturer. This means far higher profits for them.

If Tesla uses a standard OTS camera and does not do any of the "locked protocol" crap I'll give them the OK to use cameras. BUT I guarantee they will pull GM style lock in using their own designs and refuse to release any of that information so that aftermarket replacements can be easily created and sold for far less than their OEM parts. Example? General Motors BCM and ECM computers are LOCKED to the Vin code of the car making even used parts worthless. They even started to do that with the radios and even other parts on the canbus to make sure you can not get replacements from junkyards.

Nibby > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 09:35

But Tesla, what if I need to pee/poop?

dtron3030 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 09:48

This is why I appreciate Tesla in the auto market. They are challenging the status quo with something they believe in and have done actual testing on. Sure, it would be weird to not have side view mirrors, but if it reduces drag and prevents those dopey drivers from hitting me on my bike, then I totally like this development.

JoeLiebig > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 09:51

Reverse evolution .... Making things smarter will make us all dumb. This has to stop!

seriouslywhyiskinjastillterrible > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 09:55

Kinja'd!!!

There was a time, between the fat assed cars of the 70s, and the fat assed cars of the 00s, when I could turn around and see what was behind me using my own trusty photo-receptors.

ShirtBloke > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:07

Also remember that if you're going to build a self driving car, cameras are absolutely essential - even though Tesla haven't made any moves to self driving, it's coming soon to all high end cars.

theart > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:10

"If your first inclination is ‘adjust your mirrors properly’ I agree with you, but even then some modern designs are just prone to blind spots."

So let's penalize manufacturers who design cars for good visibility by forcing them to add unnecessary cameras.

FromCanadaWithLove > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:13

1 - In reverse cameras allow you to see behind the car

Or, you know, you can turn your head. It's not that hard. Eyes > Cameras.

Tyler Reid > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:22

I aim my side mirrors at my blind spots so you see the same thing as you would looking over your shoulder ( I still look anyway). I have my rear view mirror aimed so when a vehicle "leaves" a side mirror it "enters" the rear view mirror.

AreYFKM2 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:23

Regarding the basis on which Tesla claims everyone's safety is in jeopardy; one question: How many of you exit your vehicle with traffic whizzing by at 65 mph? I suspect most people that would have a need to get out of their car in a high speed environment would be exceedingly careful.

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:32

The regulations.gov link didn't work for me.

IDRIVENEON > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:38

The reason why I'll keep driving beaters.

ellisb13 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:41

A car that has the capability to lock me inside is not one that I want to own. I'm sorry Tesla, your cars are cool, but not cool enough for me to put that much trust in them. I don't care how bullet proof you would claim it to be, because just one failure could cause someone to be trapped for hours.

sdways > HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2013 at 10:46

My thoughts exactly on the issue. I can just imagine these cameras being blocked by snow and ice and then damaging them while trying to clear then.

Daniel Fleck > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:57

Didn't stop the requirement for TPMS... The sensors in my car would pay for all my fuel for almost 1/4 of a year.

BLOZUP > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 10:58

Mirrors are to blame for blind spots because a lot of OEMs build their casings and mechanics to prefer too much overlap between the rear view mirror FOV and the side FOV. That is, they are set too far inward when they should be set out. You can eliminate your blindspots on all but the largest vehicles by setting your mirrors properly. But people seem to think they need to see the side of their cars in their mirrors.

Daniel Fleck > JayHova
12/08/2013 at 11:00

Hyundai went a step further with the Veloster. And I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea. I seriously considered the Veloster Turbo, but at the end of the day it didn't have as many options and wasn't as good a value as the Focus ST. But if my ST had a coupe driver side, sedan passenger side option I would have given it a good thought.

Andreas > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:01

1) the physical geometry of the mirrors help your brain understand where in the real world an object is vs where it is in the mirror. car mounted cameras use very wide angle lense and even if you know exactly where the camera is on the bakc of your car it is still much harder to locate objects in teh real world when the geometry of the situation is not readily apparent

2) cameras have much lower resolution and contrast than human perception. Its like viewing reality through a grey veil. From a perceptual efficacy point of view this means that people will simply not have reflex reactions to TV screens like they do to a mirror. Therefore ipwhen vewing a mirror you are much more sensitive to problems you may see in that mirromand can react to the, in a much more reflexive manner. That is because the primitve parts of the brain are programmed to have automatic reactions to high contrast visual events. These reflexes can be programmed through training. The problem is that due to the low resoltuion, low contrast nature of the TV screen it fails to trigger these reflexes and instead have to be triggered by the " consciousness" which is a LOT slower.

3) blind spots : cameras have blind spots too, you should ALWAYS still look our your window and check blind spots. The 1.8 second figure is total BS. Many motorcylists have dies becuase people fail to checl the blind spot. A camera wont fix that problem

Thats is all

Daniel Fleck > theart
12/08/2013 at 11:02

Or drop the requirement for a flat mirror and allow the designs that increase the field of view without distortion to be put into cars.

DCCARGEEK > BLOZUP
12/08/2013 at 11:11

Similar to how the mirrors on Heavy Duty trucks are set further outward from the vehicle?

DCCARGEEK > John Norris (AngryDrifter)
12/08/2013 at 11:12

Updated the link along with a SlideShare of the PDF.

Atomic Buffalo > HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2013 at 11:14

Mirrors don't ever work for the millions of people who refuse to adjust them properly. I bet the reduced risk from everyone else having a proper view of what's going on around them far outweighs the infinitesimally increased risk from your own mirrors having a technological failure.

But there's a better argument against camera mirrors: displays. Resolution, reflection (irony), contrast and especially brightness are significant issues with digital displays. The display brightness has to be close to the prevailing brightness the driver is seeing out the windshield, because the eyes take several seconds to adjust to different brightness levels.

DCCARGEEK > ShirtBloke
12/08/2013 at 11:15

True, until the DSRC technology and spectrum issue is all sorted out and green lit. DSRC, even in a retrofit application, should be according to industry types, much cheaper than the current crop of sensors.

As I understand it much of the tech going forward for autonomous will rely more on Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication rather than line-of-sight. Again, I'm not in the world of autonomous policy, but from the few hearings I've caught it seems to be that there is a big push for DSRC because of the cost savings aspect not to mention the predictable traffic tech once the Vehicle to Infrastructure is sorted out.

llamaguy > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:17

To hell with a car telling me if and when I can do anything. I vehemently disagree with this kind of technology especially when one has to unlock a door before opening the door.

Atomic Buffalo > JoeLiebig
12/08/2013 at 11:17

It's only reverse evolution from the human perspective.

DCCARGEEK > FromCanadaWithLove
12/08/2013 at 11:18

When I turn my head in a Camaro all I get is door trim in my peripheral. I believe the majority of Jalops will agree, automotive design has made blind spots, and overall visibility worse.

DCCARGEEK > llamaguy
12/08/2013 at 11:19

You will do as the car says.

Kinja'd!!!

Casper > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:35

NHTSA won't even let car makers use BETTER mirror technology, let alone fancy modern systems. The reality is that the problem is too many regulations. Many years ago they developed mirrors that have much wider field of views that can eliminate blind spots while keeping the aspect correct... and NHTSA said it would take them over a decade to evaluate and determine if they would every allow them to be used.

Anything done with a camera lens to display something can be done with mirrors because they work on the same quantum physics principals. The real issue is all these overly strict regulations are preventing improvements from being made and implemented.

M54B30 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:36

Too bad cars without mirrors look stupid. I'd rather see time and effort going into figuring out how to get drivers to stop calling/texting while driving.

DCCARGEEK > Casper
12/08/2013 at 11:42

At one point I stumbled across a patent from Ford for a mirror that would change its convex/refraction qualities electronically to adjust for blind spots - a wildly revolutionary idea.

What happened? Not sure. But there is a reason that Ford cars that have a blind spot mirror on them today have a small plastic divider - NHTSA is what happened. It was determined that the second mirror was a second mirror because it wasn't a continuos piece of mirror. While I may have missed some of the more technical reasons I know for a fact that Ford made that change based on NHTSA requirements.

I tend to agree with you Casper regarding the time and slow pace of regulatory changes and just how far it can lag technology. I think automakers need to do a better job of showing the public what technology they want to push forward, how it will help, what it will cost and let the public make government work for them.

The biggest thing NHTSA can do is get out of the way to a certain extent. Maintain some level of safety consideration, but if changing an archaic policy or regulation will help speed up safety or performance of a vehicle and there is no clear demonstrated safety risk - grant a waiver, see what happens.

But you are right, the government is very good at stifling innovation.

DCCARGEEK > M54B30
12/08/2013 at 11:46

What about daydreaming? Or just looking out the window? You realize this is a much bigger contributor to crashes than phones. How do we make people pay attention?

epidemike > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:47

Juan, can you expound upon your statement about the rear glass? What changes in a rear windshield are we talking about?

Casper > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:48

That is what got the technology I was thinking of blocked. It had microscopic shaping worked into the mirror. At macro level, it looked like a normal mirror with a massive field of view, up close it was a series of carefully focused shapes. Even though it was no different than a poorly made standard mirror (they have a lot of imperfections, just not on purpose), since it was deliberately changing the surface to reflect multiple angles, it was prevented from being deployed... all because of the vocabulary used in a regulation written by a bureaucrat who doesn't understand how mirrors or magnets work.

DCCARGEEK > Casper
12/08/2013 at 11:49

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Curious - Why is this something you know?

Casper > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:51

I like to follow automotive regulations and bureaucracy... since I work with government agencies and would like to build my own car from scratch one of these days ;)

epidemike > HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2013 at 11:53

My thought initially were, what do you do if a camera fails?

Well thinking it through. Mirrors aren't so great, they are not made of uncrackable glass and if cracked could be unusable. So my line of think is if you decide to go with cameras replacing the "analog" mirror then they must be made in such a way as to never (close to) fail.

They need to include IR for night use, lenses that never fog up, lenses that will not permit any glare to obstruct the view.

Secondly we really need to consider a radar system for cars. This would be a better alternative to the current LDS implemented.

M54B30 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:55

Unless you make some eye tracking equipment that emits a loud buzzer when they look away, you can't. But a bigger percentage of people who catch themselves daydreaming/zoning out will pull off and wake themselves up whereas texters are more like "nah, I'm good, a little swerving never hurt anybody" or "I was going to change into that lane anyways..."

Dr. Understeer > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 11:58

And to think, my first car didn't have a passenger side mirror... Oh NHTSA. If you only know.

But seriously. I don't get what all the fuss is about. Mirrors are a flawed piece of tech. Just TURN YOUR HEAD around and see for yourself. It's not that difficult america.

RevCrowley > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 12:01

That may not be too far away; a camera that tracks eye movement, sensors that monitor heart beat and brain waves .... the tech probably exists right now, but it's too intrusive and costly.

RevCrowley > llamaguy
12/08/2013 at 12:01

But isn't "human error" pretty much the leading cause of all accidents ever?

HammerheadFistpunch > epidemike
12/08/2013 at 12:07

mirror - $20.

Ir filter option, Multi-coated sealed (fog resistant) lenses and super durable cameras with the failure rate of glass mirrors - $hundreds.

shitheelandtoe > JoeLiebig
12/08/2013 at 12:16

Ee-Lon, the paleolithic Jalop: Me take big round stone. Roll round and round. Easy to push big mastodon carcass when me put it on big round stone! Me call round stone...let Ee-Lon think...me know... wheel!

Comment carved on rock outside Ee-Lon's cave by another paleolithic Jalop: Wheel make people lazy and dumb. Stop wheel now! Ee-Lon stupid!

ikommy2 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 12:18

I wish car manufacturers would stop trying to save me. If I want to drive without my seatbelt on while I pull into my driveway, why should some annoying "ding" be going off forever? I want to step out of my vehicle without being locked in because there might be something that could hit me if I swing the door open too wide (I'm perfectly capable of realizing this on my own and not opening the door full swing when I'm parallel parked). Maybe the general public needs this, but it's just one more reason I won't buy a Tesla.

BLOZUP > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 12:20

Can't say. I just know on all the minivans, sedans, and compacts I've driven that if you set the mirrors right, you don't have blind spots. Vehicles (including motorcycles) can be seen clearly without moving your head over your shoulder from the rear view, to left/right side mirror, to peripheral. The object will always be at least partly visible in two views, if not entirely in one.

Disclaimer: This only applies on parallel roads, not curves or lanes angled relative to your own.

FourOnTheFloor > BLOZUP
12/08/2013 at 12:23

I set mine to see the tiniest sliver of my car. I find it more natural for me to have a bit of the car in view in order to gauge where an object is in relation to the car.

Tried setting it such that I had none of my car in the mirror and damn near plowed into a car because I wasn't able to gauge where it was in relation to my car (other than the dubious "to the side of me").

So I don't "need" to see my car, but having a tiny bit of it in the field of view helps put much of it into perspective.

Maxaxle > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 12:32

In my few years of driving, I have yet to beat a '92 Accord (four-door sedan, even) in terms of visibility. Unless you're extremely short or have a carload of very large people or cargo, you won't have much of an issue doing anything.

JoeLiebig > shitheelandtoe
12/08/2013 at 12:35

It's already too late for you.

Just because something is 'new', it doesn't have to be good. Otherwise: why don't you insulate your house with asbestos? It's insulation effect is still unbeaten by new materials.

There are good and bad ways to use technology. Taking away freedom is a bad use. Maybe the cyclist is a thief, and I need to stop him by quickly opening the door. Maybe thugs want to blow my car up, and I need to get out fast. They trick the sensor to look me in for that extra second before I can find the override, and boom. There are so many ways this can go wrong. And in fact, with NSA spying on us by turning all our gadgets against us, I don't want more gadgets. I want safer gadgets.

A better way than 'locking in' would be: Have a proximity sensor on the door handle. If reached for while a bike is approaching from behind, a warning sound rings.

There's a difference between assisting and taking over.

jeffgarner808 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 12:36

Ya put an electric solenoid(lock) on a car that has electrical fires. This is the most retarded-logic invention ever.

jeffgarner808 > jeffgarner808
12/08/2013 at 12:37

No.... just retarded, my mistake.

jeffgarner808 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 12:38

Oh my god, i think the car is on fire.

I cant open the doors, why not ! ! !

Ahhhhhhh im burning..........

seaalex > HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2013 at 12:45

Just a a thought...The backup camera on my car, sees much better in low light then the human eye...

seaalex > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 12:59

"How do we make people pay attention?"

Take their phones away ... Texting while driving is the thing I see the most. Its like being on the road with a drunk driver.

DCCARGEEK > epidemike
12/08/2013 at 13:25

Keep in mind this is WAYYY out there, but if you had a camera that replaced your rearview mirror along with a backup camera to give you another wider view - why would you need rear/side glass? Could that glass be designed out of the vehicle?

RedRoab > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 13:31

Vehicle to vehicle communication is not feasible as a primary means of operating because it requires all cars on the road to be autonomous as well, and can't account for other issues like debris or pedestrians in the road.

special_k_side > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 13:32

Side mirrors are great off-road (If they have a pivot point), also needed when pulling a trailer, or parking. Otherwise, being aware of what is around you when driving is needed. Getting rid of mirrors is pointless IMHO. I only use mine in the previous point. A rear view is all that is needed otherwise. Unless we can have a HUD system at low speeds that is :)

shitheelandtoe > JoeLiebig
12/08/2013 at 13:40

Fair enough, I agree with you about the locking in. I thought your comment was about the cameras.

kschang > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 13:59

Interesting. That's an idea I haven't thought of: stop "dooring" somebody. I can sympathize as my passenger side door was hit by a motorcycle/cyclist a few weeks ago.

Wrote this list of camera uses in a car. Though didn't think of this "lock door to make sure it's really clear" idea.

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-Many-C…

PillowSmeller > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 14:06

“ensure door exit is only achievable when the road is clear and egress may be done safely.”

So lets say a train is coming at you and the car is stuck on the railway. It's not safe to let them get out, they might get hit by the train!

HammerheadFistpunch > seaalex
12/08/2013 at 15:09

But your car also has a rear view mirror, the camera isn't a replacement. Also, what does your camera image look like with direct sun? Probably a lot of purple and white and not much else

Mr.Falcon > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 15:18

Stop adding things that take away everything that fate uses for survival of the fittest. If you can't use your mirrors properly or can't get out of the car without getting hit, maybe you shouldn't be driving period.

BlackLab > BLOZUP
12/08/2013 at 15:21

Most people don't set their mirrors right - like blozup says. If they do MOST cars don't have blind spots - not even cars like a Challenger. The vehicles that DO - they can easily be retrofitted with an additional blindspot mirror.

Sergio526 > HammerheadFistpunch
12/08/2013 at 15:51

I don't understand these types of arguments. Every single time a car manufacturer proposes a new replacement technology everyone who spent a couple of minutes thinking about it (as apposed to the hundreds, if not thousands of hours the car company did) starts poking "holes" in the technology that can somehow never be overcome and it doomed and what we have today will always be superior.

Mirrors are a HUGE safety item on a car. I'm pretty freaking sure that if a car company gets to the point were they can replace the mirror with a camera, all the issues you described (issues that barely affect cheap $20 Chinese black-Friday special cameras) won't be an issue.

BLOZUP > FourOnTheFloor
12/08/2013 at 16:39

It definitely takes some getting used to, but I can't stand it any other way now.

HellPhish89 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 17:50

screw you tesla.. regs have sky rocketed car prices. enough is enough already. btw, forcibly locking someone in their car is a GREAT idea you morons. you will be sued out of existence when it mafunctions gets someone killed.

and i thought tesla would be different from the rest of the crony capitalist dbags in the industry.. HA. this one just happens to slob the presidents knob more.

ranwhenparked > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 18:22

So, in other words, Teslas may now be the best vehicles for kidnapping, even if they aren't available with a Chaika V8.

FromCanadaWithLove > Maxaxle
12/08/2013 at 18:25

I've driven an '83 Volvo 244. It's all glass - it's wonderful.

FromCanadaWithLove > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 18:29

I completely agree, but I think that's more in special cases. Pillars are definitely bigger in newer cars, but I don't think a lot of people check their blind spots regardless of what they're in. You do have to sacrifice visibility in low-slung cars like Camaros and such, but if you're in an Audi A4 for example, there's no reason why you can't look in your rear quarter-light window.

It's the same thing with parallel parking. In Canada, sensors and cameras get covered in ice, and I just see drivers that don't know what they're doing as a result. It's nice to have the technology, but don't use it as a crutch. Maybe I didn't word it properly before, but I worry that too many drivers rely on the new tech.

Kanaric > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 19:13

the problem there is poor design of your car

Kanaric > Atomic Buffalo
12/08/2013 at 19:13

technology doesn't evolve, it's created

HammerheadFistpunch > Sergio526
12/08/2013 at 20:18

I dont understand this need to replace excellent ideas with different ideas just because we can. Some idea stick around because they are good. I have no doubt this problem CAN be solved technologically, the question is...why should it be done, and the pros dont seem to outweigh the cons. I think manufactures should be able to do it if they want to do it for aesthetic reason, or for a technology advantage and if they want to sort out the problems im all for it, but to ask for a mandate? On all cars? Ive been in the camera business for 10+ years, and these $20 flawless cameras you speak of...well they dont exist, and they never will; Not at comparable prices to a mirror.

alexlam24 > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 21:14

Tl;Dr

Maxaxle > FromCanadaWithLove
12/08/2013 at 21:40

Sounds very nice.

JoeLiebig > Kanaric
12/08/2013 at 21:53

People evolve. People evolve differently in the presence of technology. Darwin has been stopped by stability control and other helpers...

JoeLiebig > shitheelandtoe
12/08/2013 at 21:54

Right, I was just addressing the headline. Cameras don't hurt.

joelja > JR1
12/08/2013 at 22:37

the cameras we're talking about here are on the same vein as decently high performance cellphone cameras, even in a weather-tight housing and will a permently bonded sapphire lens it seems likely that the camera weighs order of 50 grams. compared to a mirror/housing and 2-axis motor control which is at least a kilo if not two per mirror it's a home run.

so, once integrated it's probably:

* cheaper

* lighter

* results increased efficiency

that would be kind of a slam dunk, modula the human factors and regulatory considerations.

joelja > JR1
12/08/2013 at 22:39

nobody really minded the

Kinja'd!!!

I take it.

aquila121 > Ari Schwartz: Dark Lord of the Snark
12/08/2013 at 22:47

I'd argue for more strict enforcement of good driving habits, not digital nannies saying "I'll do it for you.' Give me a driver who cares about being attentive or get off the road. Skynet can stay the hell out.

As unreasonable as that expectation is, that's the root cause of problems as I see them.

PatBateman > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 23:02

SkyNet is pleased with this future tactic to make humans easier targets upon Awareness.

Radcardude > DCCARGEEK
12/08/2013 at 23:08

If my car is on fire I would want to get the hell out on my terms, not the cars' terms.

Ari Schwartz: Dark Lord of the Snark > aquila121
12/08/2013 at 23:49

That's really hard to do in the US, as driving cannot be regarded as much as a privilege given the economic necessity of driving here. :-(

aquila121 > Ari Schwartz: Dark Lord of the Snark
12/09/2013 at 00:03

I know, but I can dream, right?

Atomic Buffalo > Kanaric
12/09/2013 at 00:11

That's what it wants you to think.

Bruce McDolan > FromCanadaWithLove
12/09/2013 at 02:38

You do realize that we have long been headed in the direction of "smarter cars, dumber drivers", right?? Depressing, I know :T

PartiallyCylon > llamaguy
12/09/2013 at 09:28

I have the same issue with the cars that take control of steering and braking when it think's the driver is in danger. The only people I can see this helping are drunk drivers and people asleep at the wheel.

Which is a bad thing to encourage. Basically, it's car makers saying, "Look! You can suck at driving and be a general threat to public safety, but still be allowed on the road!"