German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles

[wanderingfool2]

7 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

If you’re happy with vehicles being made more expensive to purchase and repair to compensate for bad drivers, I guess that is what it is. I’m not however, I like my vehicle being simple and easily repairable by me the owner, so I will continue to drive my old car with none of the superfluous equipment on it.

I've said it before in similar topics to this, the majority of drivers think themselves of being better and safer than they actually are; and all the other drivers out there are just the "ignorant" ones and those who think "I'm are the better driver".

 

But hey, if you think that "mirrors" are so good, we should just eliminate the rear view mirror...since you can drive safely without it [if you drive properly].  Or hey, why not eliminate the front pedestrian bumper attachment because that's adding cost and complexity to the vehicle...and that's only compensating for bad drivers.

 

 

Do you check the positioning of the mirrors EVERYTIME you enter your vehicle?

 

Wing mirrors being ripped off a vehicle is an actual thing, so unless you know the actual statistics it's going to be pretty tough to say with a blanket statement that it will cost more to repair; as the overall ownership cost might be lower potentially.

 

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

Funny you say that, cause that's normal in Germany. Only city streets are lit. 

 

Here's what it looks like to drive at 300kph into the darkness. lol

That's still a lot of visibility.  Imagine no other cars around, and having a turn that isn't clearly marked by signage and being encased by trees so the only thing visible is your headlights..and you know a corner is coming because you can see the road slightly bank and trees in front of you.  There are some roads that are just downright scary to drive at full speed in the US.  Other examples though, BC has the Coquihalla Pass which in winter if you aren't properly equipped with snow tires can be dangerous...lots of accidents happen there [even a TV show which highlights it].

 

Overall US and Canadian driving infrastructure just hits different...after all BC is home to the worst bus stop in the US...not joking, it was bad enough that they actually decided to expand the category.  Kid you not, they have a jersey barrier blocking it [so you have to climb over it] or if you are wheelchair bound you have to keep to the side of a highway [https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/transportation-old/worst-bus-stop-north-america-vancouver-1939799]

[atxcyclist]

34 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I've said it before in similar topics to this, the majority of drivers think themselves of being better and safer than they actually are; and all the other drivers out there are just the "ignorant" ones and those who think "I'm are the better driver".

 

But hey, if you think that "mirrors" are so good, we should just eliminate the rear view mirror...since you can drive safely without it [if you drive properly].  Or hey, why not eliminate the front pedestrian bumper attachment because that's adding cost and complexity to the vehicle...and that's only compensating for bad drivers.

 

 

Do you check the positioning of the mirrors EVERYTIME you enter your vehicle?

 

Wing mirrors being ripped off a vehicle is an actual thing, so unless you know the actual statistics it's going to be pretty tough to say with a blanket statement that it will cost more to repair; as the overall ownership cost might be lower potentially.

The last infraction I was cited for was a parking ticket back in 2006, so…that probably means something.

 

 

I cannot remember the last time I saw a mirror ripped off of a car, and on a motorcycle I’m checking mirrors of merging cars all the time to see if the person in the car has seen me. I think a few of you are just over-hyping that, it isn’t that common.

 

‘You think mirrors are good so let’s remove some of them’ What type of logic is that? 
 

My vehicle mirrors always stay in place, but I’d know the second I got in the seat because I do look at them. That’s normal, I use them.

[Senzelian]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Imagine no other cars around, and having a turn that isn't clearly marked by signage and being encased by trees so the only thing visible is your headlight

Sounds like a pretty standard road to me. Not sure what the big deal is.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There are some roads that are just downright scary to drive at full speed in the US.

We just slow down. Is slowing down in the US illegal? 

[wanderingfool2]

25 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

‘You think mirrors are good so let’s remove some of them’ What type of logic is that? 

I'm stating your argument lacks logic, because YOU are saying mirrors are so great and you don't see any benefit from having cameras.  My argument being that you don't actually need the rear view mirror if you are also driving properly and doing shoulder checks and turning your head to look behind while backing up etc.  Therefore according to your reasoning we don't need rear view mirrors as it's just something that gets in the way [and blinds drivers if the person behind you has their highbeams on].

 

25 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

I cannot remember the last time I saw a mirror ripped off of a car, and on a motorcycle I’m checking mirrors of merging cars all the time to see if the person in the car has seen me. I think a few of you are just over-hyping that, it isn’t that common.

https://www.visordown.com/news/general/quarter-drivers-don’t-check-mirrors-when-pulling-away
25% admitted they don't check mirrors and honestly that's of people who are essentially self reporting.

 

From what I've seen, my guess is it's a whole lot higher.

  

4 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

We just slow down. Is slowing down in the US illegal? 

If you want to get rear ended

[Thaldor]

I am all in for banning retractable door handles and while at it they should also ban electronic only door mechanisms.

 

From experience with the brainfart Mazda 6 2016 wagon which has only electronic trunk latch and oh boy, is it "fun" when your battery goes bad and you have dog barrier and of course your jumper cables are in the trunk and your friend who came to give power doesn't have cables. At that point many will understand why mechanical bypass is pretty damn good to include (or at least not hard mounted dog barriers). That was money well spent to get another pair of jumper cables.

 

I don't even want to imagine how "fun" it must be when you have only electric latches in every door and hatch and then your battery goes bye bye. But I guess if you have the money to drive such a car, you probably can afford the tow to the shop or replace the window, except if someone was stupid enough to put extra durable window that you cannot easily break (RIP Lassie on a hot summer day).

Either there's clearly visible mechanical bypass or the manufacturers figure out standard place for it so, it is there and not just somewhere.

 

And also while at it, demand that all even slightly necessary car functions must be able to be performed without watching anything else than the road. So, fuck the tablet cars. If you need to go through even 1 setting screen to adjust your A/C or change the radio station, that is too much eyes away from the road. If car must have touch screen, it should be locked while driving, you have all the time getting handsy with your car on a parking lot, no need to do that shit on the road.

Everything anyone would need to do while driving should be instinctive and everyone should be able to do them eyes closed in their dreams without sacrificing a single second of their attention from the road.

[atxcyclist]

23 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm stating your argument lacks logic, because YOU are saying mirrors are so great and you don't see any benefit from having cameras.  My argument being that you don't actually need the rear view mirror if you are also driving properly and doing shoulder checks and turning your head to look behind while backing up etc.  Therefore according to your reasoning we don't need rear view mirrors as it's just something that gets in the way [and blinds drivers if the person behind you has their highbeams on].

 

https://www.visordown.com/news/general/quarter-drivers-don’t-check-mirrors-when-pulling-away
25% admitted they don't check mirrors and honestly that's of people who are essentially self reporting.

 

From what I've seen, my guess is it's a whole lot higher.

 

My argument is fine and logical, because if those people are not checking mirrors anyway, what makes you believe they'd check a screen? That again points to these additions being unnecessary, because the people using mirrors would continue to use mirrors, and the ones that don't won't check a screen either. No matter how you look at it, it's unnecessary complication. "according to your reasoning..." I've never made any sort of leap that would suggest a rearview mirror has no purpose. There are vehicles without them like box trucks and whatnot, but you should absolutely use your rearview mirror in certain circumstances.

 

And you know what? I don't get beside one of those goobers that's merging and hasn't checked their mirror. There's obviously an extra level of vigilance that's required when operating a motorcycle, but really much of that vigilance is good practice while driving a car as well, it's just that your 'oops' factor if you misjudge a situation is typically less self-detrimental while in a metal box.

[Senzelian]

54 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If you want to get rear ended

Your country is weird. We have taillights and brakes 

[wanderingfool2]

3 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Your country is weird. We have taillights and brakes 

At higher rates of speed tail lights are a lot more difficult to judge distance and the perception of movement.  Brake light...that's a whole other story of regulation, there are some vehicles if you have your brake lights on it can be very similar to regular tail lights.

 

20 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

I've never made any sort of leap that would suggest a rearview mirror has no purpose

Your statement of including "driver errors" as not counting towards camera systems being better rises claim that your same logic there could be used to justify rearview mirrors.

 

 

The fact is driver errors occur, and camera systems do alleviate that problem; and at night it also amplifies their power by showing better contrast.  You have pretty much claimed otherwise that it offers no safety ones, because if you are driving correctly you can drive just as safely with mirrors and shoulder checks...which I'm merely stating that reasoning is bogus because you can drive just as safely without rear view mirrors...you just need to do proper checks.

 

[atxcyclist]

26 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

At higher rates of speed tail lights are a lot more difficult to judge distance and the perception of movement.  Brake light...that's a whole other story of regulation, there are some vehicles if you have your brake lights on it can be very similar to regular tail lights.

 

Your statement of including "driver errors" as not counting towards camera systems being better rises claim that your same logic there could be used to justify rearview mirrors.

 

 

The fact is driver errors occur, and camera systems do alleviate that problem; and at night it also amplifies their power by showing better contrast.  You have pretty much claimed otherwise that it offers no safety ones, because if you are driving correctly you can drive just as safely with mirrors and shoulder checks...which I'm merely stating that reasoning is bogus because you can drive just as safely without rear view mirrors...you just need to do proper checks.

 

 

Clearly they offer no benefit or alleviate safety problems, because the drivers that already won’t use mirrors will continue to not use mirrors or a camera system. This solves nothing but creates future repair issues, so there’s no purpose. This idea that they’d fix a problem has been pulled from thin air, there’s zero proof it will change driving habits of checking before a lane change.

 

You going off on some tangent about rear view mirrors is just grasping. You’re not going to convince me that a tech device can make a bad driver a good driver, so now you’ve gone into non-sequitur arguments.

[wanderingfool2]

12 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

Clearly they offer no benefit or alleviate safety problems, because the drivers that already won’t use mirrors will continue to not use mirrors or a camera system. This solves nothing but creates future repair issues, so there’s no purpose. This idea that they’d fix a problem has been pulled from thin air, there’s zero proof it will change driving habits of checking before a lane change.

You are being ignorant of the facts.  25% admitted they didn't check their mirrors...that means that 25% of people are likely to drive without realizing that their mirror is out of sorts until they are already on the road.  That means for those 25% of people, when the mirror is out of whack then YES the fact that a camera is fixed will solve a problem.

 

It also fixes the issue of people who don't do proper shoulder checks, and yes there are many.

 

18 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

. You’re not going to convince me that a tech device can make a bad driver a good driver, so now you’ve gone into non-sequitur arguments.

Not my fault you can't understand the logic.  And nice straw-man argument there.  I never said it makes bad drivers good.

 

I'm merely stating that a large sum of people don't necessarily do what they are supposed to do [otherwise we wouldn't be having so many accidents].  I'm stating that adding technology like this reduces the chances of issues.

 

My "non sequitur" is me poking fun at your failed logic that somehow you can ignore bad drivers, by magic hand waving that if done properly mirrors and shoulder checks are good enough...so I merely extend that same reasoning to show the way you are reasoning one can conclude that rear view mirrors are pointless as they offer no safety benefit.  It shows how terrible your original argument that cameras don't offer safety benefits is.

[atxcyclist]

33 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You are being ignorant of the facts.  25% admitted they didn't check their mirrors...that means that 25% of people are likely to drive without realizing that their mirror is out of sorts until they are already on the road.  That means for those 25% of people, when the mirror is out of whack then YES the fact that a camera is fixed will solve a problem.

 

It also fixes the issue of people who don't do proper shoulder checks, and yes there are many.

 

Not my fault you can't understand the logic.  And nice straw-man argument there.  I never said it makes bad drivers good.

 

I'm merely stating that a large sum of people don't necessarily do what they are supposed to do [otherwise we wouldn't be having so many accidents].  I'm stating that adding technology like this reduces the chances of issues.

 

My "non sequitur" is me poking fun at your failed logic that somehow you can ignore bad drivers, by magic hand waving that if done properly mirrors and shoulder checks are good enough...so I merely extend that same reasoning to show the way you are reasoning one can conclude that rear view mirrors are pointless as they offer no safety benefit.  It shows how terrible your original argument that cameras don't offer safety benefits is.

The cameras are not going to get the other 25% to check the screen rather than a mirror, so how can you or anyone else claim they’re beneficial for safety? They’re not mind-control, which is why they’re unnecessary complication since they don’t fix a bad driver problem.

 

If you actually believe adding cameras and screens will make that 25% suddenly care to check before they change lanes, then you’re hilariously naive.

[Monkey Dust]

2 hours ago, Senzelian said:

We just slow down. Is slowing down in the US illegal? 

Yes. It's considered a form of communism. A true patriot will just rear end the car in front at 120 freedoms per hour.

[wanderingfool2]

56 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

The cameras are not going to get the other 25% to check the screen rather than a mirror, so how can you or anyone else claim they’re beneficial for safety? They’re not mind-control, which is why they’re unnecessary complication since they don’t fix a bad driver problem.

 

If you actually believe adding cameras and screens will make that 25% suddenly care to check before they change lanes, then you’re hilariously naive.

Are you being intentionally dense?  If you don't check your mirrors when you start driving, it doesn't equate to NEVER checking your mirrors.

 

Also a centralized area that can keep eyes closer to the center of the road will actually encourage more people to do it.  AND you still ignore the bit where I also mentioned that a large sum of people ONLY rely on mirrors instead of shoulder checks...which unless you yourself are naive, cameras do help in that safety aspect

[atxcyclist]

47 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Are you being intentionally dense?  If you don't check your mirrors when you start driving, it doesn't equate to NEVER checking your mirrors.

 

Also a centralized area that can keep eyes closer to the center of the road will actually encourage more people to do it.  AND you still ignore the bit where I also mentioned that a large sum of people ONLY rely on mirrors instead of shoulder checks...which unless you yourself are naive, cameras do help in that safety aspect

Are you? Those 25% already don’t check their mirrors, that’s the statistic you brought up. Now, tell me why those 25% will check it when it’s a screen but not a mirror. If they don’t care already, why would they care if it’s a screen instead? They obviously won’t, it’s bad driving habits not an inability to check the mirror, because checking a mirror and doing a shoulder check are both easy.

 

Your expectation that it will change their habits and they’ll start checking, is completely unfounded and ridiculous. Better driving instruction and more stringent licensing requirements make more sense than cramming tech into cars that bad drivers still won’t use; This won’t be some epiphany moment for these bad drivers.

[Lurking]

On 4/4/2024 at 7:28 AM, Stahlmann said:

Not to mention that every tiny bit of useless technology they put in jacks up the price, which you can easily see by some models like the Audi A6 (which represented a standard mid-range family wagon some years ago) starting at 57,000 € nowadays in it's base configuration. And if you know German car brands, base configuration means you're lucky if it includes AC. EVERYTHING is optional and configurable. So a decent configuration with maybe a different color will quickly go over 60-70K. What normal family can afford a 70K car?

An A6 is quite a big premium car and not a standard family car. And even with the German option list pricing, I'm pretty sure it comes with AC in the base trim.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 4/4/2024 at 9:12 AM, Stahlmann said:

2 reasons mostly:

- Aesthetics

- Aerodynamic drag

 

Worth noting that the "aerodynamic impact" of a handle in a street car is indistinguishable from zero. Even more so how modern car handles barely have any profile at all. Probably as delusional as people bolting a shelf to the rear of their car, then expecting it to have any other effect than making it heavier 

 

 

On 4/6/2024 at 4:30 PM, Neroon said:

An how would a screen be different from a mirror? Like actually, what would the difference be?

- lower reliability, more failure points, no independent functionality.

- optics are unlimited resolution, unlimited FPS, 100% color accuracy, as-good-as-your-eye-gets. Cameras and screens are not.

/discussion

[Neroon]

On 4/8/2024 at 10:50 PM, atxcyclist said:

‘It will keep you safe because if it’s broken you cannot drive’

 

Well, that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a long time. My entire point is that mirrors work fine, are simple thus more reliable, and BETTER as a safety device because their spontaneous failure rate is an incredibly small fraction of an electronic system. There just isn’t a reasonable argument you or anyone else could make, that validates replacing a mirror with a bunch of electronics.

 

Car parts are not sold at a component level, go to the dealership and try to buy a replacement button for the factory radio in your car, or try to buy a replacement stepper motor for one of the gauges in your dash; You can’t. Those are sold as a complete unit, just like the cameras and whatever body part or display and whatever dash trim part they’re a part of; You’re incredibly naive to think manufacturers have any motivation to make these parts separate, they don’t in all other systems so this one would be no different.

 

I do work on cars and understand how even moderately complex car parts are sold as assemblies, you very clearly don’t know this. You’re just arguing to argue.

How is it ridiculous? A lot of mistakes happen because people think they can manage, it's ok etc. How often I see people driving with a broken headlight, which is absolutely against the law, though you don't get fined often for it because they will claim it just broke and the cops will let them off.

Why do they do this? Because they assume they can do without, they can manage. Same with broken mirrors actually, I seen the mirror itself broken, but also taped up etc.

There are countless of examples of people pushing safety rules just so they can drive. It's only when it feels too unsafe that they won't. 

 

Dealerships will always try to rip you off. A couple of years down the line you can buy almost any component from other manufacturers. But let's compare apples to apples. A reverse camera for a BMW F30 (66539240351), 85 euro for the camera alone aftermarket, a lot more if you buy an OEM, but it's still just the camera. It's that simple. If you think you need to buy a whole new mirror, you are out of your mind. Car dealers don't need to replace your whole mirror to rip you off.

 

You talk shit about working on cars and how I don't, but these are just dumb assumptions that aren't even true.

Also don't compare it to the gauges in a dash, we were talking about camera's in a mirror. Don't include BS just to try and win an argument.

On 4/9/2024 at 8:27 AM, atxcyclist said:

That's driver error

Welcome to driving, where 99.99% of accidents are caused by drivers... whether that be because they are not paying attention, under the influence, reckless behaviour or poor maintenance.

Why have airbags? You don't need those if no one makes a mistake.

Do you know what tablesaws from Sawstop do? Useless right, you are paying through the nose for something that serves no purpose. Safety features are useless, people just need to never make mistakes again.

On 4/9/2024 at 3:39 PM, Stahlmann said:

Have you ever needed to repair a side mirror? Firstly, unless someone broke the complete thing off, likely not. And if you have to repair the mirror glass, it's repaired in less than a minute, not to mention a mirror glass may cost $10, unlike a camera. The only reason I've ever had to replace a mirror glass was because the electric heating died. And even for my Audi, the mirror glass, including the heating element, cost me 20€.

 

No matter which way you spin it, an analog mirror using glass will always be more reliable and easier to repair than a camera and display system.

 

The negligible change in aerodynamic drag is not a good reason to go with a technically more demanding, and at the same time inferior alternative.

 

The digital side mirrors I've seen so far didn't have significantly more FOV than a normal glass mirror. And even if you'd want more FOV, you can just curve the glass to get the same effect...

I haven't. I have however replaced an entire drivers side door. Which included moving over the mirrors, glass, lock, speakers, insulation and repaired and moved the power mirror system. But I guess that's technically not repairing the mirror right?

 

I've also fixed/added/replaced countless other parts to various cars.

 

You link reliability to chance of it breaking down, ease of repair and cost*.

Yet reliability of having a safe mirror is not on your radar. If you see more in your mirrors, both in FOV and clarity during like nighttime, they become more reliable while driving. After all we rely on our mirrors to be safe on the road.

*Potential repair costs are offset by consumption. It would be safe to assume that in the long run it makes you money.

 

What mirrors have you seen, tell me? Truckers use 2 of 3 camera's per side, don't tell me those don't increase FOV.

 

If you found some single camera system that didn't improve FOV, then that's not proof that they are worse, it just means the implementation is shit.

 

That's like people hating on large infotainment screens because they hate Tesla who removed most physical buttons. That kind of logic is ridiculous because it's all about the implementation. 

 

Curving the glass causes a lot of distortion, and where camera systems can compensate for that, physical mirrors cannot. If you cannot understand what you are seeing properly, it can actually be more dangerous. I assume there is a good reason why they are not on most cars.

[atxcyclist]

56 minutes ago, Neroon said:

How is it ridiculous? 

 

Cars being un-drivable because a camera system is broken, is ridiculous and totally unnecessary. Mirrors don’t just spontaneously fail, that’s one of the biggest benefits to simple systems is their reliability.

 

And as far as driver error goes, all the safety features in the world cannot fix bad drivers. Raising the threshold of who is licensed is a better way to deal with this problem, rather than implementing a bunch of overly-complex and failure-prone systems that bad drivers won’t use anyway.

[Neroon]

On 4/13/2024 at 7:32 PM, atxcyclist said:

Cars being un-drivable because a camera system is broken, is ridiculous and totally unnecessary. Mirrors don’t just spontaneously fail, that’s one of the biggest benefits to simple systems is their reliability.

 

And as far as driver error goes, all the safety features in the world cannot fix bad drivers. Raising the threshold of who is licensed is a better way to deal with this problem, rather than implementing a bunch of overly-complex and failure-prone systems that bad drivers won’t use anyway.

If your mirror is broken, it's just as undriveable.

It's completely irrelevant to argue how things break. Reliability is key. And since a camera is extremely unlikely to break, you are just arguing a ridiculous point.

 

The type of argument you keep making, is 1 of the worst arguments you can make. Because the argument is based on the increase of failures, not the actual failure rate. So if an analog breaks once every 50 million times during it's entire use, and the digital breaks once once every 5 million times, your argument is that it's 10x, so it's shit. When in reality the failure rate is so extremely low, that it's a non issue.

 

 

And yet again you are making a ridiculous argument. Why improve safety if you can require more to get a license. Not only do some of us not live in a 2nd or 3rd world country, but countries where requirements are high to get a license, but it's beyond ridiculous to argue against safety measurements just because you could do something else to improve safety. You always want both. You want better drivers, better checks and requirements on cars (again 2nd and 3rd world countries do not care how crap your tires are), better vehicle control systems and yes also systems for better awareness of what's around your car.

[atxcyclist]

3 hours ago, Neroon said:

If your mirror is broken, it's just as undriveable.

It's completely irrelevant to argue how things break. Reliability is key. And since a camera is extremely unlikely to break, you are just arguing a ridiculous point.

 

The type of argument you keep making, is 1 of the worst arguments you can make. Because the argument is based on the increase of failures, not the actual failure rate. So if an analog breaks once every 50 million times during it's entire use, and the digital breaks once once every 5 million times, your argument is that it's 10x, so it's shit. When in reality the failure rate is so extremely low, that it's a non issue.

 

 

And yet again you are making a ridiculous argument. Why improve safety if you can require more to get a license. Not only do some of us not live in a 2nd or 3rd world country, but countries where requirements are high to get a license, but it's beyond ridiculous to argue against safety measurements just because you could do something else to improve safety. You always want both. You want better drivers, better checks and requirements on cars (again 2nd and 3rd world countries do not care how crap your tires are), better vehicle control systems and yes also systems for better awareness of what's around your car.

A camera system that if it fails disables a car is what was talked about, and that’s not the same thing as a broken mirror. You can choose to not drive your car if the mirror is broken, but a camera system being in place that forces you to stop driving if it breaks should never exist.

 

An entire electronic system with camera, control board, wiring, power management, a screen, and cabling, will never be just as or more reliable than a simple piece of laminated glass or plastic, regardless of how low the rate of failure is of the electronics. These are just facts, there is no argument for you to make to the contrary.

 

Since there’s no improved safety, it’s more expensive to implement and repair, and beyond everything it won’t ‘mind control’  people that already don’t care about checking their mirrors to actually check a screen instead, so there’s no reason to have them. You and others are far-off in another dimension about these cameras, realistically vehicle owners gain nothing from them, they would only make a vehicle more complicated, expensive to purchase, and expensive to repair; No benefits to be found.

[Neroon]

9 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

A camera system that if it fails disables a car is what was talked about, and that’s not the same thing as a broken mirror. You can choose to not drive your car if the mirror is broken, but a camera system being in place that forces you to stop driving if it breaks should never exist.

 

An entire electronic system with camera, control board, wiring, power management, a screen, and cabling, will never be just as or more reliable than a simple piece of laminated glass or plastic, regardless of how low the rate of failure is of the electronics. These are just facts, there is no argument for you to make to the contrary.

 

Since there’s no improved safety, it’s more expensive to implement and repair, and beyond everything it won’t ‘mind control’  people that already don’t care about checking their mirrors to actually check a screen instead, so there’s no reason to have them. You and others are far-off in another dimension about these cameras, realistically vehicle owners gain nothing from them, they would only make a vehicle more complicated, expensive to purchase, and expensive to repair; No benefits to be found.

Who said it disabled the car? You cannot drive a car without a mirror, because it's against the law. Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with it disabling the car. Driving around like that is illegal, dangerous and you are not insured.

An alternative would be that your hazard lights enable, so that you can still drive in emergencies, but everyone knows something is going on.

 

Where did I ever state that a digital mirror doesn't have a higher chance of breaking down? Where? Why do you insist on arguing points that I never said. Have a discussion like a grown man, instead of making things up.

 

You keep denying the increased safety, when study shows the opposite. Again, stop making shit up.

Saying that people who don't check their mirrors, won't be safer because of this system, is again a ridiculous argument. Why do cars have seatbelts when there are people who refuse to use them? Why do cars have traction control, when there are people who turn them off? Why be able to disable airbags when most people put the kids carseats in the back?

Those are the same bullshit argument you keep making. Safety improvements are there for exactly that, just because someone doesn't need or use something (properly), doesn't mean it doesn't improve safety.

 

Your standard is a 16 year old joyriding drunk, and if it doesn't improve safety for that person, then you argue that it's useless because they won't use it.

 

It's a good thing you have zero say in any of this, or we would be driving in deathtraps.

[wanderingfool2]

On 4/9/2024 at 4:06 PM, atxcyclist said:

Are you? Those 25% already don’t check their mirrors, that’s the statistic you brought up

You really do lack the awareness of context.  25% of people not checking mirrors is that of checking before driving...which is my whole point that if you mirror gets knocked those 25% of people will be driving with effectively a non operating mirror.  It's not that 25% NEVER check their mirror.

 

On 4/13/2024 at 10:32 AM, atxcyclist said:

Cars being un-drivable because a camera system is broken, is ridiculous and totally unnecessary. Mirrors don’t just spontaneously fail, that’s one of the biggest benefits to simple systems is their reliability.

First, it's not completely un-drivable.  You have to drive differently and do more rigorous checks; BUT you can still technically check all your blindspots in most vehicles without the mirror...just it takes more time off your eyes looking forward on the road [so you need to be more mindful of your follow distance etc].

 

Also, wing mirrors DO actually occasionally "spontaneously fail".  Especially if you are driving on a bumpy road, it can break the connectors and have it fall off.  Also, there is the whole reason why wing mirrors normally fail...in that someone accidently hits it [and wing mirrors are easier to hit in that they stick out of your vehicle].  So it's more likely to accidently clip your side mirrors than it would be to lets say damage a repeater camera.

 

Other things that cause the mirrors to become useless, rain collecting onto the mirrors and mud getting splashed by a passing truck

 

Camera systems as well typically don't just die while operating, most times it will be if it's turned off it doesn't turn back on...or a lot of the time you can notice that it's starting to go [depending on the failure mode, it manifests itself as a blurry blob or the feed starts to flicker].

 

 

Finally, see my point above, people not checking their mirrors and starting to drive IS a frequent thing.  If you are in a parking lot with narrow stalls and frequent traffic, you are a lot more likely to have the mirror knocked out of position; and for that high percentage of people who don't check it before driving yes it becomes an issue and something a camera system does fix.

[atxcyclist]

5 hours ago, Neroon said:

Who said it disabled the car? You cannot drive a car without a mirror, because it's against the law. Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with it disabling the car. Driving around like that is illegal, dangerous and you are not insured.

An alternative would be that your hazard lights enable, so that you can still drive in emergencies, but everyone knows something is going on.

 

Where did I ever state that a digital mirror doesn't have a higher chance of breaking down? Where? Why do you insist on arguing points that I never said. Have a discussion like a grown man, instead of making things up.

 

You keep denying the increased safety, when study shows the opposite. Again, stop making shit up.

Saying that people who don't check their mirrors, won't be safer because of this system, is again a ridiculous argument. Why do cars have seatbelts when there are people who refuse to use them? Why do cars have traction control, when there are people who turn them off? Why be able to disable airbags when most people put the kids carseats in the back?

Those are the same bullshit argument you keep making. Safety improvements are there for exactly that, just because someone doesn't need or use something (properly), doesn't mean it doesn't improve safety.

 

Your standard is a 16 year old joyriding drunk, and if it doesn't improve safety for that person, then you argue that it's useless because they won't use it.

 

It's a good thing you have zero say in any of this, or we would be driving in deathtraps.

There’s no law where I live that says you cannot drive a car that has one broken mirror, it also wouldn’t nullify car insurance coverage either. I don’t even care if that’s a law where you live, it isn’t one most places and it shouldn’t be either.

 

My standard in this discussion is that a car shouldn’t disable itself if one of the side view devices is broken, and electronics and cameras are more complicated and less reliable than a mirror, that is what I originally commented, but you and other people have turned it into some shitshow.
 

You’re now completely making things up like trying to claim my standard is, ‘drunk-driving some death trap car’, that’s as disingenuous as it gets. You mentioned having a conversation “like a grown man”, you’ve never done that as you’ve fabricated bullshit about what I’ve said and about my character from the very moment you first quoted me; Do not bother responding as I’m just going to ignore list you and be done with this conversation. 

[atxcyclist]

23 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You really do lack the awareness of context.  25% of people not checking mirrors is that of checking before driving...which is my whole point that if you mirror gets knocked those 25% of people will be driving with effectively a non operating mirror.  It's not that 25% NEVER check their mirror.

 

First, it's not completely un-drivable.  You have to drive differently and do more rigorous checks; BUT you can still technically check all your blindspots in most vehicles without the mirror...just it takes more time off your eyes looking forward on the road [so you need to be more mindful of your follow distance etc].

 

Also, wing mirrors DO actually occasionally "spontaneously fail".  Especially if you are driving on a bumpy road, it can break the connectors and have it fall off.  Also, there is the whole reason why wing mirrors normally fail...in that someone accidently hits it [and wing mirrors are easier to hit in that they stick out of your vehicle].  So it's more likely to accidently clip your side mirrors than it would be to lets say damage a repeater camera.

 

Other things that cause the mirrors to become useless, rain collecting onto the mirrors and mud getting splashed by a passing truck

 

Camera systems as well typically don't just die while operating, most times it will be if it's turned off it doesn't turn back on...or a lot of the time you can notice that it's starting to go [depending on the failure mode, it manifests itself as a blurry blob or the feed starts to flicker].

 

 

Finally, see my point above, people not checking their mirrors and starting to drive IS a frequent thing.  If you are in a parking lot with narrow stalls and frequent traffic, you are a lot more likely to have the mirror knocked out of position; and for that high percentage of people who don't check it before driving yes it becomes an issue and something a camera system does fix.

25% of people not checking their mirror is 25% of people not checking their mirror, the only point of making that statement would be to show that 1/4 of drivers don’t use a side view mirror. If someone doesn’t look to see if their mirror still exists when they get in a car, they’re not using it when driving.

Side-view mirrors do not just spontaneously fail, nor is there some rampant destruction of them where I live. If these two things are true of where you live that sucks, but it isn’t the reality here and so I’m not convinced it’s a problem where I live. I’ve never had to re-adjust my side mirrors in the almost twenty years I’ve driven my car, they’re exactly where I set them the day I bought it.

 

Also, the same Rain-X water repellent for windows works just fine on a mirror. I’ve never had mud splash all over my car, but it would just slide off my mirror like any liquid does.

[wanderingfool2]

12 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

25% of people not checking their mirror is 25% of people not checking their mirror, the only point of making that statement would be to show that 1/4 of drivers don’t use a side view mirror. If someone doesn’t look to see if their mirror still exists when they get in a car, they’re not using it when driving.

You are being asinine in thinking that it's a black and white thing.  Just because someone doesn't check for alignment doesn't mean they don't check it at all.

 

People will often realize that their mirror is out of sorts when they are driving because they go to use it and it's out of position.

 

You are the one claiming it has no benefit; yet are ignorant to the fact that it does provide benefits.

 

16 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

Side-view mirrors do not just spontaneously fail, nor is there some rampant destruction of them where I live

Good for you, go stick your head in the sand like an ostrich does and ignore the realities.

 

Since we are going to just make things up, cameras don't ever spontaneously fail /s.  The simple fact is if you google "wing mirror fell off" you will find that yes there are lots of people out there that have mirrors fall off while driving.

 

Simple fact is, it's wrong to state that cameras have no benefits of mirrors; when in fact they do when you apply it to the average driver.